’Ml

  

Mill“!

,.
Ll!

is W!HHHHIIHIHHWIHilllNIWI!l‘

327

 

.m‘m III’iiI‘liiiliilifliinilfiflflliiiiiilfl'iiifliliil

3 1293 02058 1827

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

GANs Pkomea'. A STUDY 0; meg/weep} UMA/xl 6M0
IN c mmeo AND SAM 0:660

presented by
pH U L E L A M

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M A 57611 0F SCIENLCdegree in CAIM'UA LJ USTICC'

4/647“;

Major profess

Date 5? 000

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LEBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECAUED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE

Ami? % 50%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11,00 chIRCMngGB-nu

 

GANG PROFILING: A STUDY OF ORGANIZED, URBAN GANGS
IN CHICAGO 8: SAN DIEGO

BY

Paul Elam Jr.

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Criminal Justice

2000

ABSTRACT

GANG PROFILING: A STUDY OF ORGANIZED, URBAN GANGS
IN CHICAGO 8: SAN DIEGO

By
Paul Elam Jr.

Gangs have been misunderstood by society because of inconsistent
representation by the media, law enforcement officers, city/government officials
and gang scholars. In order to fully understand the purpose for the gang’s
formation, one needs to examine subcultural conditions in which the gang exists.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the relationship between geographic
location and a variety of self-reported delinquent activities.

Gang members of the Black Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, Calle Treinte
and Syndo Mob were targeted as the most organized Hispanic and Black gangs
in Chicago, Illinois and San Diego, California. Members were interviewed to
obtain information concerning gang activity and behavior. Findings revealed that
organized gangs in Chicago, Illinois pose different types and levels of problems

to their community than organized gangs in San Diego, California.

This thesis is dedicated to my mother who instilled the value of education in me
and made life-long sacrifices to make sure that I went to college.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis chair for challenging me to undertake this
endeavor. I would also like to thank my committee members for providing
valuable feedback and advice when I needed it the most. I would like to thank
my wife and children for their patience and understanding during my first three
years of graduate study. Finally, I would like to thank God for providing me with
the ability to accomplish all that I have thus far, for without Him I would be

capable of nothing.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................... vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................... 2
Research Problem ......................................... 2
Research Questions ..................................... 3
Hypothesis ............................................ 3
CHAPTER 2
UNDERSTANDING GANGS .................................... 4
What is 3 Gang? .......................................... 4
Gang Development ........................................ 6
Theoretical Background ..................................... 8
Gang Theories ............................................ 12
Economic and Urbanism Theories ............................. 16
Conceptual Background ..................................... 19
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................ 23
Data Collection ........................................... 23
Participation Rates and Characteristics ......................... 25
Chicago .............................................. 25
San Diego ............................................. 26
Demographics ............................................ 27
Chicago .............................................. 27
San Diego ............................................. 28
Chicago and San Diego Comparison ........................... 29
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES ..................................... 32
Results .................................................. 33
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................... 35
Limitations and Implications .................................. 39
Recommendations for Further Research ........................ 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 54

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1
Chicago Gang Member Population ................................ 44
TABLE 2
San Diego Gang Member Population .............................. 44
TABLE 3
Chicago Gang Member Characteristics ............................. 45
TABLE 4
San Diego Gang Member Characteristics ........................... 46
TABLE 5
Number of Offenses Known to the Police by Location .................. 47
TABLE 6
Drug Activity by Location ........................................ 48
TABLE 7
Violent Crime by Location ....................................... 48
TABLE 8
Non-violent Crime by Location .................................... 48

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1
Drug Activity by Location ........................................ 50

FIGURE 2
Violent Crime by Location ....................................... 51

FIGURE 3
Non-violent Crime by Location .................................... 52

vii

INTRODUCTION

Chapter I

Among delinquency scholars, there seems to be a consensus that
delinquent behavior is primarily un-patterned. It has been rather commonly
assumed that the opposite is true, that many or most juveniles show
specialization in offense types (Taylor, 1990). These assumptions are
particularly well fixed in the minds of practitioners who use them as part of the
rationale for behavior-specific treatment modalities and for early intervention
strategies (Spergel, 1995).

Academic scholars have also tended to accept these assumptions of
specialization and progression in seriousness, and for several reasons. Among
these are (a) generalization from data and assumptions concerning adult crime
patterns (Farrington, 1979; Petersilia and Greenwood, 1978; Willstadter, 1981);
(b) the common use of reifying descriptive terms such as “auto-thief,” “doper” or
“status offender”; (c) the influence of behavioral theory which tends to emphasize
discrete behavior patterns as learned and correctable modules; (d) desires to
“discover” clues to early intervention and prevention success and
(e) generalizations stemming from writings on juvenile gang theory. The latter
resembles a cultural artifact, the continued use of concepts of specific types of
gangs (violent, conflict, theft, retreatist) derived from the work of Yablonsky
(1962) and of Cloward and Ohlin (1960) despite the lack of empirical support for

the patterns they posited (Klein, 1971; Short and Strodtbeck, 1965).

While there are, as noted above, two dominant approaches to the
meaning of patterning, offense specialization and progression in offence
seriousness, this paper only focuses on the first approach, offense

specialization.

Purpose of the Study
Research Problem

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the relationship between
geographic location and a variety of self-reported delinquent activities and to
discover the extent to which these relationships vary by location (i.e.; Chicago vs.
San Diego) in a sample of highly organized gangs. The working definition of
gangs includes any identifiable group of youngsters who (a) are generally
perceived as a distinct aggregation by others in their neighborhood , (b) recognize
themselves as a denotable group (almost invariably with a group name), and
have been involved in a sufficient number of delinquent incidents to call forth
consistent negative response from neighborhood residents and/or law
enforcement agencies (Klein, 1971).

While there have been over 30 studies undertaken since 1963 in the area
of offense specialization, only two used a cohort of gangs (Klein, 1971; Short 8.
Strodtbeck, 1965). Furthermore, of these studies, only three support offense
specialization (Illinois Institute for Juvenile Research, 1972; Johnstone, 1978).

In the last few years a number of researchers have suggested that today’s

gangs have changed in some fundamental ways (Moore, 1985; Short, 1990;

Taylor, 1990; Vigil, 1988); directing their energies toward systematic involvement
in drug distribution, utilizing their illicit revenues to fulfill a range of community
needs and becoming increasingly more involved in violent activities. This thesis
aims to examine the relationship between delinquent activity and location (i.e.,
Chicago vs. San Diego), while also trying to determine whether the activities and
behaviors of gangs have remained similar to the major gang research findings
between 1963 and 1982. It may be that findings will provide evidence that the
activities and behaviors of contemporary gangs have indeed changed, as more

resent research in the 90’s has suggested.

Research Questions

Do gangs specialize in specific gang-related Activities?

Does gang activity differ significantly by geographic location, given that
one gang is in Chicago and the other gang is in San Diego?

If gang activity does differ significantly be geographic location, what is the

strength of the relationship between the type of criminal activity and the gang?

Hypothesis
Ho: Contemporary, organized gangs in Chicago, Illinois are involved in
the same delinquent activities as organized gangs in San Diego, California.
Ha: Contemporary, organized gangs in Chicago, Illinois are involved in

different delinquent activities than organized gangs in San Diego, California.

UNDERSTANDING GANGS

Chapter 2

In the 1800's, researchers began to examine gangs more intently. Their
efforts resulted in a number of findings that are still debated today. These
findings ranged from the actual definition of a “gang,” to variables that
contributed to explaining, “what youths would or would not be likely to join
gangs.” More importantly, research conducted by John Hagedorn (1988), has
shown that the public’s perception of the reality and significance of gang matters
is based on a distorted view that the media continues to portray. Since there are
problems in the definitions that have confounded gang research, Hagedorn
(1988) observed that interviewing those closest to the problem may yield the
most valuable insights because of their contact and familiarity with gang

activities.

What is a gang?

There is no one clear agreed upon definition of a “gang.” In fact, Huff
(1989) states, that agreement on the parameters of what constitutes a gang will
never likely be achieved. While this thesis utilizes Klein’s (1971) definition to
describe gangs, there are several others that have been developed by other
gang scholars. Miller (1980) defines a youth gang as: a self-formed association
of peers, bound together by mutual, interests with identifiable leadership, well-

developed lines of authority, and other organizational features, who act in

concert to achieve a specific purpose of purposes, which generally include the
conduct of illegal activity and control over a particular territory, facility or type of
enterprise.

Hagedorn (1988) defines a gang as a friendship group of adolescents who
share common interests, with a more or less clearly defined territory, in which
most of the members live. They are committed to defending one another, the
territory and the gang name in the status-setting fights that occur in school
and/or the streets.

Bursik and Grasmick (1995) attribute much of the confusion that has
arisen in the gang literature, as well as in the public’s perception of gang
behavior to the interchangeable use of the words “group” and “gang.” While
Miller (1980) identified twenty different “law-violating youth groups” he only
considered three to represent actual gangs: turf gangs, gain oriented gangs and
fighting gangs.

Bernard Cohen (1969) believes delinquent groups are only small cliques
that come together sporadically without a known reason and spontaneously
break the law. He believes such groups last very shortly and have no elaborate
structure, name or sense of territory. On the other hand, Bursik and Grasmick
(1995) believe that gangs are highly developed aggregates with relatively large
memberships. As opposed to delinquent groups, gangs have elaborate
organizations, names, senses of corporate identity and identifications with

particular territories.

While delinquency-based definitions, such as Miller’s, have been criticized
and Klein’s definition has been considered influential, Ruth Horowitz (1990)
notes that the variation in locally used definitions may be useful for
understanding how the relationships among criminal justice personnel, the
community, the gang and the individual gang members are defined.

On the other hand, Irving Spergel (1995) notes that research methods and
policy-relevant differences have become obstacles to the development of a
common definition of the youth gang problem or its components, the gang, gang
member and gang incident. For purposes of effective research and policy in the
identification and explanation of youth gang crime, it is important to develop a
general definition of the gang that takes account of the variability and
interrelationships of characteristics such as: age, race/ethnicity, gender,

organization, location of members and community reaction.

Gang Development

Gangs develop in the context of local communities that are often socially
disorganized and/or impoverished. Social disorganization refers to the disarray
of norms, values, social and organizational relationships and/or the lack of
integration at system rather than subsystem levels. Sometimes families, groups
or gangs and particular social organizations seem to function with some
adequacy on their own terms, but not as part of a coherent overall system
committed to dominant cultural norms and values. Spergel (1990) believes the

lack of sufficient social integration and social control, particularly at the local

community level, initiates a distinctive community gang problem. Albert Cohen
(1955) defines gangs in terms of collective reactions to problems of social status,
meaning individuals with common social problems (financial, educational or
familial) join to form a secondary family, the gang, that accepts the other
members because of their familiar struggles. Another avenue is taken by
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960), who focus on the interaction between
legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures, which identify the illegal means
(drug dealing, burglary and the like) to financial prosperity that gang members
tend to become involved in versus the legal avenues (education, jobs and the
like) that seem to be far-fetched to the member.

The process of becoming a gang member occurs through the interaction
of defective parenting, as well as, certain community forces. Even parents with
good parenting skills are unable to insure that their children do not become
involved in gangs, particularly in low-income and social problem-ridden
neighborhoods (Spergel, 1990).

Further, Spergel (1995) believes that youth develop as gang members
largely in response to their interactions with social institutions over time. Youth
from some disorganized families are vulnerable to becoming gang members.
Together the family, school, politics, prison and the youth gang contribute in a
complex, rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented local community and
society to the further development and sustaining of the gang problem.

Sociologist Robert Merton’s (1938) “strain theory” discusses how a desire

for certain goals pressures individuals into seeking unacceptable means of

acquiring those goals. Shaw and McKay’s (1942) theory of “cultural
transmission” concludes that disadvantaged environments, lack of social control
and learning passed from one group to another about crime lead youngsters to
criminal activities.

With these theories serving as explanations for involvement in gang
activity, the nature of the organization is important because it appears to have an
effect on the gang’s involvement in a variety of activities. Jeffrey Fagan (1989)
found that social organization and other processes of gang cohesion were partial

explanations for why gangs differ in violence and drug involvement.

Theoretical Background

Criminal propensity theorists argue that the causes of variation in
offending behavior can be traced to variation in one or more causal traits. Other
theorists contend that there is actually more than one type of offender and that
more than one causal mechanism operates to explain offending behavior;
therefore, offending behavior varies considerably from person to person and
within persons over time (Dean et al., 1996).

Criminologists have produced a wide array of competing explanations in
their pursuit of the correct specification of this causal process. These competing
explanations may be broadly categorized as either general or typological (Nagin
and Land, 1993; Osgood and Rowe, 1994).

General theoretical models contend that a single causal process may be

invoked to apply to all offenders. Within such a framework, variability in

offending is attributed to variation in the causal trait or the constellation of causal
traits implicated by the general theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Such
variation is attributed to differences in degree of offending propensity rather than
to different kinds of offenders.

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) position is the leading example of this
stream of thought. To them, variation in offending between and within
individuals can be attributed to variation along a behavior that they describe as
“low self-control.” Those with low self-control are anticipated to begin offending
early, offend at greater levels while active, and stop offending later. Gottfredson
and Hirschi predict that within-individual offending patterns will correspond to an
age-crime distribution that is relatively robust from person to person. As such,
within-individual changes in behavior are not problematic and receive no further
attention in their theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990).

However, not all propensity theorists fully accept Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
arguments. The possibility that offending propensity is dynamic and malleable is
an important assumption in models advanced by Sampson and Laub (1993) and
Thornberry (1987). Despite relaxing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s “stability”
constraint, these more dynamic theories do not explicitly predict the presence of
different offender types. Rather, their approach resembles the Gottfredson and
Hirschi approach insofar as they implicate a single causal process that applies to
all offenders. Nagin and Paternoster (1991) and Sampson and Laub (1993), for
example, have contended that a relative lack of social, or personal, capital or

social controls is the principal cause of criminal behavior.

Although these theories allow for the possibility that social controls rise
and fall over time in response to changing life circumstances, variability in the
relevant controls is the key to understanding variation in criminal behavior.
Sampson and Laub’s (1993) research using the Gluecks’ data base, as well as
the recent work of Horney et al. (1995), which assessed the behavior of a
sample of adult offenders, tend to support this idea. Other theorists dispute the
assumption that all offending shares a common etiology. They argue that there
might be different kinds of criminals (Moffitt, 1993; Patterson and Yoerger, 1993).
The typological models of Moffitt, Patterson, and their colleagues represent
important contemporary examples of this stance. They assert that there are two
distinct kinds of offenders.

Both of these models rely heavily on the assumption that offenders with
the most severe problem behavior tend to be those that begin offending at a
relatively early age (before adolescence). Patterson and Yoerger (1993) refer to
this group as “early-starters.” Moffitt (1993) describes individuals within a
comparable group as “life-course-persistent” offenders. Although there are
important differences in the extreme distal causes identified by Patterson (poor
parenting) and Moffitt (neuropsychological deficit and environmental reactions to
it), their approaches actually occupy much common ground. The causes of
offending behavior in this group appear to revolve around poor socialization or
the presence of a significant antisocial disposition. Although some of the

suspected causes of poor socialization vary between the theories, the empirical

IO

expectation is that lack of socialization is the most proximate cause of problem
behavior.

While the causal importance of antisocial dispositions or lack of self-
control is generally recognized as important for propensity theorists, the Moffitt-
Patterson approach offers a more complex explanation of delinquency. In short,
Moffitt and Patterson argue that the poor socialization causal path is actually
applicable to only a small group of offenders. To them, most delinquents offend
primarily during adolescence, and then, usually only with the aid, comfort and
encouragement of delinquent peer groups. Moffitt (1993) regards this brand of
offending as “adolescent-limited,” and Patterson and Yoerger (1993) describe
such offenders as “late-starters.” Factors such as exposure to delinquent peers,
strain induced deprivation of highly valued adult status, situational inducements
to violate the law and reduced parental control are anticipated to exert the
strongest effects on delinquency in the late-start/adolescent-limited group.

A key variable implicated in the typological approach is the age at which
criminal behavior begins. Those who begin offending early are thought to be at
risk for the early-start offending pattern and those who begin offending later are
characterized as fitting into the late-start typology. Indeed, the most prominent
predictions of the Moffitt-Patterson typological approach center on the age at
which offending begins.

In general, prior research shows that an early entrance into delinquency
(before adolescence) is associated with more serious delinquent and criminal

behavior (Blumstein et al., 1986; Farrington, 1986; Farrington and Hawkins,

ll

1991; Moffitt, 1993, Nagin and Farrington, 1992; Patterson and Yoerger, 1993).
It is unlikely that this relationship is causal, however (Nagin and Farrington,
1992). Instead, the effect of early age at onset is probably best conceptualized
as an indicator of some other substantively important trait, such as criminal
propensity, low self-control, psychopathology or antisocial disposition. The
Moffitt-Patterson typological models rely on early onset as an indicator of a failed
childhood socialization process that distinguishes hard-core offenders from the
“average” juvenile delinquent. This implication is also embedded within the
criminal paradigm, which anticipates the existence of a small group of extremely
active offenders that are different in kind from the bulk of the offending
population (Blumstein et al., 1986).

For Gottfredson and Hirschi and other propensity theorists, age of onset is
an indicator of one’s level of self-control or social control. The importance of
onset age for purposes of this analysis, therefore, is not in its potential to predict
or explain delinquent behavior. The relevant theories all predict that it will.
Rather, the usefulness of this variable appears to lie in its potential for
differentiating between the typologies identified in the Moffitt and Patterson

models.

Gang Theories
Gang theories have been very important in rejuvenating and focusing
attention on the explanation of processes that contribute to juvenile delinquency.

Indeed, it is one of the ironies of scholarship that there is more sophisticated

12

theory dealing with juvenile law breaking than there is with adult crime, though
the latter by reasonable standards is a larger problem. This situation may be
attributable to the unusually great importance that Americans attach to
youthfulness and to our deep concern with waywardness within this age group.

Among the first to conduct empirical research on delinquent groups were
Shaw and McKay (1931). One of the important discoveries of Shaw and McKay
was that juvenile delinquency is something of a social event. Lone offenders
were relatively rare; much more often it was a pair of youths or a group that
became involved in Iawbreaking. Unlike adult crime, in which associates are
sometimes necessary to maximize the likelihood of success, delinquent
groupings seem to be a reflection of the need for comradeship and a matter of
more passive youngsters following the lead of aggressive peers (Shaw and
McKay, 1931).

Groups of delinquent youths—gangs—also have served as a means for
protection and identification in American cities. Typically, gang members consort
with those who share similar heritage, usually of a racial or ethnic nature. There
are white gangs, Asian gangs, Latino gangs and black gangs, and these groups
compete for recognition. Their conflicts at times even seem choreographed.
Quarreling erupts over “turf,” that is, which group has “rights” to which particular
segment of a ghetto neighborhood and now even suburban and rural
neighborhoods (Binder et al., 1997). The term gang, is very infrequently used by

teenagers to describe their group; rather it is the “clique,” the “club,” the team” or

13

the “boys.” The names employed seem to represent an attempt to differentiate
their association from that of “gangsters.”

Anthropological research indicates that gangs are not necessarily a
consequence of adolescence, but rather adolescence involves a placid and
barely noticeable period of transition into adult status (Binder et al., 1997). In the
United States, in contrast, adolescence often is a period of turmoil and rebellion.
That gangs come to exist in society, therefore, obviously is a reflection of the
conditions of that society—how it treats young persons and how these young
persons respond to their situation (Binder et al., 1997).

All paths involving the sociological study of gang behavior fan out from the
pioneering investigation conducted in the 19205 by Frederic M. Thrasher, a
scholar connected with the University of Chicago. Thrasher’s The Gang (1927)
was based on investigation of what was said in the book’s subtitle to be 1,313
juvenile gangs in Chicago.

The Gang emphasized that juvenile gangs were training groups for adult
crime. Thrasher further noted that putting gang members into jails and prisons
usually failed to reduce gang activity because it lent further prestige to the
delinquent who, after release, could claim a toughening experience that would be
admired by others of the group (Thrasher, 1936). Like Shaw and McKay,
Thrasher’s primary aim was to portray a social phenomenon so that something
could be done about it. The solution, he believed, was not to break up gangs,

because they were seen as a normal and reasonable response to

I4

prevailing slum conditions. Rather, the push should be to change the underlying
conditions and to lead gang members into more law-abiding ways of behaving.

William Foote Whyte’s Street Corner Society (1955), notably advanced
the theoretical understanding of juvenile gangs. Status in the gang was
determined to be a key ingredient in a wide range of members’ behavior. Good
bowlers (literally), for instance, would do poorly when they played against gang
leaders, but would improve considerably when matched against persons with
standing in the gang lower than their own (Whyte, 1955).

Whyte also noted how distinctive language styles and words used
specially by the “in group” fostered a sense of separateness and pride among
the group members. He thereby pinpointed a particularly important theoretical
issue regarding gangs: they offer to their members rewards that may not
otherwise be available to them—acceptance, achievement, excitement, money
and the sense of belonging (Whyte, 1955).

Albert K. Cohen’s Delinquent Boys (1955) also stands as a great
contribution to the theoretical understanding of gangs. Cohens’s study followed
an earlier sociological tradition of research that sought to discover the values that
determined how Americans live and the things for which they stand.

According to Cohen (1955), it is the nature of our culture that leads to the
formation of delinquent gangs. His theme is highlighted in the following
sentence: “The same value system, impinging on children differently equipped to
meet it, is instrumental in generating both delinquency and respectability”

(Cohen, 1955, p 137). Delinquency constitutes for some youth a solution to

15

problems of adjustment for which the established culture provides no satisfactory
solutions. Delinquency is a gang member’s response to problems in regard to
status and self-respect. According to Cohen (1955), gang members never quite
escape the “blandishments” of middle-class society. The gang provides “moral
reassurance” against “gnawing doubts” and gives “repeated, empathetic and
articulate support” to its members (Cohen, 1955, p 133). The gang also justifies
the use of hostility and aggression against those in the outside society who are

seen as the sources of the status frustration of the gang members.

Economic and Urbanism Theories

Research has shown that neighborhoods that provide few employment
opportunities for youth and adults are the most vulnerable to predatory crime.
Unemployment helps destabalize households, and unstable families are the
ones most likely to contain children who choose violence and aggression as a
means of dealing with limited opportunity (McGahey, 1988).

For the first time in the twentieth century most adults in many inner-city
ghetto neighborhoods are not working in a typical week. The disappearance of
work has not only adversely affected individuals, families, and neighborhoods,
but the social life of the city at large as well. Inner-city joblessness is a severe
problem that is often overlooked or obscured when the focus is placed mainly on
poverty and its consequences. Despite increases in the concentration of poverty
since 1970, inner cities have always featured high levels of poverty, but the

current levels of joblessness in some neighborhoods are unprecedented.

I6

The consequences of high neighborhood joblessness are more
devastating than those of high neighborhood poverty. A neighborhood in which
people are poor but employed is different from a neighborhood in which people
are poor and jobless. Many of today's problems in the inner-city ghetto
neighborhoods— crime, family dissolution, welfare, low levels of social
organization, and so on— are fundamentally a consequence of the
disappearance of work. Also, there are reasons to think that the type of place
where one resides may affect the probability of becoming involved in delinquent
activity and the likelihood that, once begun, delinquent behavior will continue.
Several theories predict the recurrent finding that crime is more likely among
urban dwellers than among those who reside in smaller places, but they provide
different predictions about how size and type of place affect initiation and
confinuafion.

First, routine activity and criminal opportunity theories (Cohen, 1981;
Cohen and Felson, 1979) suggest that urban areas present increased
opportunities for crime by reducing the presence of capable guardians and by
increasing the availability of attractive targets or victims. Since these opportunity
or guardianship factors logically affect initial and recidivistic acts, one would
predict higher probabilities of initiating and continuing delinquency for persons in
more urban areas.

From a different viewpoint, social disorganization theory portrays cities as
fostering high levels of anonymity and weak interpersonal ties and relationships.

These situations affect the ability of individuals and the community to regulate

I7

misconduct through interpersonal sanctions and organized surveillance (Bursik
and Grasmick, 1993; Sampson and Groves, 1989; Smith and Jarjoura, 1988).
Weaker controls in urban areas present fewer barriers to becoming delinquent
and remaining so. Since the theoretical cornerstone of social disorganization
theory is the ability, or inability, of a community to regulate the behavior of its
members, one could predict that in smaller or rural communities such controls
would be stronger and restrain individuals from engaging in initial acts of
delinquency. But among those who are not restrained by the controls, the
probability of continuing to offend should not differ between rural and urban
areas. Thus, social disorganization theory suggests that size of place will be
related to initiation but not continuation of offending.

Further, subcultural urbanism theory contends that cities produce more
crime because their size permits a critical mass of people with deviant interests
to accumulate, locate each other, and form subcultures. The presence in cities of
large numbers of subcultures is said to affect the likelihood that any individual
will initiate deviant acts, regardless of his or her direct contact with, or
membership in, a subculture. That is, the competition among subcultures creates
an environment of tolerance and, therefore, a set of diverse behavioral
possibilities. In addition, actual affiliation with a subculture is theorized to
enhance the chances of repeated offending. Thus, being exposed to an urban
environment should affect, to some extent, initiation and continuation of
delinquency, although the relative strengths of these effects are problematic.

One might conclude from subculture theory that the culture of tolerance in cities

18

produces a stronger effect on initiation than continuation. Alternatively, cities
more frequently comprise persons involved in crime and deviance; thus, the
subcultural fabric of urban areas may reinforce repeated criminality among active
offenders (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Sampson and Groves, 1989; Smith and
Jarjoura, 1988). Consequently, place of residence might predict continuation of
offending better than initiation.

In sum, urbanism theories can be interpreted as predicting equal
associations between place of residence and initiation or continuation, greater
association with initiation than continuation, greater association with continuation
than initiation, or no relation to continuation at all. As before then, the relative
predictive capability of place of residence on these two dimensions of

delinquency depends on empirical evidence.

Conceptual Background
Offense Specialization and Versatility

Recent research and theory relative to the lower class adolescent male
peer group has focused largely on the culture and behavior of group members
(Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1955; Cohen and Short, 1958; Miller, 1958).
The importance of the idea of offense specialization to the development of
juvenile delinquency theory has been long recognized in sociology and
criminology. One of the first researchers to collect pertinent data systematically
on this matter was Clifford Shaw (1930), who used very detailed case study

material to highlight the dynamics of social processes that were associated with

19

the patterns of adolescent illegal behavior. These dynamics became a central
theme in much of Shaw’s work, for he felt that a “delinquent act is part of a
dynamic life process, and it is artificial to view it except as an integral part of that
process (Shaw, 1930). Expansions of Shaw’s work with large sample,
longitudinal data sets appeared only sporadically for several decades (Ferguson,
1952; Wilkins, 1960).

One of the perennial questions in delinquency research is whether
offenders specialize in particular forms of delinquency or whether they are
generalists. The question is theoretically important because it speaks to the
notion that delinquency stems from a generalized propensity or trait (such as
lack of self-control) that manifests itself in different behavioral forms. The
consensus today is that most offenders are not specialists (Gottfredson and
Hirschi, 1990).

While this may be true, there is still a substantial amount of disagreement
as to whether delinquent actors generally engage in a wide variety of delinquent
acts (i.e., tend to be versatile in their delinquent behavior) or whether they
engage in only a very limited variety of delinquent acts (i.e., tend to be specific in
their delinquent behavior). Another term for this type of delinquency is “cafeteria-
style.” Imagine a gang member walking along a display, choosing to try a little
petty theft, then a group assault, then some truancy, then two varieties of
malicious mischief and so on. The question has also been raised as to whether
versatility or specificity varies as a function of the age or number of the

delinquent participants.

20

Thrasher (1927, p.269), for example, noted that although a gang often
specializes in one type of delinquent activity, “most groups run the whole gamut
of offenses, including practically every crime in the catalogue.” Curry and
Spergel (1988, p.382) note that “It is important to observe that subgroups,
associated groups, and different kinds of members of the gang may be
differentially committed to various delinquent activities such as drug trafficking,
drug use, gang fighting, burglary, or non-delinquent activities such as hanging
around and partying. The attributes of a social group, delinquent group, and
youth gang are not exclusive of each other but represent distinctive
constellations of activity. It is important that while one may expect to find some
overlap of gang involvement and delinquent behavior, one should not expect the
two phenomena to be perfectly correlated.”

Cohen (1955, p.29) argues that “no delinquent gang runs the whole gamut
of offenses but neither is it likely to specialize...” Further, Cohen (1955)
emphasizes the versatility of the delinquent subculture. As a case in point he
suggests that stealing tends to go hand-in-hand with other property offenses,
malicious mischief, vandalism and trespassing and truancy.

Contrary to this position, Cloward and Ohlin (1960) have proposed a
tripartite typology of subcultural differentation — the criminal, conflict and
retreatist adaptations. They indicate that these three subcultures tend to be
mutually exclusive by the very incompatibility of their focal activities and/or by
virtue of the differential nature of the environments in which the three subcultures

flounsh.

2|

Finally, Cohen and Short (1958, p.248) have implied that the “garden
variety” of delinquent behavior tends toward specialization with age (e.g., to a
semiprofessional theft subculture).

A review of the literature on offense specialization suggests that an
ovewvhelming number of studies are strongly supportive of the cafeteria-style
thesis (Bursik, 1980; Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Farrington, 1979; Hamparian et
al., 1978; Heise, 1968; Hindelang, 1971; Klein, 1971; Short and Strodtbeck,
1965); juvenile offenses manifest a primarily versatile pattern. While this overall
conclusion seems to be very strong, the lists of offenses employed in these
studies are of very disparate natures. Some are short, some are long; some
contain primarily minor offences; some categories are behavioral, others are
legalistic; and the self-report studies vary in recall periods and in response
categories.

There is no way that any compilation of studies, no matter how numerous,
can equal the value of a few really competent and reliable pieces of research.
There is yet a tremendous amount of definitive work to be done in this area.
While studies have found support for offense specialization, these findings have
been far too few to have a significant impact on the general pattern of versatility
that emerges in aggregated data (Bursik, 1980; Farrington, 1979; Heise; 1968;

Hindelang, 1971).

22

METHODOLOGY

Chapter III

Data Collection

In comparing the delinquent activities among organized gang members in
different geographic locations, this research used data generated from interviews
of actual gang members, the Black Gangster Disciples (BGD’s) and Latin Kings
of Chicago, Illinois and the Syndo Mob and Calle Treinte of San Diego,
California. Interviews of these gang members were conducted between 1995
and 1996 and this study was a part of a larger study funded by the National
Institute of Justice (NlJ). Gang members were identified using Gang Information
Systems and targeted as the largest and most organized Hispanic and Black
gangs within these two cities.

These data were utilized to examine the relationship between geographic
location and a variety of self-reported delinquent activities and to discover the
extent to which these relationships vary by location in a sample of highly
organized gangs. After examining the data, the answers to three (3) questions
were sought after; 1) do gangs specialize in specific gang-related activities?, 2)
does gang activity differ significantly by geographic location, given that one gang
is in Chicago and the other gang is in San Diego and 3) if gang activity does
differ significantly be geographic location, what is the strength of the relationship

between the type of criminal activity and the gang?

23

Interviews were conducted with a total of 85 male members of these
gangs to obtain information concerning gang initiation, activity and organization.
Respondents were currently on probation, incarcerated in prison or jail, or
identified by law enforcement officials as known gang members. Available
research, police data and community concern are in agreement that males
constitute the primary gang problem (Spergel, 1990). Because of limited
resources, issues of gang involvement for females were not considered. It
should be noted that there is an assumption that there would be distinctions,
different factors, or at least differently weighted factors, contributing to the
socialization of females to gangs if they were also included in the sample.

The reliability and credibility of anonymous self-reports have been studied
and results suggest that such data provide an adequate base for statistical
studies (Clark and Tifft, 1966; Short and Nye, 1957). However, seeing that the
respondents utilized to create these data were not randomly selected, the reader
should be cautioned against generalizing the findings reported to respondents
other than the type actually studied here. While the field techniques that were
utilized cannot provide a representative sample, the subjects varied considerably
in age and activities, thus assuring that the information received was from a
variety of gang members. As a result, it is unlikely that the respondents revealed

information about only a narrow segment of gang activity.

24

Participation Rates and Characteristics

Table 1 presents the participation rates for the Chicago gang member
population and Table 2 presents the participation rates for the San Diego gang
member population. Column 1 represents the total number of gang members by
race/ethnicity for the Chicago sample. Columns two, three and four respectively
present the number and percentages by gang and race/ethnicity of those gang
members who were on probation, identified on the street (by law-enforcement or
self) or incarcerated in jail or prison.

There were a total of 44 Chicago gang members, 26 Black Gangster
Disciples and 18 Latin Kings. In addition, there were a total of 41 San Diego
gang members, 21 from the Syndo Mob and 20 from the Calle Treinte who
participated in the study. Table 3 presents the characteristics for the Chicago
sample, the Black Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings, and Table 4 presents
the characteristics for the San Diego sample, the Syndo Mob and the Calle

Treinte.

Chicago

There were 44 Chicago gang members who participated in the interview
process. Twenty-six (26) of the Chicago participants were Black Gangster
Disciples and 18 were Latin Kings. Twenty-two (22) of the Black Gangster
Disciples were black, 3 were Hispanic and 1 was of an unknown descent. Ten
(10) of the Latin Kings were Hispanic, 5 were white and 3 were of other or

unknown descent (the Chicago sample represents the most organized black and

25

Hispanic gangs in the city, but the race/ethnicity data show that 5 of the Latin
Kings are actually white). The largest number (9) of the Black Gangster Disciple
sample fell into the 15 to 20 year old category, while the largest number (9) of
Latin Kings were between the ages of 21 and 25. Eight (8) Black Gangster
Disciples completed the 12th grade, while 2 had some college experience. On
the other hand, 4 Latin Kings completed the 12th grade and 4 also had some
college experience. The largest number (7) of Black Gangster Disciples have
been members between 6 to 10 years, while the number (6) of Latin Kings have

been members between 1 to 5 years.

San Diego

There were 41 San Diego gang members who participated in the interview
process. Twenty-one (21) of the Sand Diego participants were members of the
Syndo Mob and 20 were members of the Calle Treinte. All 21 members of the
Syndo Mob were black and all 21 members of the Calle Treinte gang were
Hispanic. The largest number (11) of the Syndo Mob fell into the 21 to 25 year
old category, while the largest number (8) of the Calle Treinte were between the
ages of 15 and 20. Seven (7) members of the Syndo Mob completed the 12th
grade, while only 2 had some college experience. On the other hand, 5
members of the Calle Treinte completed the 12th grade and only 1 had some
college experience. The largest number (8) of Syndo Mob members have been
members between 6 to 10 years, while the same number (8) of the Calle Treinte

have also.

26

Demographics
Chicago

According to the 1990 Census, Chicago has an urban population of
6,792,087 persons. Blacks make up 20 percent of the population and another
11 percent are of Hispanic origin. The majority of the population is between the
ages of 25 and 44. There is an average of 2.7 persons per household and over
75 percent of persons ages 25 and over are high school graduates. While the
median household income is $35,224, 20 percent of these households earn less
than $15,000 per year. There are 341,351 female households with no husband
present and 103,650 (30.36%) of these households are below the poverty level
(Census Data, 1990).

The Chicago Police Department’s 1996 Annual Report states that 1996
was the fifth consecutive year that major crime declined in Chicago. The
263,166 index crimes reported in 1996 were the lowest total in more than a
decade. Violent crimes accounted for 26 percent of all 1996 index crimes
reported and the remaining 74 percent consisted of property crimes. Aggravated
assault and robbery accounted for almost 95 percent of violent crimes, while
murder only accounted for just over one percent. Among property crimes, theft
was the leading offense, with 61 percent of reported property incidents (Chicago
Police Departments Annual Report, 1996). In regard to murders whose
perpetrator could be determined, over one-third were gang-related and close to
one-half were committed by a person known to the victim. Altercations,

organized criminal activity involving narcotics, domestic situations, robbery and

27

burglary were the next most common causes of murders committed for the year
1996 respectively. Close to 25 percent of persons arrested for murder in 1996

were under the age of 18 (Chicago Police Departments Annual Report, 1996).

San Diego

According to the 1990 Census, San Diego has a population of 2,348,417
persons. Blacks make up 7 percent of the population and another 21 percent
are of Hispanic origin. Like Chicago, the majority of the population is between
the ages of 25 and 44 and 5 and 17 respectively. Again like Chicago, there is an
average of 2.7 persons per household but only 23 percent of persons ages 25
and over are high school graduates. While the median household income is
$34,611, 18 percent of these households earn less than $15,000 per year.
There are 90,906 female households with no husband present and 23,541
(25.90%) of these households are below the poverty level (Census Data, 1990).

According to a report produced by San Diego County, there were a total of
6,022 juvenile felony arrests in 1996. Twenty-six percent of these arrests were
for violent offenses, 51 percent were for property offenses, 9 percent were for
drug offenses and the final 15 percent were for sexual and other offenses. In
terms of violent crimes, assault and robbery were the most frequent, where as
burglary and theft were the most frequent property crimes. It should be noted
that the arrest rate for 1996 was the highest for a three year period, 1995

through 1998 (San Diego County Annual Police Report, 1996).

28

Chicago and San Diego Comparison

When comparing the two geographic locations in 1997, mid-western
states account for 23.3 percent of the total US population, while western states
comprise 22.2 percent of the population. 20.1 percent of the violent crimes
reported in America were committed in mid-western states while another 23.7
percent were committed in western states. Further, 21.9 percent of property
crimes reported in the US were committed in mid-western states during 1997,
while western states accounted for 24.1 percent of the property crimes during the
same year. According to these regional data, the percentage of violent and
property crimes reported in the US during 1997 were slightly higher on the West
Coast (Uniform Crime Reports, 1997).

When breaking this comparison down to the state level, these
comparisons change drastically. The population for the state of California
totaled 32,268,000 compared with 11,896,000 for Illinois. The reported violent
crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants for California was 798.3, while the rate for
Illinois was 861.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported property crime rate per
100,000 inhabitants for California was 4,067.1, while the rate for Illinois was
4,279.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. In contrast to the regional data for 1997, these
state data conclude that violent, as well as property crime rates, were higher in
Illinois that year (Uniform Crime Reports, 1997).

When comparing trend data for the two states, population increased for
both locations, while violent and property crimes decreased in both states. The

population in California increased from 31,878,000 in 1996 to 32,268,000 in

29

1997, while the population in Illinois increased from 11,847,000 in 1996 to
11,896,000; a percent change of 1.22 and 0.41 respectively. The reported
violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants for California decreased from 862.7 in
1996 to 798.3 in 1997, while the rate for Illinois decreased from 890.4 in 1996 to
861.4 in 1997; a percent change of -7.5 and —3.3 respectively. The reported
property crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants for California decreased from
4,345.1 in 1996 to 4,067.1 in 1997, while the rate for Illinois decreased from
4,429.6 in 1996 to 4,279.7 in 1997; a percent change of -6.4 and —3.4
respectively. According to these two-year “trend data,” California not only has a
lower reported property and violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants compared
to Illinois, its crime rates are also decreasing twice as fast (Uniform Crime
Reports, 1997).

Because complete data were not available for the state of Illinois or the
city of Chicago during 1996 and 1997, the crime counts were estimated by the
federal government during these years; therefore, a meaningful comparison
could not be made with San Diego. While the crime rates cannot be compared
for these two cities, it is worth mentioning that the total population for the city of
San Diego was 1,182,653 and 2,765,852 for Chicago (numbers for Chicago do
not include surrounding metropolitan areas). There are 589.6 residents per
officer in the city of San Diego compared to 205.4 residents per officer in the city
of Chicago (Uniform Crime Reports, 1997).

Because a crime index comparison could not be equated for the two

cities, a listing of the crimes known to police in each city has been provided.

30

Table 5 shows the number of offenses known to police in Chicago and San
Diego during 1997. While the population of Chicago is 2.34 times the population
size of San Diego, the estimated crime rates per 10,000 people in Chicago are
also much higher than the crime rates per 10,000 people in San Diego (Uniform
Crime Reports, 1997). Based on the analysis of these UCR data, one would
expect to see much more violent crime occurring within the city of Chicago when

comparing the two gang member samples.

31

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Chapter IV

Data were analyzed to determine whether gangs from the San Diego area
significantly differ in gang activity from the Chicago area gangs. These activities
were broken down into three categories, 1) violent activities (assaults, rapes,
drive-by shootings and robberies), 2) non-violent activities (thefts, burglaries,
arsons and graffitti) and 3) drug-related activities (distribution of marijuana, rock
cocaine, powder cocaine and heroine). Respondents were asked whether they
ever committed the crimes within each category. Responses for each category
were coded and given a number of 1 — 4 (1=committed one of the four
delinquent acts and 4=commited all four of the delinquent acts). These
responses were then re-coded for each category and given a number of 1 or 2
(1=did not commit a delinquent act within the category and 2=committed a
delinquent act within the category).

Contingency tables were produced along with chi-square statistics to
conduct bivariate analyses of the yes/no questions by geographic location.
Measures of statistical significance were obtained and recorded for each
comparison. Significant relationships were then analyzed to determine the level
of association between the two variables. Based on these analyses, it was
determined that geographic location is significantly related to the types of
delinquent activities that organized gangs in Chicago, Illinois and San Diego,

California are involved.

32

Results

Table 6 presents the number and percentage of respondents who have
sold drugs (marijuana, heroin, crack cocaine or powder cocaine) by location.
While 82.9% of the gang members in the Chicago, Illinois sample reported to
have sold drugs, only 64.3% of the gang members in San Diego, California
reported involvement in drug distribution. However, this difference is not
significant. Figure 1 also displays the percentage of gang members that sold
drugs by location.

Table 7 presents the number and percentage of respondents who have
committed violent crimes (robbery, rape, drive-by shootings or assault) by
location. While 95.1% of the gang members in San Diego, California reported
involvement in violent crime, only 66.7% of gang members in Chicago, Illinois
reported to have been involved in crimes that involved violence. The difference
between violent crime and location is significant (P < .001). The value of Phi is
.361; therefore, these two variables are moderately associated. Figure 2 also
displays the percentage of gang members who were involved in violent crime by
location. Thus a larger proportion of San Diego gang members reported
involvement in violent crimes than Chicago gang members.

Table 8 presents the number and percentage of respondents that have
committed non-violent crimes (theft, arson, burglary or graffiti) by location. While
85.0% of the gang members in San Diego, California reported involvement in
non-violent crime, 59.5% of gang members in Chicago, Illinois reported to be

involved in crimes that involved non-violence. The relationship between non-

33

violent crime and location is significant (P <.01). The value of Phi is .283;
therefore, these two variables are slightly associated even though they are
significantly related. That is, the proportion of gang members in the San Diego
sample reported more involvement in non-violent crimes than Chicago gang
members. Figure 3 also displays the percentage of gang members that reported

to be involved in non-violent crime by location.

34

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Chapter V

This study was undertaken to determine whether gangs specialize in
specific gang-related activities (violent, non-violent and drug) and to also
determine whether gang activity differs significantly by geographic location. This
study differed from prior studies of gangs in that it focused upon the perceptions
of gang members instead of gang scholars, the media and law enforcement
officials. Data were gathered about gang activity from actual gang members in
order to examine the relationship between geographic location and gang activity.
There were 44 Chicago gang members and 41 San Diego gang members that
provided information about their gang’s illegal activities.

Considerable involvement in drug, violent and non-violent activity was
found among the gang member sample. Sociologist Robert Merton’s (1938)
“strain theory” discusses how a desire for certain goals pressures individuals into
seeking unacceptable means of acquiring those goals. Because the illegal
opportunities that are available to gang members may vary by location, the
manner if which these goals are attained may vary. One gang group may have
tremendous access to marijuana heroin, while another gang group may have
several members who are skilled in car thefts and drive-by shootings. Because
of the widespread access that American urban youth have to illegal economies
and crime, one would expect to see gang members involved in a variety of

delinquent acts rather than specializing.

35

Taylor (1990) argues that today’s organized gangs can be characterized
most appropriately as corporate gangs. These gangs are well-organized groups
that have strong leaders or managers. The main focus of their organization is
participation in illegal money-making ventures. Klein (1995) also adds that the
old, traditional gang structure of past decades seems to be declining.

Significant differences also existed between the two gangs when analyzed
and compared by geographical location. The San Diego sample was comprised
entirely of two ethnic groups, Hispanic and black, and approximately 8 out of 10
members were under the age of 25. The Chicago sample was made up of at
least four different ethnic groups (white, black, Hispanic and other/unknown
groups), and almost half of the members were over the age of 26. The average
age of the Chicago gang members was 26 and the average age of the San
Diego gang members was 23. While this age difference was not significant, it
may be that the significant differences in the extent of involvement in illegal
activities could be somewhat attributed to the difference in age of gang
members. Further analysis may reveal that there is a larger proportion of
younger gang members involved in criminal activities.

Based on the results of the contingency tables and chi-square statistics,
the null-hypothesis is rejected and this thesis concludes that highly organized
gangs in Chicago, Illinois are involved in delinquent activities to a lesser extent
than highly organized gangs in San Diego, California. Further, it seems that
highly organized gangs in San Diego, California are much more likely to be

involved in both violent and non-violent activity than their counterparts in

36

Chicago, Illinois. This finding somewhat contradicts the crime data that was
presented by the Uniform Crime Reports. Based on the UCR data during 1997,
the Chicago area was estimated to have reported more violent crime than the
San Diego area. One would have expected to see the Chicago gangs
participating in more violent crime than the San Diego sample, but as was
mentioned earlier, the Chicago sample was comprised of older gang members
who may have aged out of committing the types of crimes that this thesis was
focused. It may also be that organized gangs are not largely responsible for the
violent activities that are occurring in Chicago or San Diego. Extended research
on the activity of gangs must be pursued to ascertain the answers to these
questions.

Further, this thesis does not support the theory of offense specialization in
that gang members in both locations seem to be involved in a host of illegal
activities (drug-related, violent and non-violent); therefore, I would argue that the
“cafeteria style” of delinquency is supported here. Taylor (1990) identifies three
types of gangs. These gangs may be defined primarily within three different
motivational categories: 1) scavenger, 2) territorial or 3) corporate.

Scavenger gangs, which can be compared to Klein’s (1995) conflict gang
or Yablonsky’s (1962) street-violent gang, have no common bond beyond their
impulsive behavior and their need to belong. Leadership changes very often.
The crimes that are committed are usually petty, senseless and spontaneous.

Members have no particular goals nor purpose.

37

Territorial gangs designate something, someplace or someone as
belonging exclusively to the gang. When scavenger gangs become serious
about organizing for a specific purpose, they usually enter the territorial stage
(Taylor, 1990). Territorial gangs defend their turf in order to protect their
particular business interests. Today, with the power of organized crime,
technology, and escalating wages, territory can be intrastate, interstate or
international.

The corporate gang, mentioned earlier, has goals that resemble large
successful companies. Different divisions, handle sales, marketing, distribution
and enforcement. Criminal actions are largely motivated by profit. Unlike
scavenger gangs, crimes are committed for a purpose. In addition to lower-class
youth, middle-class and upper-class youth also tend to find corporate gangs
attractive.

Analysis also shows that gang involvement in criminal activities varied
across geographic location and was minimally associated with the delinquent
behavior of highly organized gangs, but Chicago gangs and San Diego gangs
differed in their extent of involvement in criminal activities. On the other hand,
this thesis does support the theories and literature of contemporary gang
scholars, in that it portrays gangs and their members as being increasingly
involved in illegal economies and crimes of a violent nature. Taylor (1990) has
argued that most organized gangs are capable of establishing entities that
operate like fortune 500 companies and enforce their territory and profits by “any

means necessary.” As stated earlier, these gangs have been identified by law

38

enforcement agencies and known to be the most stable and organized gangs in

their region.

Limitations and Implications

This is an exploratory study that compares the offending behaviors of
gangs in Chicago, Illinois and San Diego, California. Because the frequency of
committed delinquent acts was not also collected during the interview process,
this thesis is limited in the ability to predict offense specialization among gang
members; therefore, the conclusions may at best be utilized to identify regional
differences between mid-western and west-coast gangs to the extent possible.
Further, the results of this research should not be generalized because the
process did not employ a simple random sample selection to obtain the
respondents. Furthermore, if policy implications should arise from this study they
should only apply to organized gangs within the Chicago, Illinois and San Diego
California area or to gangs that are organized very similar to these studied.

Research seems to support the practice of social interveners who ignore
the label of the presenting delinquent behavior and instead focus on treating “the
whole person” (Klein, 1984; Heise, 1968; Hindelang, 1971 and Bursik, 1980).
The implications of this research allow professionals to 1) discover clues to
identify treatment areas to intervene and prevent gang-activity and 2) develop
member specific policy rather than policy-driven recommendations when
appropriate. Based on the results of this thesis, it is clear that Chicago and San

Diego are faced with similar gang-related issues, but the intensity and severity of

39

these issues is not very clear. The demographic nature of both locations is very
different in many ways and theorists, as well as policy-makers, should keep in
mind that the dynamics of “the gang” are very fluid. Structure, leadership and
stability within the gang constantly shift, and theoretical implications that were
once relevant may not be relevant today. One needs to dig deeper into the
culture of the underworld were these individuals live day to day to try and grasp
an understanding of the cognitive thought process that many of our youth are
utilizing today. The “gangster mentality”, once thought to be an urban
phenomena located within dilapidated neighborhoods to provide a sense of
belonging and status, has now also become an accepted way of life to many
suburban, white youth. As scholars and stake holders, we need to begin to
develop new paradigms that go several steps further in explaining the “reactions”
not “actions” of our youth to the fast paced, global society that we now live in.
This Thesis provides a foundation that must be built upon to not only
identify the key delinquent activities that many gang members are involved in,
but once this has been done, to offer realistic alternatives and opportunities to
these youth to achieve success in a conventional manner. If this second piece
cannot be clearly communicated and offered to gang members, the chances of
decreasing the amount of illegal gang activity is very slim. In Chicago, the “gang”
in its origination was once a positive community group that assisted in
encouraging solidarity among residents and providing recreational opportunities

for less fortunate youth through federal grants. If provided with the correct

40

guidance, support and opportunities, these powerful entities can once again

become a “positive” rather than “negative” influence on our youth culture.

Recommendations for further Research

Future research that looks at the activities of gangs should aim to include
a larger sample size than was utilized in this thesis. Because of the small
sample size, the conclusions and implications of this thesis should be taken with
caution. It may be that what was seen was due to sampling error. Further, the
sample should be randomly selected to best extent possible. Selecting
participants on a more random process than was utilized in this thesis might also
produce differing results and conclusions that were drawn here. Analyses that
aim at determining the impact that age has on criminal activity should also be
utilized, especially within hardened criminal sub-groups, such as violent or
corporate gangs, which usually show an aging out process. It may be that a
specific age group that may be targeted commits most violent or drug-related
crimes.

Gang scholars should also target and include multiple geographic
locations (southern, mid-western, western, and eastern) when studying gangs
and delinquent sub-cultures. It may be that gangs operate differently within the
US and certain delinquency or gang theories only apply to sub-groups within
certain geographic areas. There is a tendency to believe that theory “in general”
is applicable to most scenarios or occurrences, but to effectively make change,

these theories should only be used as guides to search out and find the real

41

issue(s) at hand. Future research should also include combinations of qualitative
as well as quantitative methods to further understand the many factors that may

affect the frequent illegal activities that are so common among youth gangs.

42

LIST OF TABLES

43

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Chicago Gang Member Population

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total in Sample Probation Street Incarcerated
Jail Prison

Total 44 25 0 0 19
Gang

Black Gangster Disciples 26 11 0 0 15
EOE—them

Black 22 8 0 0 14

Hispanic 3 2 0 0 1

Unknown 1 1 0 0 0
Gang

Latin Kings 18 14 0 0 4
RacelEthnlcig

Hispanic 10 7 0 0 3

White 5 4 0 0 1

Other 2 2 0 0 0

Unknown 1 1 0 0 0

Table 2
SanDiego Gang Member Population
(N=41)
Total in Sample Probation Street Incarcerated
Jail Prison

Total 41 18 9 3 11
Gang

Syndo Mob 21 12 5 0 4
W

Black 21 12 5 0 4
Gang

Calle Treinte 20 6 4 3 7
Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 20 6 4 3 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3

Chicago Gang Member Characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N=44)
Total in Sample Black Gangster Disciples Latin Kings

Total 44 26 18
Ass

15 - 20 14 9 5

21 - 25 12 3 9

26 - 30 8 6 0

31 - 35 5 3 2

36 - 48 7 5 2
Education

5th - 8th 5 4 1

9th - 11th 21 12 9

12th 12 8 4

Some College 6 2 4
Membership

1 - 5 years 8 2 6

6 - 10 years 12 7 5

11 - 15 years 9 6 3

16 - 20 years 6 4 2

Over 20 years 8 6 2

Unknown 1 1 0

 

 

 

 

45

 

Table 4

SanDiego Gang Member Characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N=41)
Total In Sample Syndo Mob Calle Treinte

M 41 21 20
Ass

15 - 20 16 8 8

21 - 25 16 11 5

26 - 30 6 1 5

31 - 35 2 1 1

36 - 48 1 0 1
Education

5th - 8th 2 0 2

9th - 11th 24 12 12

12th 12 7 5

Some College 2 1
Membership

1 - 5 years 9 5 4

6 - 10 years 16 8 8

11 - 15 years 7 6 1

16 - 20 years 5 0 5

Over 20 years 1 0 1

Unknown 3 2 1

 

 

 

 

46

 

3% 5.83. 25.0 ESE: - 850m

8820 s as o... a. an. 2. .3 325.8 38 t
8.9.6 .o as o... a. 0.8.66 .2 38 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8... .39 at"? 3.3. 84.2 at; In .38.. 8...... 8.. as. 256

«3.. 88.8 88.5: «8.9. 2nd.” 63.8 E. «3.83 88.5.

«as 4.; :33" .88 3.3 «3" mu." 3... 1:2... 8...... 8.. as. 256

RN 9...... ENS 8.... 3.3 33 8... B 828 «8.8 832.. 88 5w
324...... .88 3.:

€05 #05 2:33 on! .53: not... not...
.. :82 22...; : $.32... .. 5.2.5 .. nausea? .. e333. . .333... .5932. :55 .. 2.5 8.530.. Bo
.. 38: .5: a... . 35.x...

.. .65:

 

 

 

 

hag. . 55304 >3 00:0..— 65 3 5505. noon—0&0 .0 Lon—Ea:

 

m 035...

47

Table 6: Drug Activity by Location

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City
Chicago SanDiggo Total
"Sid mdividuai No Count 15 7 22
sell any drugs? % within City 35.7% 17.1% 26.5%
Yes Count 27 34 61
% within City 64.3% 82.9% 73.5%
Total Count 42 41 83
% within City 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
x2 = 3.701 (sig = .054)
Table 7: Violent Crime by Locatlon
City
Chicago_ ialiD—iego Total
Did individual commit No Count 14 2 16
any violent crimes? % within City 33.3% 4.9% 19.3%
Yes Count 28 39 67
% within City 66.7% 95.1% 80.7%
Total Count 42 41 83
% within City 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
x2 = 10.795 (sig = .001)
(D = .361
Table 8: Non-violent Crime by Location
City
Chica.ao_ianoi_eao__;o_ai__
DIE Individual commit No Count 17 6 23
any nonviolent crimes? % within City 40.5% 15.0% 28.0%
Yes Count 25 34 59
% within City 59.5% 85.0% 72.0%
Total Count 42 40 82
% within City 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

x2 = 6.589 (sig = .010)

CD = .283

48

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Drug Activity by Location

 

City
- Chicago

- SanDIego

 

Percent

 

 

Did individual sell any drugs?

50

Percent

Figure 2: Violent Crime by Location

 

    

80'

401

City
- Chicago

- SanDiego

 

 

No

Yes

Did individual commit any violent crimes?

5]

Figure 3: Non-violent Crime by Location

100

 

 

Percent

No

Yes

Did individual commit any non-violent crimes?

 

City
- Chicago

 

- SanDiego

BIBLIOGRAPHY

53

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Binder, A., Gels, G. & Bruce, DD, (1997). Juvenile Delinquency.
Cincinnati Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J.A., & Visher, C.A., (1986). Criminal
Careers and “Career Criminals.” Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Bursik, R.J., (1980). The Dynamics of Specialization in Jpvenile_
Offenses. Social Forces, 58, 851-864.

Bursik, R. & Grasmick, H., (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime: The
Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York: Lexington Books.

Bursik, R. & Grasmick, H., (1995). Defining Gangs Gang Behavior. The
Modern Gang Reader. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury.

Chicago Police Department, (1996). Chicago Police Department’s 1996
Annual Report. Chicago, Illinois.

Clark, J.P. & Tifft, LL, (1966). Polygraph and Interview Validation of Self-
Reportec_l_Behavior. American Sociological Review, 31, 516-523.

Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L., (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory
of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press.

Cohen, A., (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New
York: Free Press.

Cohen, A. & Short, J., (1958). Research in Delinguent Subcultures.
Journal of Social Issues, 14, 2-37.

Cohen, B., (1969). Thegelingpencv of Gangs and Spontaneous Groups
in Delinquency Selected Studies. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 61-111.

Cohen, L., (1981). Modelinggrime Trends - A Criminal Opportunig
Perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18, 1, 138-164.

 

Cohen, L. & Felson, M., (1979). Social-Change and Crime Rate Trend;—
Routine Activig Approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 4, 588-608.

Curry & Spergel (1988). Gang Homicide, Dellngueng, and Community.
Criminolpgy, 26, 3, 381-405.

 

54

Dean, 0., Brame, W., Piquero, R. & Alex, R., (1996). Criminal
Prop_ensities, Discrete Groups of Offenders. and Persistenge in Crime.
Criminology. 34, 4, 547-574.

Fagan, J., (1989). Thtgocial Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing
Among Urban Gangs. Criminology, 27, 4, 633-669.

 

Farrington, DP, (1979). Longitudinal Research on Crime and
Delingpency in Norval Morris and Michael Tonry (eds), Crime and Justice, An
Annual Review, Vol. I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 289-348.

Farrington, DP, (1986). Age and Crime in Michael Tonry and Norval
Morris, Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farrington, D.P. & Hawkins, JD, (1991). Predicting Participation, Early
Onset and Later Persistence Mfficiallv Recorded Offending. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 1, 1-33.

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, (1997). Crime in the United States 1997.
Uniform Crime Reports. US. Department of Justice: Washington DC.

Ferguson, T., (1952). The Young Delinquent in His Social Setting.
London: Oxford University Press.

Gottfredson, MR. & Hirschi, T., (1990). A General Theory of Crime.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Hagedorn, J., (1988). People and Folks. Chicago: Lake View Press.

Hamparian, D.M., Schuster, R., Dinitz, S. & Conrad, JP, (1978). The
Violent Few. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath.

Heise, JP, (1979). Norms and Individual Patterns in Student Deviancy.
Social Problems, 16, 1, 78-92.

Hindelang, M.J., (1971). Age, Sex and the Versatil'fly of Delinguent

lnvolvements. Social Problems, 18, 522-535.

Horney, J.D., Osgood, W. & Marshall, I.H., (1995). Criminal Careers in
the Short Term: lntra-individual Variabili in Crime and its Relation to Local Life
Circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60, 655-673.

Horowitz, R., (1990). Sociological Perspectives on Gangs: Conflicting
Definitions and Concepts in Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, pp. 37-54.

     

55

Huff, R., (1990). Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Illinois Institute for Juvenile Research, (1972). Juvenile Delinquency in
Illinois. Chicago: Illinois Department of Mental Health.

Johnstone, J. W. C., (1978). “Social Class Social Areas and
Qelingpency.” Sociology and Social Research, 63, 1, 49-72.

 

NPA Data Services, (1997). Key Indicators of County Growth 1970—2025.
NPA Data Services, Inc.: Washington DC.

Klein, M.W., (1971). Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.

Klein, M. W., (1995). The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford.

McGahey, R., (1988). Jobs and Crime. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Merton, R., (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological
Review, 3, 5, 672-682.

Miller, W.B., (1958);.ower Class Culture as a Generating Miligr of Ga_ng_
Delinguency. The Journal of Social Issues, 14, 1, 5-19.

Miller, W., (1980). Gangs, Groups and Serious Youth Crime. Critical
Issues in Juvenile Delinquency. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Moffitt, TE, (1993). Adolescence-limited and Life-course Persistent
Antisocial Behavior: A _D_evelopmental Taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100,
674-701.

Moore, J. W., (1985). “Isolation and Stigmatization in the Development of
an Underclass: The Case of Chicano Gangs in East Los Angeles.” Social

Problems, 33, 1-33.

Nagin, D.S. & Farrington, DP, (1992). The Onset and Persistence of
Offending. Criminology. 32, 277-300.

Nagin, D.S. & Land, KC, (1993). Age, Criminal Careers, and Population

Heterogeneig: Specification and Estimation of a Nonparametric, Mixed Poisson
Model. Criminology, 31, 327-362.

Nagin, D.S. & Paternoster R., (1991). On the Relationship of Past and
Future Participation in Delinguency. Criminology, 29, 163-190.

 

56

Osgood, D.W. 81 Rowe, DC, (1994). Bridging Criminal Careers, Theogy,

and Policy through Latent Variable Models of Individual Offending. Criminology,
32, 517-552.

 

Patterson, G.R. & Yoerger, K., (1993). Developmental Models for
Delinquent Behavior. In Shelilah Hodgins, Mental Disorder and Crime. Newbury
Park, California: Sage.

Petersilia, J., & Greenwood, P.W. (1978). Mandatogy Prison Sentences -
Their Projected Effects on Crime and Prison Populations. Journal of Criminal
Law & Criminology. 69, 4, 604-615.

Sampson, R. & Groves, W., (1989)Jommpnitv Structure and Crime -
Testing Social-Disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 4,
774-802.

Sampson, R.J. & Laub, J.l., (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and
Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.

San Diego Police Department, (1996). San Diego Annual Police Report.
San Diego, California.

Shaw, CR, (1930). The Jackroller. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Shaw, C. R. & McKay, H. D., (1931). Report on the Causes of Crime.
Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.

Shaw, C. R. & McKay, H. D., (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban
Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Short, J. F., (1990). “ ew Wine in Old Bottles? Change and Continuiy in
American Gangs” in Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff. Beverly Hills,

California: Sage, pp. 223-239.

Short, J.F., & Nye, FL, (1957). Reported Behavior as a Criterion of
Deviant Behavior. Social Problems, 5, 207-213.

Short, J.F., Jr., 81 Strodtbeck, FL, (1965). Group Process and Gang
Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, D., & Jarjoura, G., (1988). Social-Structure and Criminal
Victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 1, 27-52.

57

Spergel, I., (1990). Strategies and perceived agency effectiveness in
dealing with the youth gang problem. Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Spergel, l., (1995). The Youth Gang Problem. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Taylor, CS, (1990). Dangerous Society. East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press._

Thornberry, TR, (1987). Toward an lnteractional Theory of Delinguency.
Criminology, 25, 863-891.

Thrasher, F., (1927). The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

US. Bureau of the Census, (1997). Current Population Reports.
Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Vigil, D., (1988). Barrio Gangs. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Whyte, W. F., (1955). Street Comer Society; the Social Structure of an
Italian Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilkins, LT, (1960). Delinguent Generations. Home Office Studies in
the Causes of Delinquency and the Treatment of Offenders. London: H. M.
Stationery Office.

Willstadter, R. (1981). An Analysis of Adult Arrest Transitions. Seattle:
Spectrum Analyis.

Yablonsky, L., (1962). The Violent Gang. New York: Macmillan.

58

MICHIGAN sran UNIV. LIBRARIES
lllllllllllIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllll
31293020581827