Arizona gang threat assessment

              2 0 0 7 A r i z o n a G a n g
T h r e a t A s s e s s m e n t
2011 May, revised
Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona
A r i z o n a C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e C o m m i s s i o n
Statistical Analysis Center Publication
ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
Chairperson
RALPH OGDEN
Yuma County Sheriff
Vice-Chairperson
DANIEL G. SHARP, Chief
Oro Valley Police Department
JOHN R. ARMER
Gila County Sheriff
JOSEPH ARPAIO
Maricopa County Sheriff
DUANE BELCHER, Chairperson
Board of Executive Clemency
DAVID K. BYERS, Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
CLARENCE DUPNIK
Pima County Sheriff
ROBERT C. HALLIDAY, Director
Department of Public Safety
TOM HORNE
Attorney General
ROBERT HUDDLESTON, Chief
Casa Grande Police Department
BARBARA LAWALL
Pima County Attorney
BILL MONTGOMERY
Maricopa County Attorney
CHARLES RYAN, Director
Department of Corrections
DAVID SANDERS
Pima County Chief Probation
Officer
LINDA SCOTT
Former Judge
GEORGE E. SILVA
Santa Cruz County Attorney
CARL TAYLOR
Coconino County Supervisor
Mayor
VACANT
Police Chief
VACANT
JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR.
Executive Director
JOY LITZENBERGER
Research Analyst
MICHELLE NEITCH
Research Analyst
PHILLIP STEVENSON, Director
Statistical Analysis Center
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Research Methods 2
Threat Assessment Survey Results 3
Statewide Results 3
Total Gang Membership 3
Level of Gang Activity Over Time 4
Gang Involvement in Crimes and Drugs 5
Level of Activity by Gang 8
Level of Organization 9
Use of Technology 10
Community Response 10
Most Effective Gang Responses 11
Task Force Involvement 11
Results by County 13
Total Gang Membership 13
Level of Gang Activity Over Time 15
Gang Involvement in Crimes and Drugs 18
Level of Gang Activity by Gang 31
Level of Gang Coordination 43
Use of Technology 43
Community Response 44
Most Effective Gang Responses 45
Task Force Involvement 46
Conclusion 47
Appendix A: Gangs Reported by County 48
Appendix B: Emerging Gang Trends in Community 49
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 1
Executive Summary
In the summer of 2007, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission surveyed law
enforcement officers in Arizona regarding gangs and gang activity in their jurisdictions.
This study was done to fulfill the requirements set out in Arizona Revised Statute §41-
2416 and is intended to provide relevant information about gangs and their level of
activity to criminal justice policy makers and practitioners.
Based upon the National Gang Threat Assessment conducted by the National Alliance of
Gang Investigators Associations in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
National Drug Intelligence Center, and Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives, the
survey was intended to get feedback from law enforcement on the threat posed by
gangs and the current level of gang activity in Arizona. Specifically, agencies were
asked questions about their jurisdiction related to gangs’ level of activity over time,
their level of involvement in crime and drugs, level of involvement of specific gangs,
how gangs are organized, and local responses to gangs. This report provides results for
the state and the 14 counties where gangs were reported to be present.1
Findings
Gangs were reported by local law enforcement agencies to be active in 57 of the 92
jurisdictions that responded to the survey. Thirty-eight agencies estimated a total of
20,873 gang members in their jurisdictions. The majority of agencies reported that
gang activity has increased over the short term (i.e., the past six months) and over time
(i.e., the last five years). The majority of agencies with a gang problem also reported
that gangs were expanding in their membership and scope of activities.
Assault was listed by nearly three-fourths of agencies (71.4 percent) as the primary
crime being committed by gangs. Agencies also reported a relatively high percentage
(38.6 percent) of gangs being involved in vandalism/graffiti/tagging in their jurisdiction.
Additionally, 36.8 percent of respondents reported that gangs have a high level of
involvement in the distribution of marijuana and 29.8 percent reported a high
involvement by gangs in the distribution of methamphetamine.
Over half of the agencies (57.1 percent) reported that gangs in their jurisdiction did not
coordinate with other gangs. Approximately three quarters of respondents reported that
gangs are using recently emerging technologies to communicate with one another.
Many agencies cited the use of My Space and similar sites by gang members.
When asked about the strategies that were most effective in responding to gangs,
enforcement and GIITEM were reported by the most agencies. Over half of the
agencies reported that they participate in a multi-agency task force, and 12.3 percent
reported that they lead a multi-agency task force. GIITEM was the most frequently
reported multi-agency task force in which respondents reported to be involved.
1 All responding agencies in Graham County reported that there was no gang activity in their jurisdiction.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 2
Introduction
During the summer of 2007, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) surveyed
law enforcement officers in Arizona regarding their experiences and perceptions of
gangs, gang members, and gang activity in their jurisdictions. This report examines and
summarizes the results of the survey. This study fulfills the requirements set out in
Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) §41-2416, which requires ACJC to conduct an annual
survey that measures the prevalence of gang activity in Arizona, when monies are
specifically appropriated for that purpose. Although no funds were appropriated for this
assessment, gangs remain a significant threat to public safety in Arizona and ACJC
continues to collect this information using existing funds.
Research Methods
Beginning in 1990, the ACJC has periodically administered a gang survey to state,
county and local law enforcement agencies in Arizona. In the summer of 2007, the
Arizona Gang Survey was changed to the Arizona Gang Threat Assessment based on
feedback from the law enforcement community in Arizona requesting a more in-depth
analysis of current threats posed by gangs. The new Arizona Gang Threat Assessment
was modeled after the National Gang Threat Assessment. The national assessment is
conducted by the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations in partnership
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Drug Intelligence Center and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The first national assessment was
conducted in 2005, with surveys being sent out to hundreds of gang investigators
across the nation.
The Arizona Gang Threat Assessment was distributed to 113 law enforcement agencies
throughout Arizona in the summer of 2007. The survey was designed to gather
information related to the threat posed by gangs in Arizona, their current level of
activity, and other pertinent information to determine the level of threat to public safety
posed by gangs in Arizona. Surveys were sent to all 15 county sheriff’s offices, 73
municipal law enforcement agencies, six marshals, and 19 tribal police departments. Of
the 113 surveys distributed, 92 (81.4 percent) of the surveys were returned. A total of
86.7 percent of sheriffs, 84.9 percent of municipal law enforcement agencies, 100
percent of marshals, and 57.9 percent of tribal police departments returned surveys.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 3
Threat Assessment Survey Results
Statewide Results
Total Gang Membership
Representatives of 113 law enforcement
agencies were asked to complete a survey
that contained questions about gangs and
gang activity in their jurisdiction. Of the 92
agencies that responded to the survey, 62
percent stated that there were gangs in
their jurisdiction (up from 57.3 percent the
previous year), 35.9 percent stated that there were not, and 2.2 percent stated that
they were unsure if there were gangs in their area. Of the 57 agencies that responded
that there were gangs in their jurisdiction, 38 of the agencies together estimated a total
of 20,873 active gang members. Nineteen of the agencies reporting gang activity were
not able to provide an estimated number of gang members in their jurisdiction. For a
point of reference, there were 12,696 sworn officers working for Arizona law
enforcement agencies in 2007.3
Figure 1
Gangs or Gang Members within Jurisdiction
Percent of Responding Agencies in Arizona
Yes
62%
No
36%
Unsure/Don't know
2%
2 The total does not equal 100 percent in all tables due to rounding.
3 Crime in Arizona, 2007. Arizona Department of Public Safety.
Table 1: Gangs or Gang Members
Of the Jurisdictions Reporting Gang Activity2
Number Percent
Yes 57 62.0%
No 33 35.9%
Unsure/Don't know 2 2.2%
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 4
Level of Gang Activity Over Time
Agencies that reported gangs or gang members in their jurisdiction were asked to rate
the level of gang activity in their region as well as if membership and gang activities
were expanding. When asked whether gangs in their area were expanding their
numbers and scope of activities over 65 percent reported that gangs in their
jurisdictions were expanding their membership
and scope of activities (Table 2). The majority
of agencies also reported that the level of gang
activity has increased within the past six
months, 12 months, and five years. A small
percentage of agencies reported that the level
of gang activity has decreased over the three
time periods (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Level of Gang Activity over Time
41.8%
29.1%
7.3%
3.6%
56.4%
14.5%
9.1%
1.8%
35.2%
44.4%
13.0%
7.4%
0.0%
18.2% 18.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Increased Significantly Increased Slightly No Change Decreased Slightly Decreased Significantly
Percent of Agencies
6 Months 12 Months 5 Years
Table 2: Percentage of Jurisdictions
Reporting Expanding Gang Membership
And/Or Scope of Gang Activities
Of the Jurisdictions Reporting Gang Activity
Percent
Yes 65.5%
No 27.3%
Unsure/Don't know 7.3%
Total Responses 55
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 5
Gang Involvement in Crimes and Drugs
Agencies were asked to report the
primary crimes committed by gangs in
their jurisdiction (Table 3). This was an
open-ended question where agencies
were asked to list the crimes that were
being committed by gangs with no limit
to the number or type of crimes they
could report. Thirty-nine agencies, or
69.6 percent of the agencies reported
that assault was one of the primary
crimes committed by gangs in their
jurisdiction, followed by drugs (24
agencies), and burglary (21 agencies).
Agencies were also asked to rate the
level of gang involvement in 18
different crimes as well as the rate of
gang involvement in overall crime in
their jurisdictions. Agencies were given
five choices to rate the level of criminal
activity: high, moderate, low, none,
and unknown. Table 4 shows the
responses to these questions. The
category with the largest percentage of
agencies reporting that gang
involvement was high in those crimes
was vandalism/graffiti/tagging,
followed by drug street sales and
felonious assault. Conversely, for arson
and prostitution, 41.1 percent of
responding agencies reported that
there was no gang involvement in
these crimes in their jurisdiction. While the previous table shows that the greatest
number of agencies reported assault as being a primary crime committed by gangs,
table 4 shows that only 22.8 percent of agencies reported that gangs had a high
involvement in felonious assaults. This difference is likely due to agencies including all
assaults when responding to the previous question, but restricting their responses, as
directed, to felonious assaults in the question that followed.
Table 3: Primary Crimes Committed by Gangs
(Of the Jurisdictions Reporting Gang Activity)
Number Percent*
Assault 39 69.6%
Drugs 24 42.9%
Burglary 21 37.5%
Drugs - street sales 14 25.0%
Theft 14 25.0%
Criminal Damage 13 23.2%
Vandalism/Graffiti/Tagging 13 23.2%
Weapons 10 17.9%
Auto Theft 9 16.1%
Robbery 7 12.5%
Intimidation/Extortion 6 10.7%
Murder 6 10.7%
Threats 5 8.9%
Drive By Shootings 5 8.9%
Possession of Drugs 4 7.1%
Drug Trafficking 3 5.4%
Home Invasions 2 3.6%
Human Trafficking 2 3.6%
Narcotics 2 3.6%
Property Crimes Offenses 2 3.6%
Disorderly Conduct 2 3.6%
Battery 1 1.8%
Child Endangerment 1 1.8%
DUI 1 1.8%
Firearms Trafficking 1 1.8%
Fraud 1 1.8%
Identity Theft 1 1.8%
Larceny 1 1.8%
Public Intoxication 1 1.8%
Shoplifting 1 1.8%
Underage Drinking 1 1.8%
*Of the 56 agencies responding to this question.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 6
Table 4: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Of the Jurisdictions Reporting Gang Activity
High Moderate Low None Unknown Total Reponses
Vandalism/Graffiti/Tagging 38.6% 49.1% 7.0% 3.5% 1.8% 57
Felonious Assault 22.8% 33.3% 29.8% 7.0% 7.0% 57
Auto Theft 17.9% 30.4% 30.4% 7.1% 14.3% 56
Overall 14.3% 40.5% 38.1% 7.1% - 42
Intimidation/Extortion 14.3% 32.1% 33.9% 5.4% 14.3% 56
Burglary 14.0% 50.9% 15.8% 5.3% 14.0% 57
Identity Theft 12.3% 22.8% 19.3% 15.8% 29.8% 57
Robbery 8.9% 23.2% 42.9% 12.5% 12.5% 56
Firearms Trafficking 8.9% 23.2% 35.7% 12.5% 19.6% 56
Murder 3.6% 7.1% 46.4% 30.4% 12.5% 56
Fraud 3.5% 19.3% 35.1% 14.0% 28.1% 57
Human Trafficking 1.9% 11.1% 24.1% 25.9% 37.0% 54
Sexual Assault/Rape - 3.6% 50.0% 17.9% 28.6% 56
Kidnapping - 1.8% 44.6% 33.9% 19.6% 56
Prostitution - 3.6% 19.6% 41.1% 35.7% 56
Arson - 3.6% 21.4% 41.1% 33.9% 56
The National Gang Threat Assessment reported gang involvement for several crimes
using the same scale used for the Arizona Threat Assessment. In the national survey,
455 agencies nationwide responded. While methodologies for the two surveys were not
the same, some similarities can be seen in the results from the two surveys. In
particular, many of the crimes in which gang members had high levels of involvement
were identified by both assessments—vandalism and graffiti, felonious assault, and auto
theft were identified as the types of crime in which gang members have high levels of
involvement in by both assessments.
Table 5: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime in the Western Region*
2005 National Gang Threat Assessment
High Moderate Low None/ Unknown
Vandalism and Graffiti 60.1% 22.4% 9.8% 7.7%
Felonious Assault 45.5% 25.2% 18.2% 11.1%
Firearms Possession 43.4% 25.9% 14.7% 16.1%
Auto Theft 36.4% 31.5% 18.9% 13.3%
Firearms Burglary 28.7% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8%
Burglary 27.3% 33.6% 26.6% 12.6%
Homicide 27.3% 16.8% 31.5% 24.5%
Intimidation and Extortion 21.0% 27.3% 27.3% 24.5%
Firearms Trafficking 21.0% 17.5% 25.9% 35.7%
http://www.nagia.org/PDFs/2005_national_gang_threat_assessment.pdf
*The Western Region includes results from Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 7
In addition to level of gangs involvement by offense type, agencies were also asked to
rate how involved gangs were in the distribution of various drugs (Table 6). Arizona
agencies reported the highest amount of involvement among gangs in the distribution
of marijuana (36.8 percent) and methamphetamine (29.8 percent); the drug gangs
were the least active in distributing was MDMA (e.g., ecstasy).
Table 6: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Of the Arizona Jurisdictions Reporting Gang Activity
High Moderate Low None Unknown Total
Responses
Drugs - Street Sales 26.3% 43.9% 22.8% 1.8% 5.3% 57
Drugs - Wholesale 10.5% 21.1% 40.4% 5.3% 22.8% 57
Drugs - Manufacture 3.6% 3.6% 41.1% 19.6% 32.1% 56
Marijuana 36.8% 42.1% 15.8% 1.8% 3.5% 57
Methamphetamine 29.8% 36.8% 24.6% 3.5% 5.3% 57
Crack Cocaine 12.3% 17.5% 40.4% 8.8% 21.1% 57
Heroin 7.4% 16.7% 38.9% 14.8% 22.2% 54
Pharmaceuticals 5.4% 10.7% 32.1% 16.1% 35.7% 56
Powdered Cocaine 3.6% 16.1% 50.0% 7.1% 23.2% 56
MDMA (Ecstasy) and other analogs 3.6% 3.6% 42.9% 21.4% 28.6% 56
Results from the National Gang Threat Assessment reveal very similar results between
Western region and Arizona agencies. The Western region results, shown in table 7,
also reveal that Western region gangs have the highest level of involvement in the
distribution of marijuana, followed by methamphetamine and crack cocaine.
Table 7: Gang Involvement in Drug Distribution in the Western Region*
2005 National Gang Threat Assessment
High (%) Moderate (%) Low (%) None/ Unknown
(%)
Street Sales 39.2% 34.3% 16.1% 10.5%
Wholesale 20.3% 24.5% 28.7% 26.6%
Marijuana 54.5% 24.5% 9.8% 11.2%
Methamphetamine 45.5% 28.0% 15.4% 11.2%
Crack Cocaine 28.0% 11.2% 35.7% 25.2%
Heroin 12.6% 23.1% 39.2% 25.2%
Powdered Cocaine 12.6% 20.3% 41.3% 25.9%
MDMA 11.2% 18.9% 34.3% 35.7%
http://www.nagia.org/PDFs/2005_national_gang_threat_assessment.pdf
*The Western Region includes results from Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 8
Level of Activity by Gang
Responding agencies were asked to rate the level of activity in their jurisdictions of 25
specified gangs. The gangs that appeared on the list were chosen for inclusion in the
Arizona assessment because they correspond to the gangs listed in the National Gang
Threat Assessment. Table 8 summarizes the responses to the question asking the
agencies to rate the level of activity by each gang. Of the 25 gangs asked about,
agencies only reported a high level of activity for 10 gangs. Agencies reported the
highest level of activity for the Hispanic Sureños/SUR 13 (19.6 percent), Bloods (17.9
percent), Crips (14.3 percent), and neighborhood-based drug trafficking crews.
Table 8: Level of Activity by Gang
Percentage of Arizona Jurisdictions Reporting Level of Gang Activity
High Moderate Low Not Applicable/
Unknown Total Responses
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) 19.6% 25.0% 23.2% 32.2% 56
Bloods (all sets) 17.9% 19.6% 28.6% 34.0% 56
Crips (all sets) 14.3% 25.0% 25.0% 35.7% 56
Neighborhood-Based Drug Trafficking
Groups/Crews
10.9% 23.6% 20.0% 45.4% 55
Mexican Mafia/La Eme 7.1% 19.6% 39.3% 33.9% 56
Hispanic Norteños (14) 3.6% 9.1% 25.5% 61.8% 55
Black Gangster Disciples 3.6% - 10.7% 85.7% 56
Skinheads 3.5% 21.1% 38.6% 36.9% 57
Hells Angels OMG 3.5% 17.5% 42.1% 36.8% 57
Gangster Disciples 1.8% 1.8% 18.2% 78.2% 55
18th Street Gang - 7.1% 23.2% 69.7% 56
Latin Kings - 3.6% 32.1% 64.3% 56
UBN - 2.1% 6.4% 91.5% 47
Asian Gangs (all sets) - 1.9% 7.4% 90.7% 54
Border Brothers - 1.8% 17.9% 80.4% 56
Outlaws OMG - 1.8% 7.3% 90.9% 55
La Raza - 1.8% 7.1% 91.0% 56
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 42.9% 57.2% 56
Mexikanemi (Texas Mexican Mafia) - - 7.3% 92.7% 55
La Nuestra Familia - - 7.1% 92.8% 56
Bandidos OMG - - 5.5% 94.5% 55
Texas Syndicate - - 5.5% 94.5% 55
Vice Lords - - 5.4% 94.7% 56
Almighty P Stone Nation - - 3.6% 96.5% 56
Pagans OMG - - 3.6% 96.3% 55
Results from the 2005 National Gang Threat Assessment show somewhat similar results
between Western region and Arizona for the level of activity by gang.4 Hispanic Sureños
(SUR 13), Crips, and neighborhood-based drug trafficking crews were identified as
three of the most highly active gangs in both Arizona and the Western region of the
4 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/what/2005_threat_assesment.pdf
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 9
United States. Agencies in Arizona report a higher level of activity for Bloods than the
western region, while agencies in the western region report a higher level of activity for
the Norteños (14).
Table 9: Level of Activity by Gang in the Western Region*
2005 National Gang Threat Assessment
High (%) Moderate (%) Low (%) Not Applicable/
Unknown (%)
Hispanic Sureños Sur 13 51.0% 21.0% 13.3% 14.7%
Crips 21.7% 14.7% 35.0% 28.7%
Norteños 20.3% 14.7% 17.5% 47.6%
Neighborhood-Based
Drug-Trafficking Groups and Crews 18.9% 19.6% 23.1% 38.5%
Asian Gangs 13.3% 17.5% 31.5% 37.8%
Bloods 12.6% 11.9% 39.2% 36.4%
18th Street 10.5% 16.1% 32.2% 41.3%
Skinheads 8.4% 18.2% 41.3% 32.2%
Hells Angels (OMG) 8.4% 16.1% 32.2% 43.4%
Mexican Mafia 7.7% 16.8% 36.4% 39.2%
La Nuestra Familia 4.9% 7.7% 17.5% 69.9%
MS-13 4.9% 4.2% 31.5% 59.4%
Bandidos (OMG) 2.8% 7.7% 18.2% 71.3%
http://www.nagia.org/PDFs/2005_national_gang_threat_assessment.pdf
*The Western Region includes results from Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Responses to the level of activity by gang questions also give an indication of which
gangs are most prevalent in Arizona. For example, the data in Table 8 reveals that,
irrespective of the level of activity reported, approximately two-thirds of responding law
enforcement agencies reported that Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13), Mexican Mafia/La Eme,
Bloods, Crips, Skinheads, and Hells Angels were active in their jurisdictions. When
analyzing the data in this way, although no agencies reported that MS-13 was highly or
moderately active in their jurisdiction, 42.9 percent of the responding agencies reported
seeing some activity by MS-13.
Level of Organization
Agencies were asked if the gangs in their area
were coordinating their activity with other
gangs. Approximately one-third of agencies
reported that some of the gangs in their
jurisdiction were coordinating with each other.
Common responses indicated that gangs were
coordinating regarding the transferring and
selling drugs.
Table 10: Gang Coordination
Of the Arizona Jurisdictions Reporting Gang
Activity
Percent
Yes 33.9%
No 57.1%
Unsure/Don't know 8.9%
Total Responses 56
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 10
Use of Technology
Agencies were asked to report whether or not technology was being used by gangs to
enhance communication. Agencies were also given the opportunity to elaborate on
what forms of technology are being used. Of the agencies that responded, 75.4 percent
reported that gangs are using technology, 12.3 percent reported that they are not, and
12.3 percent reported that they are unsure (Table 11).
Table 11: Gang Use of Technology to Communicate
Yes No Unsure Total
Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent
43 75.4% 7 12.3% 7 12.3% 57
Figure 3
When describing the types of
technology being used, 31 of
43 agencies reported that
gangs are using My Space to
communicate with each
other. Sixteen agencies
reported the use of cell
phones, eight reported the
use of e-mail, eight reported
the use of text messages,
eight reported internet use,
four reported the use of
computers, and two agencies
reported gangs have their
own web sites (Figure 3).
Community Response
Agencies were asked to describe what the
community response to the gang problem within
their jurisdiction. Response categories are based on
commonality of answers given by agencies. School
programs and denial/lack of awareness had the
highest number of responses with 19 and 16
agencies reporting these respectively (Table 12).
Other responses for this question were community
education/outreach (14 agencies), enforcement (10
agencies), task forces (five agencies), and graffiti abatement programs (three
agencies).
Table 12: Community Response to
Gangs
School programs 19
Denial/Lack of Awareness 16
Community Education/Outreach 14
Enforcement 10
Task Forces 5
Graffiti Abatement Program 3
None 5
Total Responses 57
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 11
Most Effective Gang Responses
Agencies were also asked which
strategies have been the most
effective in responding to gangs in
their jurisdiction. Respondents
were given the opportunity to list
the strategies, and table 13 shows
the responses by category. The
category with the most responses
was enforcement, with 22 agencies
reporting this to be most effective.
Other responses given by agencies
were the Gang & Immigration
Intelligence Team Enforcement
Mission (GIITEM), contact/
additional patrol, school outreach/programs, community involvement, statistical
analysis/intelligence, and identification of members.
Task Force Involvement
Under the direction of the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Gang
Intelligence and Immigration Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) assists criminal
justice agencies statewide with criminal gang enforcement and investigative strategies.
GIITEM brings together law enforcement agencies from state, county, municipal,
federal and tribal jurisdictions in a coordinated, intelligence-driven approach to deal
with gangs on a large scale.
In 2006, after several years of declining resources and downsizing of operations
because of state revenue shortfalls, DPS received funding to revitalize GIITEM and add
to their mission combating illegal immigration and human smuggling. GIITEM is charged
with:
(1) Deterring criminal gang activity through investigations, arrest and
prosecution;
(2) Dismantling gang-related criminal enterprises;
(3) Deterring border-related crimes;
(4) Disrupting human smuggling organizations;
(5) Collecting, analyzing and disseminating gang and illegal immigration
intelligence; and
(6) Providing anti-gang awareness training to communities and schools.
GIITEM is also responsible for maintaining a statewide gang database, GangNET.
GangNET contains information on thousands of gang members, associates and affiliates
Table 13: Effective Gang Interdiction, Intervention,
or Suppression Strategies
Strategy Respondents
Enforcement 22
GIITEM 13
Contact/Additional Patrol 12
School Outreach/Programs 9
Community Involvement 7
Statistical Analysis/Intelligence 6
Identification of Gang Members 6
Gang Units 5
Joint Efforts with other Agencies 2
"Street Jumps" 2
Prosecution 2
Total Responses 49
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 12
in Arizona and provides participating agencies with access to photographs and
information about the individual’s physical features (e.g. height, weight, tattoos).
The state gang database provides a variety of benefits to its users. It provides
enhanced safety to law enforcement officers by identifying potentially dangerous
individuals. The database also allows agencies to obtain information about the
organization of gangs, and identify key gang members and individuals loosely affiliated
with gangs that are involved in criminal activity. In an effort to further coordinate and
encourage information sharing, GIITEM adds new agency members to GangNET
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines the process for sharing
data contained in the database and defines the roles and responsibilities of agencies
participating in the state gang task force.
In the 2007 Gang Threat Assessment, agencies were asked if they participate in a
multi-agency task force and if they lead a multi-agency task force. Over half responded
that they participated in a multi-agency task force and 12.3 percent reported that they
lead a task force (Figure 4). Of those agencies that went on to describe their
participation, the majority (19 agencies) reported involvement with GIITEM. Other task
forces with which agencies were involved include the East Valley Gang Task Force,
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Gang Task Force, East Valley Indian Gang Task
Force, FBI Violent Gang Task Force, and the Tri-City Gang Prevention Task Force.
Figure 4
Task Force Participation
12.3%
54.5%
45.5%
87.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Lead Participate
Agencies
Yes No
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 13
Results by County
Responses from Arizona law enforcement agencies were grouped by county for the
following section in order to give a more detailed overview of localized gang activity.
For agencies whose jurisdiction overlapped into two counties, the county where the
majority of the population in the jurisdiction resided was used.
Total Gang Membership
Each agency responding to the gang threat assessment was queried on whether gangs
or gang members were present in their jurisdiction (Table 14). In Coconino, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties, more than half of
agencies reported that gangs or gang members were active in their jurisdiction. The
majority of law enforcement agencies in Cochise, Gila, and Yavapai County reported
that there were no gangs present in their jurisdiction. Graham County was the only
county with all responding agencies reporting no gang activity.
Table 14: Gangs or Gang Members
by Jurisdiction and County
Yes No Unsure/Don't Know County
Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number
Apache 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 1 20.0% 5
Cochise 2 28.6% 5 71.4% - - 7
Coconino 3 60.0% 2 40.0% - - 5
Gila 1 25.0% 3 75.0% - - 4
Graham - - 3 100.0% - - 3
Greenlee 1 50.0% 1 50.0% - - 2
La Paz 2 50.0% 2 50.0% - - 4
Maricopa 17 81.0% 4 19.0% - - 21
Mohave 5 83.3% 1 16.7% - - 6
Navajo 3 75.0% 1 25.0% - -- 4
Pima 7 100.0% - - - - 7
Pinal 5 71.4% 2 28.6% - - 7
Santa Cruz 2 66.7% - - 1 33.3% 3
Yavapai 5 45.5% 6 54.5% - - 11
Yuma 2 66.7% 1 33.3% - - 3
Arizona Total 57 62.0% 33 35.9% 2 2.2% 92
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 14
Each agency was also asked to report the
number of gang members in their jurisdictions
(Table 15). Of the 57 agencies reporting gang
membership, 38 were able to report the number
of gang members in their jurisdiction. However,
because there are several agencies unable to
report the number of gang members in their
jurisdiction, it is assumed that the total number
of gang members known to law enforcement in
Arizona is much higher. A total of 20,873 gang
members were reported by responding agencies.
The majority (73 percent) of those gang
members were reported in Maricopa County.
Pima County reported the second highest
number of gang members (20 percent).
The remainder of the information in this report is based on the agencies that reported
gang activity. No gang activity was reported in Graham County, so it is excluded from
further analyses. Responses to questions recorded for the remaining counties ranges
from one agency reporting in Gila and Greenlee County to 17 agencies in Maricopa
County. This varies by question because some agencies did not answer every question.
Table 15: Number of Gang Members
Apache -
Cochise 130
Coconino 200
Gila 12
Greenlee 15
La Paz 35
Maricopa 15,246
Mohave 615
Navajo 21
Pima 4,156
Pinal 118
Santa Cruz 200
Yavapai 125
Yuma -
Total 20,873
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 15
Level of Gang Activity Over Time
Most agencies that reported gang activity in their jurisdiction reported increased activity
during the six months preceding the survey (Table 16). In Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, La
Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, and Pinal counties all or the majority of agencies
reported increased gang activity. In those counties where the majority of agencies did
not report increased gang activity over the prior six months, most had at least half of
the agencies reporting there was no change. In Yavapai County 80 percent of agencies
reported no change in the gang activity.
Table 16: Level of Gang Activity Over Time
Past 6 Months by County
Increased
Significantly
Increased
Slightly
No
Change
Decreased
Slightly
Decreased
Significantly
Agencies
Responding
Apache - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Cochise 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Coconino 33.3% 33.3% - 33.3% - 3
Gila - 100.0% - - - 1
Greenlee 100.0% - - - - 1
La Paz - 100.0% - - - 1
Maricopa 17.6% 41.2% 29.4% 11.8% - 17
Mohave 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% - - 5
Navajo - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Pima - 71.4% 14.3% - 14.3% 7
Pinal 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% - - 5
Santa Cruz - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Yavapai - 20.0% 80.0% - - 5
Yuma - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 16
During the 12 months prior to completing the survey, every agency in six counties
(Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, La Paz, and Yuma counties) reported that gang
activity had either increased significantly or increased slightly (Table 17). Of the
remaining counties, all had at least half of the agencies within the county report that
gang activity had increased. In Navajo County one of the two agencies reported that
gang activity had decreased significantly in the 12 months prior to when the survey was
completed.
Table 17: Level of Gang Activity Over Time
Past 12 Months by County
Increased
Significantly
Increased
Slightly
No
Change
Decreased
Slightly
Decreased
Significantly
Agencies
Responding
Apache - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Cochise 100.0% - - - - 2
Coconino 100.0% - - - - 3
Gila - 100.0% - - - 1
Greenlee - 100.0% - - - 1
La Paz - 100.0% - - - 2
Maricopa 18.8% 56.3% 12.5% 12.5% - 16
Mohave 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - - 5
Navajo - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Pima - 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% - 7
Pinal 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - - 5
Santa Cruz - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Yavapai - 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% - 5
Yuma - 100.0% - - - 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 17
More respondents saw an increase in gang activity in the five years preceding the
survey than in the previous six or twelve months (Table 18). In all but Apache,
Greenlee and Yuma counties, the majority of agencies reported increased gang activity
over the past five years. In only three of the counties did an agency report that gang
activity decreased over that time.
Table 18: Level of Gang Activity Over Time
Past 5 Years by County
Increased
Significantly
Increased
Slightly
No
Change
Decreased
Slightly
Decreased
Significantly
Agencies
Responding
Apache - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Cochise 100.0% - - - - 2
Coconino 100.0% - - - - 3
Gila - 100.0% - - - 1
Greenlee - - 100.0% - - 1
La Paz - 100.0% - - - 1
Maricopa 43.8% 25.0% 18.8% 12.5% - 16
Mohave 20.0% 80.0% - - - 5
Navajo 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Pima 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% - 7
Pinal - 80.0% - 20.0% - 5
Santa Cruz 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Yavapai 40.0% 60.0% - - - 5
Yuma 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
In the counties where gang
activity was reported, all had
agencies report that gangs
were expanding in membership
numbers and the scope of their
activities (Table 19). In
Cochise, Coconino, Gila,
Greenlee, Santa Cruz, and
Yuma counties, all agencies
reported that gang
membership and activity was
increasing. Only two counties,
Pima and Yavapai, had more
than half of agencies report
that gangs either were not
expanding or that they were
unsure if gangs were
expanding.
Table 19: Expansion of Gang Membership Numbers
and Scope of Activities
Yes No Unsure/
Don't know
Total
Respondents
Apache 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Cochise 100.0% - - 2
Coconino 100.0% - - 2
Gila 100.0% - - 1
Greenlee 100.0% - - 1
La Paz 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Maricopa 70.6% 29.4% - 17
Mohave 60.0% 40.0% - 5
Navajo 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Pima 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 7
Pinal 60.0% 40.0% - 5
Santa Cruz 100.0% - - 2
Yavapai 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 5
Yuma 100.0% - - 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 18
Gang Involvement in Crimes and Drugs
Each agency was asked to report the primary crimes committed by gangs in their
jurisdiction (Table 20). This question was an open-ended question in which respondents
were asked to list the types of criminal activity in which gangs in their jurisdiction are
primarily involved. Assaults and drug crimes were the most frequently listed crimes
committed by gangs. The table below shows the crimes reported by county, along with
the number of agencies that listed each crime as a primary criminal activity of gangs in
their jurisdiction.
Table 20: Primary Crimes Committed by Gangs, By County
Number of Agencies within the County Reporting the Criminal Activity
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Arizona
Assault 1 1 3 -
No gangs reported in jurisdiction.
1 1 13 4 - 6 5 1 2 1 39
Drugs - - 2 - - - 9 3 - 5 1 - 3 1 24
Burglary 1 1 - 1 1 2 6 3 - 1 1 2 - 2 21
Theft 2 - - - - - 2 3 - 3 - 2 1 1 14
Drugs - street sales 1 1 1 1 - 1 3 1 - 1 2 1 - 1 14
Vandalism/Graffiti/Tagging - 1 1 - - - 1 2 2 3 2 1 - - 13
Criminal Damage 1 - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 3 - 3 - 13
Weapons - - 1 1 - - 3 2 - 1 1 - 1 - 10
Auto Theft - - - - - - 7 - - - 1 - - 1 9
Robbery - - - - - - 5 1 - 1 - - - - 7
Intimidation/Extortion - - 2 - - - - 1 - 1 - - 1 1 6
Murder - - - - - - 4 - - 2 - - - - 6
Drive By Shootings - - - - - - 4 - - - 1 - - - 5
Threats - - - - - - - 1 - 2 - - 1 1 5
Possession of Drugs - - - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 - - 4
Drug Trafficking - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 1 - - 3
Human Trafficking - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 2
Narcotics - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2
Property Crimes Offenses - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - 2
Home Invasions - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - 2
Disorderly Conduct 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 2
Public Intoxication 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Shoplifting - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1
Battery 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Fraud - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1
Child Endangerment - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1
Underage Drinking - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1
DUI - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1
Firearms Trafficking - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1
Identity Theft - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1
Larceny - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 19
Agencies that reported gang activity in their jurisdiction were also asked to report on
the level of gang activity in several crimes from a list provided in the survey. Below are
individual tables for each county showing the responses to these questions.
In Apache County both
agencies that
responded to this
survey reported that
gangs had high or
moderate involvement
in drug street sales,
vandalism/graffiti/
tagging, robbery,
burglary, and in
overall crime (Table
21). Both agency
respondents reported
that gangs had low or
no involvement in
murder, kidnapping,
arson, and human
trafficking.
The two responding
Cochise County
agencies reported that
gangs did not have a
high involvement in
any of the crimes
provided (Table 22).
Both agencies reported
that there was a
moderate level of gang
activity in vandalism/
graffiti/tagging. For
most crimes one or
both agencies reported
that the level of
involvement was
unknown.
Table 21: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Apache County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Drug Street Sales 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Identity Theft 50.0% - - 50.0% - 2
Robbery - 100.0% - - - 2
Burglary - 100.0% - - - 2
Overall Crime - 100.0% - - - 1
Intimidation/
Extortion - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Felonious Assault - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Auto Theft - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Drugs Wholesale - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Drugs Manufacture - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Murder - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Kidnapping - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Firearms Trafficking - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Fraud - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Arson - - - 100.0% - 2
Human Trafficking - - - 100.0% - 2
Prostitution - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Table 22: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Cochise County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging - 100.0% - - - 2
Overall Crime - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Drug Street Sales - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Drugs Wholesale - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Auto Theft - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Burglary - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Felonious Assault - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Firearms Trafficking - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Identity Theft - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Intimidation/
Extortion - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Robbery - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Arson - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Fraud - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Murder - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Prostitution - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Sexual Assault/Rape - - - - 100.0% 2
Kidnapping - - - - 100.0% 2
Drugs Manufacture - - - - 100.0% 2
Human Trafficking - - - - 100.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 20
All three agencies in
Coconino County
reported that gangs
had a high level of
involvement in
vandalism/graffiti/
tagging and two of
the three agencies
reported high levels of
gang activity in
intimidation and
extortion (Table 23).
All three agencies also
reported a moderate
level of involvement
by gangs in the street
sale of drugs and
moderate and low
levels of involvement
in burglary, felonious assault and overall crime in their jurisdictions.
In Gila County the
only responding
agency reported that
gangs had high or
moderate
involvement in drug
street sales,
burglary, felonious
assault, and overall
crime (Table 24).
The agency also
reported moderate
gang involvement in
wholesale drug
sales. Conversely,
the agency reported
no gang involvement
in arson, human
trafficking,
intimidation/extortion
, prostitution and
robbery.
Table 23: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Coconino County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 100.0% - - - - 3
Intimidation/
Extortion 66.7% - 33.3% - - 3
Drug Street Sales - 100.0% - - - 3
Drugs Wholesale - 33.3% 66.7% - - 3
Burglary - 33.3% 66.7% - - 3
Felonious Assault - 33.3% 66.7% - - 3
Overall Crime - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Drugs Manufacture - - 100.0% - - 3
Auto Theft - - 100.0% - - 3
Robbery - - 100.0% - - 3
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 66.7% 33.3% - 3
Murder - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Firearms Trafficking - - 66.7% 33.3% - 3
Human Trafficking - - 66.7% - 33.3% 3
Kidnapping - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Arson - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Prostitution - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Identity Theft - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Fraud - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Table 24: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Gila County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Felonious Assault 100.0% - - - - 1
Burglary - 100.0% - - - 1
Drug Street Sales - 100.0% - - - 1
Drugs Wholesale - 100.0% - - - 1
Firearms Trafficking - 100.0% - - - 1
Identity Theft - 100.0% - - - 1
Overall Crime - 100.0% - - - 1
Auto Theft - - 100.0% - - 1
Drugs Manufacture - - 100.0% - - 1
Fraud - - 100.0% - - 1
Kidnapping - - 100.0% - - 1
Murder - - 100.0% - - 1
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 100.0% - - 1
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging - - 100.0% - - 1
Arson - - - 100.0% - 1
Human Trafficking - - - 100.0% - 1
Intimidation/
Extortion - - - 100.0% - 1
Prostitution - - - 100.0% - 1
Robbery - - - 100.0% - 1
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 21
Only one agency
reported gang activity
in Greenlee County
(Table 25). A high
level of gang
involvement in drug
street sales, drugs
wholesale,
intimidation/extortion,
burglary, identity
theft, vandalism/
graffiti/tagging, and
overall crimes was
reported. The agency
also reported a
moderate level of
gang involvement in
human trafficking,
auto theft, felonious assault.
Of the two agencies
that reported gang
activity in La Paz
County, one agency
did not rank all of the
crimes listed in this
question. The
agencies reported a
high or moderate
level of involvement in
intimidation/extortion,
burglary, felonious
assault, firearms
trafficking, vandalism/
graffiti/tagging, fraud,
and overall crime. On
the other hand, they
reported no gang
involvement in
manufacturing of
drugs, kidnapping,
and human
trafficking.
Table 25: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Greenlee County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Drug Street Sales 100.0% - - - - 1
Drugs Wholesale 100.0% - - - - 1
Intimidation/
Extortion 100.0% - - - - 1
Burglary 100.0% - - - - 1
Identity Theft 100.0% - - - - 1
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 100.0% - - - - 1
Overall Crime 100.0% - - - - 1
Human Trafficking - 100.0% - - - 1
Auto Theft - 100.0% - - - 1
Felonious Assault - 100.0% - - - 1
Fraud - 100.0% - - - 1
Robbery - - 100.0% - - 1
Drugs Manufacture - - 100.0% - - 1
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 100.0% - - 1
Firearms Trafficking - - 100.0% - - 1
Kidnapping - - - 100.0% - 1
Murder - - - - 100.0% 1
Arson - - - - 100.0% 1
Prostitution - - - - 100.0% 1
Table 26: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
La Paz County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Intimidation/
Extortion 100.0% - - - - 1
Burglary 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Felonious Assault 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Firearms
Trafficking - 100.0% - - - 1
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging - 100.0% - - - 2
Fraud - 100.0% - - - 2
Overall Crime - 100.0% - - - 2
Drug Street Sales - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Drugs Wholesale - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Identity Theft - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Auto Theft - - 100.0% - - 1
Robbery - - 100.0% - - 1
Murder - - 100.0% - - 1
Arson - - 100.0% - - 1
Drugs
Manufacture - - - 100.0% - 1
Kidnapping - - - 100.0% - 1
Human Trafficking - - - 100.0% - 1
Sexual
Assault/Rape - - - - 100.0% 1
Prostitution - - - - 100.0% 1
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 22
Over half of
respondents in
Maricopa County
reported a high level of
gang participation in
vandalism/graffiti/tagging,
and more than 40
percent reported a
moderate level of
participation. A high
and moderate level of
gang involvement in
auto theft, drug street
sales, burglary,
felonious assault,
robbery, and wholesale
drug activity was
reported. Although
gangs in Maricopa County are reported to be involved in a more diverse set of criminal
activities that gangs in other jurisdictions, a majority of responding agencies reported
low levels of gang involvement in kidnapping, sexual assault/rape, and arson.
At least 80 percent of
responding agencies in
Mohave County
reported a high or
moderate level of gang
involvement in drug
street sales, felonious
assault, and vandalism/
graffiti/tagging (Table
28). All agencies
reported low or no
gang involvement in
kidnapping, prostitution,
murder, and human
trafficking.
Table 27: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Maricopa County
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 52.9% 41.2% 5.9% - - 17
Auto Theft 35.3% 35.3% 17.6% 5.9% 5.9% 17
Drug Street Sales 29.4% 41.2% 29.4% - - 17
Burglary 23.5% 58.8% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 17
Identity Theft 23.5% 23.5% 23.5% 17.6% 11.8% 17
Overall Crime 22.2% 33.3% 44.4% - - 9
Felonious Assault 17.6% 52.9% 23.5% 5.9% - 17
Robbery 17.6% 29.4% 35.3% 11.8% 5.9% 17
Drugs Wholesale 17.6% 11.8% 52.9% 5.9% 11.8% 17
Intimidation/
Extortion 11.8% 47.1% 23.5% 5.9% 11.8% 17
Firearms Trafficking 11.8% 17.6% 52.9% 5.9% 11.8% 17
Murder 11.8% 11.8% 58.8% 17.6% - 17
Fraud 5.9% 23.5% 41.2% 17.6% 11.8% 17
Drugs Manufacture 5.9% - 47.1% 23.5% 23.5% 17
Prostitution - 11.8% 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 17
Human Trafficking - 6.3% 31.3% 18.8% 43.8% 16
Kidnapping - 5.9% 70.6% 23.5% - 17
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 70.6% 17.6% 11.8% 17
Arson - - 35.3% 35.3% 29.4% 17
Table 28: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Mohave County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Drug Street Sales 40.0% 60.0% - - - 5
Felonious Assault 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% - - 5
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - - 5
Overall Crime - 100.0% - - - 3
Robbery - 80.0% 20.0% - - 5
Auto Theft - 80.0% 20.0% - - 5
Burglary - 80.0% 20.0% - - 5
Identity Theft - 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% - 5
Intimidation/
Extortion - 40.0% 60.0% - - 5
Firearms Trafficking - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% - 5
Fraud - 20.0% 80.0% - - 5
Drugs Wholesale - 20.0% 80.0% - - 5
Sexual Assault/Rape - 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - 5
Drugs Manufacture - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% - 5
Arson - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% - 5
Kidnapping - - 80.0% 20.0% - 5
Prostitution - - 60.0% 40.0% - 5
Murder - - 60.0% 40.0% - 5
Human Trafficking - - 50.0% 50.0% - 4
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 23
The responding
agencies from Navajo
County reported low or
no gang involvement in
almost all of the crimes
that were provided
(Table 29). The
exception to this was
vandalism/graffiti/tagging,
where two of the three
agencies reported
moderate levels of
involvement by the
gangs in their
jurisdictions. All three
agencies reported that
gangs in Navajo county
had no involvement in
murder, prostitution, and human trafficking.
All seven Pima County
agencies reporting
gang activity in their
jurisdiction reported a
high or moderate level
of gang involvement in
vandalism/ graffiti/
tagging (Table 30).
Over half of
respondents reported a
high or moderate level
of gang involvement in
drug street sales. No
agencies reported high
or moderate gang
involvement in the
manufacture of drugs,
sexual assault/ rape,
kidnapping,
prostitution, or arson.
Table 29: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Navajo County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging - 66.7% - 33.3% - 3
Robbery - - 33.3% 66.7% 3
Firearms Trafficking - - 33.3% 66.7% 3
Identity Theft - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Overall Crime - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Intimidation/
Extortion - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Burglary - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Murder - - - 100.0% 3
Prostitution - - - 100.0% - 3
Human Trafficking - - - 100.0% - 3
Auto Theft - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Felonious Assault - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Sexual Assault/Rape - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Kidnapping - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Arson - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Fraud - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Drugs Manufacture - - - 33.3% 66.7% 3
Drugs Wholesale - - - 33.3% 66.7% 3
Drug Street Sales - - - 33.3% 66.7% 3
Table 30: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Pima County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 28.6% 71.4% - - - 7
Drug Street Sales 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% - - 7
Auto Theft 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 7
Firearms Trafficking 14.3% 28.6% - 14.3% 42.9% 7
Felonious Assault 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% - - 7
Drugs Wholesale 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 28.6% 7
Robbery 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 7
Intimidation/
Extortion - 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 7
Burglary - 42.9% 28.6% 28.6% 7
Fraud - 42.9% - 14.3% 42.9% 7
Identity Theft - 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 7
Human Trafficking - 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 7
Overall Crime - 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - 5
Murder - 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 7
Drugs Manufacture - - 57.1% 42.9% 7
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 7
Kidnapping - - 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 7
Prostitution - - 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 7
Arson - - - 42.9% 57.1% 7
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 24
All five Pinal County
agencies that
responded to the
survey reported a
high or moderate
level of gang
involvement in
vandalism/ graffiti/
tagging (Table 31).
Other high gang
activity crimes
reported by Pinal
County agencies
include street drug
sales, felonious
assault, auto theft,
intimidation and
extortion, and the
manufacture of drugs.
The majority of agencies reported low or no gang involvement in sexual assault/rape,
fraud, kidnapping, identity theft, and prostitution.
Both Santa Cruz
County agencies that
responded to the
survey reported that
gangs had high or
moderate levels of
involvement in drug
street sales,
burglary, and
vandalism/ graffiti/
tagging (Table 32).
One of the agencies
also reported high
levels of gang
activity in wholesale
drug activity,
felonious assault,
firearms trafficking,
identity theft, fraud,
and human
trafficking.
Table 31: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Pinal County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 60.0% 40.0% - - - 5
Drug Street Sales 60.0% - 40.0% - - 5
Felonious Assault 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% - - 5
Auto Theft 40.0% - 40.0% - 20.0% 5
Intimidation/
Extortion 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% - 20.0% 5
Drugs Manufacture 20.0% - 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Overall Crime - 60.0% 40.0% - - 5
Firearms Trafficking - 60.0% 20.0% - 20.0% 5
Burglary - 60.0% 20.0% - 20.0% 5
Human Trafficking - 40.0% 20.0% - 40.0% 5
Drugs Wholesale - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Murder - 20.0% 60.0% - 20.0% 5
Robbery - 20.0% 60.0% - 20.0% 5
Arson - 20.0% 20.0% - 60.0% 5
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Fraud - - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Kidnapping - - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 5
Identity Theft - - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 5
Prostitution - - - 40.0% 60.0% 5
Table 32: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Santa Cruz County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Drug Street Sales 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Burglary 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Drugs Wholesale 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Felonious Assault 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Firearms Trafficking 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Identity Theft 50.0% - - - 50.0% 2
Fraud 50.0% - - - 50.0% 2
Human Trafficking 50.0% - - - 50.0% 2
Overall Crime 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Auto Theft - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Sexual Assault/Rape - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Intimidation/
Extortion - - 100.0% - - 2
Murder - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Drugs Manufacture - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Kidnapping - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Robbery - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Prostitution - - - 100.0% - 2
Arson - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 25
Of the five agencies in
Yavapai County, there
were no reports of
gangs having a high
level of involvement in
the types of criminal
activity listed in the
survey. Three agencies
reported a moderate
level of drug street
sales, and two agencies
reported a moderate
level of vandalism/
graffiti/ tagging and
intimidation/ extortion.
For more than half of
the types of criminal
activity, all agencies
reported low, none, or unknown levels of gang involvement.
Both agencies in
Yuma County
reported a high level
of gang involvement
in overall crime and
felonious assault
(Table 34). Both
agencies also
reported high or
moderate levels of
gang involvement in
drug street sales,
intimidation/extortion,
auto theft, burglary,
and vandalism/
graffiti/tagging.
Table 33: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Yavapai County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Drug Street Sales - 60.0% 40.0% - - 5
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging - 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 5
Intimidation/
Extortion - 40.0% 20.0% - 40.0% 5
Overall Crime - 25.0% 75.0% - - 4
Burglary - 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Felonious Assault - 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Identity Theft - 20.0% 20.0% - 60.0% 5
Drugs Wholesale - - 60.0% - 40.0% 5
Robbery - - 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 5
Firearms Trafficking - - 60.0% - 40.0% 5
Fraud - - 60.0% - 40.0% 5
Auto Theft - - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Drugs Manufacture - - 40.0% - 60.0% 5
Murder - - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 5
Kidnapping - - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 5
Arson - - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 5
Prostitution - - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 5
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 5
Human Trafficking - - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 5
Table 34: Level of Gang Involvement in Crime
Yuma County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Overall Crime 100.0% - - - - 2
Felonious Assault 100.0% - - - - 2
Drug Street Sales 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Intimidation/
Extortion 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Auto Theft 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Burglary 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Vandalism/Graffiti/
Tagging 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Robbery 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Firearms Trafficking 50.0% - - - 50.0% 2
Drugs Wholesale - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Murder - - 100.0% - - 2
Sexual Assault/Rape - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Kidnapping - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Human Trafficking - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Arson - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Prostitution - - - - 100.0% 2
Identity Theft - - - - 100.0% 2
Drugs Manufacture - - - - 100.0% 2
Fraud - - - - 100.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 26
Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
All agencies reporting the presence of gangs in their jurisdiction also were asked
questions about the prevalence of gang involvement in the distribution of seven types
of illegal drugs.
The two agencies in
Apache County that
responded to this
question reported that
gangs had high or
moderate involvement
in the distribution of
methamphetamine and
marijuana in their
jurisdictions. One agency reported that gangs had low involvement in the distribution of
powdered and crack cocaine and no or unknown involvement in the distribution of
heroin, MDMA, or pharmaceuticals.
There were no agencies
in Cochise County that
reported a high level of
gang involvement in the
distribution of any of the
drugs listed. A moderate
level of involvement in
the distribution of
powdered cocaine, crack
cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana was reported by one agency.
Of the three agencies
reporting in Coconino
County, all three
reported a high or
moderate level of
involvement of gangs
in the distribution of
marijuana, while two
agencies reported a
high or moderate level of involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine and
crack cocaine. All three agencies reported a low level of involvement in the distribution
of heroin and MDMA.
Table 35: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Apache County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Marijuana 100.0% - - - - 2
Methamphetamine 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Powdered Cocaine - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Crack Cocaine - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Heroin - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Pharmaceuticals - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Table 36: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Cochise County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Powdered Cocaine - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Crack Cocaine - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Heroin - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Methamphetamine - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Marijuana - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Pharmaceuticals - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Table 37: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Coconino County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Marijuana 66.7% 33.3% - - - 3
Methamphetamine 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% - - 3
Crack Cocaine - 66.7% - - 33.3% 3
Heroin - - 100.0% - - 2
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - 100.0% - - 3
Powdered Cocaine - - 66.7% - 33.3% 3
Pharmaceuticals - - 66.7% - 33.3% 3
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 27
Only one agency
reported a high level
of involvement by
gangs in the
distribution of
methamphetamine.
The agency also
reported a moderate
level of gang
involvement in the
distribution of marijuana and pharmaceuticals.
Only one agency reported on gang involvement in the distribution of drugs in Greenlee
County. That agency
reported a high level
of gang involvement
in the distribution of
methamphetamine,
marijuana, and
pharmaceuticals and a
moderate level of
gang involvement in
the distribution of powdered cocaine, heroin, and MDMA.
Both agencies reporting
in La Paz County
reported a moderate
level of gang
involvement in the
distribution of
methamphetamine,
while one agency
reported a moderate
level in the distribution of marijuana, crack cocaine, and powdered cocaine. Neither
agency reported gang involvement in the distribution heroin, MDMA, or
pharmaceuticals.
Table 38: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Gila County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Methamphetamine 100.0% - - - - 1
Marijuana - 100.0% - - - 1
Pharmaceuticals - 100.0% - - - 1
Crack Cocaine - - 100.0% - - 1
Heroin - - 100.0% - - 1
Powdered Cocaine - - - 100.0% - 1
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - - 100.0% - 1
Table 39: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Greenlee County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Methamphetamine 100.0% - - - - 1
Marijuana 100.0% - - - - 1
Pharmaceuticals 100.0% - - - - 1
Heroin - 100.0% - - - 1
Powdered Cocaine - 100.0% - - - 1
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - 100.0% - - - 1
Crack Cocaine - - 100.0% - - 1
Table 40: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
La Paz County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Methamphetamine - 100.0% - - - 2
Marijuana - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Crack Cocaine - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Powdered Cocaine - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Heroin - - - 100.0% - 1
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - - - 100.0% 1
Pharmaceuticals - - - - 100.0% 1
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 28
In Maricopa County
more than 70 percent
of agencies reported a
high or moderate level
of gang involvement in
the distribution of
marijuana (82.4
percent) and
methamphetamine
(70.6 percent). More than 70 percent of agencies reported low or no gang involvement
in the distribution of MDMA (70.6 percent) and powdered cocaine (75.1 percent).
In Mohave County all
agencies reported that
gangs had a high or
moderate level of
involvement in the
distribution of
methamphetamine, and
four of the five
agencies reported high
or moderate gang involvement in the distribution of marijuana. More than 80 percent of
the agencies reported low or no involvement in the distribution of powdered cocaine,
crack cocaine, heroin, and MDMA.
The three responding
agencies in Navajo
County all reported low
or no gang involvement
in the distribution of
drugs in their
jurisdiction. Low levels
of gang activity were
reported in the
distribution of heroin,
methamphetamine and
marijuana.
Table 41: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Maricopa County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Marijuana 41.2% 41.2% 17.6% - - 17
Methamphetamine 29.4% 41.2% 29.4% - - 17
Heroin 11.8% 35.3% 29.4% 5.9% 17.6% 17
Crack Cocaine 11.8% 17.6% 52.9% 5.9% 11.8% 17
Pharmaceuticals 5.9% 5.9% 47.1% 17.6% 23.5% 17
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs 5.9% - 58.8% 11.8% 23.5% 17
Powdered Cocaine - 18.8% 68.8% 6.3% 6.3% 16
Table 42: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Mohave County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Methamphetamine 60.0% 40.0% - - - 5
Marijuana 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% - - 5
Pharmaceuticals - 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% - 5
Powdered Cocaine - 20.0% 80.0% - - 5
Crack Cocaine - 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - 5
Heroin - 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - 5
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - 80.0% 20.0% - 5
Table 43: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Navajo County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Heroin - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Methamphetamine - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Marijuana - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - - 100.0% - 3
Pharmaceuticals - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Powdered Cocaine - - - 33.3% 66.7% 3
Crack Cocaine - - - 33.3% 66.7% 3
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 29
Six of the seven Pima
County agencies that
responded to the
survey reported high or
moderate level of gang
involvement in the
distribution of
marijuana. At least one
of the agencies also
reported high levels of gang involvement in the distribution of crack cocaine,
pharmaceuticals, heroin and powdered cocaine. Four of the seven agencies reported
low or no involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine.
Two of the five Pinal
County agencies
reported that gangs
have a high level of
involvement in the
distribution of
methamphetamine and
crack cocaine. Three of
the five agencies also
report that gangs have
low or no involvement in the distribution of heroin, pharmaceuticals, and MDMA.
Two Santa Cruz County
agencies reported the
level of gang
involvement in the
distribution of drugs in
their jurisdiction. One
agency reported a high
level of gang
involvement in the
distribution of marijuana, powdered and crack cocaine, and heroin. The other agency
reported a moderate level of gang involvement in the distribution of marijuana. Low
levels of gang involvement were reported in the distribution of methamphetamine,
MDMA, and pharmaceuticals.
Table 44: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Pima County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Marijuana 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% - - 7
Crack Cocaine 28.6% 14.3% 42.9% - 14.3% 7
Pharmaceuticals 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 7
Heroin 14.3% - 42.9% - 42.9% 7
Powdered Cocaine 14.3% - 42.9% - 42.9% 7
Methamphetamine - 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 7
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 57.1% 7
Table 45: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Pinal County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Methamphetamine 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% - - 5
Crack Cocaine 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% - 20.0% 5
Marijuana 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% - - 5
Powdered Cocaine - 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 5
Heroin - - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
Pharmaceuticals - - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 5
Table 46: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Santa Cruz County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Marijuana 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Powdered Cocaine 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Crack Cocaine 50.0% - - - 50.0% 2
Heroin 50.0% - - - 50.0% 2
Methamphetamine - - 100.0% - - 2
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - 100.0% - - 2
Pharmaceuticals - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 30
All five responding
Yavapai County
agencies reported a
high or moderate level
of gang involvement in
methamphetamine and
marijuana distribution
in their jurisdiction. All
of the agencies
reported that gangs had low, no, or unknown involvement in the distribution of heroin,
crack cocaine, MDMA, and pharmaceuticals.
Two Yuma County
agencies reported on
gang involvement in
the distribution of
drugs in their
jurisdictions. Both
agencies reported that
gangs had a high or
moderate level of
involvement in the
distribution of methamphetamine and marijuana. Both agencies also reported gangs
had low levels of involvement in the distribution of powdered and crack cocaine.
Table 47: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Yavapai County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Methamphetamine 40.0% 60.0% - - - 5
Marijuana 20.0% 80.0% - - - 5
Powdered Cocaine - 20.0% 40.0% - 40.0% 5
Heroin - - 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 4
Crack Cocaine - - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 5
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs - - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 5
Pharmaceuticals - - 20.0% - 80.0% 5
Table 48: Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs
Yuma County Agencies
High Moderate Low None Unknown Agencies
Reporting
Methamphetamine 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
Marijuana 50.0% 50.0% - - - 2
MDMA (Ecstasy)
and analogs 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Heroin - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Powdered Cocaine - - 100.0% - - 2
Crack Cocaine - - 100.0% - - 2
Pharmaceuticals - - - - 100.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 31
Level of Gang Activity by Gang
Agencies reporting active gangs or gang members were asked to list the names of the
gangs that were active in their jurisdiction (Appendix A shows the results of this
question by county). Respondents who reported gang activity in their jurisdiction were
also asked to report the general level of activity of their gangs. The Arizona survey
asked about the same gangs as the National Gang Threat Assessment to allow
comparisons to be made (Table 49). Like previous county data sections, no table is
included for Graham County as respondents reported no gang activity in that county.
In cases where no agency in the state reported high or moderate activity, and less than
10 percent of respondents reported low activity, the gang was excluded from the
county tables reported below. Seven gangs fell into this category: Vice Lords, Almighty
P Stone Nation, Pagans OMG, Bandidos OMG, Mexikanemi (Texas Mexican Mafia),
Texas Syndicate, and La Nuestra Familia. The data obtained from participating agencies
suggest that these specific gangs do not have a significant presence in Arizona.
5 OMG refers to Outlaw Motorcycle Gang
Table 49: Specific Gangs
Bloods (all sets) Border Brothers
UBN Hells Angels OMG5
Crips (all sets) Pagans OMG
Latin Kings Bandidos OMG
Vice Lords Outlaws OMG
Almighty P Stone Nation Mexican Mafia/La Eme
Black Gangster Disciples Mexikanemi (Texas Mexican Mafia)
Gangster Disciples Texas Syndicate
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) La Nuestra Familia
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) Neighborhood-based Drug Trafficking Groups/Crews
Hispanic Norteños (14) Asian Gangs (all sets)
18th Street Gang Skinheads
La Raza
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 32
In Apache County, neither agency reported a high level of gang activity for any of the
gangs listed. A moderate level of activity was reported by both agencies for Bloods and
Crips (all sets), and one agency reported a moderate level of activity for the Hells Angels
OMG. Neither agency reported the presence of nine of the gangs listed in the survey.
Table 50: Level of Gang Activity
Apache County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Bloods (all sets) - 100.0% - - - 2
Crips (all sets) - 100.0% - - - 2
Hells Angels OMG - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
18th Street Gang - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Skinheads - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Latin Kings - - - 100.0% - 2
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 2
Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 2
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - - 100.0% - 2
La Raza - - - 100.0% - 2
Border Brothers - - - 100.0% - 2
Outlaws OMG - - - 100.0% - 2
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 2
UBN - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Neither Cochise County agency reported a high level of activity for the gangs listed,
although one agency reported a moderate level of activity for the Hispanic Sureños (SUR
13). The other gangs that were present in Cochise County were reported to have low
levels of activity. Neither agency reported activity for 11 of the gangs listed in the survey.
Table 51: Level of Gang Activity
Cochise County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Bloods (all sets) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Crips (all sets) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Black Gangster Disciples - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
18th Street Gang - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
UBN - - - 100.0% - 2
Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 1
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - - 100.0% - 2
La Raza - - - 100.0% - 2
Border Brothers - - - 100.0% - 2
Outlaws OMG - - - 100.0% - 2
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - - - 100.0% - 1
Latin Kings - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Hells Angels OMG - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Skinheads - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 33
At least one of the three Coconino County agencies responding to the survey reported
high levels of gang activity by the Bloods, Crips, and Mexican Mafia/La Eme. The
agencies reported some level of activity for the majority of gangs listed. Of the gangs
listed in the survey, only five were reported to not have at least low levels of activity in
Coconino County.
Table 52: Level of Gang Activity
Coconino County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Bloods (all sets) 66.7% - 33.3% - - 3
Crips (all sets) 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% - - 3
Mexican Mafia/La Eme 33.3% - 66.7% - - 3
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - 66.7% 33.3% - - 3
Hells Angels OMG - 33.3% 66.7% - - 3
Skinheads - 33.3% 33.3% - 33.3% 3
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - - 100.0% - - 3
UBN - - 66.7% 33.3% - 3
Latin Kings - - 66.7% 33.3% - 3
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 66.7% 33.3% - 3
18th Street Gang - - 66.7% 33.3% - 3
Gangster Disciples - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Outlaws OMG - - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 3
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - - 100.0% - 3
La Raza - - - 100.0% - 3
Border Brothers - - - 100.0% - 3
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 3
The agency in Gila County
that reported gang activity in
its jurisdiction reported a
moderate level of activity for
the Skinheads, Hells Angels
OMG, and neighborhood-based
drug trafficking
groups/crews. The agency
also reported a low level of
activity for Mara Salvatrucha
(MS-13) and Mexican
Mafia/La Eme. The
remaining gangs were not
reported to have a presence
in Gila County.
Table 53: Level of Gang Activity
Gila County
Gang Level Total
Skinheads Moderate 1
Hells Angels OMG Moderate 1
Neighborhood-based Drug Trafficking
Groups/Crews Moderate 1
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Low 1
Mexican Mafia/La Eme Low 1
Bloods (all sets) Not Applicable 1
UBN Not Applicable 1
Crips (all sets) Not Applicable 1
Latin Kings Not Applicable 1
Black Gangster Disciples Not Applicable 1
Gangster Disciples Not Applicable 1
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) Not Applicable 1
Hispanic Norteños (14) Not Applicable 1
18th Street Gang Not Applicable 1
La Raza Not Applicable 1
Border Brothers Not Applicable 1
Outlaws OMG Not Applicable 1
Asian Gangs (all sets) Not Applicable 1
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 34
In Greenlee County, the one
responding agency reported
a moderate level of gang
activity by neighborhood-based
drug trafficking
groups/crews and low levels
of activity for Mara
Salvatrucha (MS-13) and
Skinheads. The remainder of
gangs were reported as N/A
to their jurisdiction.
Neither La Paz County agency reported a high level of gang activity in their jurisdiction
for any of the gangs listed. One agency reported a moderate level of activity for the
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13), Bloods, and Crips. Both agencies reported a low level of
activity for Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Hispanic Norteños (14), Hell Angels OMG,
Mexican Mafia/La Eme, and Skinheads.
Table 55: Level of Gang Activity
La Paz County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - 50.0% 50.0% - - 2
Bloods (all sets) - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Crips (all sets) - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 100.0% - - 2
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - 100.0% - - 1
Hells Angels OMG - - 100.0% - - 2
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - - 100.0% - - 2
Skinheads - - 100.0% - - 2
Outlaws OMG - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
UBN - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Latin Kings - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Gangster Disciples - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
18th Street Gang - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
La Raza - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Border Brothers - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Table 54: Level of Gang Activity
Greenlee County
Gang Level Total
Neighborhood-based Drug Trafficking
Groups/Crews Moderate 1
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Low 1
Skinheads Low 1
UBN Not Applicable 1
Crips (all sets) Not Applicable 1
Latin Kings Not Applicable 1
Black Gangster Disciples Not Applicable 1
Gangster Disciples Not Applicable 1
Bloods (all sets) Not Applicable 1
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) Not Applicable 1
Hispanic Norteños (14) Not Applicable 1
18th Street Gang Not Applicable 1
La Raza Not Applicable 1
Border Brothers Not Applicable 1
Hells Angels OMG Not Applicable 1
Outlaws OMG Not Applicable 1
Mexican Mafia/La Eme Not Applicable 1
Asian Gangs (all sets) Not Applicable 1
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 35
Unlike all other Arizona counties, every gang listed was reported to have some level of
activity within Maricopa County. Over half of the agencies reporting gang activity in
Maricopa County reported a high or moderate level of activity for the Crips and Hispanic
Sureños (SUR 13). Over half of the agencies reported that UBN, Black Gangster
Disciples, La Raza, Border Brothers, Outlaws OMG, and Asian gangs were N/A to their
area.
Table 56: Level of Gang Activity
Maricopa County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) 41.2% 17.6% 17.6% 23.5% - 17
Crips (all sets) 23.5% 29.4% 29.4% 17.6% - 17
Bloods (all sets) 17.6% 23.5% 47.1% 11.8% - 17
Mexican Mafia/La Eme 17.6% 11.8% 52.9% 11.8% 5.9% 17
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews 17.6% 11.8% 23.5% 35.3% 11.8% 17
Hells Angels OMG 11.8% 11.8% 35.3% 41.2% - 17
Black Gangster Disciples 11.8% - 23.5% 52.9% 11.8% 17
Skinheads 5.9% 17.6% 41.2% 35.3% - 17
Hispanic Norteños (14) 5.9% 11.8% 35.3% 47.1% - 17
Gangster Disciples 5.9% - 35.3% 41.2% 17.6% 17
Latin Kings - 5.9% 47.1% 41.2% 5.9% 17
18th Street Gang - 5.9% 35.3% 47.1% 11.8% 17
Border Brothers - 5.9% 29.4% 64.7% - 17
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 41.2% 47.1% 11.8% 17
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - 23.5% 70.6% 5.9% 17
La Raza - - 11.8% 70.6% 17.6% 17
UBN - - 6.7% 66.7% 26.7% 15
Outlaws OMG - - 5.9% 82.4% 11.8% 17
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 36
One Mohave County law enforcement agency reported a high level of Hispanic Sureños
(SUR 13) and Skinhead gang activity. Many other gangs were identified as having
moderate levels of activity in Mohave County jurisdictions including Hells Angels OMG,
Hispanic Norteños (14), 18th Street Gang, neighborhood-based drug trafficking groups/crews,
Mexican Mafia/La Eme, Bloods, Crips, and La Raza. All agencies reported that UBN, Black
Gangster Disciples, and Asian gangs did not have a presence in their jurisdictions.
Table 57: Level of Gang Activity
Mohave County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) 20.0% 80.0% - - - 5
Skinheads 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% - - 5
Hells Angels OMG - 60.0% 40.0% - - 5
Hispanic Norteños (14) - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% - 5
18th Street Gang - 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% - 5
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 5
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% - 4
Bloods (all sets) - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% - 5
Crips (all sets) - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% - 5
La Raza - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% - 5
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 60.0% 40.0% - 5
Latin Kings - - 40.0% 60.0% - 5
Gangster Disciples - - 20.0% 80.0% - 5
Border Brothers - - 20.0% 80.0% - 5
Outlaws OMG - - 20.0% 80.0% - 5
UBN - - - 100.0% - 2
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 5
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 5
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 37
The three agencies reporting gang activity in Navajo County did not report a high or
moderate level of activity for any of the gangs listed. Two agencies reported a low level
of activity for the Hells Angels OMG and one agency reported a low level of activity for
the Skinheads, Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13), Crips, and Bloods.
Table 58: Level of Gang Activity
Navajo County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Hells Angels OMG - - 66.7% 33.3% - 3
Skinheads - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Crips (all sets) - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Bloods (all sets) - - 33.3% 66.7% - 3
UBN - - - 100.0% - 3
Latin Kings - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Gangster Disciples - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
18th Street Gang - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
La Raza - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Border Brothers - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Outlaws OMG - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 66.7% 33.3% 3
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 38
Over half of the Pima County agencies reported a high or moderate level of activity in
their jurisdictions for the Bloods. At least one agency reported a high level of activity in
their jurisdiction by the Crips and neighborhood-based drug trafficking groups/crews.
More than 40 percent reported a moderate level of activity for the Hispanic Sureños (SUR
13) and the Mexican Mafia/La Eme. The majority of agencies reported that the Border
Brothers, Black Gangster Disciples, the Gangster Disciples, La Raza, and the Outlaws
OMG have low levels of activity or no presence at all in their jurisdictions.
Table 59: Level of Gang Activity
Pima County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Bloods (all sets) 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% - - 7
Crips (all sets) 14.3% 14.3% 57.1% - 14.3% 7
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 7
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% - 7
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - 42.9% - 42.9% 14.3% 7
Skinheads - 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 7
UBN - 16.7% - 16.7% 66.7% 6
Hispanic Norteños (14) - 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 28.6% 7
18th Street Gang - 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 28.6% 7
Asian Gangs (all sets) - 14.3% - 71.4% 14.3% 7
Latin Kings - 14.3% - 57.1% 28.6% 7
Hells Angels OMG - - 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 7
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 7
Border Brothers - - 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 7
Black Gangster Disciples - - 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 7
Gangster Disciples - - 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 7
La Raza - - - 71.4% 28.6% 7
Outlaws OMG - - - 85.7% 14.3% 7
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 39
Eighty percent of agencies in Pinal County reported a high or moderate level of activity
for the Bloods and the Crips. High levels of activity were also reported by agencies for
the Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) and neighborhood-based drug trafficking groups/crews.
At least 80 percent of agencies reported that the Black Gangster Disciples, the Gangster
Disciples, the Outlaws OMG, and the Asian gangs were N/A in their jurisdictions.
Table 60: Level of Gang Activity
Pinal County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Bloods (all sets) 60.0% 20.0% - - 20.0% 5
Crips (all sets) 40.0% 40.0% - - 20.0% 5
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) 20.0% 20.0% - 40.0% 20.0% 5
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews 20.0% 40.0% - 20.0% 20.0% 5
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% - 5
Hells Angels OMG - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% - 5
Latin Kings - - 60.0% 40.0% - 5
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 60.0% 40.0% - 5
Skinheads - - 40.0% 60.0% - 5
18th Street Gang - - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 5
Border Brothers - - 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 5
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 5
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 4
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 80.0% 20.0% 5
Gangster Disciples - - - 80.0% 20.0% 5
Outlaws OMG - - - 80.0% 20.0% 5
La Raza - - - 60.0% 40.0% 5
UBN - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 40
One of the two agencies reporting gang activity in Santa Cruz County reported a high
level of gang activity by neighborhood-based drug trafficking groups/crews. One agency
also reported a moderate level of gang activity in their jurisdiction by the Mexican
Mafia/La Eme. The agencies reported that the majority of gangs listed did not have a
presence in their jurisdictions.
Table 61: Level of Gang Activity of Gangs
Santa Cruz County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews 50.0% - - 50.0% - 2
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Latin Kings - - 100.0% - - 2
Bloods (all sets) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Crips (all sets) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Border Brothers - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Hells Angels OMG - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
UBN - - - 100.0% - 2
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 2
Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 2
18th Street Gang - - - 100.0% - 2
La Raza - - - 100.0% - 2
Outlaws OMG - - - 100.0% - 2
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 2
Skinheads - - - 100.0% - 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 41
No Yavapai County agency reported a high level of activity for the gangs listed. Forty
percent reported a moderate level of activity for the Skinheads and the Mexican
Mafia/La Eme. Some agencies also reported a moderate level of activity for the Outlaws
OMG, Gangster Disciples, Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13), and neighborhood-based drug
trafficking groups/crews. The vast majority of gangs were reported as not having a
presence in Yavapai County.
Table 62: Level of Gang Activity
Yavapai County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Skinheads - 40.0% 60.0% - - 5
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 5
Outlaws OMG - 33.3% - 66.7% - 3
Gangster Disciples - 25.0% - 75.0% - 4
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) - 25.0% - 75.0% - 4
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - 25.0% - 75.0% - 4
Hells Angels OMG - - 100.0% - - 5
Hispanic Norteños (14) - - 25.0% 75.0% - 4
La Raza - - 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 4
Border Brothers - - 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 4
Bloods (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 4
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 100.0% - 4
Crips (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 4
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 100.0% - 3
UBN - - - 100.0% - 4
Latin Kings - - - 75.0% 25.0% 4
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - - 75.0% 25.0% 4
18th Street Gang - - - 75.0% 25.0% 4
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 42
Both of the Yuma County agencies reported a high level of activity for the Hispanic
Sureños (SUR 13) and one of the agencies reported a high level of activity for the
Hispanic Norteños (14). One agency also reported a moderate level of activity for the
Hells Angels OMG, the Crips, and neighborhood-based drug trafficking groups/crews.
For most gangs the agencies either reported that the gang had no presence in their
jurisdiction or that their presence and level of activity, if any, was unknown.
Table 63: Level of Gang Activity
Yuma County
Gang High Moderate Low N/A Unknown Total
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13) 100.0% - - - - 2
Hispanic Norteños (14) 50.0% - 50.0% - - 2
Hells Angels OMG - 50.0% - 50.0% - 2
Crips (all sets) - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Neighborhood-based Drug
Trafficking Groups/Crews - 50.0% - - 50.0% 2
Skinheads - - 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Latin Kings - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Gangster Disciples - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Mexican Mafia/La Eme - - 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Bloods (all sets) - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
UBN - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Black Gangster Disciples - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
18th Street Gang - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
La Raza - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Border Brothers - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Outlaws OMG - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Asian Gangs (all sets) - - - 50.0% 50.0% 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 43
Level of Gang Coordination
Agencies reporting gang activity in their jurisdiction were asked whether gangs in their
jurisdiction are coordinating their activity with other gangs. Respondents in Coconino,
Gila, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, and Santa Cruz counties reported
some level of gang coordination of their activities. The majority of agencies in Arizona
reported that gangs were not
coordinating, including all of the
responding agencies in Apache,
Cochise, Navajo, Pima, and Yuma
counties.
In comments regarding gang
coordination, a small number of
agencies reported that gangs in their
jurisdiction were coordinating with
gangs in other jurisdictions (for
example, California, Illinois, and New
Mexico as well as in Mexico).
Respondents in some rural areas also
reported that their local gangs were
coordinating with gangs in the
greater Phoenix area and in Tucson.
Use of Technology
Most agencies reporting gang
activity in their jurisdiction
reported that gangs were
using technology to
communicate. Exceptions to
this are agencies in Greenlee,
Navajo, and Yavapai
counties. In Greenlee County
the reporting agency was
unsure, in Navajo County one
of three agencies reported
gangs were using
technology, and in Yavapai
County two agencies
reported gangs were not using technology and three were unsure.
Agencies reporting technology use were asked to also explain how gangs in their
jurisdiction were using technology to communicate. Respondents could list multiple
Table 64: Gang Coordination with Other Gangs
Yes No Unsure/
Don't know Total
Apache - 100.0% - 2
Cochise - 100.0% - 2
Coconino 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Gila 100.0% - - 1
Greenlee 100.0% - - 1
La Paz 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Maricopa 52.9% 29.4% 17.6% 17
Mohave 20.0% 80.0% - 5
Navajo - 100.0% - 2
Pima - 100.0% - 7
Pinal 80.0% 20.0% - 5
Santa Cruz 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Yavapai - 60.0% 40.0% 5
Yuma - 100.0% - 2
Table 65: Gang Use of Technology in Jurisdiction
Yes No Unsure Respondents
Apache 100.0% - - 2
Cochise 50.0% 50.0% - 2
Coconino 100.0% - - 3
Gila 100.0% - - 1
Greenlee - - 100.0% 1
La Paz 50.0% - 50.0% 2
Maricopa 94.1% 5.9% - 17
Mohave 80.0% 20.0% - 5
Navajo 33.3% 66.7% - 3
Pima 85.7% - 14.3% 7
Pinal 80.0% - 20.0% 5
Santa Cruz 100.0% - - 2
Yavapai - 40.0% 60.0% 5
Yuma 100.0% - - 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 44
sources or types of technology. The most frequently cited form of technology was the
use of MySpace to communicate, particularly in Maricopa County where 13 agencies
listed MySpace as a method of communication for gang members overall. Cell phones
were the second most frequently mentioned form of technology. Interestingly, agencies
in Apache and Mohave County reported that gang members use their own web sites to
communicate with one another.
Table 66: Types of Technology Used by Gangs
MySpace Cell
Phones E-Mail Text
Messaging Internet Computers Gang
Web site
Apache 1 - - - - - 1
Cochise 1 - - - - - -
Coconino 3 1 - 1 - - -
Gila - 1 1 1 1 - -
La Paz - 1 - - 1 - -
Maricopa 13 4 2 2 3 2 -
Mohave 2 1 2 - 1 1 1
Navajo - - - 1 - - -
Pima 3 4 2 2 - 1 -
Pinal 4 1 - - 1 - -
Santa Cruz 2 1 - - 1 - -
Yuma 2 2 1 1 - - -
Community Response
Agencies were asked what the response to gangs was in their community and were
given the opportunity to list multiple responses. Agency responses were categorized by
response type (Table 67). The most frequent responses were developing school
programs to address gangs and denial or lack of awareness that there were gangs in
their jurisdiction.
Table 67: Community Response to Gangs
School
Programs
Denial/
Lack of
Awareness
Community
Education/Outreach Enforcement Task
Forces
Graffiti
Abatement
Program
None
Apache 2
Cochise 1 1 1
Coconino 3 2 1 1
Gila 1
Greenlee 1
La Paz 1 1
Maricopa 4 3 5 3 2 1 3
Mohave 1 2 2 1 1
Navajo 1 1 1
Pima 1 4 1 1
Pinal 3 1 1
Santa Cruz 1 1
Yavapai 2 2 1 1
Yuma 2 1 1 1
Total 19 16 14 10 5 3 5
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 45
Most Effective Gang Responses
Respondents reporting gang presence in their jurisdiction were asked to list out what
gang interdiction, intervention, or suppression strategies had been the most effective in
their jurisdiction. Of the 57 agencies reporting a gang presence, 49 responded to this
question. Agencies in nine of the 14 counties reported that enforcement was the most
effective strategy in responding to gangs. This was followed by GIITEM and
contact/additional patrol with agencies reporting these as effective strategies. As can be
seen in table 68, all strategies had at least one agency respond it was effective in their
jurisdiction.
Table 68: Most Effective Gang Interdiction, Intervention
or Suppression Strategies
Enforcement
GIITEM
Contact/
Additional
Patrol
School
Outreach/
Programs
Community
Involvement
Statistical
Analysis/
Intelligence
Identification
of Gang
Members
Gang Units
Joint Efforts
with Other
Agencies
"Street Jumps"
Prosecution
Apache - - 1 - - - - 1 - 1 -
Cochise 1 - - - - - - - - 1 -
Coconino - - 1 2 1 - - - - - -
Gila 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Greenlee - - - 1 1 - - - - - -
La Paz 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Maricopa 8 2 3 4 2 4 3 - 1 - -
Mohave 2 4 - - - 1 - 1 - - -
Navajo 2 - - - - - - - - - 1
Pima 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 - - 1
Pinal 1 3 2 - 1 - - - 1 - -
Santa
Cruz - 2 - 1 - - - - - - -
Yavapai 1 - 1 1 - - 1 - - -
Yuma 2 - - - - - 1 1 - - -
Total 22 13 12 9 7 6 6 5 2 2 2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 46
Task Force Involvement
Agencies in Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, Maricopa, and Mohave counties reported that
they lead a multi-agency task force. Additionally, agencies in Cochise, Pima, Pinal, and
Yavapai counties reported participation in a multi-agency task force. Agencies were also
asked to describe their participation. Most agencies reporting participation in a task
force cited GIITEM as the task force in which they participate. Agencies also reported
participation in the East Valley Task Force, the Tri-City Task Force, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) task force, and the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) task force.
Table 69: Task Force Participation
Lead Participate
Respondents
Yes No Yes No
Apache 50.0% 50.0% - 100.0% 2/1*
Cochise - 100.0% 100.0% - 2
Coconino 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% - 3
Gila - 100.0% - 100.0% 1
Greenlee 100.0% - 100.0% - 1
La Paz - 100.0% - 100.0% 2/1*
Maricopa 5.9% 94.1% 41.2% 58.8% 17
Mohave 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% - 5
Navajo - 100.0% - 100.0% 3
Pima - 100.0% 71.4% 28.6% 7
Pinal - 100.0% 100.0% - 5
Santa Cruz - 100.0% - 100.0% 2
Yavapai - 100.0% 40.0% 60.0% 5
Yuma - 100.0% - 100.0% 2
*Two agencies responded to the question about leading a task force, while only one agency responded to
the question about participating in a task force.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 47
Conclusion
Gang activity continues to affect the majority of law enforcement jurisdictions in
Arizona, with agencies reporting significant gang involvement in crime and drug
distribution. Arizona agencies reported similar types of involvement in crime and drug
distribution that was reported in other Western states, although at lower levels. Of
particular concern is gang involvement in drug activity, particularly the distribution of
marijuana and methamphetamine. Law enforcement agencies also cited gang
involvement in assaults, drugs, burglary, vandalism and graffiti as major concerns in
their jurisdictions.
The most active gang cited by Arizona agencies were Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13),
followed by Bloods, Crips, and neighborhood-based drug trafficking groups/crews.
Other gangs that agencies reported high levels of activity in their jurisdiction include the
Mexican Mafia/La Eme, Hispanic Norteños (14), Black Gangster Disciples, and
Skinheads. Interestingly, although more than four out of ten agencies reported that MS-
13 was present in their jurisdictions, all reported that their level of activity was low. Also
worth noting is that one-third of agencies reported that gangs are coordinating with
other gangs in their jurisdictions or in other jurisdictions, including other states and
Mexico.
The data collected from local law enforcement agencies and included in this report
illustrates what those working in the justice system already know: that many Arizona
communities and the agencies that serve them continue to face a significant gang
problem. It is hoped that this report will assist policy makers and practitioners to use
current information on gang threats at the state and county level in discussions about
Arizona’s gang problem as strategies are developed to address gang prevention,
intervention, and enforcement needs.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 48
Appendix A
Gangs Reported by County
Apache Mohave
Bloods
Crips
Dragons
Folks Nation
Hell's Angels
"INC" (Insane Cobra Nation)
"RNW" Red Nation Warriors
South Side Brown Pride
Indian gangs
Legacy Vets
Mexican gangs
Peckerwoods
Sureños
Vagos
VETS
White Power/Pride
White supremacist
Youth gangs
Cochise Navajo
Brown Pride Mexicanz (BPM)
Cochise Riders (affiliated with
the Hell's Angels)
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13)
Juvenile street gangs
Locatas
Nazi Low Riders
Sur 13
Pima
Coconino 187 Outlaws
Arizona Warskins
Barrio Hollywood
Barrio Libre
Barrio Nuevo Locos
Bloods
Brown Pride Mexicanz
Cat Town
Crips
Clover G's
Edish Street Posse Bloods
Hispanic Gangs
Insane Clown Posse
Manzanita Lynch Mob Crips at
Ironwood Ridge High School
ORC (Oracle Recking Crew) at
Canyon Del Oro High School
Peckerwoods
Released DOC Offenders
Skinheads
South Park Family
Gangsters
Southside Posse Bloods
Sureños/SUR 13
Top Ranked Kings
Tucson Underground
Production
Vista Bloods
Western Hills Bloods
Westside Guadalupe
East Side Bloods
Street Gangs
West Side Diablos
Gila
Aryan Brotherhood Hells Angels
Greenlee
Brown Pride
La Paz
Bloods
Crips
Hispanic Sureños (SUR 13)
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13)
Vagos MC
Warrior Society
Maricopa
Aryan Brotherhood
Barrio Chico's Loco's
BCL
Brown Pride Mexicanz (BPM)
Califas
Cashion Park Locos
Dogtown
East Side Bloods
East Side Brown Pride
Eastside Blood
Eastside Doble
Eastside Pride
Eastside WBP
Fly Boy Krew (FBK)
Gangster Disciples
Grandel
Hispanic Blood Gangs
Hispanic Crip Gangs
La Victoria Locos (LVL)
Latino/Hispanic Street Gangs
Lindo Park Crips
Los Cuatros Milpas
Mexican Brown Pride
Mexican Mafia
Mountain View Park
New Mexican Mafia
Park South Crips
Sex Jerks
Skinheads
South Side Posse
Southside Brown Pride
Southside Locos
Southside Mexican Locos
(SSML 40th)
SRH (Stoners Reeking Havoc)
Suntown
Sureños/SUR 13
Varrio Madison Heights (VMH)
Varrio Tolleson Chicanos
VCP
Vista Bloods
VSF
West Side City Crips
Westside Locos
Wet Back Power
Wetback Power North Tempe
(WBPNT)
WSG
Pinal
Bloods
Casa 13
Casa Blanca Gangsters
Crips
East Side Bloods
Goodyear Bloods
Hells Angels MC
Insane Clown Posse 480's
Lost Dutchman Riders
Native Pride
Randalph Gangster Crips Sac
City Criminals
San Tan Bloods
South Side Rage Killers
Southside 13
West Side Crips
West Side Gangsters 51
West Side Lacotas
WSBP-West Side Brown Pride
Santa Cruz
Female Gang
G-Block
Latin Kings
Nogalitos
Westsiders
Yavapai
Aryan Brotherhood
Creek Side Chicanos
Gangster Disciples
Hells Angels
Mexican Mafia/ La Eme
Nomad
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
Peckerwoods
Prison Gangs
Skinheads
Yuma
Okie Town
Westside
East Side Naked City
Naked City
La Mesa
Little Town
Soma
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
2007 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment 49
Appendix B
Emerging Gang Trends in Community
Number of Agencies Reporting Trend
Apache County
Colors 2 Graffiti/Tagging 2
Cochise County
Graffiti/Tagging 2 Colors 1
Coconino County
Colors 3 Recruiting 1
Graffiti/Tagging 2 Assault 1
Intimidation 2
Gila County
Drug Possession 1 Recruiting 1
Greenlee County
Colors 1 Open Drug Sales 1
Graffiti/Tagging 1
La Paz County
Graffiti/Tagging 2 Self Proclamation 1
Colors 2
Maricopa County
Graffiti/Tagging 9 Drug Sales 2
Colors 8 Drug Sales from Residence 1
Open Drug Sales 3 Prison Gang Members Directing Crimes 1
Rival gang members teaming together to commit home invasion robberies while dressed as police or federal agents 1
Different gangs joining together for criminal purposes 1
Prostituting young girls from the neighborhood in exchange for drugs. 1
Jumping new gang members in during school hours in the restrooms. 1
Different gang members committing crimes, influence of Southern California gangs 1
Street gang members forming into robbery crews 1
Mohave County
Colors 3 Self Proclamation 1
Graffiti/Tagging 4 Burglary 1
Open Drug Sales 1 Tattoos 1
Tribal gangs wearing different colors, increase in house shootings 1
Navajo County
Graffiti/Tagging 3 Hate crimes 1
Pima County
Colors 4 Intimidation 1
Graffiti/Tagging 4 Assault 1
Open Drug Sales 1
Prison Gang Members Directing Crimes 1
Pinal County
Graffiti/Tagging 5 Open Drug Sales 1
Colors 2 Drug Sales 1
Car Theft 1 Weapons Offenses 1
Human and Drug Smuggling 1 Drive by Shootings 1
Santa Cruz County
Graffiti/Tagging 2 Alcohol/Drug Abuse 1
Assault 1 Burglary 1
Street Sales 1
Yavapai County
Colors 2 Burglaries 1
Graffiti/Tagging 2 Thefts 1
Drug Sales 2 Young groups of gang members 1
Prison gang members relocating to the Prescott area 1
Yuma County
Colors 2 Drug Sales 1
Graffiti/Tagging 2 “Throwing Signs” 1