Table of Contents Title Page Juvenile Justice Policy and Problems, Policies, and
Program Performance in the States NEBRASKA-Portraying Juvenile Crime over Time MASSACHUSETTS- Evaluating Cops and Kids NEW MEXICO-Mixing Juveniles with Adults |
ARIZONA-Assessing Juvenile Gang Activity From
"Street Gangs in Arizona 1998," by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and
the Arizona Statistical Analysis Center. Problem Statement Although juvenile gangs have existed in the United States for decades, gangs today are much more violent, criminally oriented, and better armed than in the past and require more determined and extensive response from public safety officials. Gangs in Arizona can be categorized based on the racial and ethnic backgrounds of their members: Hispanic, Black, Native American, Asian, and White. While some Hispanic gangs were in Arizona in the early 1940s, the roots of most of the state’s current street gangs can be traced to street gangs in Los Angeles County, which have existed since the turn of the century. Other gangs formed as the Chicago or Midwestern gang culture invaded Arizona in the 1970s and 1980s. As years passed and neighborhoods became more integrated, some gangs began to take on multiethnic characteristics. These are known as hybrid gangs. Females were taken on later as associates and in some cases made full-fledged gang members; some later formed their own street gangs. Prison gangs, also known as security threat groups (STGs), formed along the same lines as street gangs. Ethnic street gang members sentenced to prison aligned with each other for protection from other inmates. These gangs engaged in criminal conduct in and out of prison. Most STG members continued their group associations and criminal activity upon their release from prison. To address the growing problem of street gangs, in 1997 the Arizona legislature passed S.B. 1446, amending a variety of state statutes affecting juvenile law and making wide-ranging changes in treatment of juvenile offenders in the state adult and juvenile justice systems. As amended, state law required that juveniles 15 years of age or older who were chronic offenders or accused of specified violent offenses would be tried as adults in adult court. It also provided for juvenile restitution in all applicable juvenile offenses. The law gave prosecutors discretion to charge in adult court juveniles 14 years of age or older and/or chronic offenders for a variety of designated offenses. Finally, the law opened to the public records of juvenile proceedings and matters involving juveniles accused of unlawful conduct. The only exceptions were for protection of innocent victims of a crime or if a court of competent jurisdiction found clear public interest in confidentiality. Part of the ongoing response to gang activity by Arizona public safety officials involved the development of street gang units and task forces. At the time of the passage of the 1997 law, three major types of these agencies existed-multiagency street gang task forces within counties, local street gang units, and the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM), Arizona’s statewide multiagency task force. The latter coordinated federal, tribal, state, county, and municipal levels to influence the state’s street gang-related criminal activity and to increase available information and capacity to deal with and to document the existence of street gangs and their members throughout Arizona. As part of this information-based mission, in 1997 the Arizona Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) in the state Criminal Justice Commission completed two major surveys which were part of an established survey process. The first was a large-scale survey done annually since 1990 of state criminal justice agencies concerned with gang activity. The SAC also conducted a second survey, one in a 10-year series of surveys, of public elementary and secondary students regarding their involvement in gangs. Purposes of Data The survey data collected provided detailed information on perspectives and priorities of public safety agencies concerned with gang activity, and on the scope and nature of gang activity in Arizona. The data also allowed the researchers to examine student perspectives on gang activity in their neighborhoods and schools. The overall function of the survey data collected was to provide a statistical portrait of juvenile gang activity that could be compared to results of previous years’ surveys to identify trends and changes. The data were also available for snapshot identification of key elements and variables in gang activity in Arizona in 1997. Data Collection The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and its SAC sent surveys to four sets of public safety agencies concerned with juvenile gang activity-law enforcement, prosecution, probation, and corrections. This totaled 121 federal, state, county, municipal, tribal, and airport law enforcement agencies, 17 prosecutors, 24 probation agencies, and the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. The commission received 79 completed surveys from law enforcement (65% of the total), 10 from prosecutors (59%), and 21 from probation agencies (88%). Both corrections departments responded. The total response rate was 68%. Of the law enforcement agencies responding, 2 were federal agencies (the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), 1 was a state agency (the Arizona Department of Public Safety), 14 were county sheriff agencies, 60 were municipal police departments or Marshall’s Offices, and 4 were tribal police agencies. These agencies represented approximately 95% of the state’s population. Nine of the 10 prosecutors responding to the survey served Arizona county attorney offices, with the tenth being the Arizona Attorney General. Only one adult and one juvenile probation agency did not respond, and all Arizona counties were represented. Eight of the agencies were adult probation, 7 juvenile probation, and 6 a combination of juvenile and adult. The commission and the SAC asked all four groups about street gangs, gang member identification, task forces, needs and concerns about street gangs, and agency information. Street gang information questions dealt with collection and dissemination methods and information systems. All agencies were asked about their participation in local or regional street gang task forces. The commission and the SAC assessed needs and concerns by asking respondents about:
Law enforcement agencies were asked specific questions about:
Prosecutors were asked about:
Probation agencies were asked about:
The two state corrections departments were asked about STGs in their facilities and about gang members who were either incarcerated or on parole in 1997. The Arizona commission and the SAC also surveyed public school students about gang activity as part of a general survey begun in 1988 concerning attitudes and behavior related to substance abuse. The voluntary survey was conducted among grades 3-6 and 7-12 biannually within randomly selected schools. It was administered to 4,556 elementary and 8,601 secondary students, all of whom were representative of the state’s demographics in their race and urban or rural location. Among the gang-related questions were:
Secondary students were asked the following additional questions:
Data Analysis Based on Purposes of Data Responses to the survey questions were frequently uneven. For example, few prosecutors provided the information on dispositions and sentences and on criminal offense records, making presentation of these data impossible. Similarly, information on the numbers and types of gangs, gang members, and associates ("wannabes") varied among the law enforcement agencies and produced different results depending on who was being asked. The law enforcement agencies generally did not provide the arrest data requested. On the whole, however, the surveys produced a considerable amount of significant information. The state Department of Public Safety (DPS) estimated that in 1997 Arizona was home to 8,615 gang members. Of these, 6,226 were adults, 1790 were juveniles, and 599 were "age not ascertained." The department further identified 3,140 "wannabes" (street gang associates not directly tied to gangs but capable of participating in gang-related crime). Of the "wannabes," 2,248 were adults, 777 were juveniles, and 115 were "age not ascertained." DPS also noted a total of 701 reported gangs in Arizona in 1997, down from 799 in 1996. All law enforcement agencies stated that many Arizona gangs were involved in drug trafficking. The agencies varied in their identification of primary drugs but tended to emphasize cocaine in both its crack and powder forms, marijuana, and speed. The predominant type of drug being trafficked tended to vary depending on the ethnic composition of the gang. Of particular interest for policymakers was that the survey participants were very responsive in their ratings of the severity of the street gang problem in the state. Asked whether they saw the problem as "diminishing," "currently under control," "growing but still controllable with available resources," or "growing out of control," most respondents agreed with one or the other of the middle two options. Both the FBI and ATF agreed with DPS and the majority of county sheriffs that the problem was growing but still controllable. A majority of municipal law enforcement agencies (30 of 55 respondents), however, stated that the problem was currently under control, while one said that the problem was diminishing. Twelve of the 21 probation departments believed that the problem was currently under control or diminishing. No respondent from any source said the problem was out of control. Most respondents, therefore, saw at least some success from their efforts to address the street gang problem in their jurisdictions. In the student surveys, of the 13,157 students responding, only 6% self-reported membership in a gang, and only 3.4% stated that they would like to join a gang. Almost 91% stated that they had no interest in joining a gang. These results were not significantly different from 1995 survey results, indicating that the juvenile gang problem did not seem to be growing among Arizona students. The researchers noted, however, that since gang members are frequently school dropouts, the survey did not deliver a full picture of juvenile attitudes about, and interest in, street gangs. Seventeen percent of the students surveyed said that they had a gang member in their family, the same percentage as in 1995. Thirty-two percent said that they knew gang members in their neighborhoods, down 11% from 1995. Forty-four percent stated that they knew gang members at their school, down 21% from 1995. The researchers noted that the students might not have differentiated between "wannabes" and actual street gang members. Demographically, although 52% of the students surveyed were male, 70% of the self-described gang members were male. While the total sample contained 50% White students, 26% Hispanic, 3% Black, and 10% Native American, the respective percentages in the group of self-described street gang members were 23%, 34%, 5%, and 25%. The largest percentages of self-described street gang members by grade were in grades 6 through 9. The survey questions concerning presence of weapons at school did not differentiate by weapon. Of the students responding to the question, 64% of high school students, 56% of middle/junior high students, and 44% of elementary school students reported bringing some type of weapon to school at least once in the last year. Recommendations Neither the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission nor the SAC offered specific recommendations based on the analysis of the survey data collected. However, the researchers did ask public safety respondents to state priorities for further action, creating a list of recommendations for policymakers to consider in the future. The FBI stated that more aggressive prosecution and stricter sentencing were the greatest needs, followed by stricter enforcement and public education and awareness; the ATF agreed with more aggressive prosecution but placed stricter enforcement over stricter sentencing. The priorities for the Arizona DPS were training of personnel and intervention/prevention programs, followed by public education and identification of gang members. County sheriffs identified greater networking/intelligence, public education, and stricter sentencing as their top concerns, while municipal officers stressed prosecution, public education, and stricter sentencing. Prosecutors agreed with prosecution and public education but focused on training/education of criminal justice personnel over stricter sentencing. The probation agencies emphasized establishment of community programs, then intervention/prevention programs, followed by prosecution and stricter sentencing. The state Department of Corrections ranked identification of gang members, agency networking and information exchange, and intervention and prevention as their priorities; the state Department of Juvenile Corrections ranked public education, intelligence and identification of gang members, and intervention/prevention programs highest. Although varying to some extent by parochial and self-interested concerns, the priorities overall demonstrate enough overlap and agreement to assure policymakers of the legitimacy of the priorities and the interest in seeing solutions in those areas implemented effectively in the future. Real and Potential Applications of Data As part of long-established surveys of public safety officials and public school students, the data collected here will be extremely valuable in identifying trends and changes over time in the activity of juvenile gangs. With adequate time frames for setting baselines and for judging the effects of policy and programmatic shifts, the data will permit especially well-informed policymaking in Arizona in the future and prevent officials from overreacting in the face of the generally satisfactory perspectives of juvenile street gang activity presented. The overall agreement in priorities among involved agencies suggests that more integration and coordination of juvenile gang-related policy in the future will be possible. Moreover, many jurisdictions outside the state collect similar survey data, especially from public schools, on a periodic basis. The Arizona data can be used for comparative purposes such as benchmarking by other states doing these types of surveys and concerned with similar policy problems. In all, the data collected in the two surveys provide a thorough and convincing portrait of juvenile gang activity which policymakers can consult when making decisions about the problem.
|