Home

2002 gangs in Arizona

Reference URL

Rate

To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed the entire object, paste this HTML in website To link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Gangs in Arizona

2002 gangs in Arizona

1 of 2

View Description

View PDF & Text

This page

All

PDF
Text

search this item

Text Search...

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Statistical Analysis Center Publication
O u r mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona

2002 Gangs in Arizona

February

2003

ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION

Chairperson RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor RON CHRISTENSEN Gila County Board of Supervisors CARROL de BROEKERT Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff

BILL FITZGERALD Yavapai County Adult Probation Officer BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney CHRISTOPHER SKELLY Judge, Retired

DENNIS GARRETT Department of Public Safety Director J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief RICHARD M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Attorney RICHARD YOST City of El Mirage Police Chief

TERRY GODDARD Attorney General RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief CHARLES L. RYAN Department of Corrections Acting Director

MICHAEL D. BRANHAM Executive Director STEVE BALLANCE Statistical Analysis Center Director DON THOMAS Senior Research Analyst DAMITA KALOOSTIAN Research Analyst

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................9 REPORT PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................................11 RESEARCH METHODS..........................................................................................................................................11 ARIZONA LEGISLATION .....................................................................................................................................13 WHAT IS A GANG ................................................................................................................................................14 GANG SENTENCING ...........................................................................................................................................15 PREVENTION ..........................................................................................................................................................17 NATIONAL STRATEGIES ...................................................................................................................................17 Bloomington, Illinois..........................................................................................................................................18 Riverside, California ..........................................................................................................................................18 San Antonio, Texas.............................................................................................................................................18 Tucson, Arizona .................................................................................................................................................19 Mesa, Arizona ....................................................................................................................................................19 STATE STRATEGIES ...........................................................................................................................................20 Drug and Gang Council.....................................................................................................................................20 Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center ....................................................................................................21 Gang Reduction Awareness Prevention Education (G.R.A.P.E.) ......................................................................21 Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.).....................................................................................21 State Gang Unit..................................................................................................................................................22 Tucson Youth Program ......................................................................................................................................22 Arizona Youth Survey.........................................................................................................................................22 ENFORCEMENT......................................................................................................................................................24 STATE GANG TASK FORCE...............................................................................................................................24 ARIZONA GANG ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................25 SURVEY RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................26 Prevalence of Youth Gangs................................................................................................................................26 Perception of Youth Gang Problem ...................................................................................................................27 Youth Gangs and Members ................................................................................................................................27 Gang Member Demographics ............................................................................................................................28 Gang Member Involvement in Criminal Activity................................................................................................29 Use of Firearms in Violent Crimes ....................................................................................................................30 Gang Member Involvement in Drug Activities...................................................................................................31 Information Systems...........................................................................................................................................32 Gang Member Identification Criteria ................................................................................................................33 Gang Task Force Participation .........................................................................................................................33 PROSECUTION........................................................................................................................................................34 GANG PROSECUTIONS ......................................................................................................................................34 PROSECUTED CRIMES .......................................................................................................................................34 GANG PROSECUTION RESOURCES.................................................................................................................35 GANG PROSECUTION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................35 GANG PROSECUTION CHALLENGES..............................................................................................................35 DEFINING GANG-RELATED CRIME ................................................................................................................35 GANG PROSECUTION STATISTICS..................................................................................................................36 ADEQUACY OF STATE LAWS...........................................................................................................................36 VICTIM/WITNESS COOPERATION ...................................................................................................................36 PROBATION .............................................................................................................................................................38 PERCEPTION OF YOUTH GANG PROBLEM ................................................................................................................38 GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA.............................................................................................................38 GANG TASK FORCE PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................................39 ARIZONA JUVENILE CORRECTIONS (ADJC) ................................................................................................40 ARIZONA ADULT CORRECTIONS.....................................................................................................................42

2002 Gangs In Arizona

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (ADC).....................................................................................42 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................................44 APPENDIX A: 2001 SURVEY RESPONDENTS...................................................................................................47 APPENDIX B: GITEM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ..................................................................49 APPENDIX C: GANG RELATED WEB SITES...................................................................................................50 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................54

2002 Gangs In Arizona

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and the Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank the law enforcement, prosecution, probation and corrections agencies who contributed to this report. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Lieutenant Steve Breese, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Arlen Egley, National Youth Gang Center Ed Feingold, Arizona Department of Public Safety (GITEM) Todd Garrish, Arizona Department of Corrections Caroline Hotaling, Gang Reduction, Awareness, Prevention and Education Charles Katz, Ph.D., Arizona State University West Karen Pugh, Our Town Don Wittman, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Lieutenant James McGuffin, Arizona Department of Public Safety

2002 Gangs In Arizona

Statistical Analysis Center

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2002 GANGS IN ARIZONA

___________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission has produced an annual report on gangs for more than a decade. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 412416, the purpose of this report is to provide information about gangs and gangrelated crimes. This report is intended to be used to develop and implement strategies to combat gangs in Arizona. This report focuses on: legislation; prevention; enforcement; prosecution; probation and corrections. Examining each of these sources provides a current snapshot of gangs in Arizona and assists future gang prevention, intervention and suppression efforts statewide. Since 1990, an annual gang survey has been administered by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies in Arizona. This survey has been an instrumental part of the annual report produced by the Commission, and has provided beneficial information about gangs in Arizona. In an effort to obtain more useful gang information, this survey has been expanded throughout the years to include federal, tribal, prosecution, probation and corrections agencies in Arizona. In preparation for this report, the ACJC modified the survey created and used by the National Youth Gang Center. ACJC's newly revised survey will not only enhance the quality of gang information available within the state, but it will also allow gang trends in Arizona to be compared to national trends. In Arizona, authorities track predominantly three types of gangs: Street, Prison and Motorcycle. For the purpose of the 2002 Gangs in Arizona document the emphasis is on Street and Prison gangs. Readers are cautioned that by narrowing the focus of this report to Street and Prison gangs, the writers are in no way attempting to minimize the significance of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona. Although available intelligence and information is more limited and data on motorcycle gangs are often found in "syndicate crime" databases, future reports may focus on the magnitude and impact of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

In June 2002, surveys were distributed to 168 criminal justice agencies throughout Arizona. The surveys were designed to capture gang-related information from criminal justice agencies for 2001. Surveys were faxed to 15 county sheriffs, 79 municipal law enforcement agencies, 12 federal agencies, 22 probation agencies, 18 tribal prosecutors and 22 tribal police agencies. Of the 168 surveys distributed, 148 (88 percent) of the surveys (Appendix A) were returned. This response rate (88 percent) is slightly higher than last year's rate (72 percent) and the survey response rate received by the National Youth Gang Center in 2000 (84 percent). The survey results identified several important findings related to Arizona's criminal justice system and gangs. First and most importantly, Arizona's criminal justice agencies have made meaningful advancements in their response to gang activity. The state has established objective standards to identify and monitor gang members. According to this year's survey results more than 80 percent of criminal justice agencies use the Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC) to identify gang members within their jurisdiction. This is notable because it indicates that criminal justice agencies are using the same criteria to identify gang member identification throughout the state. Arizona has also implemented a variety of statutes designed to enhance the penalties for gang-related crimes. These statutes represent one of Arizona's strategies to hold gang members accountable for their criminal acts and send a message that delinquent acts and criminal activity will not be tolerated by the state. Arizona has also placed greater emphasis on community-based prevention programs, recognizing that a proactive response to gangs may be much more effective than a reactive response. Preliminary results from programs such as the OJJDP (Spergel) Model and Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) Program suggest a positive impact on the gang problem throughout the state. In addition to these prevention programs, Arizona continues to expend a significant amount of resources on programs aimed at providing at-risk youth with alternatives other than gang involvement. As such, it is important to develop a needs assessment that will identify the risk and protective factors associated with gang membership and participation. Future analysis of the Arizona Youth Survey data by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission represents one major step towards this goal. The development of a gang-related needs assessment will greatly improve the state's ability to develop and implement focused prevention and intervention strategies for youth in Arizona. In addition to the Arizona Youth Survey, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission continues to contribute information and resources to criminal justice agencies in an effort to assist statewide gang prevention and enforcement. The Commission actively solicits the input of various criminal justice agencies throughout the state to ensure that the annual gang report reflects accurate information about gangs 2002 Gangs In Arizona 6

in Arizona. The recent adoption of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) Survey is yet another step taken by the Commission to provide meaningful information about gangs in Arizona. Fifty-three percent of the criminal justice agencies responding to this year's survey indicated that gangs are either "one of the serious public safety issues they face" or a "medium serious public safety issue" in their jurisdiction. Fifty-five percent of all criminal justice agencies responding to this year's survey also indicated that when compared to 2000, the gang problem in 2001 was "staying the same," 25 percent reported that the gang problem was "getting worse," and only 16 percent of criminal justice agencies indicated that the gang problem was "getting better." Arizona criminal justice agencies also provided similar responses about the types of crimes most commonly committed by gang members. More than half of the participating criminal justice agencies indicated that gang members participate in drug activities, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny theft, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. Although Arizona has made notable progress in their response to gangs, criminal justice agencies throughout the state will continue to face challenges. The first challenge relates to the coordination and sharing of information. Although many more agencies are now coordinating resources and sharing information, currently only 33 out of more than 130 law enforcement agencies have signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the State Gang Task Force's statewide database. This represents an increase of ten agencies from the past year and reflects a need for an increased effort by non-participating agencies. Due to the inherent importance of data coordination and sharing, Arizona must extend greater effort to improve the sharing of gang information and encourage the use of the state gang task force (GITEM) as the central agency responsible for coordinating this information. Improvements in information sharing among criminal justice agencies will contribute to and enhance gang reduction, suppression and enforcement efforts statewide. The Arizona criminal justice system will also face challenges related to population increases. Since 1991, Arizona's population has been increasing at a rate nearly three times faster than the rest of the nation. This population increase is likely to result in an increase in gangs and gang activity. The problems resulting from the increase in gangs and gang-related crime will be further compounded by the absence of the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) in rural counties. Therefore, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to develop and implement strategies that will effectively respond to the increase in gangs and gang-related crime that is likely to occur in the future. Arizona's corrections departments will also be impacted by the population increases. Over the past 10 years, the adult corrections population has increased

2002 Gangs In Arizona

81.5 percent. Similarly, the juvenile corrections population has also increased in recent years. In fact, four of Arizona's five juvenile correction facilities are operating at 87 to 97 percent of capacity. The increases in both the adult and juvenile corrections population over the past few years represents an additional area in which greater attention and resources must be extended to ensure that Arizona's correctional facilities continue to operate both efficiently and effectively. Prosecution agencies will also face several challenges related to gang prosecution. As the nature and extent of gang prosecutions varies throughout Arizona, the challenges to prosecution are also unique for each county. However, the one challenge expressed by almost all prosecution agencies was the unwillingness of witnesses to testify in gang-related cases. Identifying gang membership, lack of evidence and proving that a crime was committed to further a gang were also mentioned as challenges to prosecuting gang-related cases. Although not expressed by all counties, some prosecution agencies identified challenges such as extraditing defendants who have fled to other countries, attorney safety and obtaining adequate resources. Both geographical location and current criminal trends make Arizona an ideal target for illegal economic profits. Since 1991, Arizona has maintained a high crime ranking and is currently ranked number one in the nation. Many of the crimes in which Arizona currently ranks within the top 10 in the nation are also the same crimes that surveyed law enforcement agencies reported as high gang member involvement (e.g. motor vehicle theft, burglary and robbery). As a result of Arizona's current crime trends, and because of the predicted increase in gangs, it is important that criminal justice agencies throughout the state continue to receive the resources necessary to effectively respond to the problem of gangs in Arizona. As a result of these challenges, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to coordinate resources to identify areas which demand attention and focus. While many of the issues related to gangs remain a challenge for criminal justice and social service agencies, it is apparent that no single strategy will solve the problem of street gangs and gang-related activity. Instead, Arizona must continue to rely on a concerted, coordinated strategy among criminal justice and social service agencies. Increased resources, improved assessment tools, effective prevention strategies and the coordination of information will improve Arizona's comprehensive response to gangs and result in a reduction of gangs and gang-related crimes. Although there is a variety of resources within the state that focus on gangs, additional resources must be expended to effectively respond to gangs in future years.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

INTRODUCTION
Although gangs have existed in the United States for decades, gangs today are more complex, violent and criminally oriented than in the past (Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1998). While the previous decade has been marked by an increase in gangs and gang-related activities, there has also been an increase in federal, state and local efforts to suppress gangs. These suppression efforts have taken place against a backdrop in which the Los Angeles Times described: "Decades after authorities identified gangs as a growing and deadly menace in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, the tracking of gangrelated crime remains sporadic and incomplete, with no statistics at all kept in many jurisdictions. National gang experts say the result has been a generation's worth of policy decisions, anti-gang programs and law enforcement initiatives based on social theories and public fear instead of verifiable trends. With no means to track gang-related crime accurately, experts say, it is impossible for cities to know how to reduce gang violence. Authorities even disagree on what a gang crime is." (Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2003) The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in comprehensive gang strategies in Arizona in spite of the aforementioned lack of "verifiable trends" nationally. The Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention developed one of the more notable comprehensive gang strategies in the early 1990s. The OJJDP (Spergel) Model is a prevention, intervention and suppression strategy based on the premise that policies which focus exclusively on deterrence, prevention or rehabilitation are insufficient to confront the problem of gangs. Instead of a single strategy, this model uses community organizations and agencies to implement five core strategies. This combination provides the most effective response to those at the highest risk for gang involvement and ensures both short and long-term reductions in gang crime and violence. Another part of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention's broadbased response to gangs was the establishment of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). The primary purpose of this agency was to create and administer an annual gang survey to a representative sample of law enforcement agencies across the United States. In 1995, the first annual survey to examine youth gangs by the National Youth Gang Center was administered to 4,120 law enforcement agencies nationwide. Since that time, subsequent surveys have been given each year to law enforcement agencies. In recent years, the usefulness of this survey has extended beyond the national level, as many 2002 Gangs In Arizona 9

states, including Arizona, are adopting it in an effort to obtain gang information at the state level. Arizona has also experienced an increase in gangs and gang-related crime over the past decade. This increase is more discernable and will have a wide-ranging impact which varies within each component of Arizona's criminal justice system. Therefore each component of the criminal justice system must respond in a manner which identifies their individual mandates and needs. Criminal justice agencies in Arizona have responded to this increase by implementing gang prevention strategies that have proven successful across the nation. Law enforcement agencies have developed street gang units and task forces as part of the ongoing response to gang activity in Arizona. This includes a statewide gang task force (Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission), county level gang task forces (Drug and Violent Crime) and local street gang units. Prosecution, probation and correction agencies throughout the state have also enhanced their efforts by creating units specializing in gangs and gang-related crimes. In addition to these enforcement and suppression efforts, Arizona is also realizing the benefits of gang prevention strategies by implementing comprehensive programs such as the OJJDP (Spergel) Model.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

REPORT PURPOSE
The Criminal Justice Commission has produced an annual report on gangs in Arizona for more than a decade. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 41-2416, the purpose of this report is to provide information about gangs and gang-related crimes that can be used by criminal justice agencies, legislators and the public to develop and implement effective strategies to combat gangs in Arizona. This report focuses on: legislation; prevention; enforcement; prosecution; probation and corrections. Examining each of these areas provides a current snapshot of gangs in Arizona and will assist future gang prevention, intervention and suppression efforts statewide.

RESEARCH METHODS
Since 1990, an annual gang survey has been administered by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies in Arizona. This survey has been an instrumental part of the annual report produced by the Commission, and has been expanded throughout the years to include federal, tribal, prosecution, probation and corrections agencies in Arizona. In preparation for this report, the survey was modified to model the survey created by the National Youth Gang Center. The newly revised survey will not only enhance the quality of gang information available within the state, it will also allow gang trends in Arizona to be compared to national trends. In Arizona, authorities track predominantly three types of gangs: Street, Prison and Motorcycle. For the purpose of the 2002 Gangs in Arizona document the emphasis is on Street and Prison gangs. Readers are cautioned that by narrowing the focus of this report to Street and Prison gangs, the writers are in no way attempting to minimize the significance of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona. Although available intelligence and information is more limited and data on motorcycle gangs are often found in "syndicate crime" databases, future reports may focus on the magnitude and impact of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona. In June 2002, surveys were distributed to 168 criminal justice agencies throughout Arizona. The surveys were designed to capture gang-related information from criminal justice agencies for 2001. Surveys were faxed to 15 county sheriffs, 79 municipal law enforcement agencies, 12 federal agencies, 22 probation agencies, 18 tribal prosecutors and 22 tribal police agencies. Of the 168 surveys distributed, 148 (88 percent) surveys (Appendix A) were returned. This response rate is slightly higher than last year's survey return rate (72 percent) and the survey response rate received by the National Youth Gang Center in 2000 (84 percent). A telephone survey was also developed and administered to designated personnel from Arizona's 15 County Attorney Offices and the Attorney General's Office. The telephone survey was created based on the recognition that 2002 Gangs In Arizona 11

prosecution agencies must respond to gangs differently than law enforcement, probation and correction agencies. The primary goal of the telephone survey was to capture information about the gang prosecutions that occur within the state. The telephone interviews were prescheduled with the designated personnel, and each county was provided with the survey questions prior to the interview.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

ARIZONA LEGISLATION
Due to the increasing number of crimes committed by gang members, many states have found it necessary to enact gang-related legislation (Walker, 2002). In 1994 the Arizona State Legislature implemented several gang-related definitions and sentencing provisions designed to enhance gang reduction and prevention strategies statewide. Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 13-105.8 includes seven gang member identification criteria developed by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). The Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC) is a statewide standard designed to assist criminal justice agencies with objectively identifying gang membership. In order to be identified as a gang member in Arizona, an individual must meet at least two of the GMIC which are: (1) Self Proclamation; (2) Witness Testimony or Official Statement; (3) Written or Electronic Correspondence; (4) Paraphernalia or Photographs; (5) Tattoos; (6) Clothing or Colors and (7) Any Other Indicia of Street Gang Membership. In order to better understand the GMIC, each criterion is examined below. Self-Proclamation: The self-admission of gang membership or association with a street gang. Self-proclamation can be documented in all records of contact using suspect, victim and/or witness accounts by criminal justice agencies. Witness Testimony or Official Statement: May include court testimony, depositions, or interviews with suspects, victims, witnesses or confidential informants. Written or Electronic Correspondence: Includes information making reference to any gang activity, incidents, names or nicknames. These references may be found in letters, notes, tapes or documents, and can be noted in records of contact, intelligence information and incidents of criminal investigation by law enforcement agencies. Paraphernalia or Photographs: Include photographs or drawings depicting gang membership, association, or involvement. Also included are rings, calling cards, weapons, or other symbols referring to the gang, whether in or out of the control or possession of the gang member. These objects aid in the identification of individuals and groups by showing locations, documents or propaganda relating to the gang. Tattoos: Used in identifying a specific gang moniker or symbol, regardless of gang type. The tattoos may be covered up, burned out or old tattoos. Clothing and Colors: Includes the type, color or manner in which clothing is worn. Other signs include rags, patches, belt buckles, bandannas, hats,

2002 Gangs In Arizona

vests, specific colors, accessories and/or jewelry. The type of gang may be a street, prison, motorcycle or other gang. Any Other Indicia of Street Gang Membership: This indicator of street gang membership provides for the recognition of new or innovative ways the ever-changing gang culture may devise for self-recognition or recognition by others. To further address the growing problem of gangs and the violent crimes committed by gangs, the Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1446 in 1997. This bill amended a variety of state statutes related to juvenile law and changed the treatment of juvenile offenders in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. The amended law states that the county attorney shall prosecute a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is 15, 16 or 17 years of age and is a chronic offender or accused of certain felony offenses. The bill also gives prosecutors the discretion to prosecute a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is at least 14 years of age and is a chronic offender or is accused of certain felony offenses. Finally, the law opened records of juvenile proceedings and matters involving juveniles accused of unlawful conduct to the public. The only exceptions were for the protection of innocent victims of a crime or if a court of competent jurisdiction found clear public interest in confidentiality.

WHAT IS A GANG
The National Youth Gang Center defines a gang as "a group of youths or young adults in a particular jurisdiction that persons in the community are willing to identify and classify as a gang" (1998). This definition does not include motorcycle gangs, hate or ideology groups, prison gangs or other exclusively adult gangs. The primary emphasis of this document is youth gangs but we do not want to minimize the role and impact of adult gangs on our communities. It is noteworthy that a preponderance of the literature available on gangs focuses on youth. Therefore, a single definition of "gang" is difficult to establish because of the sheer diversity of gangs currently in Arizona. In general terms, a gang is a loosely organized group of at least three people. The group usually has a name and may have a leader or leaders. The group may also have identifying signs such as distinctive symbols, clothing, jewelry, tattoos, colors or hand signs. Additionally, members perceive themselves as a gang, associate regularly and collaborate in committing delinquent and/or criminal offenses. While gangs vary in degree of organization, the presence or strength of leaders, identifying signs and the nature of illegal activities, the essential elements for classification as a gang include the gang's perception of itself as a gang and collaboration in violating the law (Cornyn, 2001, p. 1).

2002 Gangs In Arizona

Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 13-105 defines a "criminal street gang" as an ongoing formal or informal association of persons whose members or associates individually or collectively engage in the commission, attempted commission, facilitation or solicitation of any felony act and who has at least one individual who is a criminal street gang member. As previously stated, Arizona Revised Statute 13-105.8 defines a criminal street gang member as an individual that meets at least two of the Gang Member Identification Criteria.

GANG SENTENCING
The 1994 legislation also implemented Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 13604(T) and 13-2308 to increase the presumptive minimum and maximum sentence for identified street gang members. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 13-604(T) mandates that a person convicted of any felony offense with the intent to promote, further or assist any criminal conduct by a criminal street gang shall not be eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as authorized by A.R.S. 31-233 (a) or (b) until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to A.R.S. 41-1604(7) or the sentence is commuted. In addition, this statute increases the presumptive minimum and maximum sentence for an offense by three years. This increased sentence is in addition to any other enhanced sentencing that may be applicable. Arizona Revised Statute 13-2308 (F, G and H) outlines the sentencing provisions for identified gang members. Subsection (F) states that assisting a criminal syndicate is a class 4 felony. The statute identifies any offense committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang for the intent to promote, further or assist any criminal conduct by the gang, assisting a criminal syndicate is a class 3 felony. Subsection (G) mandates that any person who violates subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 4 of this section for the benefit of, at the discretion of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the intent to promote, further or assist any criminal conduct by the gang, is guilty of a class 2 felony. Subsection (H) states that the use of a common name, or common identifying sign or symbol shall be admissible and may be considered improving the combination of persons or enterprises required by this section. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1209 (A) states that: a person commits drive by shooting by intentionally discharging a weapon from a motor vehicle at a person, another occupied motor vehicle or occupied structure. For those individuals convicted of a drive-by shooting, subsection (B) motor vehicles that are used in violation of this section are subject to seizure for forfeiture in the manner provided for in chapter 39 of this title. Subsection (C) not withstanding title 28, chapter 8, the judge shall order the surrender

2002 Gangs In Arizona

to the judge of any driver license of the convicted person (D) Drive by shooting is a class 2 felony. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1202 (A) states that: a person commits threatening or intimidating if such person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct: (3) to cause physical injury to another person or damage to the property of another in order to promote, further or assist in the interests of or to cause, induce or solicit another person to participate in a criminal street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise. Subsection (B) states that threatening or intimidating pursuant to subsection (A), paragraph 3 is a class 4 felony.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

PREVENTION
Prevention is the foundation of any successful gang strategy. Unless the reasons why youth join or want to be associated with gangs are addressed, the problem of gangs will continue to prevail. The following section of the report highlights some successful strategies at both the national and state level.

NATIONAL STRATEGIES
The Office of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) researches and develops initiatives designed to prevent and reduce gang activity. In 1987, OJJDP began supporting a long-term research project to develop a comprehensive approach for the prevention of youth gang violence. Under the leadership of Dr. Irvin Spergel and individuals from the University of Chicago, the initial research phase was completed in the early 1990s. From this initial research, a comprehensive model was developed for the prevention, intervention and suppression of youth gang violence. The OJJDP (Spergel) Model focuses on individuals less than 22 years of age and uses communities to engage in a systematic gang assessment and program development process. The Model holds that the lack of social opportunities available for certain individuals and the degree of social disorganization present in a community largely accounts for its youth gang problem. As part of this approach, individuals, families, agencies, organizations and the community are reminded that they have a stake in supporting positive behaviors and in taking a firm stance against illegal activities including gang crime, violence, substance abuse and illegitimate behavior (Institute for Intergovernmental Research, 2002). The OJJDP Model involves delivering five core phases through an integrated and team-oriented problem solving approach. Specifically, the five phases are: (1) community mobilization; (2) social intervention; (3) provision of opportunities; (4) suppression, social control and accountability and (5) organizational change and development (Burch, 1999). Phase one consists of bringing together law enforcement agencies, schools, community organizations, citizens and youth of the target area. Phase two includes in-school and after-school programming, mentoring, family counseling, drug treatment and outreach to gang-involved youth. Phase three provides education, vocational training and job placement services to the community. Phase four consists of targeted police operations, and phase five involves sharing information, enhancing case management and establishing multi-disciplinary coordination and training. Phase five also coordinates key decision-makers so that ineffective procedures and interactions can be streamlined and amended. By eliminating ineffective policies that hinder communication between organizations, targeted youth are afforded additional opportunities and are more accountable for their actions. In 1994, the Office of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention allocated $1 million to test the Comprehensive Gang Model over a three, four or five year time period in five 2002 Gangs In Arizona 17

cities: Bloomington, Illinois; Riverside, California; San Antonio, Texas; Tucson, Arizona and Mesa, Arizona. During the first year, the demonstration sites initiated the community mobilization process, identified the nature and extent of the gang problem within the targeted communities and explored ways to address these problems. The second year consisted of implementing appropriate strategies to target gang violence. The third year consisted of evaluating the implemented strategies to determine the success of the comprehensive model and to direct future gang prevention, intervention and suppression strategies. For those cities that were awarded grants for more than a three-year period, this process is extended to reflect the actual grant-award period. In order to better understand the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model, each of the five demonstration sites is briefly discussed below.

Bloomington, Illinois
This project targeted the cities of Bloomington and Normal where an estimated eight gangs and approximately 640 gang members were identified. Under this comprehensive model, outreach workers assisted gang-affiliated youth and individuals who were incarcerated but expected to return to the community in the near future. The Bloomington and Normal Police, in collaboration with other criminal justice agencies worked to provide increased gang surveillance and sanctions for gang crime in the targeted cities. Throughout this process, outreach workers, the Bloomington Police Department's Proactive Unit, juvenile parole, adult and juvenile probation and school resource officers held regular meetings to review the progress of the project, specific problems in the cities and overall gang activities (Burch, 1999).

Riverside, California
This project focused on two communities in the city of Riverside known to be high gang crime areas. The targeted communities contained an estimated 21 gangs and approximately 1,230 gang members. Outreach workers and other service agencies met weekly to discuss community needs. This group also met regularly with police and probation officers to discuss area safety and gang activities. Outreach workers encouraged youth to attend school, obtain job training, seek regular employment and use appropriate social services. Under this model, police and probation officers also conducted home visits, performed area surveillance, made arrests and maintained other controls on the targeted youth. Recently, this model was enhanced through the development of Youth Accountability Boards by the local probation department and a new preventionoriented, school-based outreach program that is linked to the OJJDP Model (Burch, 1999).

San Antonio, Texas
The San Antonio Gang Rehabilitation Assessment and Service Program (GRAASP) targeted an area of the city with approximately 15 gangs and 1,664 gang

2002 Gangs In Arizona

members. Through this model, street-based outreach workers assisted social service workers, probation officers, Texas Youth Commission Staff, city police and other service agencies with providing resources, opportunities and support to youth in the program. Project staff also coordinated graffiti "paint-outs," community health fairs, recreational opportunities for the targeted youth and other community functions with local neighborhood organizations. Similar to the other demonstration sites, outreach workers, police and probation officers met frequently to discuss project coordination, case management, safety and accountability issues (Burch, 1999).

Tucson, Arizona
The Tucson Gang Project focused on the Vistas neighborhoods on the south side of Tucson, which had approximately four main gangs and an estimated 350 gang members. Specifically, this project targeted more than 100 youth in Tucson. The lead agency in this project was Our Town, a community-based non-profit organization. Additional agencies for this project included the Tucson Police Department, Pima County Juvenile Probation, Pima County Attorney Office, the Tucson Unified School District, the Tucson Boys and Girls Club, Quail Enterprises (research firm) and the La Fontera treatment agency. Under this model, street outreach workers, probation officers and a police gang unit officer worked to provide services and opportunities on a daily basis to youth targeted by the project and held them accountable for their negative behavior using a range of graduated sanctions (Burch, 1999). The project developed and refined the referral and intake process. Many of the youth participating in the program were mandated to do so as a condition of their probation or parole. The cooperation from both juvenile probation and parole was exemplary. The program was able to purchase 10 laptops for Tucson Police Department detectives. This enabled the detectives of the gang unit to access their CIC data base while on the streets. The CIC system is an intelligence database that holds information regarding gang involved youth and adults. The laptops enabled the detectives to check information on individuals at the crime scene and on the streets

Mesa, Arizona
The Mesa Gang Intervention Project (MGIP) focused on an area of the city served by the Mesa and Powell Junior High Schools. Within the target area, 18 gangs with an estimated 650 members were identified by the Mesa Police Department. The project targeted 125 youth who were involved in gangs or at high risk for gang involvement that resided in or were known to be active within the target area. Key collaborators in this project, which is overseen by a steering committee made up of agency and grassroots executives, were the city of Mesa,

2002 Gangs In Arizona

the Mesa Police Department, Maricopa County Adult and Juvenile Probation, Prehab of Arizona, the Mesa Boys and Girls Club, Arizona State University and the United Way. A team of two gang detectives, one adult and two juvenile probation officers, a youth intervention specialist, and two full-time and two-part time outreach workers worked with and monitored the targeted youth on a daily basis. Under this model, the MGIP gang detectives and probation officers provided monitoring, surveillance of youth in the program and supported street outreach workers and staff from other community-based agencies. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model promotes a multi-faceted approach to reducing gang problems within communities. While each of the five demonstration sites used different approaches and strategies, the versatility of this model allowed each community to focus on their community's specific needs. This flexibility allows each community to effectively address the gang problem within their area. Currently, each site is undergoing an extensive evaluation to determine the overall success of the model. The results from this evaluation will be used to improve the structure of the OJJDP Model and enhance the effectiveness for communities that use it in the future.

STATE STRATEGIES
The gang prevention efforts in Arizona extend beyond the national level. The increased focus on prevention has resulted in the development of a variety of statewide gang prevention programs and resources. The following section of this report highlights some of the prevention programs and resources currently in place throughout Arizona.

Drug and Gang Council
The Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council coordinates all state programs and expenditures involving criminal street gangs. This council consists of the Governor, key state agency directors, state agency representatives and business and community representatives. The goal of the council is to "foster cooperation among all state and local government entities, neighborhood groups, community organizations and private groups to ensure the optimal delivery of educational, treatment and prevention programs that will reduce the incidences of substance abuse and the participation in criminal street gangs" (Arizona Legislation, 2002). Specific activities of this council include: (1) providing a liaison to community groups and private sector programs involved in substance abuse and gang education, prevention and treatment; (2) conducting an annual inventory of publicly supported education, prevention and treatment programs related to substance abuse and gang participation and (3) overseeing the operation of the Arizona Drug and Gang Resource Prevention Center.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center
Under the direction of the Drug and Gang Council, the goal of the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center (ADGPRC) is to bring together agencies and programs that focus on drug and gang prevention. The ADGPRC also assists communities in their efforts to reduce the negative effects of drugs and gangs in Arizona. Finally, this agency produces an annual inventory of publicly funded substance abuse prevention programs, provides a full range of clearinghouse and information services in drug and gang prevention and serves as a referral source, connecting people with drug and gang prevention programs throughout Arizona (Arizona Gang Resource Guide, 2002).

Gang Reduction Awareness Prevention Education (G.R.A.P.E.)
The Gang Reduction Awareness Prevention and Education (G.R.A.P.E.) is a nonprofit organization that originated in 1990 in response to an emerging gang problem in Cochise County. This organization provides no direct services, but is a coordinating body that can react to emerging and long-term issues through its partnerships with direct services agencies. Participating agencies include: Cochise County Adult Probation; Cochise County Juvenile Court Services; Department of Juvenile Corrections; Southeastern Arizona Behavioral Health Services (SEABHS); Cochise County Sheriff's Office; Cochise County Attorney's Office, Sierra Vista Public Schools; Cochise County Health Department; Cochise Community Foundation, Sierra Vista Police Department; and the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM). This membership allows G.R.A.P.E. to refer issues to local agencies as necessary, and to coordinate the resources of those groups and agencies on pressing community issues. The primary function of G.R.A.P.E. is information sharing, which allows participating agencies to share information about gangs and gang activity in Cochise County. Currently G.R.A.P.E. shares confidential information exclusively among law enforcement agencies, and provides non-confidential information to various community agencies throughout the county. Additional strategies of G.R.A.P.E. include (1) trainings; (2) a graffiti abatement program; (3) a mini grant program and (4) a youth offender re-entry project.

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.)
Originating in Phoenix, Arizona in 1992 as a cooperative effort between the Phoenix Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) curriculum is now taught to students nationwide. Using a 13-lesson curriculum, law enforcement officers provide classroom instruction and community-based activities to schoolage children with the goal of getting children to avoid involvement in violence, gangs and criminal activity. This program also provides children with information about gangs and violence, family roles, goal setting, communication skills, empathy towards others, responding to peer pressure, anger management and conflict resolution.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

Currently more than 80 law enforcement agencies (Appendix C) offer the G.R.E.A.T. program to students throughout the state. This program has been shown to reduce the rates of victimization, produce more favorable attitudes toward police and reduce involvement in risk-seeking behavior. Partnerships with organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the National Association of Police Athletic League help encourage positive relationships between the students, community, parents, schools and law enforcement and contribute to the overall success of the program (G.R.E.A.T., 2002).

State Gang Unit
Since gangs are not exclusive to large metropolitan areas, the State Gang Task Force (GITEM) has put together an educational program to present information about gangs in public schools. This team serves Cochise, Graham, Greenlee and Santa Cruz counties. The program goes out to public schools, churches and the public to show gang videos, present information about gangs and introduce youth to a former hard-core gang member. This team also works with current gang members who want to get out of gangs, and assists agencies with gang enforcement and gang intelligence.

Tucson Youth Program
The Tucson Parks and Recreation Youth Department has three programs created to offers at-risk youth activities designed to deter kids from gangs and gangrelated activity. The programs are: the Kid Company (KIDCO), a recreation program for elementary school children offered during the summer months and after school; the Middle School Company (MIDCO), a recreation program for middle school students offered during the school year at 12 sites and during the summer at four sites and the High School Company (HICO), a recreation program offered during the school year at two high school campuses and during the summer months at two sites. Each of these programs assist young people by providing positive, organized and supervised activities during high crime hours. The ultimate goal of these activities is to give youth an alternative and help them learn to make appropriate life choices.

Arizona Youth Survey
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission administers a biennial survey to students statewide to measure the prevalence of substance abuse and gangs among youth throughout the state. In preparation for the upcoming State of Arizona Youth Survey report, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission collaborated with the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Bureau of Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention, the Division of Behavioral Health Services, the Governor's Division of Drug and Gang Policy and the Arizona Department of Education to revise the Arizona Youth Survey (AYS). The newly revised survey is based on the Communities That Care (CTC) model that was

2002 Gangs In Arizona

developed by J. David Hawkins (Ph.D.), Richard Catalano (Ph.D.) and a team of researchers at the University of Washington. The Arizona Youth Survey is designed to identify the underlying conditions (risk and protective factors) associated with at-risk behaviors. The risk and protective factor focused prevention is based on a simple premise that in order to prevent a problem from occurring, you need to identify the factors that are likely to cause the problem. Using risk and protective data as a focal point of prevention programs has proven effective in reducing a variety of social problems in communities. Changes in self-report data can be seen when schools repeat the same study for subsequent years and analyze the propensity of substance abuse and other delinquent behavior among youth. For this reason, it is essential to get risk and protective data into the hands of community members and policy makers. As the concerns regarding gangs continue to increase, communities are now realizing that a more comprehensive strategy, which involves prevention, intervention and suppression, may be more effective than any one-dimensional response to gangs. A comprehensive response to gangs assists with determining specific gang-related problems, establishing priorities and developing a community-wide consensus on how to respond to gangs (Gist, 2002). A comprehensive response is also important because it uses limited resources (personnel, money and time) in a more coordinated and effective way. The response to gangs in Arizona in recent years has been extended beyond enforcement and suppression to include prevention and intervention strategies. The Arizona Youth Survey is an instrumental part of developing a comprehensive gang strategy in the state. The Arizona Youth Survey contains questions related to gang membership and participation. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission collaborated with gang experts from Arizona State University and the State Gang Task Force (GITEM) to develop questions that were designed to provide information about gang activity among youth in Arizona. More importantly, these gang questions will serve as a foundation for the development of additional questions that will identify at-risk behavior for gang activity among Arizona's youth. In 2003, the Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) will conduct additional analysis on the information obtained from the Arizona Youth Survey. The findings from this analysis will assist the Statistical Analysis Center with coordinating efforts to develop a comprehensive gang model for the state. The findings from this additional analysis will be included in the 2003 Gangs in Arizona report.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

ENFORCEMENT
The enforcement of gangs and gang-related activity is also needed to effectively combat gangs in Arizona. As such, the state gang task force plays an important role in the enforcement of gangs. Therefore, before discussing the law enforcement survey results, the Gang Intelligence and Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) is discussed to highlight their role in combating gangs in Arizona.

STATE GANG TASK FORCE
Under the direction of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Gang Intelligence and Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) was created by the Arizona State Legislature in 1994 to assist criminal justice agencies statewide with criminal gang enforcement and investigative strategies. The State Gang Task Force brought together law enforcement and prosecution agencies from state, county, municipal, federal and tribal jurisdictions in a coordinated, intelligencedriven approach to deal with gangs on a large scale. Traditionally, Arizona agencies addressed the gang problem individually rather than collectively. This separate approach resulted in displacement of gang members rather than focused and directed gang enforcement efforts and identification. The State Gang Task Force's highest priority is to reduce gang-related crimes in Arizona while increasing the proficiency in which criminal justice agencies respond to gangs throughout the state. To achieve this goal GITEM identifies criminal street gangs and/or members in various communities, evaluates their activities and develops strategies to eradicate gangs from the community. Specific activities and operations of GITEM include: (1) targeting known violent gang members for investigations; (2) conducting covert investigations and operations of known gang offenders; (3) providing gang training and information to other agencies; (4) participating in community graffiti abatement programs; (5) publishing bulletins; (6) assessing the threats of gangs; (7) assisting other agencies with the eradication of street gangs; and (8) conducting event specific enforcement activities. The Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission is also responsible for maintaining a statewide gang database. In October 1999, the database currently used by GITEM was implemented after gang data were transferred from the Arizona Department of Public Safety's mainframe computer. The database contains information on thousands of gang members, associates and affiliates in Arizona and provides participating agencies with access to photographs and information about the individual's physical features (e.g. height, weight, tattoos). Currently, the database contains information on more than 17,000 individuals. This number is based on police contact with individuals and does not include aliases. Of the estimated 17,000 individuals within the database, more than 14,000 meet at least two of the Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC).The 2002 Gangs In Arizona 24

additional 3,000 individuals are classified as "associates" and meet only one of the seven Gang Member Identification Criteria. The number of gangs (three or more individuals) listed in the Arizona database was approximately 349. The database also contains an additional 649 gangs, but this number includes gangs that have less than three members. The state gang database provides a variety of benefits to its users. It provides enhanced safety measures to law enforcement officers by identifying potentially dangerous individuals. The database also allows agencies to obtain information about the organization of gangs, identify individuals loosely affiliated with gangs and key gang members that are involved in criminal activity. In an effort to further coordinate information sharing, GITEM has developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU 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. Currently, 33 agencies, an increase of ten since 2001 (Appendix B), have entered into the MOU with GITEM. Due to the increasing need to share information, it is important that greater emphasis and effort be used to encourage criminal justice agencies to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the state gang taskforce. As of January 2003, the resources allocated to GITEM will be reduced due to budget constraints within the Department of Public Safety. Instead of twelve squads geographically located in Maricopa, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo/Apache, Pinal, Pima, Cochise and Yuma counties, GITEM will operate two enforcement squads in Phoenix and two squads in Tucson.

ARIZONA GANG ASSESSMENT
As a statewide gang enforcement agency, GITEM also produces an Arizona Gang Assessment. This assessment is designed to provide an overview of current gang trends throughout the state. The extent and level of gang activity varies in different areas of the state. Therefore, this assessment provides gang information from a statewide perspective and may not be reflective of gang trends in specific jurisdictions of Arizona. Currently, the largest street gang in Arizona is "Hollywood," with a documented membership of approximately 400 individuals. According to GITEM experts, this gang originated out of Phoenix and Tucson. The criminal street gang with the largest number of sets (a set is a subgroup of a gang) is "Wetback Power." This gang is primarily in Maricopa County, and consists of 23 sets with more than 900 gang members statewide. The dominant racial composition of Arizona gangs is either Hispanic or hybrid, but gang experts note that many gangs are shifting to hybrid due to an emerging trend where gangs form to commit crimes for economic benefits. (A "hybrid" gang is one that is composed of more than one race).

2002 Gangs In Arizona

Many criminal street gangs in Arizona are also extremely mobile, with members frequently traveling throughout the state to establish sets in different cities and towns to conduct criminal activities. This trend is evidenced by gangs such as the "Maryvale Gangster Crips," which originated in Phoenix, Arizona, but has expanded to several different counties throughout the state. The mobility of criminal street gangs has also increased due to increased involvement in the transportation of illegal aliens, drug trafficking and auto thefts for transporting narcotics. The types of crimes committed by criminal street gangs in Arizona include, but are not limited to, drive-by shootings, homicides, aggravated assaults, narcotics activity, burglary, trespassing and criminal damage. The weapons used by criminal street gangs range from baseball bats to assault rifles. Knives are also popular among gang members due to their ease of concealment and lack of regulations. It is predicted that the number of gangs and gang-related crimes will increase in Arizona and continue to parallel the state's current population growth. This prediction is based upon documented state trends by GITEM over the past few years. First, the California "three strikes" rule, which targets repeat offenders, has resulted in many gang members relocating to Arizona to avoid being sentenced under this law. California is a state with an abundance of gang members and even a small number of individuals relocating to Arizona will affect the number of gangs and gang crimes in the state. Second, many gang members from other areas are relocating to Arizona because of the economic profits that can be obtained from criminal activity. Currently, Arizona is located on one of the most frequently used narcotics trafficking routes in the country. Arizona is also a major trans-shipment point for international drug and alien smuggling trades.

SURVEY RESULTS
As previously stated, a survey was administered to 128 law enforcement agencies throughout Arizona. Of this total (128), 118 (92 percent) surveys were returned. This return rate among Arizona law enforcement is slightly higher than the 84 percent response rate received by the National Youth Gang Center in 2001. The surveyed agencies were asked a variety of questions regarding the gang problem in their jurisdiction. This section of the report summarizes the survey findings from Arizona's law enforcement agencies.

Prevalence of Youth Gangs
Nationally, 40 percent of law enforcement agencies surveyed by the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) indicated that there were gangs active in the city, town or county served by their agency. As reflected in Table 1, 56 percent of law enforcement agencies indicated that they had active youth gangs in their

2002 Gangs In Arizona

jurisdiction in 2001. This is 16 percent higher than the reported national percentage in 2000 (40 percent). TABLE 1:

PREVALENCE OF YOUTH GANGS PERCENTAGE ARIZONA 56 NATIONAL 40

Perception of Youth Gang Problem
Nationally, 50 percent of law enforcement agencies indicated that, when compared to 2000, their youth gang problem in 2001 remained about the same, whereas 28 percent reported that the gang problem had improved and 22 percent reported that the gang problem had worsened. In Arizona, 52 percent of Arizona law enforcement agencies indicated that, when compared to 2000, their youth gang problem in 2001 remained about the same, 19 percent reported that the gang problem had improved, 28 percent reported that the gang problem had worsened and one percent of agencies were unable to respond to this question. The percentage of Arizona law enforcement agencies that indicated when compared to 2000, the gang problem in 2001 was "staying the same," or "getting worse" was similar to national findings. In contrast, Arizona was lower than the national percentage of states reporting that the gang problem was "getting better." The following table summarizes this information. TABLE 2:

PERCEPTION OF YOUTH GANG PROBLEM (PERCENTAGE) NATIONAL 50 28 22 -100 STATE 52 19 28 1 100

STAYING SAME GETTING BETTER GETTING WORSE UNABLE TO DETERMINE TOTAL

Youth Gangs and Members
The National Youth Gang Survey documented more than 24,500 gangs and 772,500 gang members in 2000. In Arizona, survey respondents reported 568 2002 Gangs In Arizona 27

gangs and 13,497 gang members in 2001 (for this purpose only municipal law enforcement agencies were selected in order to prevent duplication in reporting). The Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission reported 566 gangs and 11,821 gang members for the same time period. The differences in reporting are because more law enforcement agencies responded to the gang survey than reported gang statistics to GITEM. In the past, it has been difficult to obtain accurate information regarding the number of gangs and gang members in Arizona. The similarities between the survey numbers and the numbers provided by GITEM contribute to the validity and reliability of both the Arizona gang survey and the gang database maintained by GITEM. Table 3 provides a summary of both national and state documented gang membership. TABLE 3:

YOUTH GANGS AND MEMBERS GANGS 568 566 24,500 MEMBERS 13,497 11,821 772,500

ARIZONA SURVEY GITEM DATABASE NATIONAL

Gang Member Demographics
Respondents were asked to provide information about the demographics of gang members in their jurisdiction. Specifically, law enforcement agencies were asked to provide information regarding the race and gender of gang members in their area. Hispanics represent 12.5 percent of the total national population and 25.3 percent of Arizona's total population. Nationally, law enforcement agencies reported that 47 percent of gang members in their area were Hispanic, whereas Arizona's law enforcement agencies reported 62 percent. Blacks represent 12.1 percent of the national population and account for 31 percent of gang members nationally. In Arizona, blacks represent 2.9 percent of the state's population and account for 10 percent of the gang members. On a national level whites represent 69.1 percent of the total population and account for 13 percent of gang members nationwide. In Arizona whites represent 63.8 percent of the total population and account for 21 percent of the gang members in the state. The following chart compares the racial demographics of gang members on a state and national level.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

CHART 1: GANG MEMBER DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON (RACE)
80

National Arizona

Hispanic

Black

White

Othe r

As can be seen by Chart 1, the percentage of Hispanic gang members is higher than national numbers. This is because the Hispanic population in Arizona is nearly double the national population. Similarly, the percentage of black gang members is lower than national numbers because the black population in Arizona is lower than the national population. While the national and state population for whites is comparable, Arizona criminal justice agencies reported a higher percentage of white gang members than the national numbers. In 2000, law enforcement agencies nationally reported that 94 percent of the gang members in their area were male, whereas six percent were female. This rate is comparable to results from Arizona law enforcement agencies, which reported 89 percent of gang members as male and 11 percent as female. The numbers reported at both the national and state level confirm that males participate in gangs at a higher rate than females. TABLE 4: GANG MEMBER DEMOGRAPHICS-GENDER (PERCENTAGE) MALE FEMALE ARIZONA 89 11 NATIONAL 94 6

Gang Member Involvement in Criminal Activity
Survey respondents were asked to indicate the proportion of gang members who were involved in the following offenses in their jurisdiction: aggravated assault; robbery, burglary/breaking and entering; motor vehicle theft; larceny theft and

2002 Gangs In Arizona

drug sales. In Arizona, a larger proportion of gang members were involved in drug sales than in any other criminal activity. Approximately 24 percent of the respondents estimated that most of their gang members were involved in drug sales; the next highest level of involvement was motor vehicle theft (16 percent). It should be noted that Arizona currently ranks number one in the nation for motor vehicle thefts. This number one ranking coincides with law enforcement reports that a considerable number of gang members are involved in motor vehicle thefts. After motor vehicle thefts, law enforcement agencies indicated that gang members were involved in burglary/breaking and entering and larceny theft (13 percent), robbery (11 percent) and aggravated assault (eight percent).

Use of Firearms in Violent Crimes
Respondents were asked how often gang members used firearms in assault crimes (Chart 2). Nationwide, more than one-half (51 percent) of the respondents said gang members in their jurisdiction used firearms in assault crimes "often" or "sometimes" during 2000. Twenty-six percent said gang members used firearms "rarely," 14 percent indicated that firearms were "not used," and nine percent said that they "did not know." In Arizona, 48 percent of respondents said gang members in their jurisdiction used firearms in assault crimes "often" or "sometimes" during 2001. In addition, 14 percent said gang members used fire arms "rarely," 12 percent said firearms were "not used" and 26 percent said that they "did not know." The following chart summarizes the use of firearms by gang members in criminal activity at both the national and state level. CHART 2: USE OF FIREARMS COMPARISON
80 60 40 20 0
y rel Ra ed Us tU No ten Of ed Us es tim me So ed Us w no tK No Do

National (2000) Arizona (2001)

d se

2002 Gangs In Arizona

The responses provided by Arizona (48 percent) law enforcement agencies were similar to national numbers (51 percent) regarding gang members using firearms "often" or "sometimes." Responses at the state (12 percent) and national level (14 percent) were also comparable regarding gang members not using firearms. In contrast, Arizona (14 percent) varied from the national (26 percent) numbers when reporting that firearms were "rarely" used. There were also a greater percentage of Arizona law enforcement agencies that responded "don't know" to this question than nationally.

Gang Member Involvement in Drug Activities
This year, Arizona law enforcement agencies were asked to provide information regarding the extent that gang members in their jurisdiction were involved in drug activities. Nineteen percent said that gangs were "minimally involved," 29.3 percent said that gangs were "somewhat involved," 29.3 percent said that gangs were "heavily involved" and 22.4 percent were "unable to determine" the extent that gangs in their jurisdiction were involved in drug sales. In that this is a question that was added to the Arizona Gang Survey this year; no comparisons are available to 2001. Law enforcement agencies were also asked to identify the primary drugs trafficked by gangs in their jurisdiction. In 2000, marijuana (46 percent) and crack cocaine (29 percent) represented the two most trafficked drugs by gangs in Arizona, followed by amphetamines/methamphetamines (15 percent) and cocaine (eight percent). During 2001, amphetamines/methamphetamines (38 percent) and marijuana (22 percent) represented the two most trafficked drugs by gangs in Arizona, followed by crack (14 percent) and cocaine (five percent). The following Chart summarizes the primary drugs trafficked by gang members in Arizona.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

CHART 3: MOST COMMONLY TRAFFICKED DRUGS
50 40 30 20 10 0

Arizona (2000) Arizona (2001)

Information Systems Law enforcement agencies were asked to provide feedback about their information and/or intelligence collection systems (Table 5). In 2001, 28 percent said that their agency only collects gang-related information, 5.2 percent said their agency collects gang-related intelligence, 47 percent said that they collect both gang-related information and intelligence; 20.7 percent responded "not applicable." TABLE 5:

2001 INFORMATION SYSTEMS (PERCENTAGE) INFORMATION 28 INTELLIGENCE 5 BOTH 47 Of the agencies collecting gang-related information and/or intelligence in 2001, 29 percent indicated that this information was manual (non-computerized), 24 percent indicated that the information was computerized, 39 percent indicated that the information was kept both manually and computerized and eight percent were "unable to answer" this question.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

k ac es Cr in am et ph m ha et M

e in ca Co

a an iju ar M

r he Ot

Gang Member Identification Criteria
Establishing an object standard to identify and document gang members is necessary to effectively respond to gangs. Law enforcement agencies were asked to provide information about the gang member identification standards used within their agency. More specifically, the survey was designed to determine whether agencies used the gang definition outlined by A.R.S. 13-105 (GMIC) or if other identification standards were used. In 2000, 71 percent of responding agencies indicated that they used only the GMIC to identify gang members in their jurisdiction. Twenty-three percent said that they used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and six percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than the GMIC. This year, 80 percent of responding law enforcement agencies indicated that they exclusively used the GMIC to identify gangs, seven percent used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and 13 percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than GMIC or were unable to determine the criteria used to identify gangs in their jurisdiction. Table 6 summarizes the gang member identification criteria used by law enforcement agencies in Arizona. TABLE 6:

GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA (PERCENTAGE) 2000 2001 GMIC ONLY 71 80 GMIC/OTHER CRITERIA 23 7 OTHER/UNABLE TO DETERMINE 6 13 TOTAL 100 100

Gang Task Force Participation
Forty-nine percent of responding law enforcement agencies indicated that they currently participate in the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM). In contrast, 49 percent of respondents indicated that they do not participate in GITEM and two percent were unable to respond to this question. In addition, 46.6 percent of law enforcement agencies indicated that they participate in a local, regional or federal task force other than GITEM and 53.4 percent did not. The reasons provided for not participating in a task force included lack of personnel, training and resources.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

PROSECUTION
State and county prosecution agencies have been included in the street gang report produced by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission since 1992. This year, a telephone survey (Appendix B) was developed and administered to designated personnel from the 15 County Attorneys and the Attorney General's Office. The survey contained 11 questions that addressed various components of gang prosecutions in Arizona. As previously mentioned, the primary goal of the survey was to provide insight into gang prosecutions within the state. This section of the report summarizes these responses. An effort was made to obtain national gang prosecution data for state comparison purposes. At the time of this report, current national gang prosecution data were unavailable. Therefore, this section of the report will summarize prosecution information only for Arizona.

GANG PROSECUTIONS
Most of the smaller counties in Arizona reported that they had not seen a large gang problem in their area. As a result, few prosecutions were specific to gangs in their jurisdiction. There were various reasons given. Navajo county reported that they were having difficulty with getting enough information to tie particular crimes as gang offenses. Apache, Graham and La Paz County stated that the lack of prosecutions in their area was due to the lack of gangs and gang-related activity in their area. Other counties such as Coconino, Santa Cruz and Yavapai County attributed the minimal number of gang prosecutions to the fact that they generally prosecute all criminals for the crimes committed without linking them to gangs, regardless of whether the person who committed the offense was a gang member. In contrast to the smaller counties, Maricopa and Pima counties reported large gang problems and multiple gang prosecutions each month. Most counties had relatively few prosecutions of gang crimes, with Apache County and Yavapai County reporting less than one a year. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, Maricopa County, Mohave County, Pima County and Yuma County reported more than one a month, with the Attorney General's Office and Maricopa County reporting gang prosecutions in large numbers. Since June 2002, the Yuma County Attorney's Office has seen an increase in gang prosecutions, which is due to an increase in shooting incidents in this county .

PROSECUTED CRIMES
Most prosecutors indicated that they commonly prosecute gang members for assault, graffiti (tagging) and drugs. However, drug offenses represented the largest category of crimes for which gang members were prosecuted throughout Arizona. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, the county attorney offices of Maricopa, Pima and Yuma reported prosecutions for more serious gang crimes including murder, drive-by shootings and attempted murder, criminal damage, jail fights, burglary, theft, weapons offenses and threatening and intimidating were also mentioned as crimes that have been prosecuted in relation to gangs. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 34

GANG PROSECUTION RESOURCES
Apache, Coconino, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties reported that they do not have any staff specifically assigned to gang prosecutions. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, the county attorney offices of Graham, Greenlee, Mohave, Navajo and Yuma reported that they have one attorney assigned to gang prosecutions. The Attorney General's Office, Graham County and Yuma County also reported that support staff is assigned to gang cases as well. Maricopa reported the largest amount of staff devoted to gang prosecutions with 11 attorneys and 10 support personnel. Pima reported 2.5 attorneys and four support personnel being assigned to gang prosecutions .

GANG PROSECUTION STRATEGIES
Currently, most prosecuting agencies do not engage in any special strategies or tactics to prosecute gang-related crimes. Specifically, seven prosecutors indicated that their agency does not use special strategies to prosecute gang crimes because of the limited number of these types of crimes occurring in their jurisdiction. However, of the agencies reporting the use of special strategies, the following proactive prosecution techniques were noted: Cooperate with County Gang Taskforce Vertical Prosecution Actively Review Submittals to Determine Gang Member Involvement Prosecution by Experienced Prosecutors/Staff Tailoring Prosecutions/Pleas for Hardcore Offenders

GANG PROSECUTION CHALLENGES
The nature and extent of gang prosecutions varies throughout Arizona. Therefore, the challenges to prosecution are also unique for each county. The one challenge that was mentioned almost universally was the willingness on the part of the witnesses to testify. The reluctance for testifying by witnesses was attributed to a fear of retaliation and the fact that witnesses are often gang members. Several challenges were cited regarding the identification of gang membership: lack of evidence provided by law enforcement' linking the crime definitively to the furtherance of a gang; and lack of familiarity with gangs outside their county. Additional challenges were raised by specific jurisdictions and are reported as: extraditing witnesses or their families in danger; assuring for the safety of attorneys threatened by gang members; obtaining sufficient resources to prosecute gang crimes; a lack of sympathy for the victim when the victim is a gang member.

DEFINING GANG-RELATED CRIME
Most counties (62 percent) defined a gang-related crime as any crime that was committed by an individual or individuals identified as a gang member in the furtherance of a gang or gang activity. Three counties, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal 2002 Gangs In Arizona 35

included any crime committed by a gang member as a gang-related crime. Graham and Greenlee counties had no set policy on determining which cases were gang-related. Each determination was done on a case-by-case basis .

GANG PROSECUTION STATISTICS
Currently 10 of the responding agencies do not keep any statistics related to the gang prosecutions occurring in their jurisdiction. The failure or inability to keep statistics is directly related to the limited number of gang prosecutions that occur in the smaller counties. Four agencies reported that their agency keeps statistics related to the gang prosecutions occurring in their jurisdiction. Maricopa, Mohave, Pima and Yuma counties keep statistics on these crimes, as does the Arizona Attorney General's Office. Through these statistics, agencies were able to determine the types of crimes prosecuted as gang-related, the number of gangrelated prosecutions occurring in a specific period and the number of violent gang-related prosecutions.

ADEQUACY OF STATE LAWS
In surveying local jurisdictions, most counties considered the state codes to be adequate when addressing the gang problem in Arizona. However, the following local concerns relating to Arizona laws were listed: The lack of mandatory sentencing causes sentences to be too inconsistent between judges. Tribal codes do not adequately cover violent gang activity that occurs on tribal land. Hindering prosecution for homicides and aggravated assaults should be more serious than a class five felony. The need for videotape testimony, higher bond requirements, stricter restrictions on gang suspects in jail to avoid witness intimidation. Develop a clear vision as to whether the issue of gangs is a priority for the state.

VICTIM/WITNESS COOPERATION
According to the Arizona Attorney General's Office and county attorney offices, victim and witness cooperation is a key part of any gang related case. The role of victim and witness advocates is important on issues such as preserving witness anonymity when possible, relocating those in danger and providing information about the prosecution at every stage. Many cases fail without witness cooperation, but fear for their families often keeps victims and witnesses from coming forward against a gang or syndicate. Most counties also expressed the 2002 Gangs In Arizona 36

need for more funds to be able to better protect witnesses and victims to ensure cooperation. At this time, gang prosecutions in Arizona occur primarily in the larger counties. This is because the level and extent of gangs and gang-related crime are larger in these areas as compared to the smaller counties. Maricopa and Pima counties report the largest gang problems and therefore expend the largest amount of resources in prosecuting gang crimes. Due to diversity of gangs throughout the state, each county adopts a variety of strategies to prosecute gang crimes. These strategies range from prosecuting specific types of crimes to aggressively pursuing crimes under gang-related statutes. While many of the crimes committed by gangs, such as vandalism and tagging are not violent, these gangs are also often involved in drug sales and are responsible for a significant number of assaults, as well as some murders. As a result, prosecutors in Arizona expend a significant amount of time and resources on all types of crimes committed by gang members. Currently, 47 percent of prosecution agencies devote specific resources to gang prosecution. In the remaining counties, prosecutors from other areas (e.g. misdemeanor cases) prosecute gang crimes when they occur. Many problems were mentioned by the responding prosecutors, the primary two being a lack of resources (money and staff) and the difficulty in getting witnesses and victims to testify due to fear of retaliation. Despite these issues, county prosecutors aggressively work to prosecute gang members throughout the state.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

PROBATION
The following section of the report highlights the responses from Arizona's probation agencies. Twenty-two probation agencies responded to this year's survey. Participating agencies included nine adult probation departments, seven juvenile probation departments and six county probation departments that supervise both adult and juvenile probationers. This section of the report summarizes the responses received from Arizona's probation agencies.

Perception of Youth Gang Problem
In 2001, 66.7 percent of responding probation agencies indicated that, when compared to 2000, their youth gang problem in 2001 remained about the same, whereas 16.7 percent reported that they had worsened, and 16.6 said they were unable to respond to the question. The response provided by probation agencies in Arizona to this question is noteworthy because none of the agencies indicated that the gang problem was improving (getting better) when compared to 2000. The following table summarizes this information. TABLE 7:

PERCEPTION OF YOUTH GANG PROBLEM (PERCENTAGE) STAYING SAME 66.7 GETTING WORSE 16.7 GETTING BETTER 0 UNABLE TO DETERMINE 16.6 TOTAL 100 Probation agencies were also asked how serious the gang problem was in their jurisdiction compared to other public safety issues. Fifty percent of responding agencies indicated that gangs were "one of the most serous" public safety issues, 16.7 percent indicted that "gangs were a medium serious" public safety issue, 16.7 percent of respondents also indicated that gangs were a "public safety issue," and only 8.3 percent of respondents indicated that gangs were "not much" of a public safety issue in their jurisdiction.

Gang Member Identification Criteria
In 2000, 64 percent of responding probation agencies indicated that they used only the GMIC to identify gang members in their jurisdiction. Twenty-nine percent said that they used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and seven percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than the GMIC. This year, 58.3 percent of responding agencies indicated

2002 Gangs In Arizona

that they exclusively used the GMIC to identify gangs, 33.3 percent used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and 8.4 percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than GMIC. TABLE 8:

GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA (PERCENTAGE) GMIC ONLY 64 58 GMIC/OTHER CRITERIA 29 33 OTHER/UNABLE TO DETERMINE 7 8 TOTAL 100 100
Note: numbers may not add up due to rounding.

GANG TASK FORCE PARTICPATION
Fifty percent of responding agencies indicated that they currently participated in the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM). In contrast 41.7 percent of respondents indicated that they do not participate in GITEM, and 8.3 percent were unable to respond to this question. Similar to law enforcement agencies, the probation departments that did not participate in GITEM identified a lack of equipment, technology, personnel, training and resources as barriers. Most probation agencies in Arizona perceive the gang problem in Arizona as staying the same. Only 16.7 percent thought the problem was getting worse, and no agencies perceived the problem as getting better. At this time, the Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC) continues to be the most widely used identification method. This is significant because it shows standardization in gang member identification among probation departments.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

ARIZONA JUVENILE CORRECTIONS (ADJC)
Established in 1990 as a separate, cabinet-level agency, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is the state agency responsible for juveniles adjudicated and committed to its jurisdiction by the county juvenile courts. The agency mission is to enhance public safety by changing the delinquent behaviors of juvenile offenders committed to the department. The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections is also responsible for the development and provision of a continuum for juvenile offenders including rehabilitation, treatment and education. Currently, the ADJC secure facilities include Adobe Mountain School; Encanto Mental Health Facility for Boys; Black Canyon Facility for Girls; Catalina Mountain Facility; and Southwest Regional Juvenile Corrections Complex. The combined facilities can house 1,168 juveniles throughout Arizona. The following table illustrates the average institutional count and capacity for each of the facilities. TABLE 9: JUVENILE CORRECTIONS POPULATION (1997-2001)
Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Adobe Mountain Average Capacity 406 538 464 471 407 408 408 408 420 470 Catalina Mountain Average Capacity 128 151 150 146 142 124 124 124 146 146 Black Canyon Average Capacity 191 213 174 155 111 192 192 192 168 118 Southwest Regional Average Capacity 0 0 92 135 232 0 0 200 300 400 Encanto Average 26 29 30 0 31 Capacity 34 34 34 34 34

As can be seen in Table 9, with the exception of the Southwest Regional Juvenile Corrections Complex, the ADJC facilities are operating at 87 to 97 percent of their facilities maximum capacity. This indicates the need for additional resources for juvenile corrections to ensure that the quality of services provided is not compromised by increasing numbers of juveniles at each of the five facilities. The ADJC facilities offer specialized programs for sexual offenders, violent offenders and substance abuse. Each juvenile is evaluated within 30 days of entering the department to determine the most effective way to address their delinquency. Specific programs within the secure facilities are designed to identify the root causes of juvenile crime. For instance, juveniles attend daily counseling and life-skills classes designed to develop better decision-making skills, instill a sense of responsibility and change behaviors that contribute to criminal activity. Additionally, youth in ADJC participate in work programs designed to build basic job skills and proficiency in a particular area. Academic classes are also mandatory for youth who have not completed high school.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

During the 10-day initial evaluation process, individuals are identified according to A.R.S. 13-105 for gang membership. If gang membership is determined, photographs are taken of any tattoos or identifying marks associated with the gang. Once this information is collected, it is entered into a computerized system that tracks any future activity of the individual during their stay at ADJC. Each facility also collects internal and external information on street gang members and/or security threat groups. The information and intelligence that is compiled by ADJC staff is used by other criminal justice agencies, including the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) for information and intelligence purposes. The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections tracks every reported incident occurring within the facility that requires an Incident Report. An Incident Report includes the date, time, unit(s), juvenile name(s), juvenile identification number(s), gang affiliations(s) and a detailed description of the incident. All Incident Reports are recorded and full reports of gang activity are analyzed on a monthly and annual basis. The following table outlines all reported gang activity during 2001 for ADJC facilities. The information on Table 10 depicts the number of incidents occurring in all Department of Juvenile Corrections facilities statewide. In previous reports, this information has only been available for the Adobe Mountain Juvenile facility. TABLE 10: NUMBER OF INCIDENTS September November December February January
GANG INCIDENTS STAFF ASSAULTS YOUTH/YOUTH ASSAULTS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY GANG PARAPHERNALIA USE OF FORCE GANG ACTIVITY TATTOOS MUTUAL FIGHTS OTHER TOTAL 31 2 4 8 17 2 7 0 0 2 73

October

August

March
31 0 6 6 11 2 4 0 0 0 60

Total

June

April

May

July

33 0 6 9 17 5 5 0 1 4 80

29 0 6 10 23 3 4 0 1 0 76

23 0 2 5 19 2 1 3 0 0 55

23 0 3 5 24 1 3 3 0 1 63

35 1 4 4 27 2 5 1 1 1 81

27 1 2 4 15 3 4 0 1 4 61

56 0 2 4 24 0 5 3 0 1 95

20 2 1 4 12 5 3 0 3 0 50

26 0 2 3 10 3 2 1 1 1 49

19 0 12 3 12 2 1 0 0 0 49

353 6 50 65 211 30 44 11 7 14 791

2002 Gangs In Arizona

ARIZONA ADULT CORRECTIONS
Traditional prison gangs, also known as security threat groups, were formed in the late 1950s as a means for incarcerated individuals to protect themselves from other groups within the institution. The term security threat group is a nationally recognized term used throughout most correctional facilities within the United States. The term security threat group accurately embraces all of the characteristics of prison gangs and reflects their impact on the security of prison operations. Adult correctional facilities also label prison gangs as security threat groups because of the threat gangs pose to the institution as a result of being in a secured setting for an extended period of time.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (ADC)
The Arizona Department of Corrections is a state-level agency created to serve and protect the people of Arizona by imprisoning those offenders legally committed to the Department and by providing community-based supervision for those conditionally released. Currently, the Department of Corrections defines a security threat group as "any organization, club, association or group of individuals, formal or informal (including traditional prison gangs), that may have a common name, identifying sign or symbol, and whose members engage in activities that would include, but are not limited to planning, organizing, threatening, financing, soliciting, committing, or attempting to commit unlawful acts or an act that would violate the department's written instructions, which would detract from the safe orderly operations of prisons" (Arizona Department of Corrections, 2002). The Security Threat Group Management Program exists within the Department of Corrections. The goal of this group is to "ensure safe, secure and orderly operations for staff, visitors, and inmates throughout the department by identifying, certifying, and validating security threat groups, individual members, and monitoring their activities (Arizona Department of Corrections, 2002). In 2001, the Arizona Department of Correction's Security Threat Group Unit consisted of two supervisors and 10 special investigators. As part of departmental policy, ADC monitors every inmate associated with a gang including: (1) inmates who have passed the Department's internally-developed qualitative review process designed to provide clear documentation confirming membership in a specific gang; (2) inmates who have displayed some gangrelated behavior or other indicators, but have not yet passed the Department's validation criteria; and (3) inmates who have renounced gang membership, but are still tracked for gang association. Once incarcerated, inmates are monitored to determine their street gang membership, if they are a threat to the institution and to determine if they are likely to join a security group. Currently, gang information is collected from within the institution as well as from other criminal justice agencies. Based on 2002 Gangs In Arizona 42

this information, eight certified security threat groups have been identified within the Arizona Department of Corrections. In Arizona, "a certified security threat group is a group that has been through a formal process of identification and documentation, which after completion identifies that group and its members as a threat to the safe orderly operation of the prisons" (Arizona Department of Corrections, 2002). The eight certified Security Threat Groups are: (1) Aryan Brotherhood; (2) Surenos; (3) Border Brothers; (4) Grandel; (5) Old Mexican Mafia; (6) Mau Mau; (7) New Mexican Mafia; and the (8) Warrior Society. Currently, there are also two additional groups being monitored by the Department of Corrections. Specifically, these groups are: La Raza and the African American Council. Table 11 summarizes the certified gang population of the Arizona Department of Corrections. TABLE 11: SECURITY THREAT GROUP MEMBERS

1998
Aryan Brotherhood Border Brothers Grandel Mau-Mau New Mexican Mafia Old Mexican Mafia Surenos Warrior Society
239 -205 167 208 53 --

1999
238 -228 184 270 60 --

2000
346 507 266 158 293 60 302

2001
487 559 309 171 394 72 488 157

-872

-980

-1932

TOTAL

2637

As can be seen in Table 11, the total certified gang population reported by the Department of Corrections has increased by 27 percent from 2000 to 2001. Since 1991, the Arizona prison population has increased from 15,464 to 28,059 or by 81.5 percent. Growth over this period averaged 1,259.5 per year or 105.0 per month. It should be noted that table 11 reflects association with the eight certified STG groups ADC monitors. Historically, 25% of all incoming ADC inmates have street gang affiliations. It should also be noted that of the 2,637 security threat group members identified, 1,087 are not incarcerated, but on the streets of Arizona.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

CONCLUSION
Criminal justice agencies in Arizona have made advancements in their response to gangs. The state has established objective standards to identify and monitor gang members, and according to this year's survey results more than 80 percent of criminal justice agencies use the GMIC to identify gang members within their jurisdiction. This is notable because it indicates that criminal justice agencies are using the same criteria to identify gang members throughout the state. Arizona has also implemented a variety of statutes designed to enhance the penalties for gang-related crimes. These statutes represent one of Arizona's strategies to hold gang members accountable for their criminal acts and also send a message that delinquent acts and criminal activity will not be tolerated by the state. Arizona has also placed greater emphasis on community-based prevention programs, recognizing that a proactive response to gangs may be much more effective than a reactive response. Preliminary results from programs such as the OJJDP (Spergel) Model and Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) Program suggest a positive impact on the gang problem throughout the state. In addition to these prevention programs, Arizona continues to expend a significant amount of resources on programs aimed at providing at-risk youth with opportunities other than gang involvement. As such, it is important to future efforts to develop a needs assessment that will identify the risk and protective factors associated with gang membership and participation. Future analysis of the Arizona Youth Survey data by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission represents a major step towards this goal. The development of a gang-related needs assessment will improve the state's ability to develop and implement focused prevention and intervention strategies for youth in Arizona. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission continues to contribute information and resources to criminal justice agencies in an effort to assist statewide gang prevention and enforcement. The Commission actively solicits the input of various criminal justice agencies throughout the state to ensure that the annual gang report reflects accurate information about gangs in Arizona. The recent adoption of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) Survey is yet another step taken by the Commission to provide meaningful information about gangs in Arizona. More than one-half (53 percent) of the criminal justice agencies that responded to this year's survey indicated that gangs are either "one of the serious public safety issues they face" or a "medium serious public safety issue" in their jurisdiction. Fifty-five percent of all criminal justice agencies responding to this year's survey indicated that when compared to 2000, the gang problem in 2001 was "staying the same," twenty-five percent reported that the gang problem was "getting worse," and only 16 percent of criminal justice agencies indicated that the gang problem was "getting better." Arizona criminal justice agencies also 2002 Gangs In Arizona 44

provided similar responses about the types of crimes most commonly committed by gang members. More than half of the participating criminal justice agencies indicated that gang members participate in drug activities, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny theft, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. Although Arizona has made progress in their response to gangs, criminal justice agencies throughout the state will continue to face challenges. The first challenge relates to the coordination and sharing of information. Although many more agencies are now coordinating efforts and sharing information, currently only 33 out of more than 130 law enforcement agencies have signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the State Gang Task Force's statewide database. This represents an increase of ten agencies from the past year and reflects a need for an increased effort by non-participating agencies. Due to the inherent importance of data coordination and sharing, Arizona must extend greater effort to improve the sharing of gang information and encourage the use of the state gang task force (GITEM) as the central agency responsible for coordinating this information. Improvements in information sharing among criminal justice agencies will contribute to and enhance gang reduction, suppression and enforcement efforts statewide. The Arizona criminal justice system will also face challenges related to population increases. Since 1991, Arizona's population has been increasing at a rate nearly three times faster than the rest of the nation. This population increase is likely to result in an increase in gangs and gang activity. The problems resulting from the increase in gangs and gang-related crime will be further compounded by the absence of the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) in rural counties. Therefore, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to develop and implement strategies that will effectively respond to the increase in gangs and gang-related crime that is likely to occur over the next few years. Arizona's corrections departments will also be impacted by the population increases. Over the past 10 years, the adult corrections population has increased 81.5 percent. Similarly, the juvenile corrections population has also increased in recent years. In fact, four of the five juvenile correction facilities are operating at 87 to 97 percent of capacity. The increases in both the adult and juvenile corrections population over the past few years represents an additional area in which greater attention and resources must be extended to ensure that Arizona's correctional facilities continue to operate both efficiently and effectively. Prosecution agencies will face several challenges related to gang prosecution. As the nature and extent of gang prosecutions varies throughout Arizona, the challenges to prosecution are also unique for each county. However, the one challenge expressed by almost all prosecution agencies was the unwillingness of witnesses to testify in gang-related cases. Identifying gang membership, lack of evidence, and proving that a crime was committed to further a gang were also

2002 Gangs In Arizona

mentioned as challenges to prosecuting gang-related cases. Although not expressed by all counties, some prosecution agencies identified extraditing defendants who have fled to other countries, attorney safety and obtaining adequate resources as major challenges. Both geographical location and current criminal trends make Arizona an ideal target for illegal economic profits. This in part has contributed to Arizona's total crime index ranking. Since 1991, Arizona has maintained a high crime ranking and is currently ranked number one in the nation. This is noteworthy because many of the crimes in which Arizona currently ranks within the top ten in the nation are also the same crimes that surveyed law enforcement agencies reported as high gang member involvement crimes(e.g. motor vehicle theft, burglary and robbery). The relationship between Arizona's number one total crime index ranking and gang involvement is noteworthy. As a result of Arizona's current crime trends, and because of the predicted increase in gangs, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies throughout the state continue to receive the resources necessary to effectively respond to the problem of gangs in Arizona. As a result of these challenges, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to coordinate resources to identify areas which demand attention and focus. While many of the issues related to gangs remain a challenge for criminal justice and social service agencies, it is apparent that no single strategy will solve the problem of street gangs and gang-related activity. Instead, Arizona must continue to rely on a concerted, coordinated strategy among criminal justice and social service agencies. Increased resources, improved assessment tools, effective prevention strategies, and the coordination of information will improve Arizona's comprehensive response to gangs and result in a reduction of gangs and gang-related crimes. Although there is a variety of resources within the state that focus on gangs, additional resources must be expended to effectively respond to gangs in future years.

2002 Gangs In Arizona

APPENDIX A: 2001 SURVEY RESPONDENTS
LAW ENFORCEMENT
56th Security Forces Squadron- Luke AFB Air Force Office of Special Investigations AK-Chin Police Department Apache County Sheriff's Office Avondale Police Department Benson Police Department Bisbee Police Department Buckeye Police Department Bullhead City Police Department Camp Verde Marshal's Office Casa Grande Police Department Cave Creek Marshals Office Chandler Police Department Chino Valley Police Department Clarkdale Police Department Cochise County Sheriff's Office Coconino County Sheriff's Office Cocopah Police Department Colorado City Town Marshal's Office Coolidge Police Department Cottonwood Police Department Drug Enforcement Agency- Phoenix Douglas Police Department Eager Police Department El Mirage Police Department Eloy Police Department Federal Bureau of Investigations Flagstaff Police Department Florence Police Department Fort McDowell Tribal Police Department Fort Mohave Police Department Fountain Hills Marshal's Office Fredonia Police Department Gila County Sheriffs Office Gila River Police Department Gilbert Police Department Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Glendale Police Department Globe Police Department Goodyear Police Department Graham County Sheriff Greenlee County Sheriff Havasupai Indian Tribal Police Hayden Police Department Holbrook Police Department Hopi BIA Law Enforcement Huachuca City Police Department Jerome Police Department Kearny Police Department Kingman Police Department La Paz County Sheriff's Office Lake Havasu City Police Department Mammoth Police Department Marana Police Department Maricopa County Sheriff Mesa Police Department Miami Police Department Mohave County Sheriff Navajo County Sheriff Navajo Department of Law Enforcement Naval Criminal Investigations Service Nogales Police Department Oro Valley Police Department Page Police Department Paradise Valley Police Department Parker Police Department Patagonia Marshals Office Payson Police Department Peoria Police Department Phoenix Police Department Pima County Sheriff Pima Police Department Pinal County Sheriff Department Pinetop-Lakeside Police Department Prescott Police Department Prescott Valley Police Quartzsite Marshal Quechan Tribal Police Department Safford Police Department Sahuarita Police Department Salt River Tribal Police Department San Luis Police Department Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office Scottsdale Police Department Sedona Police Department Show Low Police Department Sierra Vista Police Department Snowflake-Taylor Police

2002 Gangs In Arizona

Somerton Police Department South Tucson Police Department Springerville Police Department St. Johns Police Department Superior Police Department Surprise Police Department Tempe Police Department Thatcher Police Department Tolleson Police Department Tombstone Marshal's Office Tonto Apache Indian Tribe Tucson Airport Authority Police Department Tucson Police Department US Border Patrol US Customs US Marshals Office

US Secret Service- Phoenix US Border Patrol- Tucson Station US Border Patrol- Yuma Station US Customs- Tucson Wellton Police Department Wickenburg Police Department Willcox Police Department Williams Police Department Winslow Police Department Yavapai-Apache Indian Nation Yavapai-Prescott Tribal Police Yavapai County Sheriff Youngtown Police Department Yuma County Sheriff Yuma Police Department

PROSECUTION
AK-Chin Indian Community Prosecution Apache County Attorney's Office Attorney General Cochise County Attorney's Office Coconino County Attorney's Office Cocopah Indian Tribe Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Gila County Attorney's Office Graham County Attorney's Office Greenlee County Attorney's Office Hualapai Indian Tribe La Paz County Attorney's Office Maricopa County Attorney's Office Mohave County Attorney's Office Navajo County Attorney's Office Pascua Yaqui Tribe Prosecutors Office Pima County Attorney's Office Pinal County Attorney's Office Santa Cruz County Attorney's Office Southern Paiute Field Station Tonto Apache Tribal Court White Mountain Prosecution Unit Yavapai County Attorney's Office Yuma County Attorney's Office

pace County Adult Probation Apache County Juvenile Court Services Cochise County Adult Probation Cochise County Juvenile Court Services Coconino Adult Probation Coconino Juvenile Probation Gila Probation Graham Probation Department Greenlee Probation La Paz Probation Maricopa Adult Probation Maricopa Juvenile Probation Department Mohave Probation Department Navajo Probation Pima Adult Probation Pinal Adult Probation Pinal Juvenile Court Services Santa Cruz Probation Yavapai Adult Probation Yavapai Juvenile Court Services Yuma Juvenile Court Service

A PROBATION

2002 Gangs In Arizona

APPENDIX B: GITEM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Arizona Department of Corrections Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Benson Police Department Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Immigration Naturalization Services Bullhead City Police Department Chandler Police Department Coconino County Sheriff's Office Coolidge Police Department Cottonwood Police Department Eloy Police Department Fountain Hills Police Department Glendale Police Department Kingman Police Department Marana Police Department Maricopa Attorney's Office Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Mesa Police Department Mohave Sheriff's Office Navajo County Sheriff's Office Oro Valley Police Department Phoenix Police Department Pima County Sheriff's Office Pinal County Sheriff's Office Show Low Police Department Sierra Vista Police Department Somerton Police Department Surprise Police Department Tempe Police Department Tucson Police Department Willcox Police Department Yuma Police Department Yuma County Sheriff's Office

2002 Gangs In Arizona

APPENDIX C: GANG RELATED WEB SITES
*please send additions/modifications to sballance@acjc.state.az.us

GANGS
A Comprehensive History of Blood and Crip Gangs in LA http://www.streetgangs.com/ American Gang Information Center http://members.tripod.com/~Carl815/ganginfo.html An Urban Ethnography of Latino Street Gangs http://www.altenforst.de/faecher/englisch/immi/table.htm Arizona Criminal Justice Commission http://www.acjc.state.az.us Florida Department of Corrections Gang and Security Threat Group Awareness http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/index.html GangInformation.com (Prison Gang Information and More) http://ganginformation.com/ Gangs OR Us http://gangsorus.com Gangs Show Off Their Colors Online http://www.sfgate.com Hardcore: A Series of Articles by the Phoenix New Times http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/extra/hardcore/index.html Hate on Display: A Visual Database of Extremist Symbols, Logos and Tattoos (AntiDefamation League) http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default.htm International Association of Asian Crime Investigators http://www.iaaci.com/ Larry Hoover Story (Illinois Criminal Justice Authority) http://www.ipsn.org/hoover3.html Mark's Parole and Crime Page http://www.tbcnet.com/~salsberry/ Wannabe: A Documentary from Wisconsin Public Television http://www.itvs.org/wannabe/index.html Wood County Gang Task Force (Gang awareness, prevention and intervention) http://www.wcnet.org/~wcgtf/index.html

2002 Gangs In Arizona

GRAFFITI
Art Crimes: The Writing On The Wall http://www.graffiti.org/ Chicago Hoodz: In-Depth Look at Chicago Gang Graffiti http://www.dougweb.com/grlinks.html Graffiti-Related Links on the World Wide Web http://www.dougweb.com/grlinks.html Operation CleanSWEEP http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/OID/Operation_CleanSweep.htm

GANG PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
A Parent's Guide to Preventing Gangs (Memphis, TN Police Department) http://www.lunaweb.com/pargang.htm Boys and Girls Clubs of America http://www.bgca.org/ Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/ Connect for Kids http://www.connectforkids.org/content1555/content_list.htm?attrib_id=335 Educators for Social Responsibility http://www.esrnational.org/ ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/ Gang Crime Prevention Center http://www.gcpc.state.il.us/ Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) http://www.atf.treas.gov/great/index.htm Gangstyle.com http://www.gangstyle.com/ Mothers Against Gangs (MAG) http://www.winternet.com/~jannmart/nkcmag.html National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: Division of Violence Prevention (Center for Disease Control) http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/dvp.htm

2002 Gangs In Arizona

National Crime Prevention Council (10 Tools to Involve Parents in Gang Prevention) http://www.ncpc.org/10ad1.htm National Parent Information Network (NPIN) http://www.npin.org/ National School Safety Center http://www.nssc1.org/ National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign http://www1.theantidrug.com/ National Youth Employment Coalition http://www.nyec.org/ National Youth Gang Center http://www.iir.com/nygc/ New Approaches Needed to Discourage Gangs (King County, Washington) http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/commentary/123097com.htm Parenting Resources for the 21st Century http://www.parentingresources.ncjrs.org/ Peer Resources Consulting Services http://www.islandnet.com/~rcarr/peer.html Project No Gangs (Orange County, California) http://www.duila.org/project.htm Stop the Violence...Face the Music Society http://www.stv.net/ Street Gangs: The View From The Street (From the Do It Now Foundation) http://www.doitnow.org/pages/178.html Teen Gangs (Connecticut Clearinghouse Fact Sheet) http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/fteengng.htm U.S. Department of Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/ United States Institute of Peace Conflict Resolution articles and links http://www.usip.org/

GANG MYTHS
Urban Legends Reference Page http://www.snopes2.com/

2002 Gangs In Arizona

GRANTS AND FUNDING
Notices of Federal Funding Available http://ocd.usda.gov/nofa.htm Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/grants/grants.html U.S. Department of Education Funding Opportunities http://www.ed.gov/funding.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: GrantsNet http://www.hhs.gov/refers/progorg.html U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/commut.html U.S. Department of Justice Community Support and Grants http://www.usdoj.gov/index.html

LAW ENFORCEMENT
APBNews.com http://www.apbnews.com/ Corrections Online http://www.corrections.com/ Law Enforcement Jobs http://www.lawenforcementjob.com/ New York Department of Corrections http://www.docs.state.ny.us/

2002 Gangs In Arizona

REFERENCES
Arizona Department of Corrections. Security Threat Groups. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Corrections, (2002). Arizona Drug and Gang Resource Prevention Center. ADGPRC Gang Resource Guide. Phoenix: Arizona Drug and Gang Resource Prevention Center, (2002). Burch, J. & Kane, C. Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, (1999). Cornyn, J. Gangs in Texas 2001: An Overview. Austin: Office of the Attorney General, (2001). Gist, N. Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical Guide. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice-Office of Justice Programs, (1999). Gang Resistance Education and Training. G.R.E.A.T. Phoenix: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, (2002). Institute for Intergovernmental Research. Comprehensive Gang Model. Washington DC: National Youth Gang Center, (2002). Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Youth Gangs: An Overview. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, (1998). Juvenile Probation Services. Communities and Crime Prevention. Phoenix: Maricopa Superior Court, (2002). National Youth Gang Center. 1998 Youth Gang Survey. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, (1998).

2002 Gangs In Arizona

Object Description

Rating
TITLE	Gangs in Arizona
CREATOR	Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
SUBJECT	Gangs--Arizona--Periodicals; Drug control--Arizona--Periodicals; Criminal justice, Administration of--Arizona--Periodicals;
Browse Topic	Crime and violence
DESCRIPTION	This title contains one or more publications. Annual. Earlier see Prison and street gangs in Arizona http://azmemory.lib.az.us/u?/statepubs,3295
Language	English
Publisher	Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
Material Collection	State Documents Annual Reports
Source Identifier	CJC 1.3:S 76/
Location	53784718
REPOSITORY	Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library Division.

Description

TITLE	2002 gangs in Arizona
DESCRIPTION	55 pages (PDF version). File size: 236.993 KB. "February 2003." "Statistical Analysis Center Publication."
Language	English
TYPE	Text
Acquisition Note	http://azcjc.gov/publications/publications.asp
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	2003-02
Time Period	2000s (2000-2009)
ORIGINAL FORMAT	Born Digital
Source Identifier	CJC 1.3:S 76/2002
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER	033103_GangReport2003.pdf
DIGITAL FORMAT	PDF (Portable Document Format)
REPOSITORY	Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library Division.
File Size	236.993 KB
Full Text	Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Publication O u r mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona 2002 Gangs in Arizona February 2003 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Chairperson RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor RON CHRISTENSEN Gila County Board of Supervisors CARROL de BROEKERT Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff BILL FITZGERALD Yavapai County Adult Probation Officer BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney CHRISTOPHER SKELLY Judge, Retired DENNIS GARRETT Department of Public Safety Director J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief RICHARD M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Attorney RICHARD YOST City of El Mirage Police Chief TERRY GODDARD Attorney General RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief CHARLES L. RYAN Department of Corrections Acting Director MICHAEL D. BRANHAM Executive Director STEVE BALLANCE Statistical Analysis Center Director DON THOMAS Senior Research Analyst DAMITA KALOOSTIAN Research Analyst TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................9 REPORT PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................................11 RESEARCH METHODS..........................................................................................................................................11 ARIZONA LEGISLATION .....................................................................................................................................13 WHAT IS A GANG ................................................................................................................................................14 GANG SENTENCING ...........................................................................................................................................15 PREVENTION ..........................................................................................................................................................17 NATIONAL STRATEGIES ...................................................................................................................................17 Bloomington, Illinois..........................................................................................................................................18 Riverside, California ..........................................................................................................................................18 San Antonio, Texas.............................................................................................................................................18 Tucson, Arizona .................................................................................................................................................19 Mesa, Arizona ....................................................................................................................................................19 STATE STRATEGIES ...........................................................................................................................................20 Drug and Gang Council.....................................................................................................................................20 Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center ....................................................................................................21 Gang Reduction Awareness Prevention Education (G.R.A.P.E.) ......................................................................21 Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.).....................................................................................21 State Gang Unit..................................................................................................................................................22 Tucson Youth Program ......................................................................................................................................22 Arizona Youth Survey.........................................................................................................................................22 ENFORCEMENT......................................................................................................................................................24 STATE GANG TASK FORCE...............................................................................................................................24 ARIZONA GANG ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................25 SURVEY RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................26 Prevalence of Youth Gangs................................................................................................................................26 Perception of Youth Gang Problem ...................................................................................................................27 Youth Gangs and Members ................................................................................................................................27 Gang Member Demographics ............................................................................................................................28 Gang Member Involvement in Criminal Activity................................................................................................29 Use of Firearms in Violent Crimes ....................................................................................................................30 Gang Member Involvement in Drug Activities...................................................................................................31 Information Systems...........................................................................................................................................32 Gang Member Identification Criteria ................................................................................................................33 Gang Task Force Participation .........................................................................................................................33 PROSECUTION........................................................................................................................................................34 GANG PROSECUTIONS ......................................................................................................................................34 PROSECUTED CRIMES .......................................................................................................................................34 GANG PROSECUTION RESOURCES.................................................................................................................35 GANG PROSECUTION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................35 GANG PROSECUTION CHALLENGES..............................................................................................................35 DEFINING GANG-RELATED CRIME ................................................................................................................35 GANG PROSECUTION STATISTICS..................................................................................................................36 ADEQUACY OF STATE LAWS...........................................................................................................................36 VICTIM/WITNESS COOPERATION ...................................................................................................................36 PROBATION .............................................................................................................................................................38 PERCEPTION OF YOUTH GANG PROBLEM ................................................................................................................38 GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA.............................................................................................................38 GANG TASK FORCE PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................................39 ARIZONA JUVENILE CORRECTIONS (ADJC) ................................................................................................40 ARIZONA ADULT CORRECTIONS.....................................................................................................................42 2002 Gangs In Arizona 2 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (ADC).....................................................................................42 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................................44 APPENDIX A: 2001 SURVEY RESPONDENTS...................................................................................................47 APPENDIX B: GITEM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ..................................................................49 APPENDIX C: GANG RELATED WEB SITES...................................................................................................50 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................54 2002 Gangs In Arizona 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and the Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank the law enforcement, prosecution, probation and corrections agencies who contributed to this report. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Lieutenant Steve Breese, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Arlen Egley, National Youth Gang Center Ed Feingold, Arizona Department of Public Safety (GITEM) Todd Garrish, Arizona Department of Corrections Caroline Hotaling, Gang Reduction, Awareness, Prevention and Education Charles Katz, Ph.D., Arizona State University West Karen Pugh, Our Town Don Wittman, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Lieutenant James McGuffin, Arizona Department of Public Safety 2002 Gangs In Arizona 4 Statistical Analysis Center Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2002 GANGS IN ARIZONA ___________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission has produced an annual report on gangs for more than a decade. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 412416, the purpose of this report is to provide information about gangs and gangrelated crimes. This report is intended to be used to develop and implement strategies to combat gangs in Arizona. This report focuses on: legislation; prevention; enforcement; prosecution; probation and corrections. Examining each of these sources provides a current snapshot of gangs in Arizona and assists future gang prevention, intervention and suppression efforts statewide. Since 1990, an annual gang survey has been administered by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies in Arizona. This survey has been an instrumental part of the annual report produced by the Commission, and has provided beneficial information about gangs in Arizona. In an effort to obtain more useful gang information, this survey has been expanded throughout the years to include federal, tribal, prosecution, probation and corrections agencies in Arizona. In preparation for this report, the ACJC modified the survey created and used by the National Youth Gang Center. ACJC's newly revised survey will not only enhance the quality of gang information available within the state, but it will also allow gang trends in Arizona to be compared to national trends. In Arizona, authorities track predominantly three types of gangs: Street, Prison and Motorcycle. For the purpose of the 2002 Gangs in Arizona document the emphasis is on Street and Prison gangs. Readers are cautioned that by narrowing the focus of this report to Street and Prison gangs, the writers are in no way attempting to minimize the significance of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona. Although available intelligence and information is more limited and data on motorcycle gangs are often found in "syndicate crime" databases, future reports may focus on the magnitude and impact of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 5 In June 2002, surveys were distributed to 168 criminal justice agencies throughout Arizona. The surveys were designed to capture gang-related information from criminal justice agencies for 2001. Surveys were faxed to 15 county sheriffs, 79 municipal law enforcement agencies, 12 federal agencies, 22 probation agencies, 18 tribal prosecutors and 22 tribal police agencies. Of the 168 surveys distributed, 148 (88 percent) of the surveys (Appendix A) were returned. This response rate (88 percent) is slightly higher than last year's rate (72 percent) and the survey response rate received by the National Youth Gang Center in 2000 (84 percent). The survey results identified several important findings related to Arizona's criminal justice system and gangs. First and most importantly, Arizona's criminal justice agencies have made meaningful advancements in their response to gang activity. The state has established objective standards to identify and monitor gang members. According to this year's survey results more than 80 percent of criminal justice agencies use the Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC) to identify gang members within their jurisdiction. This is notable because it indicates that criminal justice agencies are using the same criteria to identify gang member identification throughout the state. Arizona has also implemented a variety of statutes designed to enhance the penalties for gang-related crimes. These statutes represent one of Arizona's strategies to hold gang members accountable for their criminal acts and send a message that delinquent acts and criminal activity will not be tolerated by the state. Arizona has also placed greater emphasis on community-based prevention programs, recognizing that a proactive response to gangs may be much more effective than a reactive response. Preliminary results from programs such as the OJJDP (Spergel) Model and Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) Program suggest a positive impact on the gang problem throughout the state. In addition to these prevention programs, Arizona continues to expend a significant amount of resources on programs aimed at providing at-risk youth with alternatives other than gang involvement. As such, it is important to develop a needs assessment that will identify the risk and protective factors associated with gang membership and participation. Future analysis of the Arizona Youth Survey data by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission represents one major step towards this goal. The development of a gang-related needs assessment will greatly improve the state's ability to develop and implement focused prevention and intervention strategies for youth in Arizona. In addition to the Arizona Youth Survey, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission continues to contribute information and resources to criminal justice agencies in an effort to assist statewide gang prevention and enforcement. The Commission actively solicits the input of various criminal justice agencies throughout the state to ensure that the annual gang report reflects accurate information about gangs 2002 Gangs In Arizona 6 in Arizona. The recent adoption of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) Survey is yet another step taken by the Commission to provide meaningful information about gangs in Arizona. Fifty-three percent of the criminal justice agencies responding to this year's survey indicated that gangs are either "one of the serious public safety issues they face" or a "medium serious public safety issue" in their jurisdiction. Fifty-five percent of all criminal justice agencies responding to this year's survey also indicated that when compared to 2000, the gang problem in 2001 was "staying the same," 25 percent reported that the gang problem was "getting worse," and only 16 percent of criminal justice agencies indicated that the gang problem was "getting better." Arizona criminal justice agencies also provided similar responses about the types of crimes most commonly committed by gang members. More than half of the participating criminal justice agencies indicated that gang members participate in drug activities, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny theft, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. Although Arizona has made notable progress in their response to gangs, criminal justice agencies throughout the state will continue to face challenges. The first challenge relates to the coordination and sharing of information. Although many more agencies are now coordinating resources and sharing information, currently only 33 out of more than 130 law enforcement agencies have signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the State Gang Task Force's statewide database. This represents an increase of ten agencies from the past year and reflects a need for an increased effort by non-participating agencies. Due to the inherent importance of data coordination and sharing, Arizona must extend greater effort to improve the sharing of gang information and encourage the use of the state gang task force (GITEM) as the central agency responsible for coordinating this information. Improvements in information sharing among criminal justice agencies will contribute to and enhance gang reduction, suppression and enforcement efforts statewide. The Arizona criminal justice system will also face challenges related to population increases. Since 1991, Arizona's population has been increasing at a rate nearly three times faster than the rest of the nation. This population increase is likely to result in an increase in gangs and gang activity. The problems resulting from the increase in gangs and gang-related crime will be further compounded by the absence of the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) in rural counties. Therefore, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to develop and implement strategies that will effectively respond to the increase in gangs and gang-related crime that is likely to occur in the future. Arizona's corrections departments will also be impacted by the population increases. Over the past 10 years, the adult corrections population has increased 2002 Gangs In Arizona 7 81.5 percent. Similarly, the juvenile corrections population has also increased in recent years. In fact, four of Arizona's five juvenile correction facilities are operating at 87 to 97 percent of capacity. The increases in both the adult and juvenile corrections population over the past few years represents an additional area in which greater attention and resources must be extended to ensure that Arizona's correctional facilities continue to operate both efficiently and effectively. Prosecution agencies will also face several challenges related to gang prosecution. As the nature and extent of gang prosecutions varies throughout Arizona, the challenges to prosecution are also unique for each county. However, the one challenge expressed by almost all prosecution agencies was the unwillingness of witnesses to testify in gang-related cases. Identifying gang membership, lack of evidence and proving that a crime was committed to further a gang were also mentioned as challenges to prosecuting gang-related cases. Although not expressed by all counties, some prosecution agencies identified challenges such as extraditing defendants who have fled to other countries, attorney safety and obtaining adequate resources. Both geographical location and current criminal trends make Arizona an ideal target for illegal economic profits. Since 1991, Arizona has maintained a high crime ranking and is currently ranked number one in the nation. Many of the crimes in which Arizona currently ranks within the top 10 in the nation are also the same crimes that surveyed law enforcement agencies reported as high gang member involvement (e.g. motor vehicle theft, burglary and robbery). As a result of Arizona's current crime trends, and because of the predicted increase in gangs, it is important that criminal justice agencies throughout the state continue to receive the resources necessary to effectively respond to the problem of gangs in Arizona. As a result of these challenges, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to coordinate resources to identify areas which demand attention and focus. While many of the issues related to gangs remain a challenge for criminal justice and social service agencies, it is apparent that no single strategy will solve the problem of street gangs and gang-related activity. Instead, Arizona must continue to rely on a concerted, coordinated strategy among criminal justice and social service agencies. Increased resources, improved assessment tools, effective prevention strategies and the coordination of information will improve Arizona's comprehensive response to gangs and result in a reduction of gangs and gang-related crimes. Although there is a variety of resources within the state that focus on gangs, additional resources must be expended to effectively respond to gangs in future years. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 8 INTRODUCTION Although gangs have existed in the United States for decades, gangs today are more complex, violent and criminally oriented than in the past (Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1998). While the previous decade has been marked by an increase in gangs and gang-related activities, there has also been an increase in federal, state and local efforts to suppress gangs. These suppression efforts have taken place against a backdrop in which the Los Angeles Times described: "Decades after authorities identified gangs as a growing and deadly menace in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, the tracking of gangrelated crime remains sporadic and incomplete, with no statistics at all kept in many jurisdictions. National gang experts say the result has been a generation's worth of policy decisions, anti-gang programs and law enforcement initiatives based on social theories and public fear instead of verifiable trends. With no means to track gang-related crime accurately, experts say, it is impossible for cities to know how to reduce gang violence. Authorities even disagree on what a gang crime is." (Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2003) The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in comprehensive gang strategies in Arizona in spite of the aforementioned lack of "verifiable trends" nationally. The Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention developed one of the more notable comprehensive gang strategies in the early 1990s. The OJJDP (Spergel) Model is a prevention, intervention and suppression strategy based on the premise that policies which focus exclusively on deterrence, prevention or rehabilitation are insufficient to confront the problem of gangs. Instead of a single strategy, this model uses community organizations and agencies to implement five core strategies. This combination provides the most effective response to those at the highest risk for gang involvement and ensures both short and long-term reductions in gang crime and violence. Another part of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention's broadbased response to gangs was the establishment of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). The primary purpose of this agency was to create and administer an annual gang survey to a representative sample of law enforcement agencies across the United States. In 1995, the first annual survey to examine youth gangs by the National Youth Gang Center was administered to 4,120 law enforcement agencies nationwide. Since that time, subsequent surveys have been given each year to law enforcement agencies. In recent years, the usefulness of this survey has extended beyond the national level, as many 2002 Gangs In Arizona 9 states, including Arizona, are adopting it in an effort to obtain gang information at the state level. Arizona has also experienced an increase in gangs and gang-related crime over the past decade. This increase is more discernable and will have a wide-ranging impact which varies within each component of Arizona's criminal justice system. Therefore each component of the criminal justice system must respond in a manner which identifies their individual mandates and needs. Criminal justice agencies in Arizona have responded to this increase by implementing gang prevention strategies that have proven successful across the nation. Law enforcement agencies have developed street gang units and task forces as part of the ongoing response to gang activity in Arizona. This includes a statewide gang task force (Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission), county level gang task forces (Drug and Violent Crime) and local street gang units. Prosecution, probation and correction agencies throughout the state have also enhanced their efforts by creating units specializing in gangs and gang-related crimes. In addition to these enforcement and suppression efforts, Arizona is also realizing the benefits of gang prevention strategies by implementing comprehensive programs such as the OJJDP (Spergel) Model. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 10 REPORT PURPOSE The Criminal Justice Commission has produced an annual report on gangs in Arizona for more than a decade. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 41-2416, the purpose of this report is to provide information about gangs and gang-related crimes that can be used by criminal justice agencies, legislators and the public to develop and implement effective strategies to combat gangs in Arizona. This report focuses on: legislation; prevention; enforcement; prosecution; probation and corrections. Examining each of these areas provides a current snapshot of gangs in Arizona and will assist future gang prevention, intervention and suppression efforts statewide. RESEARCH METHODS Since 1990, an annual gang survey has been administered by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies in Arizona. This survey has been an instrumental part of the annual report produced by the Commission, and has been expanded throughout the years to include federal, tribal, prosecution, probation and corrections agencies in Arizona. In preparation for this report, the survey was modified to model the survey created by the National Youth Gang Center. The newly revised survey will not only enhance the quality of gang information available within the state, it will also allow gang trends in Arizona to be compared to national trends. In Arizona, authorities track predominantly three types of gangs: Street, Prison and Motorcycle. For the purpose of the 2002 Gangs in Arizona document the emphasis is on Street and Prison gangs. Readers are cautioned that by narrowing the focus of this report to Street and Prison gangs, the writers are in no way attempting to minimize the significance of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona. Although available intelligence and information is more limited and data on motorcycle gangs are often found in "syndicate crime" databases, future reports may focus on the magnitude and impact of Motorcycle gangs in Arizona. In June 2002, surveys were distributed to 168 criminal justice agencies throughout Arizona. The surveys were designed to capture gang-related information from criminal justice agencies for 2001. Surveys were faxed to 15 county sheriffs, 79 municipal law enforcement agencies, 12 federal agencies, 22 probation agencies, 18 tribal prosecutors and 22 tribal police agencies. Of the 168 surveys distributed, 148 (88 percent) surveys (Appendix A) were returned. This response rate is slightly higher than last year's survey return rate (72 percent) and the survey response rate received by the National Youth Gang Center in 2000 (84 percent). A telephone survey was also developed and administered to designated personnel from Arizona's 15 County Attorney Offices and the Attorney General's Office. The telephone survey was created based on the recognition that 2002 Gangs In Arizona 11 prosecution agencies must respond to gangs differently than law enforcement, probation and correction agencies. The primary goal of the telephone survey was to capture information about the gang prosecutions that occur within the state. The telephone interviews were prescheduled with the designated personnel, and each county was provided with the survey questions prior to the interview. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 12 ARIZONA LEGISLATION Due to the increasing number of crimes committed by gang members, many states have found it necessary to enact gang-related legislation (Walker, 2002). In 1994 the Arizona State Legislature implemented several gang-related definitions and sentencing provisions designed to enhance gang reduction and prevention strategies statewide. Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 13-105.8 includes seven gang member identification criteria developed by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). The Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC) is a statewide standard designed to assist criminal justice agencies with objectively identifying gang membership. In order to be identified as a gang member in Arizona, an individual must meet at least two of the GMIC which are: (1) Self Proclamation; (2) Witness Testimony or Official Statement; (3) Written or Electronic Correspondence; (4) Paraphernalia or Photographs; (5) Tattoos; (6) Clothing or Colors and (7) Any Other Indicia of Street Gang Membership. In order to better understand the GMIC, each criterion is examined below. Self-Proclamation: The self-admission of gang membership or association with a street gang. Self-proclamation can be documented in all records of contact using suspect, victim and/or witness accounts by criminal justice agencies. Witness Testimony or Official Statement: May include court testimony, depositions, or interviews with suspects, victims, witnesses or confidential informants. Written or Electronic Correspondence: Includes information making reference to any gang activity, incidents, names or nicknames. These references may be found in letters, notes, tapes or documents, and can be noted in records of contact, intelligence information and incidents of criminal investigation by law enforcement agencies. Paraphernalia or Photographs: Include photographs or drawings depicting gang membership, association, or involvement. Also included are rings, calling cards, weapons, or other symbols referring to the gang, whether in or out of the control or possession of the gang member. These objects aid in the identification of individuals and groups by showing locations, documents or propaganda relating to the gang. Tattoos: Used in identifying a specific gang moniker or symbol, regardless of gang type. The tattoos may be covered up, burned out or old tattoos. Clothing and Colors: Includes the type, color or manner in which clothing is worn. Other signs include rags, patches, belt buckles, bandannas, hats, 2002 Gangs In Arizona 13 vests, specific colors, accessories and/or jewelry. The type of gang may be a street, prison, motorcycle or other gang. Any Other Indicia of Street Gang Membership: This indicator of street gang membership provides for the recognition of new or innovative ways the ever-changing gang culture may devise for self-recognition or recognition by others. To further address the growing problem of gangs and the violent crimes committed by gangs, the Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1446 in 1997. This bill amended a variety of state statutes related to juvenile law and changed the treatment of juvenile offenders in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. The amended law states that the county attorney shall prosecute a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is 15, 16 or 17 years of age and is a chronic offender or accused of certain felony offenses. The bill also gives prosecutors the discretion to prosecute a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is at least 14 years of age and is a chronic offender or is accused of certain felony offenses. Finally, the law opened records of juvenile proceedings and matters involving juveniles accused of unlawful conduct to the public. The only exceptions were for the protection of innocent victims of a crime or if a court of competent jurisdiction found clear public interest in confidentiality. WHAT IS A GANG The National Youth Gang Center defines a gang as "a group of youths or young adults in a particular jurisdiction that persons in the community are willing to identify and classify as a gang" (1998). This definition does not include motorcycle gangs, hate or ideology groups, prison gangs or other exclusively adult gangs. The primary emphasis of this document is youth gangs but we do not want to minimize the role and impact of adult gangs on our communities. It is noteworthy that a preponderance of the literature available on gangs focuses on youth. Therefore, a single definition of "gang" is difficult to establish because of the sheer diversity of gangs currently in Arizona. In general terms, a gang is a loosely organized group of at least three people. The group usually has a name and may have a leader or leaders. The group may also have identifying signs such as distinctive symbols, clothing, jewelry, tattoos, colors or hand signs. Additionally, members perceive themselves as a gang, associate regularly and collaborate in committing delinquent and/or criminal offenses. While gangs vary in degree of organization, the presence or strength of leaders, identifying signs and the nature of illegal activities, the essential elements for classification as a gang include the gang's perception of itself as a gang and collaboration in violating the law (Cornyn, 2001, p. 1). 2002 Gangs In Arizona 14 Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 13-105 defines a "criminal street gang" as an ongoing formal or informal association of persons whose members or associates individually or collectively engage in the commission, attempted commission, facilitation or solicitation of any felony act and who has at least one individual who is a criminal street gang member. As previously stated, Arizona Revised Statute 13-105.8 defines a criminal street gang member as an individual that meets at least two of the Gang Member Identification Criteria. GANG SENTENCING The 1994 legislation also implemented Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 13604(T) and 13-2308 to increase the presumptive minimum and maximum sentence for identified street gang members. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 13-604(T) mandates that a person convicted of any felony offense with the intent to promote, further or assist any criminal conduct by a criminal street gang shall not be eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as authorized by A.R.S. 31-233 (a) or (b) until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to A.R.S. 41-1604(7) or the sentence is commuted. In addition, this statute increases the presumptive minimum and maximum sentence for an offense by three years. This increased sentence is in addition to any other enhanced sentencing that may be applicable. Arizona Revised Statute 13-2308 (F, G and H) outlines the sentencing provisions for identified gang members. Subsection (F) states that assisting a criminal syndicate is a class 4 felony. The statute identifies any offense committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang for the intent to promote, further or assist any criminal conduct by the gang, assisting a criminal syndicate is a class 3 felony. Subsection (G) mandates that any person who violates subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 4 of this section for the benefit of, at the discretion of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the intent to promote, further or assist any criminal conduct by the gang, is guilty of a class 2 felony. Subsection (H) states that the use of a common name, or common identifying sign or symbol shall be admissible and may be considered improving the combination of persons or enterprises required by this section. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1209 (A) states that: a person commits drive by shooting by intentionally discharging a weapon from a motor vehicle at a person, another occupied motor vehicle or occupied structure. For those individuals convicted of a drive-by shooting, subsection (B) motor vehicles that are used in violation of this section are subject to seizure for forfeiture in the manner provided for in chapter 39 of this title. Subsection (C) not withstanding title 28, chapter 8, the judge shall order the surrender 2002 Gangs In Arizona 15 to the judge of any driver license of the convicted person (D) Drive by shooting is a class 2 felony. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1202 (A) states that: a person commits threatening or intimidating if such person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct: (3) to cause physical injury to another person or damage to the property of another in order to promote, further or assist in the interests of or to cause, induce or solicit another person to participate in a criminal street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise. Subsection (B) states that threatening or intimidating pursuant to subsection (A), paragraph 3 is a class 4 felony. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 16 PREVENTION Prevention is the foundation of any successful gang strategy. Unless the reasons why youth join or want to be associated with gangs are addressed, the problem of gangs will continue to prevail. The following section of the report highlights some successful strategies at both the national and state level. NATIONAL STRATEGIES The Office of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) researches and develops initiatives designed to prevent and reduce gang activity. In 1987, OJJDP began supporting a long-term research project to develop a comprehensive approach for the prevention of youth gang violence. Under the leadership of Dr. Irvin Spergel and individuals from the University of Chicago, the initial research phase was completed in the early 1990s. From this initial research, a comprehensive model was developed for the prevention, intervention and suppression of youth gang violence. The OJJDP (Spergel) Model focuses on individuals less than 22 years of age and uses communities to engage in a systematic gang assessment and program development process. The Model holds that the lack of social opportunities available for certain individuals and the degree of social disorganization present in a community largely accounts for its youth gang problem. As part of this approach, individuals, families, agencies, organizations and the community are reminded that they have a stake in supporting positive behaviors and in taking a firm stance against illegal activities including gang crime, violence, substance abuse and illegitimate behavior (Institute for Intergovernmental Research, 2002). The OJJDP Model involves delivering five core phases through an integrated and team-oriented problem solving approach. Specifically, the five phases are: (1) community mobilization; (2) social intervention; (3) provision of opportunities; (4) suppression, social control and accountability and (5) organizational change and development (Burch, 1999). Phase one consists of bringing together law enforcement agencies, schools, community organizations, citizens and youth of the target area. Phase two includes in-school and after-school programming, mentoring, family counseling, drug treatment and outreach to gang-involved youth. Phase three provides education, vocational training and job placement services to the community. Phase four consists of targeted police operations, and phase five involves sharing information, enhancing case management and establishing multi-disciplinary coordination and training. Phase five also coordinates key decision-makers so that ineffective procedures and interactions can be streamlined and amended. By eliminating ineffective policies that hinder communication between organizations, targeted youth are afforded additional opportunities and are more accountable for their actions. In 1994, the Office of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention allocated $1 million to test the Comprehensive Gang Model over a three, four or five year time period in five 2002 Gangs In Arizona 17 cities: Bloomington, Illinois; Riverside, California; San Antonio, Texas; Tucson, Arizona and Mesa, Arizona. During the first year, the demonstration sites initiated the community mobilization process, identified the nature and extent of the gang problem within the targeted communities and explored ways to address these problems. The second year consisted of implementing appropriate strategies to target gang violence. The third year consisted of evaluating the implemented strategies to determine the success of the comprehensive model and to direct future gang prevention, intervention and suppression strategies. For those cities that were awarded grants for more than a three-year period, this process is extended to reflect the actual grant-award period. In order to better understand the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model, each of the five demonstration sites is briefly discussed below. Bloomington, Illinois This project targeted the cities of Bloomington and Normal where an estimated eight gangs and approximately 640 gang members were identified. Under this comprehensive model, outreach workers assisted gang-affiliated youth and individuals who were incarcerated but expected to return to the community in the near future. The Bloomington and Normal Police, in collaboration with other criminal justice agencies worked to provide increased gang surveillance and sanctions for gang crime in the targeted cities. Throughout this process, outreach workers, the Bloomington Police Department's Proactive Unit, juvenile parole, adult and juvenile probation and school resource officers held regular meetings to review the progress of the project, specific problems in the cities and overall gang activities (Burch, 1999). Riverside, California This project focused on two communities in the city of Riverside known to be high gang crime areas. The targeted communities contained an estimated 21 gangs and approximately 1,230 gang members. Outreach workers and other service agencies met weekly to discuss community needs. This group also met regularly with police and probation officers to discuss area safety and gang activities. Outreach workers encouraged youth to attend school, obtain job training, seek regular employment and use appropriate social services. Under this model, police and probation officers also conducted home visits, performed area surveillance, made arrests and maintained other controls on the targeted youth. Recently, this model was enhanced through the development of Youth Accountability Boards by the local probation department and a new preventionoriented, school-based outreach program that is linked to the OJJDP Model (Burch, 1999). San Antonio, Texas The San Antonio Gang Rehabilitation Assessment and Service Program (GRAASP) targeted an area of the city with approximately 15 gangs and 1,664 gang 2002 Gangs In Arizona 18 members. Through this model, street-based outreach workers assisted social service workers, probation officers, Texas Youth Commission Staff, city police and other service agencies with providing resources, opportunities and support to youth in the program. Project staff also coordinated graffiti "paint-outs," community health fairs, recreational opportunities for the targeted youth and other community functions with local neighborhood organizations. Similar to the other demonstration sites, outreach workers, police and probation officers met frequently to discuss project coordination, case management, safety and accountability issues (Burch, 1999). Tucson, Arizona The Tucson Gang Project focused on the Vistas neighborhoods on the south side of Tucson, which had approximately four main gangs and an estimated 350 gang members. Specifically, this project targeted more than 100 youth in Tucson. The lead agency in this project was Our Town, a community-based non-profit organization. Additional agencies for this project included the Tucson Police Department, Pima County Juvenile Probation, Pima County Attorney Office, the Tucson Unified School District, the Tucson Boys and Girls Club, Quail Enterprises (research firm) and the La Fontera treatment agency. Under this model, street outreach workers, probation officers and a police gang unit officer worked to provide services and opportunities on a daily basis to youth targeted by the project and held them accountable for their negative behavior using a range of graduated sanctions (Burch, 1999). The project developed and refined the referral and intake process. Many of the youth participating in the program were mandated to do so as a condition of their probation or parole. The cooperation from both juvenile probation and parole was exemplary. The program was able to purchase 10 laptops for Tucson Police Department detectives. This enabled the detectives of the gang unit to access their CIC data base while on the streets. The CIC system is an intelligence database that holds information regarding gang involved youth and adults. The laptops enabled the detectives to check information on individuals at the crime scene and on the streets Mesa, Arizona The Mesa Gang Intervention Project (MGIP) focused on an area of the city served by the Mesa and Powell Junior High Schools. Within the target area, 18 gangs with an estimated 650 members were identified by the Mesa Police Department. The project targeted 125 youth who were involved in gangs or at high risk for gang involvement that resided in or were known to be active within the target area. Key collaborators in this project, which is overseen by a steering committee made up of agency and grassroots executives, were the city of Mesa, 2002 Gangs In Arizona 19 the Mesa Police Department, Maricopa County Adult and Juvenile Probation, Prehab of Arizona, the Mesa Boys and Girls Club, Arizona State University and the United Way. A team of two gang detectives, one adult and two juvenile probation officers, a youth intervention specialist, and two full-time and two-part time outreach workers worked with and monitored the targeted youth on a daily basis. Under this model, the MGIP gang detectives and probation officers provided monitoring, surveillance of youth in the program and supported street outreach workers and staff from other community-based agencies. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model promotes a multi-faceted approach to reducing gang problems within communities. While each of the five demonstration sites used different approaches and strategies, the versatility of this model allowed each community to focus on their community's specific needs. This flexibility allows each community to effectively address the gang problem within their area. Currently, each site is undergoing an extensive evaluation to determine the overall success of the model. The results from this evaluation will be used to improve the structure of the OJJDP Model and enhance the effectiveness for communities that use it in the future. STATE STRATEGIES The gang prevention efforts in Arizona extend beyond the national level. The increased focus on prevention has resulted in the development of a variety of statewide gang prevention programs and resources. The following section of this report highlights some of the prevention programs and resources currently in place throughout Arizona. Drug and Gang Council The Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council coordinates all state programs and expenditures involving criminal street gangs. This council consists of the Governor, key state agency directors, state agency representatives and business and community representatives. The goal of the council is to "foster cooperation among all state and local government entities, neighborhood groups, community organizations and private groups to ensure the optimal delivery of educational, treatment and prevention programs that will reduce the incidences of substance abuse and the participation in criminal street gangs" (Arizona Legislation, 2002). Specific activities of this council include: (1) providing a liaison to community groups and private sector programs involved in substance abuse and gang education, prevention and treatment; (2) conducting an annual inventory of publicly supported education, prevention and treatment programs related to substance abuse and gang participation and (3) overseeing the operation of the Arizona Drug and Gang Resource Prevention Center. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 20 Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center Under the direction of the Drug and Gang Council, the goal of the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center (ADGPRC) is to bring together agencies and programs that focus on drug and gang prevention. The ADGPRC also assists communities in their efforts to reduce the negative effects of drugs and gangs in Arizona. Finally, this agency produces an annual inventory of publicly funded substance abuse prevention programs, provides a full range of clearinghouse and information services in drug and gang prevention and serves as a referral source, connecting people with drug and gang prevention programs throughout Arizona (Arizona Gang Resource Guide, 2002). Gang Reduction Awareness Prevention Education (G.R.A.P.E.) The Gang Reduction Awareness Prevention and Education (G.R.A.P.E.) is a nonprofit organization that originated in 1990 in response to an emerging gang problem in Cochise County. This organization provides no direct services, but is a coordinating body that can react to emerging and long-term issues through its partnerships with direct services agencies. Participating agencies include: Cochise County Adult Probation; Cochise County Juvenile Court Services; Department of Juvenile Corrections; Southeastern Arizona Behavioral Health Services (SEABHS); Cochise County Sheriff's Office; Cochise County Attorney's Office, Sierra Vista Public Schools; Cochise County Health Department; Cochise Community Foundation, Sierra Vista Police Department; and the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM). This membership allows G.R.A.P.E. to refer issues to local agencies as necessary, and to coordinate the resources of those groups and agencies on pressing community issues. The primary function of G.R.A.P.E. is information sharing, which allows participating agencies to share information about gangs and gang activity in Cochise County. Currently G.R.A.P.E. shares confidential information exclusively among law enforcement agencies, and provides non-confidential information to various community agencies throughout the county. Additional strategies of G.R.A.P.E. include (1) trainings; (2) a graffiti abatement program; (3) a mini grant program and (4) a youth offender re-entry project. Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Originating in Phoenix, Arizona in 1992 as a cooperative effort between the Phoenix Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) curriculum is now taught to students nationwide. Using a 13-lesson curriculum, law enforcement officers provide classroom instruction and community-based activities to schoolage children with the goal of getting children to avoid involvement in violence, gangs and criminal activity. This program also provides children with information about gangs and violence, family roles, goal setting, communication skills, empathy towards others, responding to peer pressure, anger management and conflict resolution. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 21 Currently more than 80 law enforcement agencies (Appendix C) offer the G.R.E.A.T. program to students throughout the state. This program has been shown to reduce the rates of victimization, produce more favorable attitudes toward police and reduce involvement in risk-seeking behavior. Partnerships with organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the National Association of Police Athletic League help encourage positive relationships between the students, community, parents, schools and law enforcement and contribute to the overall success of the program (G.R.E.A.T., 2002). State Gang Unit Since gangs are not exclusive to large metropolitan areas, the State Gang Task Force (GITEM) has put together an educational program to present information about gangs in public schools. This team serves Cochise, Graham, Greenlee and Santa Cruz counties. The program goes out to public schools, churches and the public to show gang videos, present information about gangs and introduce youth to a former hard-core gang member. This team also works with current gang members who want to get out of gangs, and assists agencies with gang enforcement and gang intelligence. Tucson Youth Program The Tucson Parks and Recreation Youth Department has three programs created to offers at-risk youth activities designed to deter kids from gangs and gangrelated activity. The programs are: the Kid Company (KIDCO), a recreation program for elementary school children offered during the summer months and after school; the Middle School Company (MIDCO), a recreation program for middle school students offered during the school year at 12 sites and during the summer at four sites and the High School Company (HICO), a recreation program offered during the school year at two high school campuses and during the summer months at two sites. Each of these programs assist young people by providing positive, organized and supervised activities during high crime hours. The ultimate goal of these activities is to give youth an alternative and help them learn to make appropriate life choices. Arizona Youth Survey The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission administers a biennial survey to students statewide to measure the prevalence of substance abuse and gangs among youth throughout the state. In preparation for the upcoming State of Arizona Youth Survey report, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission collaborated with the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Bureau of Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention, the Division of Behavioral Health Services, the Governor's Division of Drug and Gang Policy and the Arizona Department of Education to revise the Arizona Youth Survey (AYS). The newly revised survey is based on the Communities That Care (CTC) model that was 2002 Gangs In Arizona 22 developed by J. David Hawkins (Ph.D.), Richard Catalano (Ph.D.) and a team of researchers at the University of Washington. The Arizona Youth Survey is designed to identify the underlying conditions (risk and protective factors) associated with at-risk behaviors. The risk and protective factor focused prevention is based on a simple premise that in order to prevent a problem from occurring, you need to identify the factors that are likely to cause the problem. Using risk and protective data as a focal point of prevention programs has proven effective in reducing a variety of social problems in communities. Changes in self-report data can be seen when schools repeat the same study for subsequent years and analyze the propensity of substance abuse and other delinquent behavior among youth. For this reason, it is essential to get risk and protective data into the hands of community members and policy makers. As the concerns regarding gangs continue to increase, communities are now realizing that a more comprehensive strategy, which involves prevention, intervention and suppression, may be more effective than any one-dimensional response to gangs. A comprehensive response to gangs assists with determining specific gang-related problems, establishing priorities and developing a community-wide consensus on how to respond to gangs (Gist, 2002). A comprehensive response is also important because it uses limited resources (personnel, money and time) in a more coordinated and effective way. The response to gangs in Arizona in recent years has been extended beyond enforcement and suppression to include prevention and intervention strategies. The Arizona Youth Survey is an instrumental part of developing a comprehensive gang strategy in the state. The Arizona Youth Survey contains questions related to gang membership and participation. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission collaborated with gang experts from Arizona State University and the State Gang Task Force (GITEM) to develop questions that were designed to provide information about gang activity among youth in Arizona. More importantly, these gang questions will serve as a foundation for the development of additional questions that will identify at-risk behavior for gang activity among Arizona's youth. In 2003, the Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) will conduct additional analysis on the information obtained from the Arizona Youth Survey. The findings from this analysis will assist the Statistical Analysis Center with coordinating efforts to develop a comprehensive gang model for the state. The findings from this additional analysis will be included in the 2003 Gangs in Arizona report. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 23 ENFORCEMENT The enforcement of gangs and gang-related activity is also needed to effectively combat gangs in Arizona. As such, the state gang task force plays an important role in the enforcement of gangs. Therefore, before discussing the law enforcement survey results, the Gang Intelligence and Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) is discussed to highlight their role in combating gangs in Arizona. STATE GANG TASK FORCE Under the direction of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Gang Intelligence and Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) was created by the Arizona State Legislature in 1994 to assist criminal justice agencies statewide with criminal gang enforcement and investigative strategies. The State Gang Task Force brought together law enforcement and prosecution agencies from state, county, municipal, federal and tribal jurisdictions in a coordinated, intelligencedriven approach to deal with gangs on a large scale. Traditionally, Arizona agencies addressed the gang problem individually rather than collectively. This separate approach resulted in displacement of gang members rather than focused and directed gang enforcement efforts and identification. The State Gang Task Force's highest priority is to reduce gang-related crimes in Arizona while increasing the proficiency in which criminal justice agencies respond to gangs throughout the state. To achieve this goal GITEM identifies criminal street gangs and/or members in various communities, evaluates their activities and develops strategies to eradicate gangs from the community. Specific activities and operations of GITEM include: (1) targeting known violent gang members for investigations; (2) conducting covert investigations and operations of known gang offenders; (3) providing gang training and information to other agencies; (4) participating in community graffiti abatement programs; (5) publishing bulletins; (6) assessing the threats of gangs; (7) assisting other agencies with the eradication of street gangs; and (8) conducting event specific enforcement activities. The Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission is also responsible for maintaining a statewide gang database. In October 1999, the database currently used by GITEM was implemented after gang data were transferred from the Arizona Department of Public Safety's mainframe computer. The database contains information on thousands of gang members, associates and affiliates in Arizona and provides participating agencies with access to photographs and information about the individual's physical features (e.g. height, weight, tattoos). Currently, the database contains information on more than 17,000 individuals. This number is based on police contact with individuals and does not include aliases. Of the estimated 17,000 individuals within the database, more than 14,000 meet at least two of the Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC).The 2002 Gangs In Arizona 24 additional 3,000 individuals are classified as "associates" and meet only one of the seven Gang Member Identification Criteria. The number of gangs (three or more individuals) listed in the Arizona database was approximately 349. The database also contains an additional 649 gangs, but this number includes gangs that have less than three members. The state gang database provides a variety of benefits to its users. It provides enhanced safety measures to law enforcement officers by identifying potentially dangerous individuals. The database also allows agencies to obtain information about the organization of gangs, identify individuals loosely affiliated with gangs and key gang members that are involved in criminal activity. In an effort to further coordinate information sharing, GITEM has developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU 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. Currently, 33 agencies, an increase of ten since 2001 (Appendix B), have entered into the MOU with GITEM. Due to the increasing need to share information, it is important that greater emphasis and effort be used to encourage criminal justice agencies to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the state gang taskforce. As of January 2003, the resources allocated to GITEM will be reduced due to budget constraints within the Department of Public Safety. Instead of twelve squads geographically located in Maricopa, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo/Apache, Pinal, Pima, Cochise and Yuma counties, GITEM will operate two enforcement squads in Phoenix and two squads in Tucson. ARIZONA GANG ASSESSMENT As a statewide gang enforcement agency, GITEM also produces an Arizona Gang Assessment. This assessment is designed to provide an overview of current gang trends throughout the state. The extent and level of gang activity varies in different areas of the state. Therefore, this assessment provides gang information from a statewide perspective and may not be reflective of gang trends in specific jurisdictions of Arizona. Currently, the largest street gang in Arizona is "Hollywood," with a documented membership of approximately 400 individuals. According to GITEM experts, this gang originated out of Phoenix and Tucson. The criminal street gang with the largest number of sets (a set is a subgroup of a gang) is "Wetback Power." This gang is primarily in Maricopa County, and consists of 23 sets with more than 900 gang members statewide. The dominant racial composition of Arizona gangs is either Hispanic or hybrid, but gang experts note that many gangs are shifting to hybrid due to an emerging trend where gangs form to commit crimes for economic benefits. (A "hybrid" gang is one that is composed of more than one race). 2002 Gangs In Arizona 25 Many criminal street gangs in Arizona are also extremely mobile, with members frequently traveling throughout the state to establish sets in different cities and towns to conduct criminal activities. This trend is evidenced by gangs such as the "Maryvale Gangster Crips," which originated in Phoenix, Arizona, but has expanded to several different counties throughout the state. The mobility of criminal street gangs has also increased due to increased involvement in the transportation of illegal aliens, drug trafficking and auto thefts for transporting narcotics. The types of crimes committed by criminal street gangs in Arizona include, but are not limited to, drive-by shootings, homicides, aggravated assaults, narcotics activity, burglary, trespassing and criminal damage. The weapons used by criminal street gangs range from baseball bats to assault rifles. Knives are also popular among gang members due to their ease of concealment and lack of regulations. It is predicted that the number of gangs and gang-related crimes will increase in Arizona and continue to parallel the state's current population growth. This prediction is based upon documented state trends by GITEM over the past few years. First, the California "three strikes" rule, which targets repeat offenders, has resulted in many gang members relocating to Arizona to avoid being sentenced under this law. California is a state with an abundance of gang members and even a small number of individuals relocating to Arizona will affect the number of gangs and gang crimes in the state. Second, many gang members from other areas are relocating to Arizona because of the economic profits that can be obtained from criminal activity. Currently, Arizona is located on one of the most frequently used narcotics trafficking routes in the country. Arizona is also a major trans-shipment point for international drug and alien smuggling trades. SURVEY RESULTS As previously stated, a survey was administered to 128 law enforcement agencies throughout Arizona. Of this total (128), 118 (92 percent) surveys were returned. This return rate among Arizona law enforcement is slightly higher than the 84 percent response rate received by the National Youth Gang Center in 2001. The surveyed agencies were asked a variety of questions regarding the gang problem in their jurisdiction. This section of the report summarizes the survey findings from Arizona's law enforcement agencies. Prevalence of Youth Gangs Nationally, 40 percent of law enforcement agencies surveyed by the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) indicated that there were gangs active in the city, town or county served by their agency. As reflected in Table 1, 56 percent of law enforcement agencies indicated that they had active youth gangs in their 2002 Gangs In Arizona 26 jurisdiction in 2001. This is 16 percent higher than the reported national percentage in 2000 (40 percent). TABLE 1: PREVALENCE OF YOUTH GANGS PERCENTAGE ARIZONA 56 NATIONAL 40 Perception of Youth Gang Problem Nationally, 50 percent of law enforcement agencies indicated that, when compared to 2000, their youth gang problem in 2001 remained about the same, whereas 28 percent reported that the gang problem had improved and 22 percent reported that the gang problem had worsened. In Arizona, 52 percent of Arizona law enforcement agencies indicated that, when compared to 2000, their youth gang problem in 2001 remained about the same, 19 percent reported that the gang problem had improved, 28 percent reported that the gang problem had worsened and one percent of agencies were unable to respond to this question. The percentage of Arizona law enforcement agencies that indicated when compared to 2000, the gang problem in 2001 was "staying the same," or "getting worse" was similar to national findings. In contrast, Arizona was lower than the national percentage of states reporting that the gang problem was "getting better." The following table summarizes this information. TABLE 2: PERCEPTION OF YOUTH GANG PROBLEM (PERCENTAGE) NATIONAL 50 28 22 -100 STATE 52 19 28 1 100 STAYING SAME GETTING BETTER GETTING WORSE UNABLE TO DETERMINE TOTAL Youth Gangs and Members The National Youth Gang Survey documented more than 24,500 gangs and 772,500 gang members in 2000. In Arizona, survey respondents reported 568 2002 Gangs In Arizona 27 gangs and 13,497 gang members in 2001 (for this purpose only municipal law enforcement agencies were selected in order to prevent duplication in reporting). The Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission reported 566 gangs and 11,821 gang members for the same time period. The differences in reporting are because more law enforcement agencies responded to the gang survey than reported gang statistics to GITEM. In the past, it has been difficult to obtain accurate information regarding the number of gangs and gang members in Arizona. The similarities between the survey numbers and the numbers provided by GITEM contribute to the validity and reliability of both the Arizona gang survey and the gang database maintained by GITEM. Table 3 provides a summary of both national and state documented gang membership. TABLE 3: YOUTH GANGS AND MEMBERS GANGS 568 566 24,500 MEMBERS 13,497 11,821 772,500 ARIZONA SURVEY GITEM DATABASE NATIONAL Gang Member Demographics Respondents were asked to provide information about the demographics of gang members in their jurisdiction. Specifically, law enforcement agencies were asked to provide information regarding the race and gender of gang members in their area. Hispanics represent 12.5 percent of the total national population and 25.3 percent of Arizona's total population. Nationally, law enforcement agencies reported that 47 percent of gang members in their area were Hispanic, whereas Arizona's law enforcement agencies reported 62 percent. Blacks represent 12.1 percent of the national population and account for 31 percent of gang members nationally. In Arizona, blacks represent 2.9 percent of the state's population and account for 10 percent of the gang members. On a national level whites represent 69.1 percent of the total population and account for 13 percent of gang members nationwide. In Arizona whites represent 63.8 percent of the total population and account for 21 percent of the gang members in the state. The following chart compares the racial demographics of gang members on a state and national level. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 28 CHART 1: GANG MEMBER DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON (RACE) 80 60 40 National Arizona 20 0 Hispanic Black White Othe r As can be seen by Chart 1, the percentage of Hispanic gang members is higher than national numbers. This is because the Hispanic population in Arizona is nearly double the national population. Similarly, the percentage of black gang members is lower than national numbers because the black population in Arizona is lower than the national population. While the national and state population for whites is comparable, Arizona criminal justice agencies reported a higher percentage of white gang members than the national numbers. In 2000, law enforcement agencies nationally reported that 94 percent of the gang members in their area were male, whereas six percent were female. This rate is comparable to results from Arizona law enforcement agencies, which reported 89 percent of gang members as male and 11 percent as female. The numbers reported at both the national and state level confirm that males participate in gangs at a higher rate than females. TABLE 4: GANG MEMBER DEMOGRAPHICS-GENDER (PERCENTAGE) MALE FEMALE ARIZONA 89 11 NATIONAL 94 6 Gang Member Involvement in Criminal Activity Survey respondents were asked to indicate the proportion of gang members who were involved in the following offenses in their jurisdiction: aggravated assault; robbery, burglary/breaking and entering; motor vehicle theft; larceny theft and 2002 Gangs In Arizona 29 drug sales. In Arizona, a larger proportion of gang members were involved in drug sales than in any other criminal activity. Approximately 24 percent of the respondents estimated that most of their gang members were involved in drug sales; the next highest level of involvement was motor vehicle theft (16 percent). It should be noted that Arizona currently ranks number one in the nation for motor vehicle thefts. This number one ranking coincides with law enforcement reports that a considerable number of gang members are involved in motor vehicle thefts. After motor vehicle thefts, law enforcement agencies indicated that gang members were involved in burglary/breaking and entering and larceny theft (13 percent), robbery (11 percent) and aggravated assault (eight percent). Use of Firearms in Violent Crimes Respondents were asked how often gang members used firearms in assault crimes (Chart 2). Nationwide, more than one-half (51 percent) of the respondents said gang members in their jurisdiction used firearms in assault crimes "often" or "sometimes" during 2000. Twenty-six percent said gang members used firearms "rarely," 14 percent indicated that firearms were "not used," and nine percent said that they "did not know." In Arizona, 48 percent of respondents said gang members in their jurisdiction used firearms in assault crimes "often" or "sometimes" during 2001. In addition, 14 percent said gang members used fire arms "rarely," 12 percent said firearms were "not used" and 26 percent said that they "did not know." The following chart summarizes the use of firearms by gang members in criminal activity at both the national and state level. CHART 2: USE OF FIREARMS COMPARISON 80 60 40 20 0 y rel Ra ed Us tU No ten Of ed Us es tim me So ed Us w no tK No Do National (2000) Arizona (2001) d se 2002 Gangs In Arizona 30 The responses provided by Arizona (48 percent) law enforcement agencies were similar to national numbers (51 percent) regarding gang members using firearms "often" or "sometimes." Responses at the state (12 percent) and national level (14 percent) were also comparable regarding gang members not using firearms. In contrast, Arizona (14 percent) varied from the national (26 percent) numbers when reporting that firearms were "rarely" used. There were also a greater percentage of Arizona law enforcement agencies that responded "don't know" to this question than nationally. Gang Member Involvement in Drug Activities This year, Arizona law enforcement agencies were asked to provide information regarding the extent that gang members in their jurisdiction were involved in drug activities. Nineteen percent said that gangs were "minimally involved," 29.3 percent said that gangs were "somewhat involved," 29.3 percent said that gangs were "heavily involved" and 22.4 percent were "unable to determine" the extent that gangs in their jurisdiction were involved in drug sales. In that this is a question that was added to the Arizona Gang Survey this year; no comparisons are available to 2001. Law enforcement agencies were also asked to identify the primary drugs trafficked by gangs in their jurisdiction. In 2000, marijuana (46 percent) and crack cocaine (29 percent) represented the two most trafficked drugs by gangs in Arizona, followed by amphetamines/methamphetamines (15 percent) and cocaine (eight percent). During 2001, amphetamines/methamphetamines (38 percent) and marijuana (22 percent) represented the two most trafficked drugs by gangs in Arizona, followed by crack (14 percent) and cocaine (five percent). The following Chart summarizes the primary drugs trafficked by gang members in Arizona. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 31 CHART 3: MOST COMMONLY TRAFFICKED DRUGS 50 40 30 20 10 0 Arizona (2000) Arizona (2001) Information Systems Law enforcement agencies were asked to provide feedback about their information and/or intelligence collection systems (Table 5). In 2001, 28 percent said that their agency only collects gang-related information, 5.2 percent said their agency collects gang-related intelligence, 47 percent said that they collect both gang-related information and intelligence; 20.7 percent responded "not applicable." TABLE 5: 2001 INFORMATION SYSTEMS (PERCENTAGE) INFORMATION 28 INTELLIGENCE 5 BOTH 47 Of the agencies collecting gang-related information and/or intelligence in 2001, 29 percent indicated that this information was manual (non-computerized), 24 percent indicated that the information was computerized, 39 percent indicated that the information was kept both manually and computerized and eight percent were "unable to answer" this question. 2002 Gangs In Arizona k ac es Cr in am et ph m ha et M e in ca Co a an iju ar M r he Ot 32 Gang Member Identification Criteria Establishing an object standard to identify and document gang members is necessary to effectively respond to gangs. Law enforcement agencies were asked to provide information about the gang member identification standards used within their agency. More specifically, the survey was designed to determine whether agencies used the gang definition outlined by A.R.S. 13-105 (GMIC) or if other identification standards were used. In 2000, 71 percent of responding agencies indicated that they used only the GMIC to identify gang members in their jurisdiction. Twenty-three percent said that they used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and six percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than the GMIC. This year, 80 percent of responding law enforcement agencies indicated that they exclusively used the GMIC to identify gangs, seven percent used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and 13 percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than GMIC or were unable to determine the criteria used to identify gangs in their jurisdiction. Table 6 summarizes the gang member identification criteria used by law enforcement agencies in Arizona. TABLE 6: GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA (PERCENTAGE) 2000 2001 GMIC ONLY 71 80 GMIC/OTHER CRITERIA 23 7 OTHER/UNABLE TO DETERMINE 6 13 TOTAL 100 100 Gang Task Force Participation Forty-nine percent of responding law enforcement agencies indicated that they currently participate in the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM). In contrast, 49 percent of respondents indicated that they do not participate in GITEM and two percent were unable to respond to this question. In addition, 46.6 percent of law enforcement agencies indicated that they participate in a local, regional or federal task force other than GITEM and 53.4 percent did not. The reasons provided for not participating in a task force included lack of personnel, training and resources. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 33 PROSECUTION State and county prosecution agencies have been included in the street gang report produced by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission since 1992. This year, a telephone survey (Appendix B) was developed and administered to designated personnel from the 15 County Attorneys and the Attorney General's Office. The survey contained 11 questions that addressed various components of gang prosecutions in Arizona. As previously mentioned, the primary goal of the survey was to provide insight into gang prosecutions within the state. This section of the report summarizes these responses. An effort was made to obtain national gang prosecution data for state comparison purposes. At the time of this report, current national gang prosecution data were unavailable. Therefore, this section of the report will summarize prosecution information only for Arizona. GANG PROSECUTIONS Most of the smaller counties in Arizona reported that they had not seen a large gang problem in their area. As a result, few prosecutions were specific to gangs in their jurisdiction. There were various reasons given. Navajo county reported that they were having difficulty with getting enough information to tie particular crimes as gang offenses. Apache, Graham and La Paz County stated that the lack of prosecutions in their area was due to the lack of gangs and gang-related activity in their area. Other counties such as Coconino, Santa Cruz and Yavapai County attributed the minimal number of gang prosecutions to the fact that they generally prosecute all criminals for the crimes committed without linking them to gangs, regardless of whether the person who committed the offense was a gang member. In contrast to the smaller counties, Maricopa and Pima counties reported large gang problems and multiple gang prosecutions each month. Most counties had relatively few prosecutions of gang crimes, with Apache County and Yavapai County reporting less than one a year. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, Maricopa County, Mohave County, Pima County and Yuma County reported more than one a month, with the Attorney General's Office and Maricopa County reporting gang prosecutions in large numbers. Since June 2002, the Yuma County Attorney's Office has seen an increase in gang prosecutions, which is due to an increase in shooting incidents in this county . PROSECUTED CRIMES Most prosecutors indicated that they commonly prosecute gang members for assault, graffiti (tagging) and drugs. However, drug offenses represented the largest category of crimes for which gang members were prosecuted throughout Arizona. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, the county attorney offices of Maricopa, Pima and Yuma reported prosecutions for more serious gang crimes including murder, drive-by shootings and attempted murder, criminal damage, jail fights, burglary, theft, weapons offenses and threatening and intimidating were also mentioned as crimes that have been prosecuted in relation to gangs. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 34 GANG PROSECUTION RESOURCES Apache, Coconino, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties reported that they do not have any staff specifically assigned to gang prosecutions. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, the county attorney offices of Graham, Greenlee, Mohave, Navajo and Yuma reported that they have one attorney assigned to gang prosecutions. The Attorney General's Office, Graham County and Yuma County also reported that support staff is assigned to gang cases as well. Maricopa reported the largest amount of staff devoted to gang prosecutions with 11 attorneys and 10 support personnel. Pima reported 2.5 attorneys and four support personnel being assigned to gang prosecutions . GANG PROSECUTION STRATEGIES Currently, most prosecuting agencies do not engage in any special strategies or tactics to prosecute gang-related crimes. Specifically, seven prosecutors indicated that their agency does not use special strategies to prosecute gang crimes because of the limited number of these types of crimes occurring in their jurisdiction. However, of the agencies reporting the use of special strategies, the following proactive prosecution techniques were noted: Cooperate with County Gang Taskforce Vertical Prosecution Actively Review Submittals to Determine Gang Member Involvement Prosecution by Experienced Prosecutors/Staff Tailoring Prosecutions/Pleas for Hardcore Offenders GANG PROSECUTION CHALLENGES The nature and extent of gang prosecutions varies throughout Arizona. Therefore, the challenges to prosecution are also unique for each county. The one challenge that was mentioned almost universally was the willingness on the part of the witnesses to testify. The reluctance for testifying by witnesses was attributed to a fear of retaliation and the fact that witnesses are often gang members. Several challenges were cited regarding the identification of gang membership: lack of evidence provided by law enforcement' linking the crime definitively to the furtherance of a gang; and lack of familiarity with gangs outside their county. Additional challenges were raised by specific jurisdictions and are reported as: extraditing witnesses or their families in danger; assuring for the safety of attorneys threatened by gang members; obtaining sufficient resources to prosecute gang crimes; a lack of sympathy for the victim when the victim is a gang member. DEFINING GANG-RELATED CRIME Most counties (62 percent) defined a gang-related crime as any crime that was committed by an individual or individuals identified as a gang member in the furtherance of a gang or gang activity. Three counties, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal 2002 Gangs In Arizona 35 included any crime committed by a gang member as a gang-related crime. Graham and Greenlee counties had no set policy on determining which cases were gang-related. Each determination was done on a case-by-case basis . GANG PROSECUTION STATISTICS Currently 10 of the responding agencies do not keep any statistics related to the gang prosecutions occurring in their jurisdiction. The failure or inability to keep statistics is directly related to the limited number of gang prosecutions that occur in the smaller counties. Four agencies reported that their agency keeps statistics related to the gang prosecutions occurring in their jurisdiction. Maricopa, Mohave, Pima and Yuma counties keep statistics on these crimes, as does the Arizona Attorney General's Office. Through these statistics, agencies were able to determine the types of crimes prosecuted as gang-related, the number of gangrelated prosecutions occurring in a specific period and the number of violent gang-related prosecutions. ADEQUACY OF STATE LAWS In surveying local jurisdictions, most counties considered the state codes to be adequate when addressing the gang problem in Arizona. However, the following local concerns relating to Arizona laws were listed: The lack of mandatory sentencing causes sentences to be too inconsistent between judges. Tribal codes do not adequately cover violent gang activity that occurs on tribal land. Hindering prosecution for homicides and aggravated assaults should be more serious than a class five felony. The need for videotape testimony, higher bond requirements, stricter restrictions on gang suspects in jail to avoid witness intimidation. Develop a clear vision as to whether the issue of gangs is a priority for the state. VICTIM/WITNESS COOPERATION According to the Arizona Attorney General's Office and county attorney offices, victim and witness cooperation is a key part of any gang related case. The role of victim and witness advocates is important on issues such as preserving witness anonymity when possible, relocating those in danger and providing information about the prosecution at every stage. Many cases fail without witness cooperation, but fear for their families often keeps victims and witnesses from coming forward against a gang or syndicate. Most counties also expressed the 2002 Gangs In Arizona 36 need for more funds to be able to better protect witnesses and victims to ensure cooperation. At this time, gang prosecutions in Arizona occur primarily in the larger counties. This is because the level and extent of gangs and gang-related crime are larger in these areas as compared to the smaller counties. Maricopa and Pima counties report the largest gang problems and therefore expend the largest amount of resources in prosecuting gang crimes. Due to diversity of gangs throughout the state, each county adopts a variety of strategies to prosecute gang crimes. These strategies range from prosecuting specific types of crimes to aggressively pursuing crimes under gang-related statutes. While many of the crimes committed by gangs, such as vandalism and tagging are not violent, these gangs are also often involved in drug sales and are responsible for a significant number of assaults, as well as some murders. As a result, prosecutors in Arizona expend a significant amount of time and resources on all types of crimes committed by gang members. Currently, 47 percent of prosecution agencies devote specific resources to gang prosecution. In the remaining counties, prosecutors from other areas (e.g. misdemeanor cases) prosecute gang crimes when they occur. Many problems were mentioned by the responding prosecutors, the primary two being a lack of resources (money and staff) and the difficulty in getting witnesses and victims to testify due to fear of retaliation. Despite these issues, county prosecutors aggressively work to prosecute gang members throughout the state. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 37 PROBATION The following section of the report highlights the responses from Arizona's probation agencies. Twenty-two probation agencies responded to this year's survey. Participating agencies included nine adult probation departments, seven juvenile probation departments and six county probation departments that supervise both adult and juvenile probationers. This section of the report summarizes the responses received from Arizona's probation agencies. Perception of Youth Gang Problem In 2001, 66.7 percent of responding probation agencies indicated that, when compared to 2000, their youth gang problem in 2001 remained about the same, whereas 16.7 percent reported that they had worsened, and 16.6 said they were unable to respond to the question. The response provided by probation agencies in Arizona to this question is noteworthy because none of the agencies indicated that the gang problem was improving (getting better) when compared to 2000. The following table summarizes this information. TABLE 7: PERCEPTION OF YOUTH GANG PROBLEM (PERCENTAGE) STAYING SAME 66.7 GETTING WORSE 16.7 GETTING BETTER 0 UNABLE TO DETERMINE 16.6 TOTAL 100 Probation agencies were also asked how serious the gang problem was in their jurisdiction compared to other public safety issues. Fifty percent of responding agencies indicated that gangs were "one of the most serous" public safety issues, 16.7 percent indicted that "gangs were a medium serious" public safety issue, 16.7 percent of respondents also indicated that gangs were a "public safety issue," and only 8.3 percent of respondents indicated that gangs were "not much" of a public safety issue in their jurisdiction. Gang Member Identification Criteria In 2000, 64 percent of responding probation agencies indicated that they used only the GMIC to identify gang members in their jurisdiction. Twenty-nine percent said that they used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and seven percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than the GMIC. This year, 58.3 percent of responding agencies indicated 2002 Gangs In Arizona 38 that they exclusively used the GMIC to identify gangs, 33.3 percent used the GMIC in addition to other identification criteria, and 8.4 percent indicated that they exclusively used an identification standard other than GMIC. TABLE 8: GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA (PERCENTAGE) GMIC ONLY 64 58 GMIC/OTHER CRITERIA 29 33 OTHER/UNABLE TO DETERMINE 7 8 TOTAL 100 100 Note: numbers may not add up due to rounding. GANG TASK FORCE PARTICPATION Fifty percent of responding agencies indicated that they currently participated in the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM). In contrast 41.7 percent of respondents indicated that they do not participate in GITEM, and 8.3 percent were unable to respond to this question. Similar to law enforcement agencies, the probation departments that did not participate in GITEM identified a lack of equipment, technology, personnel, training and resources as barriers. Most probation agencies in Arizona perceive the gang problem in Arizona as staying the same. Only 16.7 percent thought the problem was getting worse, and no agencies perceived the problem as getting better. At this time, the Gang Member Identification Criteria (GMIC) continues to be the most widely used identification method. This is significant because it shows standardization in gang member identification among probation departments. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 39 ARIZONA JUVENILE CORRECTIONS (ADJC) Established in 1990 as a separate, cabinet-level agency, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is the state agency responsible for juveniles adjudicated and committed to its jurisdiction by the county juvenile courts. The agency mission is to enhance public safety by changing the delinquent behaviors of juvenile offenders committed to the department. The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections is also responsible for the development and provision of a continuum for juvenile offenders including rehabilitation, treatment and education. Currently, the ADJC secure facilities include Adobe Mountain School; Encanto Mental Health Facility for Boys; Black Canyon Facility for Girls; Catalina Mountain Facility; and Southwest Regional Juvenile Corrections Complex. The combined facilities can house 1,168 juveniles throughout Arizona. The following table illustrates the average institutional count and capacity for each of the facilities. TABLE 9: JUVENILE CORRECTIONS POPULATION (1997-2001) Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Adobe Mountain Average Capacity 406 538 464 471 407 408 408 408 420 470 Catalina Mountain Average Capacity 128 151 150 146 142 124 124 124 146 146 Black Canyon Average Capacity 191 213 174 155 111 192 192 192 168 118 Southwest Regional Average Capacity 0 0 92 135 232 0 0 200 300 400 Encanto Average 26 29 30 0 31 Capacity 34 34 34 34 34 As can be seen in Table 9, with the exception of the Southwest Regional Juvenile Corrections Complex, the ADJC facilities are operating at 87 to 97 percent of their facilities maximum capacity. This indicates the need for additional resources for juvenile corrections to ensure that the quality of services provided is not compromised by increasing numbers of juveniles at each of the five facilities. The ADJC facilities offer specialized programs for sexual offenders, violent offenders and substance abuse. Each juvenile is evaluated within 30 days of entering the department to determine the most effective way to address their delinquency. Specific programs within the secure facilities are designed to identify the root causes of juvenile crime. For instance, juveniles attend daily counseling and life-skills classes designed to develop better decision-making skills, instill a sense of responsibility and change behaviors that contribute to criminal activity. Additionally, youth in ADJC participate in work programs designed to build basic job skills and proficiency in a particular area. Academic classes are also mandatory for youth who have not completed high school. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 40 During the 10-day initial evaluation process, individuals are identified according to A.R.S. 13-105 for gang membership. If gang membership is determined, photographs are taken of any tattoos or identifying marks associated with the gang. Once this information is collected, it is entered into a computerized system that tracks any future activity of the individual during their stay at ADJC. Each facility also collects internal and external information on street gang members and/or security threat groups. The information and intelligence that is compiled by ADJC staff is used by other criminal justice agencies, including the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) for information and intelligence purposes. The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections tracks every reported incident occurring within the facility that requires an Incident Report. An Incident Report includes the date, time, unit(s), juvenile name(s), juvenile identification number(s), gang affiliations(s) and a detailed description of the incident. All Incident Reports are recorded and full reports of gang activity are analyzed on a monthly and annual basis. The following table outlines all reported gang activity during 2001 for ADJC facilities. The information on Table 10 depicts the number of incidents occurring in all Department of Juvenile Corrections facilities statewide. In previous reports, this information has only been available for the Adobe Mountain Juvenile facility. TABLE 10: NUMBER OF INCIDENTS September November December February January GANG INCIDENTS STAFF ASSAULTS YOUTH/YOUTH ASSAULTS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY GANG PARAPHERNALIA USE OF FORCE GANG ACTIVITY TATTOOS MUTUAL FIGHTS OTHER TOTAL 31 2 4 8 17 2 7 0 0 2 73 October August March 31 0 6 6 11 2 4 0 0 0 60 Total June April May July 33 0 6 9 17 5 5 0 1 4 80 29 0 6 10 23 3 4 0 1 0 76 23 0 2 5 19 2 1 3 0 0 55 23 0 3 5 24 1 3 3 0 1 63 35 1 4 4 27 2 5 1 1 1 81 27 1 2 4 15 3 4 0 1 4 61 56 0 2 4 24 0 5 3 0 1 95 20 2 1 4 12 5 3 0 3 0 50 26 0 2 3 10 3 2 1 1 1 49 19 0 12 3 12 2 1 0 0 0 49 353 6 50 65 211 30 44 11 7 14 791 2002 Gangs In Arizona 41 ARIZONA ADULT CORRECTIONS Traditional prison gangs, also known as security threat groups, were formed in the late 1950s as a means for incarcerated individuals to protect themselves from other groups within the institution. The term security threat group is a nationally recognized term used throughout most correctional facilities within the United States. The term security threat group accurately embraces all of the characteristics of prison gangs and reflects their impact on the security of prison operations. Adult correctional facilities also label prison gangs as security threat groups because of the threat gangs pose to the institution as a result of being in a secured setting for an extended period of time. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (ADC) The Arizona Department of Corrections is a state-level agency created to serve and protect the people of Arizona by imprisoning those offenders legally committed to the Department and by providing community-based supervision for those conditionally released. Currently, the Department of Corrections defines a security threat group as "any organization, club, association or group of individuals, formal or informal (including traditional prison gangs), that may have a common name, identifying sign or symbol, and whose members engage in activities that would include, but are not limited to planning, organizing, threatening, financing, soliciting, committing, or attempting to commit unlawful acts or an act that would violate the department's written instructions, which would detract from the safe orderly operations of prisons" (Arizona Department of Corrections, 2002). The Security Threat Group Management Program exists within the Department of Corrections. The goal of this group is to "ensure safe, secure and orderly operations for staff, visitors, and inmates throughout the department by identifying, certifying, and validating security threat groups, individual members, and monitoring their activities (Arizona Department of Corrections, 2002). In 2001, the Arizona Department of Correction's Security Threat Group Unit consisted of two supervisors and 10 special investigators. As part of departmental policy, ADC monitors every inmate associated with a gang including: (1) inmates who have passed the Department's internally-developed qualitative review process designed to provide clear documentation confirming membership in a specific gang; (2) inmates who have displayed some gangrelated behavior or other indicators, but have not yet passed the Department's validation criteria; and (3) inmates who have renounced gang membership, but are still tracked for gang association. Once incarcerated, inmates are monitored to determine their street gang membership, if they are a threat to the institution and to determine if they are likely to join a security group. Currently, gang information is collected from within the institution as well as from other criminal justice agencies. Based on 2002 Gangs In Arizona 42 this information, eight certified security threat groups have been identified within the Arizona Department of Corrections. In Arizona, "a certified security threat group is a group that has been through a formal process of identification and documentation, which after completion identifies that group and its members as a threat to the safe orderly operation of the prisons" (Arizona Department of Corrections, 2002). The eight certified Security Threat Groups are: (1) Aryan Brotherhood; (2) Surenos; (3) Border Brothers; (4) Grandel; (5) Old Mexican Mafia; (6) Mau Mau; (7) New Mexican Mafia; and the (8) Warrior Society. Currently, there are also two additional groups being monitored by the Department of Corrections. Specifically, these groups are: La Raza and the African American Council. Table 11 summarizes the certified gang population of the Arizona Department of Corrections. TABLE 11: SECURITY THREAT GROUP MEMBERS 1998 Aryan Brotherhood Border Brothers Grandel Mau-Mau New Mexican Mafia Old Mexican Mafia Surenos Warrior Society 239 -205 167 208 53 -- 1999 238 -228 184 270 60 -- 2000 346 507 266 158 293 60 302 2001 487 559 309 171 394 72 488 157 -872 -980 -1932 TOTAL 2637 As can be seen in Table 11, the total certified gang population reported by the Department of Corrections has increased by 27 percent from 2000 to 2001. Since 1991, the Arizona prison population has increased from 15,464 to 28,059 or by 81.5 percent. Growth over this period averaged 1,259.5 per year or 105.0 per month. It should be noted that table 11 reflects association with the eight certified STG groups ADC monitors. Historically, 25% of all incoming ADC inmates have street gang affiliations. It should also be noted that of the 2,637 security threat group members identified, 1,087 are not incarcerated, but on the streets of Arizona. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 43 CONCLUSION Criminal justice agencies in Arizona have made advancements in their response to gangs. The state has established objective standards to identify and monitor gang members, and according to this year's survey results more than 80 percent of criminal justice agencies use the GMIC to identify gang members within their jurisdiction. This is notable because it indicates that criminal justice agencies are using the same criteria to identify gang members throughout the state. Arizona has also implemented a variety of statutes designed to enhance the penalties for gang-related crimes. These statutes represent one of Arizona's strategies to hold gang members accountable for their criminal acts and also send a message that delinquent acts and criminal activity will not be tolerated by the state. Arizona has also placed greater emphasis on community-based prevention programs, recognizing that a proactive response to gangs may be much more effective than a reactive response. Preliminary results from programs such as the OJJDP (Spergel) Model and Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) Program suggest a positive impact on the gang problem throughout the state. In addition to these prevention programs, Arizona continues to expend a significant amount of resources on programs aimed at providing at-risk youth with opportunities other than gang involvement. As such, it is important to future efforts to develop a needs assessment that will identify the risk and protective factors associated with gang membership and participation. Future analysis of the Arizona Youth Survey data by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission represents a major step towards this goal. The development of a gang-related needs assessment will improve the state's ability to develop and implement focused prevention and intervention strategies for youth in Arizona. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission continues to contribute information and resources to criminal justice agencies in an effort to assist statewide gang prevention and enforcement. The Commission actively solicits the input of various criminal justice agencies throughout the state to ensure that the annual gang report reflects accurate information about gangs in Arizona. The recent adoption of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) Survey is yet another step taken by the Commission to provide meaningful information about gangs in Arizona. More than one-half (53 percent) of the criminal justice agencies that responded to this year's survey indicated that gangs are either "one of the serious public safety issues they face" or a "medium serious public safety issue" in their jurisdiction. Fifty-five percent of all criminal justice agencies responding to this year's survey indicated that when compared to 2000, the gang problem in 2001 was "staying the same," twenty-five percent reported that the gang problem was "getting worse," and only 16 percent of criminal justice agencies indicated that the gang problem was "getting better." Arizona criminal justice agencies also 2002 Gangs In Arizona 44 provided similar responses about the types of crimes most commonly committed by gang members. More than half of the participating criminal justice agencies indicated that gang members participate in drug activities, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny theft, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. Although Arizona has made progress in their response to gangs, criminal justice agencies throughout the state will continue to face challenges. The first challenge relates to the coordination and sharing of information. Although many more agencies are now coordinating efforts and sharing information, currently only 33 out of more than 130 law enforcement agencies have signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the State Gang Task Force's statewide database. This represents an increase of ten agencies from the past year and reflects a need for an increased effort by non-participating agencies. Due to the inherent importance of data coordination and sharing, Arizona must extend greater effort to improve the sharing of gang information and encourage the use of the state gang task force (GITEM) as the central agency responsible for coordinating this information. Improvements in information sharing among criminal justice agencies will contribute to and enhance gang reduction, suppression and enforcement efforts statewide. The Arizona criminal justice system will also face challenges related to population increases. Since 1991, Arizona's population has been increasing at a rate nearly three times faster than the rest of the nation. This population increase is likely to result in an increase in gangs and gang activity. The problems resulting from the increase in gangs and gang-related crime will be further compounded by the absence of the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) in rural counties. Therefore, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to develop and implement strategies that will effectively respond to the increase in gangs and gang-related crime that is likely to occur over the next few years. Arizona's corrections departments will also be impacted by the population increases. Over the past 10 years, the adult corrections population has increased 81.5 percent. Similarly, the juvenile corrections population has also increased in recent years. In fact, four of the five juvenile correction facilities are operating at 87 to 97 percent of capacity. The increases in both the adult and juvenile corrections population over the past few years represents an additional area in which greater attention and resources must be extended to ensure that Arizona's correctional facilities continue to operate both efficiently and effectively. Prosecution agencies will face several challenges related to gang prosecution. As the nature and extent of gang prosecutions varies throughout Arizona, the challenges to prosecution are also unique for each county. However, the one challenge expressed by almost all prosecution agencies was the unwillingness of witnesses to testify in gang-related cases. Identifying gang membership, lack of evidence, and proving that a crime was committed to further a gang were also 2002 Gangs In Arizona 45 mentioned as challenges to prosecuting gang-related cases. Although not expressed by all counties, some prosecution agencies identified extraditing defendants who have fled to other countries, attorney safety and obtaining adequate resources as major challenges. Both geographical location and current criminal trends make Arizona an ideal target for illegal economic profits. This in part has contributed to Arizona's total crime index ranking. Since 1991, Arizona has maintained a high crime ranking and is currently ranked number one in the nation. This is noteworthy because many of the crimes in which Arizona currently ranks within the top ten in the nation are also the same crimes that surveyed law enforcement agencies reported as high gang member involvement crimes(e.g. motor vehicle theft, burglary and robbery). The relationship between Arizona's number one total crime index ranking and gang involvement is noteworthy. As a result of Arizona's current crime trends, and because of the predicted increase in gangs, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies throughout the state continue to receive the resources necessary to effectively respond to the problem of gangs in Arizona. As a result of these challenges, it is imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to coordinate resources to identify areas which demand attention and focus. While many of the issues related to gangs remain a challenge for criminal justice and social service agencies, it is apparent that no single strategy will solve the problem of street gangs and gang-related activity. Instead, Arizona must continue to rely on a concerted, coordinated strategy among criminal justice and social service agencies. Increased resources, improved assessment tools, effective prevention strategies, and the coordination of information will improve Arizona's comprehensive response to gangs and result in a reduction of gangs and gang-related crimes. Although there is a variety of resources within the state that focus on gangs, additional resources must be expended to effectively respond to gangs in future years. 2002 Gangs In Arizona 46 APPENDIX A: 2001 SURVEY RESPONDENTS LAW ENFORCEMENT 56th Security Forces Squadron- Luke AFB Air Force Office of Special Investigations AK-Chin Police Department Apache County Sheriff's Office Avondale Police Department Benson Police Department Bisbee Police Department Buckeye Police Department Bullhead City Police Department Camp Verde Marshal's Office Casa Grande Police Department Cave Creek Marshals Office Chandler Police Department Chino Valley Police Department Clarkdale Police Department Cochise County Sheriff's Office Coconino County Sheriff's Office Cocopah Police Department Colorado City Town Marshal's Office Coolidge Police Department Cottonwood Police Department Drug Enforcement Agency- Phoenix Douglas Police Department Eager Police Department El Mirage Police Department Eloy Police Department Federal Bureau of Investigations Flagstaff Police Department Florence Police Department Fort McDowell Tribal Police Department Fort Mohave Police Department Fountain Hills Marshal's Office Fredonia Police Department Gila County Sheriffs Office Gila River Police Department Gilbert Police Department Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Glendale Police Department Globe Police Department Goodyear Police Department Graham County Sheriff Greenlee County Sheriff Havasupai Indian Tribal Police Hayden Police Department Holbrook Police Department Hopi BIA Law Enforcement Huachuca City Police Department Jerome Police Department Kearny Police Department Kingman Police Department La Paz County Sheriff's Office Lake Havasu City Police Department Mammoth Police Department Marana Police Department Maricopa County Sheriff Mesa Police Department Miami Police Department Mohave County Sheriff Navajo County Sheriff Navajo Department of Law Enforcement Naval Criminal Investigations Service Nogales Police Department Oro Valley Police Department Page Police Department Paradise Valley Police Department Parker Police Department Patagonia Marshals Office Payson Police Department Peoria Police Department Phoenix Police Department Pima County Sheriff Pima Police Department Pinal County Sheriff Department Pinetop-Lakeside Police Department Prescott Police Department Prescott Valley Police Quartzsite Marshal Quechan Tribal Police Department Safford Police Department Sahuarita Police Department Salt River Tribal Police Department San Luis Police Department Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office Scottsdale Police Department Sedona Police Department Show Low Police Department Sierra Vista Police Department Snowflake-Taylor Police 2002 Gangs In Arizona 47 Somerton Police Department South Tucson Police Department Springerville Police Department St. Johns Police Department Superior Police Department Surprise Police Department Tempe Police Department Thatcher Police Department Tolleson Police Department Tombstone Marshal's Office Tonto Apache Indian Tribe Tucson Airport Authority Police Department Tucson Police Department US Border Patrol US Customs US Marshals Office US Secret Service- Phoenix US Border Patrol- Tucson Station US Border Patrol- Yuma Station US Customs- Tucson Wellton Police Department Wickenburg Police Department Willcox Police Department Williams Police Department Winslow Police Department Yavapai-Apache Indian Nation Yavapai-Prescott Tribal Police Yavapai County Sheriff Youngtown Police Department Yuma County Sheriff Yuma Police Department PROSECUTION AK-Chin Indian Community Prosecution Apache County Attorney's Office Attorney General Cochise County Attorney's Office Coconino County Attorney's Office Cocopah Indian Tribe Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Gila County Attorney's Office Graham County Attorney's Office Greenlee County Attorney's Office Hualapai Indian Tribe La Paz County Attorney's Office Maricopa County Attorney's Office Mohave County Attorney's Office Navajo County Attorney's Office Pascua Yaqui Tribe Prosecutors Office Pima County Attorney's Office Pinal County Attorney's Office Santa Cruz County Attorney's Office Southern Paiute Field Station Tonto Apache Tribal Court White Mountain Prosecution Unit Yavapai County Attorney's Office Yuma County Attorney's Office pace County Adult Probation Apache County Juvenile Court Services Cochise County Adult Probation Cochise County Juvenile Court Services Coconino Adult Probation Coconino Juvenile Probation Gila Probation Graham Probation Department Greenlee Probation La Paz Probation Maricopa Adult Probation Maricopa Juvenile Probation Department Mohave Probation Department Navajo Probation Pima Adult Probation Pinal Adult Probation Pinal Juvenile Court Services Santa Cruz Probation Yavapai Adult Probation Yavapai Juvenile Court Services Yuma Juvenile Court Service A PROBATION 2002 Gangs In Arizona 48 APPENDIX B: GITEM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Arizona Department of Corrections Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Benson Police Department Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Immigration Naturalization Services Bullhead City Police Department Chandler Police Department Coconino County Sheriff's Office Coolidge Police Department Cottonwood Police Department Eloy Police Department Fountain Hills Police Department Glendale Police Department Kingman Police Department Marana Police Department Maricopa Attorney's Office Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Mesa Police Department Mohave Sheriff's Office Navajo County Sheriff's Office Oro Valley Police Department Phoenix Police Department Pima County Sheriff's Office Pinal County Sheriff's Office Show Low Police Department Sierra Vista Police Department Somerton Police Department Surprise Police Department Tempe Police Department Tucson Police Department Willcox Police Department Yuma Police Department Yuma County Sheriff's Office 2002 Gangs In Arizona 49 APPENDIX C: GANG RELATED WEB SITES *please send additions/modifications to sballance@acjc.state.az.us GANGS A Comprehensive History of Blood and Crip Gangs in LA http://www.streetgangs.com/ American Gang Information Center http://members.tripod.com/~Carl815/ganginfo.html An Urban Ethnography of Latino Street Gangs http://www.altenforst.de/faecher/englisch/immi/table.htm Arizona Criminal Justice Commission http://www.acjc.state.az.us Florida Department of Corrections Gang and Security Threat Group Awareness http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/index.html GangInformation.com (Prison Gang Information and More) http://ganginformation.com/ Gangs OR Us http://gangsorus.com Gangs Show Off Their Colors Online http://www.sfgate.com Hardcore: A Series of Articles by the Phoenix New Times http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/extra/hardcore/index.html Hate on Display: A Visual Database of Extremist Symbols, Logos and Tattoos (AntiDefamation League) http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default.htm International Association of Asian Crime Investigators http://www.iaaci.com/ Larry Hoover Story (Illinois Criminal Justice Authority) http://www.ipsn.org/hoover3.html Mark's Parole and Crime Page http://www.tbcnet.com/~salsberry/ Wannabe: A Documentary from Wisconsin Public Television http://www.itvs.org/wannabe/index.html Wood County Gang Task Force (Gang awareness, prevention and intervention) http://www.wcnet.org/~wcgtf/index.html 2002 Gangs In Arizona 50 GRAFFITI Art Crimes: The Writing On The Wall http://www.graffiti.org/ Chicago Hoodz: In-Depth Look at Chicago Gang Graffiti http://www.dougweb.com/grlinks.html Graffiti-Related Links on the World Wide Web http://www.dougweb.com/grlinks.html Operation CleanSWEEP http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/OID/Operation_CleanSweep.htm GANG PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION A Parent's Guide to Preventing Gangs (Memphis, TN Police Department) http://www.lunaweb.com/pargang.htm Boys and Girls Clubs of America http://www.bgca.org/ Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/ Connect for Kids http://www.connectforkids.org/content1555/content_list.htm?attrib_id=335 Educators for Social Responsibility http://www.esrnational.org/ ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/ Gang Crime Prevention Center http://www.gcpc.state.il.us/ Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) http://www.atf.treas.gov/great/index.htm Gangstyle.com http://www.gangstyle.com/ Mothers Against Gangs (MAG) http://www.winternet.com/~jannmart/nkcmag.html National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: Division of Violence Prevention (Center for Disease Control) http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/dvp.htm 2002 Gangs In Arizona 51 National Crime Prevention Council (10 Tools to Involve Parents in Gang Prevention) http://www.ncpc.org/10ad1.htm National Parent Information Network (NPIN) http://www.npin.org/ National School Safety Center http://www.nssc1.org/ National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign http://www1.theantidrug.com/ National Youth Employment Coalition http://www.nyec.org/ National Youth Gang Center http://www.iir.com/nygc/ New Approaches Needed to Discourage Gangs (King County, Washington) http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/commentary/123097com.htm Parenting Resources for the 21st Century http://www.parentingresources.ncjrs.org/ Peer Resources Consulting Services http://www.islandnet.com/~rcarr/peer.html Project No Gangs (Orange County, California) http://www.duila.org/project.htm Stop the Violence...Face the Music Society http://www.stv.net/ Street Gangs: The View From The Street (From the Do It Now Foundation) http://www.doitnow.org/pages/178.html Teen Gangs (Connecticut Clearinghouse Fact Sheet) http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/fteengng.htm U.S. Department of Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/ United States Institute of Peace Conflict Resolution articles and links http://www.usip.org/ GANG MYTHS Urban Legends Reference Page http://www.snopes2.com/ 2002 Gangs In Arizona 52 GRANTS AND FUNDING Notices of Federal Funding Available http://ocd.usda.gov/nofa.htm Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/grants/grants.html U.S. Department of Education Funding Opportunities http://www.ed.gov/funding.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: GrantsNet http://www.hhs.gov/refers/progorg.html U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/commut.html U.S. Department of Justice Community Support and Grants http://www.usdoj.gov/index.html LAW ENFORCEMENT APBNews.com http://www.apbnews.com/ Corrections Online http://www.corrections.com/ Law Enforcement Jobs http://www.lawenforcementjob.com/ New York Department of Corrections http://www.docs.state.ny.us/ 2002 Gangs In Arizona 53 REFERENCES Arizona Department of Corrections. Security Threat Groups. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Corrections, (2002). Arizona Drug and Gang Resource Prevention Center. ADGPRC Gang Resource Guide. Phoenix: Arizona Drug and Gang Resource Prevention Center, (2002). Burch, J. & Kane, C. Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, (1999). Cornyn, J. Gangs in Texas 2001: An Overview. Austin: Office of the Attorney General, (2001). Gist, N. Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical Guide. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice-Office of Justice Programs, (1999). Gang Resistance Education and Training. G.R.E.A.T. Phoenix: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, (2002). Institute for Intergovernmental Research. Comprehensive Gang Model. Washington DC: National Youth Gang Center, (2002). Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Youth Gangs: An Overview. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, (1998). Juvenile Probation Services. Communities and Crime Prevention. Phoenix: Maricopa Superior Court, (2002). National Youth Gang Center. 1998 Youth Gang Survey. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, (1998). 2002 Gangs In Arizona 54

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

...