" ); floatwnd.document.close(); floatwnd.focus(); } } function WPHide( WPid ) { if( bInlineFloats ) eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" ); }


                        A Preliminary Report

from the National Gang Crime Research Center

                             May, 1991


National Gang Crime Research.


Copyright 1995, NGCRC.



        Reported here are findings from the 1991 Adult Corrections Survey involving a national sample of N = 182 adult state prison wardens. The data was collected by questionnaire during March and April, 1991. Major findings include new estimates of the extent of the gang problem much higher than that previously reported by Camp and Camp (1985). A number of other findings relate to current policy issues (e.g., overcrowding, racial conflict, rehabilitation, recidivism, fiscal crisis, inmate illiteracy, and training).







                                   - ii -




     The previous literature lacks any systematic effort to assess the opinions and estimates from adult prison wardens on the scope and extent of many of the national problems in corrections today. The research reported here sought to fill some of these gaps in our current knowledge. Some of the significant findings are reported in this preliminary report.



      Using the 1990 ACA Footnote Directory of Juvenile and Adult Correctional Institutions all adult state prisons were sequentially included for purposes of mailing out N = 550 questionnaires to the warden. This excluded Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming Footnote . A total of N = 182 wardens responded within the first month, representing 39 of the 42 states sampled, and constitute the sample size used for analysis here.


     Descriptive statistics involving percentages and means (averages) for the survey are reported here. These descriptive findings are as follows.

     *** Illiteracy continues to be a large problem among state prison inmates.

     *** Most wardens (94.5%) would like to see more systematic interfacing between corrections and law enforcement in terms of information sharing.

     *** Most wardens report the need for increased budgets in order to deal with overcrowding, staffing, training and necessary services. Overall, these wardens report a mean value or average of needing a 42.3 percent budget increase in order to fulfill their statutory responsibilities.

     *** Some (40.1%) felt that corrections would function better if gang members could be transferred to a central-national federal unit.

     *** Estimates of what percentage of their inmate population are gang members ranged from a low of zero to a high of 65 percent for males, and to a high of 20 percent for females.

     *** While many report a gang problem existing for some period of time only 40.4 percent of the correctional institutions reported that staff receive formalized training in dealing with the gang problem.

     *** Some 12 percent indicated that gang members have been a problem in terms of assaults on correctional staff.

     *** About half (56.5%) report that racial conflicts are a problem among the inmates.

     *** Nationwide, about a fourth (26.9%) report that white inmates have a separate gang in their prison.

     *** Among the 104 prisons indicating that a gang problem existed in their facility, most (67.3%) stated that this problem has existed for a period of under five years; another 6.7 percent indicated it has existed for between five to ten years; and 26 percent indicated it has existed for over a decade.

     *** Many believe (73.1%) that federal agencies should play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes.

     *** Most (95.2%) believe that there are some street gangs that should be considered forms of organized crime.

     *** Most (93.5%) believe that the family is an important agency that can be used to prevent gang affiliation.

     *** Nearly all (98.8%) believe the community should assume more responsibility for dealing with the gang problem.

     *** Many (79.8%) believe the "occult" or "satanism" (worshipers or dabblers) are also involved with gangs.

     *** Many (78.4%) believe we need tougher laws specifically dealing with the gang problem.

     *** When asked who has the primary responsibility for dealing with gangs, most (60.4%) indicated the family, or (38.4%) local law enforcement.

     *** Only 9.4 percent felt their Department does not have an effective Affirmative Action program.

     *** Only 13.3 percent indicated they have enough resources and programs to deal with the current drug problem.

     *** Some 38.3 percent indicated they were accredited by ACA.

     *** A majority (63.1%) indicated that they have used ACA trainers or consultants before; and generally gave them "high marks" in terms of satisfaction with their performance. This meant a mean (or overall average) of 7.45 on a scale between 0 (not satisfied) and 10 (very satisfied).

     *** When asked if they believed there was any basis to the notion that inmates are more assaultive when there is a "full moon", 34.8 percent indicated "no"; 18.8 percent indicated "yes; 32 percent indicated "maybe"; and 14.4 percent indicated "not sure".

     *** The level of security for the institutions included in this sample showed 21.9 percent reporting "minimum", 39.1 percent "medium", and 39 percent "maximum".

     *** About half (48.1%) reported that their agency provides tuition support for college classes for their correctional officers.

     *** When asked "in your best estimate, what percentage of the inmates confined in your institution have served time with you before", the wardens reported a range for this "recidivism factor" between a low of zero to a high of 95 percent. An overall average or mean of 43.1 percent emerged for this "revolving door" or "repeater" aspect of recidivism.

     *** About a third (34.1%) indicated that inmate medical screening does not include testing for hearing impairment Footnote .

     *** Many (86.3%) indicated that they probably have some inmates in their facility who are hearing impaired.

     *** Most (91.7%) indicated that correctional officers should have in-service training to improve their knowledge of psychology.

     *** Most (96.6%) rejected the notion that "being kind to inmates only helps them trick you".

     *** And most (92.6%) rejected the belief that "many people in prison are actually innocent of the crimes which they were convicted".

     *** When asked to rate the level of cooperation or lack of it with federal law enforcement agencies on a scale between zero (very low) and ten (very high), a mean or overall average of 6.9 emerged suggesting a positive evaluation Footnote .

     *** Many (74%) are in favor of the mandatory testing of all inmates for HIV/AIDS.

     *** Those favoring the death penalty (78.2%) tended to correspond to national public views along the same dimension.

     *** About three-fourths (77.5%) believed that electronic monitoring could be more cost-effective than incarceration. And similarly (73.4%) that the use of furloughs would be more effective if they would involve the use of electronic monitoring.

     *** When asked to estimate the percentage of their inmate population that would never be suitable candidates for electronic monitoring, the findings ranged from a low of zero to a high of 100 percent. A mean or overall average of 45.3 percent emerged.

     *** Nearly half (45.7%) felt that society wants to help inmates be rehabilitated.

     *** When asked to estimate the percentage of inmates that could be rehabilitated given the proper programs, the results showed a range between a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent. A mean or overall average of 45.8 percent emerged.

     *** Most (92.8%) indicated providing some form of drug rehabilitation program for inmates.

     *** About a third (36%) reported the use of video-recorder monitoring.

     *** About half (54.1%) indicated that overcrowding is a problem in their facility.

     *** Nearly three-fourths (74.6%) use Folger Adam locks.

     *** When asked to rate "what kind of impact have court decisions had on your institution from inmate-related litigation", the responses ranged from a low of zero (bad) to a high of 10 (good), with a mean or overall average of 5.5.



     Through crosstabulation or contingency table analysis it is possible to examine the effects that one variable has on another. This bivariate analysis makes use of the Chi-square statistic. By this technique it is possible to determine in probability terms if one factor significantly differentiates another factor. The standard probability level of .05 is used here for significance testing; which means that in only one time out of twenty would such a result occur by chance alone. But some of these findings are of much greater probability and are beyond the .01 level (e.g., the result would occur by chance alone in only once out of a hundred).

      Table 1 below shows that the higher the concentration of gang members among the inmate population the more likely they are to be found in higher security level institutions. High gang concentration is measured here by whether or not over five percent of the inmate population is reported as being gang members. Where over five percent of the inmate population is gang affiliated, they are more likely to be found outside of the context of minimum security facilities.


                              TABLE 1

                       FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF


                       Institutional Security Levels


                       Minimum Medium Maximum

Are over 5% of the ******* ****** *******

inmates Gang

 Members? NO 32 42 46

                 YES 5 24 20

                           Chi square = 6.7, p = .04



      Apparently, the higher concentration of gang members in an institution the more likely the same institution is to report that white inmates have a separate gang. Table 2 below shows that this is a very significant finding (p < .001), meaning that it would occur by chance alone in less than one out of a thousand times. This may have something to do with a related factor of racial conflict and a "critical mass" component.



                               TABLE 2




                          WHITE-ONLY INMATE GANGS

                          Report Separate White Gangs?


                          NO YES

Are Over 5% of the ****** ******

 Inmates Gang members?

                     NO 101 18

                     YES 24 28

                            Chi square = 27.5, p < .001


     Racial conflict inside the correctional setting was previously shown to be significantly related to the gang problem inside juvenile institutions (Knox, 1991). While Camp and Camp (1985) reported that such racial problems likely exist in many prisons, their analysis was not at the level of individual institutions or prison wardens, it was rather a "state system" unit of analysis where each case represented an entire state. The present analysis was able to confirm the previous finding for juvenile facilities in adult facilities as well as shown in Table 3 below. Clearly, where institutions report a problem of racial conflict they are also more likely to report a higher concentration of gang members.

                                    TABLE 3


                        A PROBLEM OF RACIAL CONFLICT BY

                             HIGH GANG CONCENTRATION

                              Are Over Five Percent of the

                              Inmates Gang Members?


                              NO YES

Are racial conflicts ****** ******

  a problem among inmates?

                        NO 62 15

                        YES 62 38

                                Chi square = 7.1, p = .008


      This same factor of racial conflict inside adult prisons in relationship to the gang problem holds up even when examining the factor of whether gangs have existed as a problem of any period of time in these same correctional facilities. This is a separate measure of the gang problem. It shows that where gangs have existed as a problem for any period of time we are also significantly more likely to find a problem of racial conflict. These findings are shown in Table 4 below.

                              TABLE 4



                        Had a Gang Problem For

                          any Period of Time?


                        NO YES

Are racial conflicts ****** ******

a problem among Inmates?

                    NO 43 34

                    YES 31 69

                    Chi square = 11.0, p = .001


     As another test on this "white only gangs" issue, a separate analysis was made if the condition of "high gang density" involving five percent or more of the inmates as gang members had any effect. It did have a significant difference suggesting that institutions with five percent or higher of the inmates reported as gang members meant the same institutions were also more likely to report the existence of separate white gangs (p < .001).

     The existence of illiteracy among inmates is a factor that tends to significantly differentiate this racial conflict factor. Here the inmate illiteracy measure was recoded into a dichotomous variable based on the overall national average. The original measure varied between a low of zero for "no problem" to a high of ten for a "large problem". Those rating this factor under six were considered to have a low problem and those with seven or higher with a high problem of inmate illiteracy. Table 5 shows that where prisons report a high problem of inmate illiteracy they are also much more likely to report a racial conflict problem as well. We should not be surprised by this finding, because after all racial bigotry is essentially a problem of ignorance. But this may be one of the first documented examples of this "Archie Bunker" syndrome in corrections.





                                  TABLE 5



                          REPORT INMATE RACIAL CONFLICT

                          Report Inmate Racial Conflict?


                          NO YES

Extent of the Inmate ****** ****** Illiteracy Problem:

                  LOW 47 46

                  HIGH 30 54

                            Chi square = 3.94, p = .047


     Generally, those institutions reporting the existence of a gang problem for any period of time are those more likely to report that they also provide formalized training to their correctional officers on the gang problem. This finding is shown in 6 below. But obviously, slightly more than half of all those institutions with gang problems provide such needed training.





                        TABLE 6



                        BY WHETHER THEY ALSO PROVIDE

                             FORMALIZED TRAINING

                              Provide Formalized Training Dealing with the Gang Problem?


                              NO YES

Had a Gang Problem ****** ******

 For Any Period of Time?

                          NO 55 19

                          YES 51 53


                                Chi square = 11.4, p = .001


     Rehabilitation can clearly be defined differently from one expert to another (Knox, 1984). Like defining "reduced recidivism" it shall probably always be somewhat ambiguous when neither are explicit correctional goals. Recall that wardens were asked to estimate "what percentage of the inmates could be rehabilitated given the proper programs?". The national average was used to distinguish between those wardens who perceived low versus high potential for rehabilitation. Low potential for rehabilitation was indicated by responses of less than or equal to 45 percent. High potential for rehabilitation was indicated by estimates that fifty percent or higher of the inmates could be rehabilitated, given the proper programs to carry out such a mission.

      This factor of how the warden perceived the extent to which inmates could be rehabilitated was significant in differentiating self-reported recidivism rates, support for the death penalty, and the assessment of what proportion of the inmates might be suitable candidates for electronic monitoring. It is appropriate to therefore call this factor "perceived potential rehabilitation". It may be a difference reflecting, perhaps, a variation in philosophy as well.

       Table 7 below shows that this factor of perceived rehabilitation potential significantly differentiates self-reported recidivism rates. Those perceiving a higher potential for rehabilitation were more likely to be those who report the lower recidivism rates.





                               TABLE 7



                           OF INMATE RECIDIVISM


                                 Low or High Rates of Recidivism


                                 Low <= 40% High >= 45%

Perceived Potential for ********** ***********

 Inmate Rehabilitation

                     Low < 45% 49 53


                   High >= 50% 51 30


                                     Chi square = 4.0, p = .04


     That this factor of perceived potential inmate rehabilitation may be a surrogate measure, or correlate highly, or vary with penal philosophy is indicated in the extent to which it is also a significant factor in differentiating support for the death penalty. Table 8 shows that those who perceive greater potential for inmate rehabilitation are significantly less likely to support the death penalty.

                                TABLE 8




                              DEATH PENALTY



                           Wardens Favor the Death Penalty?


                           NO YES

Perceived Potential for ****** ******

  Inmate Rehabilitation

               Low <= 45% 13 83


              High >= 50% 25 53


                               Chi square = 8.6, p = .003



     The valence for the perceived value of electronic monitoring was in the negative direction. It asked the wardens to estimate the percentage of their inmate population that would never be suitable candidates for electronic monitoring. Low estimated "unsuitables" meant estimating that less than or equal to 45 percent of the inmates were seen as unsuitable for electronic monitoring. High estimated "unsuitables" meant estimating that 50 percent or higher of the inmates were seen as unsuitable for electronic monitoring. Table 9 below shows that how the wardens perceive the potential for rehabilitation apparently differentiates as well how they view the potential for decarceration or alternatives to imprisonment through electronic monitoring. This shows that those who have more optimistic views on rehabilitation are more likely to see more potential use for electronic monitoring.

                                TABLE 9




                         OF THE UNSUITABILITY OF

                          ELECTRONIC MONITORING


                                View Inmates Unsuitable for

                                Electronic Monitoring:


                                Low High

                                <=45% >=50%

Perceived Potential ****** ******

 for Inmate Rehabilitation:

                 Low <= 45% 50 52


                High >= 50% 52 29


                                  Chi square = 4.21, p = .04


      There were 48 prisons in this sample that reported that while they do not as a routine matter in their medical intake conduct screening for hearing impairment, who also reported that they actually believed they had some inmates in their facility who were in fact hearing impaired. It is a practical management issue and one of some potential liability. That is, ordering an inmate to do anything who cannot hear the order is going to be an assumed management problem. What this data shows is that those prisons that are ACA accredited are significantly more likely to actually provide this kind of medical screening as seen in Table 10.

                                 TABLE 10




                            FOR HEARING IMPAIRMENT


                            Provide Hearing Impaired Screening?


                            NO YES

                            ****** ******

ACA Accredited?

                      NO 42 62


                      YES 16 51


                                Chi square = 4.95, p = .026



      State expenditures for corrections can in many ways be viewed as a quality of life issue. Law enforcement as a "public safety" expenditure is not going to be effective unless corrections is equally equipped to handle the problem that the police and the courts feed into the correctional system. Unfortunately, in some states correctional budget allocations have lagged behind other priorities; and in some instances have even been cut-back having both severe short and long term consequences. The short term consequence means reduced resources to handle a growing problem. The long term consequence may ultimately mean higher liability and a lower quality of life.

      Fiscal crisis in corrections for this analysis was measured by the percentage increase in budget that the wardens indicated would be necessary to assure no overcrowding, adequate staff, training, and services to carry out their statutory correctional mission. Those indicating a needed budget increase of less than or equal to 25 percent were considered not to have a fiscal crisis. Those indicating a needed budget increase of 30 percent or higher (ranging up to 350%) were considered to be experiencing a fiscal crisis. This fiscal crisis factor significantly differentiates reports of prison overcrowding. As seen in Table 11, those with a fiscal crisis are those most likely to report prison overcrowding.

                               TABLE 11





                            Report Prison Overcrowding?


                            No Yes

Fiscal Crisis? ****** ******

                     NO 58 40


                     YES 25 58


                             Chi square = 15.2, p < .001





     Several policy issues that have emerged in this research deserve further discussion. These include (1) the gang issue, (2) the racial conflict issue, (3) the hearing impaired issue, and (4) the fiscal crisis issue.


(1) The Gang Issue

      Gangs are not new to corrections (see Knox, 1991). In some states like Illinois gangs are estimated to constitute nearly 90 percent of the inmate population (Lane, 1989). Many of the states reported by Camp and Camp (1985) to not have a gang problem in corrections, now have it in either the adult or juvenile division (Knox, 1991). Some of these prison gangs are highly organized along military lines (Fong, 1990). So in addition to being imported (Jacobs, 1974; Jacobs, 1977) they can be "exported" as well.

      In fact, "gang nations" (or supergangs, see Krajick, 1990) like those in the midwest (People versus Folks) may have been produced within the correctional system (Bobrowski, 1988). It is the notion that prisons can be incubators for gang organization (Daniels, 1987: 66). It is not a problem limited to the midwest, California has problems (Moore, 1978; Conrad, 1979), Texas has problems (Baird, 1986; Fong, 1987; Scallan, 1987; Ralph, Marquart, and Crouch, 1990; Fong and Buentello, 1991; Fong, Vogel and Little, 1991), as do eastern and southeastern states (Knox, 1991). They have even been reported in South Africa (Lotter, 1988). Gangs in correctional settings date back to the 19th century (Hobsbawm, 1965: 34). There are many gangs in prisons (Jackson and Mc Bride, 1990) but there our current knowledge base provides no guaranteed solutions as to which strategies are more effective in managing the gang problem in corrections (Knox, Mc Currie, and Tromanhauser, 1991).


(2) The Racial Conflict Issue

     National data on juvenile correctional institutions report nearly equal levels of racial conflict (48.3%) to those in adult prisons (Knox, 1991). Missing is only the lethal nature and intensity of the conflict that is more often found among adult inmates. An emerging gang thesis sees racial enmity as a major factor in the gang problem, both in and outside of the correctional context. Race relations can therefore be a surrogate measure of the gang problem, or its potential. It also correlates with conditions of overcrowding (Leger, 1988; Knox, 1991).

      It is an area needing much research and analysis to help guide policy formation and program implementation. As a social problem, it is one about which something can and should be done. What may work in the prison context may also work in other social contexts. It is truly a problem that should be addressed more systematically. Endnote


(3) The Hearing Impaired issue

     Long ago law enforcement realized a responsibility to be able to deal with the deaf (Collins, 1973; Chicago Police Department, 1973). There are some legal concerns about responding to this responsibility for dealing with the deaf (Myers, 1967). The deaf may be more suited for alternatives to incarceration (Harding and Simpson, 1974). For deaf inmates, their customary rights inside prison will not be afforded without the use of interpreters (Foret and Petrowske, 1976) and therefore constitutes a legal training problem as well. While deaf persons have special problems in dealing with the criminal justice system (Whalen, 1981), the deaf cannot be barred as jurors (Goldbas, 1982).

     If placed in confinement reasonable accommodations must be made for the deaf (Tucker, 1988). As a disability, hearing impaired persons have also been recognized as a special needs group in probation (Wertlieb and Greenberg, 1989). Our legal process will itself suffer if special accommodations for the hearing impaired are not provided (Pray, 1983; Wood, 1984).

      The findings reported here show that this problem of hearing impaired inmates may be more substantial than previously thought. It deserves further research to help guide policy development and improve correctional management (Letman, Petrakis, and Knox, 1991).


(4) The Fiscal Crisis Issue

     There are ideological if not objective material limits to the use of the penal sanction (Packer, 1968). Society wants to have its cake and eat it too, without paying the baker. States like Illinois are currently committed by criminal statute to "mandatory sentencing guidelines" (e.g., Class X legislation) where little discretion exists for judges. Some offenders must be sent to prison under current state sentencing guidelines regardless of their objective risk to the public.

      Such fixed sentencing guidelines when first implemented involved authors who were quick to quote inmates as supporting these kinds of "policy improvements": they would take away the discrepancy between states, they would take away the uncertainty of when they would be released, etc. We should have probably been more skeptical of any proposition that offers as its evidence the popular sentiments of statistically undocumented views from the confined. Because as we approach the 21st Century we are committed to an increasingly fewer number of choices. We need choices to be a democracy. We should experience no jubilation in surpassing the Soviet Union and South Africa in the rate at which we incarcerate our citizens.

     And yet that is the path our Nation follows. It is a doubly cruel political maneuver to then go down this slippery slope and simultaneously "cut back" economic resources for corrections. Has the fire burned out in the "get tough on crime" political rhetoric? Or have some of our politicians realized that the penal sanction is a precious resource in its own right when it costs more to put a person in prison for a year than it does to send someone to Harvard University? It is an issue facing us in the coming decade.




      The research reported here is based on a national sample of adult state prisons. Some 182 prison wardens from 39 states including the District of Columbia are included in the sample size used for this analysis. What has emerged here is that some prison problems are clearly inter-related.

     The problem of gangs also tends to be associated with problems of racial conflict. The problem of inmate illiteracy is associated with racial conflict. Illiteracy is something we can change if we want to (Davidson, 1988). How we perceive the potential for rehabilitation is apparently related to how serious we view the recidivism problem, beliefs about support or non-support for the death penalty, and the value of potential for using electronic monitoring.

     Overall the institutions in this sample reported 17,751 male gang members and 192 female gang members out of a total inmate population, across all prisons, of 162,403 inmates. Which means that nationwide gang members constitute over ten percent of our adult state prison inmate population, not 3 percent as estimated by Camp and Camp (1985). Nationally, regardless if the prison does or does not report a gang problem, we find a mean or overall average of 9.3 percent of male prison inmates reported as gang members and 3.5 percent of the female inmates. However, among that sub-sample (N = 104) who report the existence of a gang problem for any period of time, higher estimates obviously emerge: 11.3 percent for male prisons, 4.3 percent for female prisons.

      This research was carried out with only volunteer help and donated expenses (postage, photoduplication, office supplies). More research is clearly needed on many of the issues that have surfaced in this analysis. "Dial in" voluntary telephone polls might make for interesting reading, perhaps to spur discussion, but they are not scientific; anyone can call as often as they want. More rigorous research methods are required to handle the difficult questions facing corrections today.

      Unfortunately some of the problems facing corrections today (racial conflict, gangs, etc) while historically recurring are not addressed in recommended standards by national groups. It is time to get them on the agenda. It is also time for policy makers and legislators to recognize that cuts to correctional budgets will ultimately translate as cuts in social defense and as reductions in the quality of life. But for this more interaction between corrections and the general public will be required.




Baird, L.H.

     1986 "Prison Gangs: Texas", Corrections Today (18)(July):       22.

Bobrowski, Lawrence J.

     1988 "Collecting, Organizing and Reporting Street Gang         Crime", paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of The American Society of Criminology.

Camp, George and Camille Graham Camp

     1985 Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature and Impact on       Prisons. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Chicago Police Department

     1973 "Police and the Hearing Impaired", Chicago Police       Department Training Bulletin (14)(17)(June).

Collins, K.J.

     1973 "Deaf and the Police", FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin       (42)(12)(Dec): 2-6.

Conrad, J.P.

     1979 "Who's in Charge? The Control of Gang Violence in        California Prisons", in Corrections Facility Planning       Robert Montilla and Nora Marlow (eds.), pp. 135-147,       Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath.

Cox, V.

     1986 "Prison Gangs - Inmates Battle for Control",        Corrections Compendium (10)(9)(Apr): 1,6-9.

Daniels, S.

     1987 "Prison Gangs: Confronting the Threat", Corrections       Today. (29)(2)(Apr): 66,126,162.

Davidson, H.S.

     1988 "Meaningful Literacy Education in Prison? Problems      and Possibilities", Journal of Correctional Education       (39)(2)(June): 76-81.

Fong, Robert S.

     1987 A Comparative Study of the Organizational Aspects of      Two Texas Prison Gangs: Texas Syndicate and Mexican       Mafia. Ph.D. dissertation, Sam Houston State University,    Huntsville, Texas.

     1990 "The Organizational Structure of Prison Gangs:         A Texas Case Study", Federal Probation (54)(1)        (Mar): 36-43.

Fong, Robert S. and Salvador Buentello

     1991 "The Management of Prison Gangs: An Empirical        Assessment", paper presented at the Annual Meeting        of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,        Nashville, Tennessee.

Fong, Robert S.; Ron Vogel; and Robert Little

     1991 "Behind Prison Walls: Racially Based Gangs and Their        Level of Violence", paper presented at the Annual     Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,        Nashville, Tennessee.

Genders, Elaine

     1989 Race Relations in Prisons. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Goldblas, M.B.

     1982 "Due Process - The Deaf and the Blind as Jurors",     New England Review (17)(1): 119-152.

Foret, A.T. and M.J. Petrowske

     1976 "Legal Training Program for Interpreters for the Deaf",    Wayne State University Center for the Administration of    Justice.

Harding, J. and A. Simpson

     1974 "Community Service Orders - The Nottinghamshire Pilot         Scheme - Report of a Conference held at the Coventry        and Warwickshire Association for the Deaf", Jan, 1974,      Coventry Council of Social Service, Coventry, England.

Hobsbawm, Eric J.

     1965 Primitive Rebels. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.

Jackson, R.K. and W.D. McBride

     1990 Understanding Street Gangs. Sacramento, CA: Custom      Publishing.

Jacobs, James

     1974 "Street Gangs Behind Bars", Social Problems (21)(3):        395-408.

     1977 Stateville. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knox, George W.

     1984 "How To Tell If An Offender is Rehabilitated",         Indian Journal of Criminology, (12)(1)(Jan): 26-32.

     1991 An Introduction to Gangs. Vande Vere Publishing: 8744      College Avenue, Berrien Springs, MI 49103.

Knox, George W.; Thomas F. Mc Currie; and Edward Tromanhauser

     1991 "Gangs in Juvenile Corrections: Training Issues",     Journal of Correctional Training, forthcoming.

Krajick, K.

     1990 "The Menace of Supergangs", Corrections Today        (June): 11-14.

Kresse, J.K. and P. Kleven

     1981 Deaf People and Sign Language Interpreters in Court -       A Booklet for Bench and Bar. Bay Area Center for Law         and the Deaf, Oakland, CA.

Lane, Michael

     1989 "Inmate Gangs", Corrections Today (51)(4)(July): 98-99,    126-128.

Legger, Robert G.

     1988 "Perception of Crowding, Racial Antagonism, and     Aggression in a Custodial Prison", Journal of Criminal      Justice (16)(3): 167-181.

Letman, Sloan T.; Gregory J. Petrakis; and George W. Knox

     1991 Deaf Inmates in Today's Prisons: A Study of the      Hearing Impaired. A Research Proposal (in progress).

Lotter, J.M.

     1988 "Prison Gangs in South Africa: A Description", The        South African Journal of Sociology (19)(2)(May): 67-75.


Moore, Joan W.

     1978 Homeboys. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Myers, L.J.

     1967 Law and the Deaf. U.S. Department of Health, Education,    and Welfare. Washington, D.C.

Packer, Herbert L.

     1968 The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford:         Stanford University Press.

Pray, J.L.

     1983 "Special Problems of Deaf Persons and Criminal Justice",     in A.R. Roberts (ed), Social Work in Juvenile and        Criminal Justice Settings, Springfield, IL: Charles C.        Thomas.

Ralph, Paige H.; James W. Marquart; and Ben M. Crouch

     1990 "Prisoner Gangs in Texas", paper presented at the 1990  Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology,      Baltimore, MD.

Scallan, J.H.

     1987 Prison Codes and Communications. Texas Department of       Corrections.

Tucker, B.P.

     1988 "Deaf Prison Inmates; Time to Be Heard", Loyola of         Los Angeles Law Review (22)(1)(Nov): 1-72.

Wertlieb, E.C. and M.A. Greenberg

     1989 "Strategies for Working with Special-Needs        Probationers", Federal Probation (53)(1)(Mar): 10-17.

Whalen, T.E.

     1981 Report of a Project to Prepare a Manual of Procedures       for Serving Deaf Defendants, Victims and Witnesses.        Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.

Wood, J.B.

     1984 "Protecting Deaf Suspects' Right to Understand Criminal  Proceedings", Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology      (75)(1)(Spr): 166-197.



                                  END NOTES: