2007 Arizona gang threat assessment revised 2011 |
Previous | 1 of 7 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
TITLE | Arizona gang threat assessment |
CREATOR | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center |
SUBJECT | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission--Statistics; Criminal justice, Administration of--Arizona; Gangs--Arizona--Statistics |
Browse Topic |
Crime and violence |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications |
Language | English |
Publisher | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission |
TYPE |
Text |
Material Collection | State Documents |
Source Identifier | CJC 1.3:G 15 |
Location | o986497117 |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library |
Description
TITLE | 2007 Arizona gang threat assessment revised 2011 |
DESCRIPTION | 52 pages (PDF version). File size: 480 KB |
TYPE |
Text |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DATE ORIGINAL | 2011 |
Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born Digital |
Source Identifier | CJC 1.3:G 15 |
Location | o986497117 |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | 2007 Gang Threat Assessment_revised2011_05062011.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
File Size | 491410 Bytes |
Full Text | 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 |