Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The LoneStar Project
This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-MU-CX-0111 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,and was made possible with the assistance of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
What have we learned about prison gangs?Findings from the LoneStar Project
David C. Pyrooz, Ph.D.Department of Sociology
Institute of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of Colorado Boulder
A Presentation to the UTEP Center for Law & Human Behavior
Email: [email protected]: (303) 492-3241
Twitter: @dpyrooz
The LoneStar Project
SCHEDULEUnderstanding prison gangs
1. The problem of prison gangs
2. The LoneStar Project
3. Characteristics of prison gangs/gang members
4. Power and control on the inside
5. Q & A
Responding to gangs
1. Joining/leaving in prison
2. Criminal and gang recidivism
3. Renouncement and disassociation
4. Policy/program implications
5. Q & A
The problem of prison gangs
Camp & Camp
(1985)
3% N=23
Wells et al.
(2002)
10% N=39
Hill
(2009)
12%, N=38
Winterdyk & Ruddell
(2010)
19% N=37
NGIC
(2011)
15% N=N/A
Pyrooz & Mitchell
(2018)
15% N=38
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1984 2002 2008 2009 2011 2016
% o
f P
riso
n P
op
ula
tion
, G
an
g A
ffil
iate
d
The LoneStar Project
SOME INCONCLUSIVE “FACTS”
• Misconduct, particularly violence
• Orchestration of riots and uprisings
• The control and distribution of contraband
• At the core of the prison social order
• Symbiosis between prison and street gangs
• Consequences for inmate recidivism
The LoneStar Project
Individuals, Groups, and Inference
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1900 1923 1930 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Nu
mb
er o
f P
ub
lica
tio
ns
Years
Total
Yearly
Research on Gangs (through 2014)
Source: Pyrooz and Mitchell (2015)
The LoneStar Project
CHALLENGES OF PRISON GANG RESEARCH
Robert Fong and Salvador Buentello (1991)
• Official documentation on gangs is underdeveloped
• Prison administration is reluctant to grant access to researchers
• Gangs are secretive and prohibit the sharing of information
The LoneStar Project
The LoneStar Project
WHAT IS THE LONESTAR PROJECT?
• National Institute of Justice • Research on Gangs and Gang Violence FY14
• “Gangs on the Street, Gangs in Prison: Their Nature, Interrelationship, Control and Reentry”
Texas Study of Trajectories, Associations, and Reentry
The LoneStar Project
The LoneStar Project
Texas, Prisons, and Gangs
The LoneStar Project
Baseline Wave 2 Wave 3
• Start: 4/18/2016
• End: 12/10/2016
• Retention: ---
• Constructs: 62
• Items: 1,190
• Start: 5/30/2016
• End: 5/9/2017
• Retention: 66.3%
• Constructs: 51
• Items: 1,126/1,508
• Start: 2/7/2017
• End: 2/26/2018
• Retention: 64.2%
• Constructs: 52
• Items: 1,180/1,552
THE LONESTAR PROJECT
16
Population:
Huntsville Unit
N=15,644
Sample:
Huntsville & Estelle Units
n=802
Disproportionate random sampling
Population:
Gang: 1,596 (10.2%);
Non-Gang: 14,048 (89.8%)
Response rate: 61%
Participation rate: 94%
Sample:
Gang: 368 (45.9%);
Non-Gang: 434 (54.1%)
Legend
Number of Respondents
Houston (n = 91)
Dallas (n = 171) San Antonio (n = 71)
82.5%
N=660
17.5%
N=140
35.8%
N=286
46.8%
N=374
10.0%
N=807.5%
N=60
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Concordance Discordance Admin (yes),
Survey (yes)
Admin (no),
Survey (no)
Admin (yes),
Survey (no)
Admin (no),
Survey (yes)
The Characteristics of Prison Gangs and Gang
Members
The LoneStar Project
Gang Members and Gangs in the LoneStar Project
20
Persons (N=441) Person-Gangs (N*G=477)
1. Tangos – all (5 sets) members:
2. Crips – all (4 sets):
3. Bloods – all (4 sets):
4. Aryan Brotherhood:
5. Mexican Mafia:
6. Aryan Circle:
7. Texas Syndicate:
8. Gangster Disciples:
9. Peckerwood:
10. Barrio Azteca:
11. Texas Chicano Brotherhood:
12. La Raza Unida:
13. Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos:
14. Surenos – all (2 sets):
15. Black Disciples:
16. - 8 gangs>1 N-G
G=34 gangs, N*G (>1 NG) =
+ 36 gangs = 1 N-G
109
66
57
34
25
16
18
11
10
9
8
7
5
5
3
36
405
441
1. Tangos – all (5 sets) members:
2. Crips – all (4 sets):
3. Bloods – all (4 sets):
4. Aryan Brotherhood:
5. Mexican Mafia:
6. Aryan Circle:
7. Texas Syndicate:
8. Gangster Disciples:
9. Peckerwood:
10. Barrio Azteca:
11. Texas Chicano Brotherhood:
12. La Raza Unida:
13. Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos:
14. Surenos – all (2 sets):
15. Black Disciples:
16. - 13 gangs>1 N-G
G=39 gangs, N*G (>1 NG) =
+ 33 gangs = 1 N-G
111
70
59
34
25
17
18
12
10
9
8
7
5
10
3
36
434
477
DIFFERENCES SIMILARITIESNon-Gang, (N=454)
Mean/% (SD)Gang, (N=346)Mean/% (SD)
Non-Gang, (N=454)Mean/% (SD)
Gang, (N=346)Mean/% (SD)
Demographic/IndividualAge in years 41.64 (10.40) 34.55 (13.67) * Black 28.7% 21.3%Latino 27.8% 41.3% * Married 13.9% 14.8%White 35.7% 22.4% * In a relationship 15.6% 19.0%Education 11.74 (1.65) 10.95 (2.27) * Single 70.6% 66.2%
Low self-control 1.33 (0.63) 1.56 (1.11) * Father 67.6% 72.1%Military veteran 10.9% 5.5%IQ 93.33 (10.88) 91.96 17.71)
EnvironmentalInformal social control 2.90 (0.79) 2.55 (1.45) * Prison social control 1.79 (0.78) 1.71 (1.26)Good place to live 74.8% 63.2% * Unstructured routines 2.24 (3.40) 2.36 (5.17)Gangs in neighborhood 44.8% 73.4% *Disorder in the prison 7.32 (1.87) 8.66 (2.57) *
HealthStress 0.80 (0.49) 0.96 (0.84) * BMI 27.69 (4.40) 27.66 (8.01)Self-rated health 2.01 (0.70) 2.23 (1.16) * Self-esteem 2.13 (0.44) 2.09 (0.80)Exposure to violence 1.60 (0.87) 2.26 (1.39) * Projected age of death 86.21 (15.85) 87.52 (32.03)
Social ConnectionsEmbeddedness in gangs -0.44 (0.54) 0.73 (1.59) * Social distance 1.03 (0.42) 1.09 (0.72)
Family social support 2.36 (0.65) 2.50 (1.02) * Friend social support 1.86 (0.79) 1.87 (1.34)Criminal peers 0.65 (0.59) 0.97 (1.17) *
Attitudes and BeliefsCode of the street 1.88 (0.70) 2.42 (1.14) * Ethnic ID—cultural 3.07 (0.49) 3.20 (0.86)Convict code 2.47 (0.48) 2.80 (0.78) * Spirituality/religiosity 3.07 (0.78) 2.93 (1.27)Legitimacy 1.59 (0.43) 1.37 (0.74) *Procedural justice 1.14 (0.50) 0.99 (0.77) *Ethnic ID—social 3.18 (0.53) 3.01 (1.13) *
Criminal Justice SystemAge at first arrest 21.05 (6.87) 18.09 (8.73) * Number of arrests 8.47 (5.04) 9.08 (8.53)
Prison stints 1.87 (1.08) 1.73 (1.43)Years incarcerated 4.33 (4.63) 4.78 (7.31)Violent offender 38.4% 43.7%
2%
6%
9%
21%
25%26%
35%
54%
48%
64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Group 1:
2-8 RFs
(N=97)
Group 2:
9-10 RFs
(N=87)
Group 3:
11-12 RFs
(N=124)
Group 4:
13 RFs
(N=79)
Group 5:
14 RFs
(N=87)
Group 6:
15 RFs
(N=71)
Group 7:
16 RFs
(N=74)
Group 8:
17 RFs
(N=54)
Group 9:
18 RFs
(N=49)
Group 10:
19-23 RFs
(N=80)
% G
an
g-I
nv
olv
ed i
n P
riso
n
RFs=Number of Risk Factors
The LoneStar Project 23
Prison Gang Street Gang
Race/ethnicity Single race or ethnicity Mostly single race or ethnicity
Age Concentrated in mid-20s, with members 30s-40s Average age in upper teens
Organizational Structure Hierarchical Situational/Hierarchical
Sources of violence Symbolic and instrumental; Core activitySymbolic;
Core activity
Offending style Entrepreneurial Cafeteria style
Visibility of Behavior Covert Overt
Drug traffickingMajor activity;
Organized, collective
Varies;
Mostly individualistic
Loyalty to gang Absolute Weak bonds
Key to membershipUnqualified fidelity; Abide by gang rules;
Willingness to engage in violence
Real or perceived fidelity; Abide by street rules;
Hanging out
Key psychological attributes Oppositional to Correctional Authorities;
Intimidation; Control; Manipulation
Oppositional to authority; Intimidation;
Camaraderie
The LoneStar Project 24
Street
only
Prison
only
Street/
PrisonTotal
Any
Street
Any
Prison
f f f f % %
STG: admin. segregated
Aryan Brotherhood 0 0 34 34 100% 100%
Aryan Circle 0 0 17 17 100% 100%
Barrio Azteca 0 0 9 9 100% 100%
Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos 0 0 5 5 100% 100%
Mexican Mafia 0 0 25 25 100% 100%
Raza Unida 0 0 7 7 100% 100%
Texas Syndicate 0 2 16 18 89% 100%
Gang Type Total 0 2 113 115 98% 100%
STG: no admin. segregated
Bloods (all) 7 0 52 59 100% 88%
Crips (all) 6 0 64 70 100% 91%
Partido Revolucionario Mex. 0 1 3 4 75% 100%
Texas Chicano Brotherhood 0 0 8 8 100% 100%
Texas Mafia 0 1 3 4 75% 100%
Gang Type Total 13 2 130 145 99% 91%
Street
only
Prison
only
Street/
PrisonTotal
Any
Street
Any
Prison
f f f f % %
Prison-oriented
Mandingo Warriors 0 2 0 2 0% 100%
Mexicles 0 2 2 4 50% 100%
Peckerwood 0 6 4 10 40% 100%
Tangos 1 63 47 111 43% 99%
Single-rep. gangs 0 2 0 2 0% 100%
Gang Type Total 1 75 53 129 42% 99%
Street-oriented
18th street – other 4 0 1 5 100% 20%
Aryan Nation 0 0 2 2 100% 100%
Bad Boys 2 0 0 2 100% 0%
Black Disciples 0 0 3 3 100% 100%
Black Widows 2 0 0 2 100% 0%
Gangster Disciples 2 0 10 12 100% 83%
Latin Kings 2 0 2 4 100% 50%
Northsiders 4 0 0 4 100% 0%
Surenos – all 9 0 4 13 100% 31%
Vice Lords 0 0 3 3 100% 100%
Single-rep. gangs 32 0 6 38 100% 16%
Gang Type Total 57 0 31 88 100% 35%
Dichotomy of Street and Prison Gangs?
The LoneStar Project
Group-Level Characteristics
25
Instrumental Expressive Profit-Generation Communication
The LoneStar Project
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION
0 1 2 3 4
Vice LordsSurenos - GeneralSurenos - Eastside
Party of Mexican RevolutionNorthsidersLatin Kings
Gangster DisciplesBlack Widows
Black DisciplesBad Boys
Aryan NationAmbrose Folk Nation
18th Street - Vagos18th Street
Tango - West TexasTango - VallucoTango - Orejon
Tango - HoustoneTango - General
PeckerwoodMexicles
Mandingo Warriors
Texas MafiaTexas Chicano Brotherhood
Crips - Rollin 60sCrips - General
Crips - GangsterCrips - 52 Hoover
Bloods - Tree Top PiruBloods - General
Bloods - Bounty Hunter
Texas SyndicateMexican MafiaLa Raza Unida
Hermanos Pistoleros LatinosBarrio AztecaAryan Circle
Aryan Brotherhood
Str
eet-
ori
ente
dP
riso
n-o
rien
ted
ST
G—
not
segre
gat
edS
TG
—se
gre
gat
edInstrumental
0 1 2 3 4
Expressive
0 1 2 3 4
Profit-Generation
0 1 2 3 4
Communication
The LoneStar Project
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION
0 1 2 3 4
Vice LordsSurenos - GeneralSurenos - Eastside
Party of Mexican RevolutionNorthsidersLatin Kings
Gangster DisciplesBlack Widows
Black DisciplesBad Boys
Aryan NationAmbrose Folk Nation
18th Street - Vagos18th Street
Tango - West TexasTango - VallucoTango - Orejon
Tango - HoustoneTango - General
PeckerwoodMexicles
Mandingo Warriors
Texas MafiaTexas Chicano Brotherhood
Crips - Rollin 60sCrips - General
Crips - GangsterCrips - 52 Hoover
Bloods - Tree Top PiruBloods - General
Bloods - Bounty Hunter
Texas SyndicateMexican MafiaLa Raza Unida
Hermanos Pistoleros LatinosBarrio AztecaAryan Circle
Aryan Brotherhood
Str
eet-
ori
ente
dP
riso
n-o
rien
ted
ST
G—
not
segre
gat
edS
TG
—se
gre
gat
edInstrumental
0 1 2 3 4
Expressive
0 1 2 3 4
Profit-Generation
0 1 2 3 4
Communication
The LoneStar Project
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION
0 1 2 3 4
Vice LordsSurenos - GeneralSurenos - Eastside
Party of Mexican RevolutionNorthsidersLatin Kings
Gangster DisciplesBlack Widows
Black DisciplesBad Boys
Aryan NationAmbrose Folk Nation
18th Street - Vagos18th Street
Tango - West TexasTango - VallucoTango - Orejon
Tango - HoustoneTango - General
PeckerwoodMexicles
Mandingo Warriors
Texas MafiaTexas Chicano Brotherhood
Crips - Rollin 60sCrips - General
Crips - GangsterCrips - 52 Hoover
Bloods - Tree Top PiruBloods - General
Bloods - Bounty Hunter
Texas SyndicateMexican MafiaLa Raza Unida
Hermanos Pistoleros LatinosBarrio AztecaAryan Circle
Aryan Brotherhood
Str
eet-
ori
ente
dP
riso
n-o
rien
ted
ST
G—
not
segre
gat
edS
TG
—se
gre
gat
edInstrumental
0 1 2 3 4
Expressive
0 1 2 3 4
Profit-Generation
0 1 2 3 4
Communication
The LoneStar Project
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION
0 1 2 3 4
Vice LordsSurenos - GeneralSurenos - Eastside
Party of Mexican RevolutionNorthsidersLatin Kings
Gangster DisciplesBlack Widows
Black DisciplesBad Boys
Aryan NationAmbrose Folk Nation
18th Street - Vagos18th Street
Tango - West TexasTango - VallucoTango - Orejon
Tango - HoustoneTango - General
PeckerwoodMexicles
Mandingo Warriors
Texas MafiaTexas Chicano Brotherhood
Crips - Rollin 60sCrips - General
Crips - GangsterCrips - 52 Hoover
Bloods - Tree Top PiruBloods - General
Bloods - Bounty Hunter
Texas SyndicateMexican MafiaLa Raza Unida
Hermanos Pistoleros LatinosBarrio AztecaAryan Circle
Aryan Brotherhood
Str
eet-
ori
ente
dP
riso
n-o
rien
ted
ST
G—
not
segre
gat
edS
TG
—se
gre
gat
edInstrumental
0 1 2 3 4
Expressive
0 1 2 3 4
Profit-Generation
0 1 2 3 4
Communication
Power and Control
The LoneStar Project
Who “Runs” Prisons?
32
Non-Gang Members(N=454)
Gang Members(N=346) Diff.
Rules% Agree % Agree
It is more important to follow the rules:
. . . gangs set than prisoners set 15.7% 44.5% Large
. . . gangs set than the prison staff 17.7% 40.8% Large
. . . prisoners set than the prison staff 30.4% 47.7% Medium
How fearful of punishment for violating:
% Very or Somewhat
Fearful
% Very or Somewhat
Fearful
. . . the rules that prisoners set 6.8% 12.7% Small
. . . the rules that gangs set 16.2% 23.5% Medium
. . . the rules that prison staff set 13.4% 9.0% Medium
Non-Gang Members(N=454)
Gang Members(N=346) Diff.
Order % Agree % Agree
Prisons would be more violent w/o gangs 18.5% 34.1% Medium
Gangs help maintain order in prisons 34.2% 65.6% Large
Gangs fix problems better than COs 28.1% 60.7% Large
Prison suffers when gangs have problems 81.9% 80.9% None
COs must talk to gangs to make changes 36.4% 48.3% Medium
Gangs make you feel safer in prison 6.2% 14.8% Medium
Non-gang inmates have hard time 25.9% 29.5% Small
I trust gangs to fix my problems, not COs 15.0% 38.7% Large
Control % Agree % Agree
Approval of gangs is required for selling:. . . drugs 28.8% 46.4% Medium. . . cell phones 24.2% 41.8% Medium. . . other contraband 20.7% 37.1% Medium
Gangs get a cut of contraband profits 20.8% 31.7% Medium
33
Nuances of Gangs and Power
• Changes in prison gangs
“Everything has gotten watered
down, calmed down. It is not as
violent as it used to be. It’s a new
generation, younger, that doesn’t
necessarily have the same morals as
what the older generation does.”
“Less violence now. More inner strife
within the family itself. You don’t
really see opposite gangs go at each
other.”
“Prison is washed up. It is not what it
used to be. It used to be more
disciplined and gangs meant
something. Now the gangs don’t
mean anything”
• Rules and social order“you can find a way to do both [inmate
code and gang rules] but it is most
important to follow the gang”
• Control of contraband
“If you’re not in the gang, you’re not
going to sell nothing.”
“Only if you are affiliated with them
[prison gangs] – they have guidelines.
If they want to get something dropped
out they get a “basketball” (literally)
which is full of cellphones, drugs, etc.
Once the people [gang members] get it
they are supposed to split it between
the person and their family [gang].
That is why you get so much at one
time.
• Street/prison symbiosis
“If they was having trouble with
someone in the street or somebody
snitched on them, then that person
comes to prison, then they send word to
prison we take care of it here.”
“If there’s a war going on in the world,
in the penitentiary, the same rival gang,
there’s a war, whatever goes on the
outside goes on inside, it works outside-
in.”
“The inside pretty much controls the
outside. So they didn’t really do much
on the outside if the inside didn’t let
them.”
Joining and Leaving Gangs in Prison
Sample Street Prison
N=799
Pre-prison:
- 18% Gang
- 82% Non-gang
N=231
Street Importation
N=151
Street Only
N=80
N=5
N=3
Street Importation
N=151
N=36
Prison Origination
N=209
N=3
(8%)
(12%)
N=359
(70%)
Never
Gang
Street
Only
Prison
Origination
(10%) Street
Importation
WHY DO THEY JOIN?
Pushes (external to the gang) and Pulls (internal to the gang)
Joining on the street
• Normative influence (50%)
• Belonging (29%)
• Economic (12%)
• Status (11%)
• Ideology (8%)
• Adjustment/guidance (5%)
• Protection (4%)
Joining in prison
• Normative influence (30%)
• Belonging (25%)
• Ideology (25%)
• Protection (21%)
• Status (13%)
• Adjustment/guidance (8%)
• Economic (7%)
HOW DO THEY JOIN?
Passive and Active
Joining on the street
• Jumped in (59%)
• Prospected (12%)
• Other violence (12%)
• Nothing (10%)
• Attacked rivals/exes (9%)
• Other non-violence (7%)
• Gang ties (5%)
Joining in prison
• Jumped in (48%)
• Prospected (20%)
• Other violence (18%)
• Nothing (15%)
• Attacked rivals/exes (7%)
• Other non-violence (6%)
• Gang ties (2%)
WHY DO THEY LEAVE?
Pushes (internal to the gang) and Pulls (external to the gang)
Left on the street
• Disillusionment (76%)
• Family (38%)
• Triggering events (29%)
• Positive influences (13%)
• CJ involvement (10%)
• Gang structure (2%)
• Work (2%)
• Religion (2%)
Left in prison
• Disillusionment (79%)
• Family (36%)
• CJ involvement (26%)
• Triggering events (12%)
• Religion (10%)
• Positive influences (6%)
• Gang structure (5%)
• Work (1%)
HOW DO THEY LEAVE?
Passive and Active
Left on the street
• Nothing (40%)
• Stopped associating (24%)
• Giving notice (18%)
• Jumped out (16%)
• Moved (8%)
• Permission/meeting (3%)
• Intervention (2%)
Left in prison
• Giving notice (34%)
• Nothing (27%)
• Jumped out (14%)
• Intervention (12%)
• Stopped associating (12%)
• Permission/meeting (7%)
• Moved (4%)
Criminal Justice
Rival Gangs
Family
Gang
POST-EXIT VALIDATION
Self
Criminal and Gang Recidivism
REARREST
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Perc
en
t A
rrest
ed
Months Post-Release
Everyone Non-Gang Active Gang Former Gang
RECONVICTION
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24P
erc
en
t R
eco
nvi
cte
dMonths Post-Release
Everyone Non-Gang Active Gang Former Gang
REINCARCERATION
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16P
erc
en
t R
ein
carc
era
ted
Months Post-Release
Everyone Non-Gang Active Gang Former Gang
GANG CONTINUITY AND CHANGE
Gang Renouncement and Disassociation
WHAT IS GRAD?Stage
Disassociation Investigation
Phase I: Normalization
Phase II: Socialization
Phase III: Reintegration
Unit Administrative segregation
Ramsey or Ellis “GRAD wing”Red wristbands
Ramsey or Ellis "GRAD wing" Orange wristbands
Ramsey or Ellis “gen pop”Blue wristbands
Time 12 months 2 months 4 months 3 months
Contact None Limited contact Single-celled; First month, solo rec time; Second month, double rec
Expanded contact Double-cell with inmate from
historical rival (race, gang); Group-based programming
Standard contact General population
interaction
Privileges None Limited privileges
More in-and-out of cell privileges;
One visit per weekend
Phase I, plus: Different clothing (2-piece
rather than white jumper); More programming and
movement
Phase II, plus: Regular visitation; Phone calls; Commissary; Work assignments; GRAD completion ceremony
Programming NoneSTG office investigates sincerity/commitment, conflicts, and eligibility* Informants and state's witnesses can bypass this phase
Stabilizing programming
In-cell videotaped lessons Substance abuse Domestic violence "Thinking errors“
Counselor meetings
Classroom programming
Cognitive intervention (180 hours), journaling
68 hours of substance abuse, anger management, and criminal addictive behaviors
Role playing, group activities
Vocational opportunities
When educational classes are not in session, comparable to GP inmates
WHO PARTICIPATES IN GRAD?All (N=117) Non-GRAD (N=64) GRAD (N=53)
Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Different?
Age (in years) 43.61 (8.77) 42.00 (9.24) 45.56 (7.83) YesLatino 49.6% 48.4% 50.9% NoWhite 40.2% 39.1% 41.5% No
Multi-racial 10.3% 12.5% 7.5% No
Skin color (0-10) 1.83 (1.00) 1.97 (0.99) 1.66 (0.99) No
Married 14.5% 14.1% 15.1% No
In a relationship 10.3% 6.3% 15.1% No
Single 75.2% 79.7% 69.8% No
Father 69.2% 68.8% 69.8% No
TDCJ stints 3.09 (1.68) 3.00 (1.55) 3.19 (1.84) No
Prior arrests count 11.50 (6.56) 11.11 (6.93) 11.96 (6.12) No
Violent offender 37.6% 40.6% 34.0% No
Eligible gangs N N NAryan Brotherhood 31 18 13Aryan Circle 15 5 10Barrio Azteca 8 4 4Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos 6 3 3Mexican Mafia 23 13 10Raza Unida 8 3 5Texas Mafia 4 3 1Texas Syndicate 22 15 7
GANG MEMBERSHIP
21%
73%
56%
44%
3%
95%
9%
91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Survey:
Current gang
Survey:
Former gang
Official:
Current gang
Official:
Former gang
Non-GRAD GRAD
GANG EMBEDDEDNESS
0.28 0.28
0.21
0.02
0.15
0.33
0.15
-0.34 -0.33
-0.25
-0.03
-0.18
-0.40
-0.18
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Gang embedded Position
in gang
Importance
of gang
Gang
fights
Influence
on gang
Contact
w/ gang
Friends in
gang
zsc
ore
Non-GRAD GRAD
MISCONDUCT AND VICTIMIZATION
44%
20%
39%
25%
18%
40%
14%
34%
24%20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Survey:
Any
Misconduct
Survey:
Violent
Misconduct
Official:
Any
Misconduct
Survey:
Any
Victimization
Survey:
Violent
Victimization
Non-GRAD GRAD
Implications for Policy and Practice
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
1. Mass incarceration and gangs
2. Gang-oriented programming
3. Group intervention in prison
4. The grip of the gang
5. Prison as a turning point
6. Gang variation
7. Housing gang members
8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs
9. Preparing gang members for reentry
Thank you
@dpyrooz
Department of Sociology
Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309
303-492-3241
This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-MU-CX-0111 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The research contained in this document was coordinated in part by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (723-AR15). The contents of this article, including its opinions, findings, and conclusions, are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.