U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units, 2007
Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007
October 2010 NCJ 230071
Lynn Langton
BJS Statistician
-------------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2210
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, 365 of the nation's large police departments and
sheriffs' offices had specialized gang units, employing more
than 4,300 sworn officers dedicated to addressing
gang-related activities. Thirty-five percent (35%) of these
units were established between 2004 and 2007, suggesting a
recent heightened interest in using specialized units to
address gang issues (figure 1).
Gangs and gang-related activities are pervasive, nationwide
problems. Gangs can contribute to higher violent crime rates,
induce community deterioration through behaviors such as
vandalism, graffiti, and drug dealing, and increase public
fear of victimization. One way for law enforcement agencies
to address gang-related problems is to form specialized gang
units. The consolidation of an agency's gang enforcement
activities and resources into a single unit can allow gang
unit officers to develop specific expertise and technical
skills related to local gang characteristics, behaviors, and
gang prevention and suppression.
-------------------------------------------------------
Highlights
*In 2007, 365 of the nation's large (100 or more sworn
officers) police departments and sheriffs' offices had
specialized gang units, employing a median of 5 officers per
unit and more than 4,300 full-time equivalent sworn officers
nationwide.
*About 15% of local law enforcement gang units regularly
dealt with organized crime families (15%) and terrorist
organizations (14%).
*Of the 337 gang units that reported their year of
establishment, 35% were formed between 2004 and 2007. The
year 2006 marked the peak of gang unit formation with 43 new
units created.
*About 2 in 3 gang units spent the greatest percentage of
time on either intelligence gathering (33%) or investigative
functions (32%).
*About 9 in 10 gang units monitored gang graffiti (94%),
tracked individual gang members (93%), monitored internet
sites for communication among gang members (93%), engaged in
directed patrols (91%), and performed undercover surveillance
operations (87%).
*About 30% of specialized gang units examined a prospective
officer's financial and credit history before allowing the
officer to serve in the unit.
*Fewer than half (45%) of gang units collaborated with the
state or local prosecutor's office to the extent that the
office assigned personnel to regularly work with the unit.
*Nearly all (98%) specialized gang units shared criminal
intelligence information with neighboring law enforcement
agencies.
*Fewer than 20% of gang units submitted records to the FBI's
Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF) in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU)
collected data on 365 local police departments and sheriffs'
offices that had 100 or more sworn officers with at least one
officer dedicated solely to addressing gang activity. Based
primarily on findings from the CLEGU, this report details the
types of problems handled by specialized gang units, followed
by findings about unit operations, gang officers, and the
attributes of the agencies and jurisdictions that contain
these specialized units.
Majority of gang units routinely dealt with street gangs,
tagger groups, and motorcycle gangs
Specialized gang units most commonly dealt with street gangs
(98%), tagger groups (80%), and motorcycle gangs (57%) in
2007 (table 1). Over 40% of these units routinely responded
to the activities of prison gangs (43%) and extremist groups
(43%), such as white supremacy organizations and other hate
groups. It was less common for gang units to regularly deal
with the activities of organized crime families (15%) and
terrorist organizations (14%). Gang units located in large
local law enforcement agencies reported routinely addressing
the gang-related activities of four different types of gangs,
on average (not shown in table).
With the exception of street gangs and tagger groups that
emulate the gang lifestyle but commit few actual crimes, the
percentage of units that addressed various gang types was
slightly higher among units serving a population of 500,000
residents or more than among units serving fewer than 50,000
residents. By region, units in the West were more likely to
encounter motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, and extremist
groups than units in other regions. Units in the Northeast
were more likely to encounter organized crime families and
terrorist organizations. Single-officer gang units were
slightly more likely to report dealing with extremist groups
and motorcycle gangs, compared to larger units.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) and the Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
survey
The Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) was designed
to gather information on the practices and procedures of gang
units. To identify law enforcement agencies with a gang unit
or at least one officer dedicated solely to addressing gang
activity, researchers conducted a phone survey of the 1,084
local police departments and sheriff's agencies in the United
States with 100 or more sworn officers. Agencies that fit the
criterion of having at least one officer whose sole
responsibility was to deal with gang issues received the
survey questionnaire. The majority of this report is based on
the data collected from the 365 agencies that completed the
CLEGU questionnaire.
To avoid duplication with other BJS survey efforts, the CLEGU
did not collect data on the characteristics of law
enforcement agencies with specialized gang units. The BJS
2007 LEMAS survey, which was distributed to all local law
enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn officers, was
used to supplement information on the size and operating
budgets of the agencies with gang units. The LEMAS survey
also included one question pertaining to the presence of a
gang unit.
The LEMAS survey produced a higher prevalence rate of gang
units among large local law enforcement agencies than was
obtained by the CLEGU. Information on the differences between
the two data collections, as well as a comparison of the
characteristics of agencies with gang units reported in each
survey, is detailed in the Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------
Over 90% of gang units dealt with gangs that were financed
though street-level drug sales
Specialized gang units respond to the particular types of
gangs and gang activities within their jurisdiction. One way
gangs can be distinguished is by the methods through which
they bring in money. Gangs financed through drug trafficking
or weapons trafficking, for example, are certainly engaged in
serious criminal activity (trafficking at a minimum), while
gangs composed of members who maintain legitimate employment
may not engage in the same level or frequency of criminal
activity. In other words, the financing methods used by gangs
within a jurisdiction are a proxy for the range and
seriousness of gang crimes addressed by specialized gang
units.
The 2007 CLEGU asked gang units to report the financing
methods used by gangs in their jurisdictions. Overall, the
greatest percentage of units dealt with gangs financed
through three methods: street-level drug sales (93%), drug
trafficking (88%), and weapons trafficking (71%) (table 2).
About half of the gang units encountered gangs financed by
dues from paying members who maintained legitimate employment
(48%) and gangs that profited from economic crimes (47%),
such as credit card theft, money laundering, and
embezzlement. About 4 in 10 units addressed area gangs
financed through prostitution (41%) and the sale of forged
identity documents (39%).
Gang units in different sized jurisdictions reported
variations in the financing methods used by area gangs. With
a few exceptions, as population size increased, the
percentage of units that encountered each of the different
gang financing methods also increased. For example, a quarter
(25%) of gang units serving a resident population of under
50,000 dealt with area gangs financed through economic
crimes, while 64% of units serving 500,000 residents or more
addressed gangs financed through economic crimes.
Because most gang financing methods reported by gang units
involved illegal activities, the greater the number of
financing methods used by area gangs, the greater the range
of gang crimes addressed by specialized gang units. Gang
units, on average, encountered 5 different methods of gang
financing in 2007. The average number of gang financing
methods within a jurisdiction increased based on the
population served, from 3 methods among gang units serving
fewer than 50,000 residents to 6 among units serving 500,000
residents or more (not shown in table).
Law enforcement agencies in the Northeast formed about 75% of
area gang units between 2000 and 2007
Nearly half (48%) of the 337 gang units that reported the
year they were established were formed between 2000 and 2007
(table 3). Approximately 13% of the units were created prior
to 1990, with the oldest active unit formed in 1975.
About 60% of gang units in the South and 75% of those in the
Northeast were established between 2000 and 2007. About a
third of the specialized gang units located in the Midwest
(31%) and West (30%) were also formed during that time. In
contrast, about half of the gang units in the West (46%) and
Midwest (52%) reported in the CLEGU were created during the
1990s.
Approximately half (52%) of the 163 gang units formed between
2000 and 2007 were established by law enforcement agencies in
the South. Five of the 7 units formed in the 1970s were in
law enforcement agencies in the West (not shown in table).
About 4 in 10 gang units followed a statutorily determined
definition of a gang and gang member
About 90% of gang units had at least one formal definition
that either a group or an individual had to meet before being
classified as a gang or a gang member (table 4).
Seventy-seven percent of units utilized formal definitions to
classify both gangs and individual gang members. Ten percent
of gang units had no formal definition of a gang or gang
member.
Specialized gang units with formal classifications of a gang,
gang member, or both used definitions that had been set by a
state or municipal statute or created by the unit. About 4 in
10 (44%) gang units used statutorily determined definitions
of both a gang and a gang member. Of the units using a
statutory definition of either a gang or gang member, a
greater percentage used a statute defining a gang (12%) than
a gang member (3%).
Regardless of the source of the gang or gang member
definition, the defining language varied substantially. Local
law enforcement agencies in 2007 did not use a uniform
definition of a gang or a gang member.
About a third of gang units reported spending the greatest
percentage of time gathering intelligence in 2007
The CLEGU asked gang units to rank five law enforcement
functions intelligence, investigation, support, suppression,
and prevention in terms of how the unit dedicated its time
(table 5). Over 60% of gang units spent the greatest
percentage of time either gathering intelligence or
investigating gang activity in 2007. About a third (33%) of
gang units spent the largest percentage of time gathering
intelligence; 32% dedicated the most time to investigating
gang activities. A quarter (25%) of gang units reported
spending the most time providing support to other components
in the agency; 13% reported spending the largest percentage
of time on gang suppression activities, such as patrolling
gang neighborhoods, initiating field and traffic stops, and
making arrests. These findings suggest that most gang units
focused more on developing specialized knowledge about area
gangs, gang members, and gang activities than on developing
specialized tactics for neutralizing gang activities.
Fourteen specialized gang units (4%) reported dedicating the
greatest percentage of time to prevention programs, such as
providing counseling geared towards at-risk youth or
community education about gangs. Of these 14 units, 5
reported that at least one other function simultaneously
occupied the top ranking category (not shown in table).
More than 9 in 10 gang units monitored gang graffiti and
tracked individual gang members
Regardless of how gang units spent the greatest percentage of
time, over 90% gathered intelligence about gangs by
monitoring gang graffiti (94%) and tracking individual gang
members (93%) (table 6). The percentage of gang units
monitoring gang-related graffiti decreased among larger gang
units, while the percentage of units tracking gang members
increased with the size of the unit. Among the 337 units that
tracked individual gang members, 91% used a computerized
tracking system, such as GangNET , CalGang ,***Footnote 1
GangNET and the CalGang
system are registered trademarks of SRA International
.*** or a gang-tracking system
created within the department. Less than half (46%) of the
units also used a paper system to track gang members.
About 9 in 10 gang units engaged in undercover surveillance
operations (87%) and monitored internet sites for
communication among or about gang members and gang activities
(93%). Fewer than half of the gang units used technologies,
such as GPS tracking devices (36%), closed circuit cameras in
gang areas (35%), and electronic listening devices (30%), to
assist in the investigation of suspected gang crimes. Less
than a quarter (23%) of gang units sent undercover officers
to infiltrate area gangs. The likelihood of a gang unit
performing undercover operations or utilizing various
investigative technologies increased as the number of sworn
officers in the unit increased.
Most (93%) gang units engaged in some form of patrol to carry
out anti-gang suppression operations (not shown in table).
The majority of gang units performed directed patrols
targeted to high crime areas (91%) and routine patrols (76%).
A smaller percentage of gang units conducted foot (48%) and
bicycle (17%) patrols.
About 40% of gang units responded to general calls for
service in 2007. About half of gang units with one officer
responded to calls for service (46%), compared to a third of
units with 11 or more full-time equivalent (FTE) sworn
officers (33%).
Gang units spent the largest share of investigative time on
serious violent felony (44%) and narcotics investigations
(29%)
In 2007, gang units spent the largest share of investigative
time on incidents involving serious violent felonies (44%)
(table 7). Narcotics offenses took up 29% of gang units'
investigative time, followed by investigations into graffiti
(16%), and other offenses. Other offenses included economic
offenses, such as mortgage fraud and credit card fraud (5%),
immigration offenses (3%), and prostitution (2%) (not shown
in table). Time spent investigating one type of offense over
another reflects the types of offenses attributed to area
gangs and to the complexity of the investigation by offense
category.
The time spent investigating specific offenses varied by the
type of law enforcement agency (local police department or
sheriff's office) and the size of the gang unit. Among gang
units located in police departments, the time spent
investigating serious violent felonies increased as the size
of the unit increased. In contrast, the percentage of time
these gang units spent investigating graffiti offenses
decreased as the size of the unit increased. Time spent
investigating narcotics and other offenses did not change
consistently based on the size of a local police department's
gang unit.
Among units located in sheriffs' offices, the percentage of
time spent investigating graffiti offenses ranged from 33%
among single-officer units to 5% for units with more than 10
FTE sworn officers. The percentage of time spent on narcotics
investigations more than doubled from 15% to 32% as the size
of the unit increased from 1 to 2 or more sworn officers.
Nearly half of gang units took part in prevention programs
with youth gang members
Distributing gang prevention literature to schools, parents,
and other community groups and members was the most common
gang prevention activity (74% of gang units) in 2007 (table
8). About 6 in 10 (56%) gang units participated in activities
geared toward keeping area youth from joining gangs, such as
mentoring programs, social skills and leadership training,
drug prevention groups, and self-esteem building programs.
Nearly half of all units took part in gang prevention
activities with gang-involved youth (48%) or joined with
faith-based organizations in gang prevention programs (49%).
A third of units (33%) had officers who taught prevention
programs, such as the Gang Resistance Education And Training
Program (G.R.E.A.T.). Overall, a greater percentage of larger
gang units participated in prevention activities, compared to
smaller gang units.
About 6 in 10 gang units participated in a local or regional
gang task force in 2007
The majority of gang units engaged in some form of
collaboration with federal law enforcement, other neighboring
law enforcement, or other criminal justice agencies in 2007.
Collaborating with federal, local, or regional law
enforcement or other criminal justice agencies was more
common among large gang units (11 sworn officers or more)
than among small units (1 sworn officer) (table 9).
Over half of all gang units worked with federal law
enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) or Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), through
participation in a federal gang task force (52%), for
operational planning purposes (58%), or in the investigation
of crimes (77%). About 6 in 10 (63%) gang units were part of
a gang task force in which the unit combined its resources
with other regional law enforcement agencies to address area
gang activity.
Approximately 3 in 4 (72%) gang units regularly worked with
personnel in at least one non-law enforcement criminal
justice agency (not shown in table). The largest percentage
of gang units collaborated with probation agencies (48%),
followed by state or local prosecutor offices (45%), parole
agencies (43%), and detention facilities (36%). Fewer than
10% of gang units regularly worked with a housing authority.
Nearly all gang units (98%) shared criminal intelligence
information with neighboring law enforcement agencies
Criminal intelligence information refers to data used by law
enforcement to identify an individual or specific group
suspected of being involved in a particular criminal
activity. All but two gang units shared criminal intelligence
information with other units in their department in 2007
(table 10). Nearly all units (98%) also shared intelligence
information with department command staff and neighboring law
enforcement agencies. The majority of units (70%) provided
intelligence information to other criminal justice agencies,
such as prisons, jails, and probation departments.
A smaller percentage of gang units shared non-intelligence
information with other units (93%), the command staff within
the department (93%), and neighboring law enforcement
agencies (89%) than the percentage of units that shared
criminal intelligence information. This suggests that it was
more common for a gang unit to communicate information that
could assist in making arrests than to share general
knowledge about gangs and gang activities. About half of gang
units shared non-intelligence information with the public
(54%), non-criminal justice agencies (52%), and media outlets
(46%).
Fewer than 20% of gang units submitted records to the FBI's
Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File in 2007
The FBI's National Crime Information Center houses the
Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF), which
provides law enforcement with a secure way to exchange
identifying information about specific criminal gangs and
gang members. In 2007, 17% of gang units (61 units) submitted
records to the VGTOF (table 11). A submission refers to any
entry into the file, such as establishing a new record for a
group not previously included in the file, updating
descriptive information about a particular gang member,
noting the association between two known gang members, or
adding cautionary notes regarding any threats made or the
types of weapons carried by a gang or gang member. The
percent of gang units that submitted VGTOF records was lower
among units with more than 10 sworn officers (10%) compared
to units with fewer than 10 sworn officers (about 19%) (not
shown in table). The CLEGU asked gang units participating in
the VGTOF to provide the number of submission to the VGTOF
for the previous month. Over half of the gang units (57%) did
not have any submissions during the previous month (not shown
in table). The 26 gang units that reported at least one
submission during the previous month submitted a total of 736
records to the VGTOF.
In 2007, over 90% of full-time equivalent (FTE) sworn gang
unit officers were male
In 2007, 4,312 FTE sworn officers were assigned to gang units
located in 365 large local law enforcement agencies (table
12). Nearly all sworn gang unit officers (91%) were employed
full-time. The size of gang units ranged from 1 officer to
the nearly 350 officers across all divisions of the Los
Angeles Police Department. Gang units had a median of 5
officers per unit (not shown in table).
White, non-Hispanic (61%) and male (94%) officers made up the
majority of gang unit officers in 2007. Nationwide, fewer
than 300 female officers were assigned to gang units. Gang
units also reported employing a total of 256 non-sworn FTE
personnel in 2007 (not shown in table). Twenty-six percent of
reporting gang units retained 1 or more non-sworn employee.
The majority of agencies (53%) used a competitive selection
process to select officers for the gang unit
In 2007, 53% of large local law enforcement agencies used a
competitive selection process to bring officers into the gang
unit (table 13). For 34% of the gang units, agency command
staff selected officers for and assigned officers to the
unit.
About 3 in 4 agencies with gang units considered an officer's
discipline history (78%), complaint history (76%), and
use-of-force record (73%) before selecting the officer for
the unit. Of the agencies that considered each of these three
selection criteria, approximately 35% held gang unit officers
to a higher selection standard than other officers (not shown
in table). About 1 in 4 (29%) agencies looked at an officer's
financial and credit history to determine whether the officer
was eligible to serve in the unit.
Approximately 1 in 10 (13%) agencies with gang units set a
limit on the amount of time an officer could serve in the
unit. Of the 48 agencies that had a maximum service allowance
for gang unit officers, 39 agencies (80%) allowed officers to
serve no more than 5 years in the unit.
More than a third of gang units experienced difficulties
recruiting officers with certain characteristics
Thirty-six percent of gang units reported difficulties in
recruiting officers with specifically desired or unique
characteristics (table 14). Of the 133 units that had
difficulty recruiting officers with specific characteristics,
92 units (70%) had trouble enlisting bilingual or
multilingual officers (not shown in table).
Nearly all new gang unit members received special training
related to gangs
Nearly all gang units in 2007 provided new gang officers with
formal on-the-job training related to gangs (96%) and sent
new unit members to conferences and seminars on gang issues
(95%) (table 15). Eighty-five percent of gang units provided
new members with specialized gang training at a law
enforcement academy.
Jurisdictions with older gang units were more likely to make
use of civil gang injunctions
A civil gang injunction is a court-issued order prohibiting
specific gangs or gang members from congregating in
particular public areas and engaging in nuisance behaviors,
such as loitering, cursing, making certain hand gestures, and
listening to loud music. Police officers can arrest gang
members for engaging in activities that violate the terms of
the injunction, even if the activity is not criminal.
Eleven percent of the 163 jurisdictions with gang units
formed between 2000 and 2007 made use of civil gang
injunctions (figure 2). Among the 131 jurisdictions with gang
units formed between 1990 and 1999, the percentage using
injunctions was nearly double (21%). This finding may suggest
that jurisdictions with older gang units had longer-standing
gang-related problems, and over time had implemented tools,
such as injunctions, to reduce gang visibility, graffiti, and
fear of gang victimization. In the late 1990s, civil gang
injunctions also faced legal challenges that may have
deterred some jurisdictions from implementing injunctions in
recent years.
----------------------------------------------------------
Training on gangs-related topics in law enforcement training
academies, 2006
The BJS 2006 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement
Training Academies (CSLLETA) collected data on academies that
provided basic and in-service training related to gangs and
law enforcement's response to gangs. While the CSLLETA data
does not link to the CLEGU, it provides general information
about the types of gang training at law enforcement
academies.
Of the 648 training academies, 560 (86%) covered at least one
topic pertaining to gangs or the response to gangs during the
course of either basic training or in-service training.
Approximately 7 in 10 training academies provided basic
training on the history of gangs (69%), the nature and scope
of gangs (70%), and the operations of national or local gangs
(71%) (figure 3). Between 35% and 40% of training academies
provided in-service training on gang topics.
In 2006, the most common basic training classes on law
enforcement's response to gangs covered the laws and
ordinances related to gangs (57%), community or individual
risk factors of gang activity (53%), and the role of
community policing in response to gangs (51%) (figure 4).
Thirty percent (30%) of training academies provided
in-service training on laws and ordinances related to gangs
and documenting gang-related crimes.
Among the 500 academies that provided basic training on gang
topics, an average of 8 hours, out of the average 760
required training hours, were dedicated to gang-related
topics. In-service training related to gangs averaged about
13 hours (not shown in table).
-----------------------------------------------------
Nearly 70% of agencies with an operating budget of $100
million or more operated a gang unit in 2007
The BJS 2007 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) survey collected data on the
characteristics of local law enforcement agencies with 100 or
more sworn officers, allowing agencies with a gang unit to be
compared to the full universe of corresponding agencies. In
2007, an estimated 62% of agencies with 500 or more sworn
officers operated a gang unit compared to 21% of agencies
with 100 to 124 officers (table 16). A majority (57%) of
large local law enforcement agencies serving a population of
500,000 or more had a gang unit compared to less than a fifth
(18%) of agencies serving a population of 50,000 or under.
Also, a larger percentage of agencies with an operating
budget of $100 million or more (67%) operated a gang unit
than agencies with a budget of less than $20 million (21%).
A larger percentage of gang units were found in law
enforcement agencies in the West (41%) than in the South
(34%), Midwest (32%), or Northeast (33%). Large local police
departments were also more likely to operate a gang unit
(40%) than sheriffs' offices (25%) in 2007.
Methodology
Development of the CLEGU respondent list
The data collection agent for the 2007 Census of Law
Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) was the Institute for the
Study and Prevention of Violence (ISPV) at Kent State
University. To establish the universe of gang units to be
included in the CLEGU, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
provided researchers from the ISPV with a list of all
agencies that had 100 or more sworn officers according to the
2003 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
(LEMAS) survey. The BJS list was then merged with a list of
all law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn officers
purchased from the National Public Safety Information Bureau.
After duplicates were removed, the agency list included 1,084
local police departments and sheriffs' offices nationwide
with 100 or more sworn officers. From September through
November 2006, the ISPV researchers then called each of the
agencies. Researchers spoke with a representative from the
office of the head of the agency and asked whether the agency
had a dedicated street gang unit or at least one officer
whose sole responsibility was to coordinate the agency's
response to gangs.
Following these calls, 562 agencies did not appear to either
have a specialized gang unit or gang officer and were
considered out of scope for the study (See appendix table 1
for description of the characteristics of the agencies not
included in the CLEGU.) A universe of 522 agencies was
initially determined eligible to receive the CLEGU survey
form. Eligible agencies received the data collection
instrument based on the following stated preferences for
delivery: link to an online data collection tool (313
agencies), facsimile of the questionnaire (195 agencies), and
instrument sent via the U.S. Postal Service (14 agencies).
The 522 local police departments or sheriffs' offices with
100 or more sworn officers and at least one officer dedicated
solely to addressing gang problems received the CLEGU data
collection instrument in March 2008. Ninety-one percent of
these agencies (476) responded to the survey. Of these 476
agencies, 89 agencies reported not having a gang unit, 5
additional agencies were determined to be duplicates, 6
agencies had fewer than 100 sworn officers, and 11 agencies
had gang units established in 2008. A total of 365 large
local law enforcement agencies provided adequate responses
for inclusion in the analysis. Data collection efforts and
follow-up continued through March 2009.
Development of the survey form
Prior to developing the CLEGU questionnaire, project managers
from the ISPV and BJS worked with specialized gang units and
gang experts across the country to gain an understanding of
the operations and responsibilities of gang unit officers.
The ISPV organized a two-day, national meeting of gang
officers and experts in November 2007 to discuss the topics
and questions for inclusion in the data collection
instrument. Attendees included top gang researchers; gang
unit officers from the Virginia State Police, New Jersey
State Police, Chicago Police Department, and the Worcester,
Massachusetts Police Department; and representatives from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Gang
Investigators Association. The National Major Gang Task Force
and the National Alliance of Gang Investigators also reviewed
the survey instrument and provided comments and endorsement.
Collecting data on gang-related or -motivated arrests
In addition to the data reported in Gang Units in Large Local
Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007, the CLEGU attempted to
collect information on the total number of arrests made by
gang unit officers for gang-related or gang-motivated
homicides, other violent offenses, property offenses,
narcotics, economic offenses, and other misdemeanors in 2007.
Seventy percent of gang units (256) were able to provide the
number of gang-related or gang-motivated homicides, and of
those that provided data, 41% (105 units) reported zero
homicides in 2007. Forty-four percent of all gang units
responded that they did not know the number of arrests for
other violent offenses. Over half of gang units responded
"Don't Know" to the number of arrests for property offenses
(54%), narcotics (51%), economic offenses (67%), and other
misdemeanors (57%).
Sources of data for Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement
Agencies, 2007
The CLEGU provided the data on the characteristics and
operations of gang units. The 2007 Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Survey provided data on
the characteristics of agencies with specialized gang units.
Measuring the prevalence of gang units
While the main intent of the CLEGU was to collect data on the
characteristics and operations of gang units, the data could
be used to compute a rate of gang units among large local law
enforcement agencies. In 2007, 365 agencies reported having a
gang unit out of the 1,084 agencies contacted during the
development of the respondent list. Approximately 34% of
large local agencies had a gang unit according to CLEGU
findings.
At about the same period that the CLEGU was fielded, the 2007
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
(LEMAS) Survey was distributed to all law enforcement
agencies with 100 or more sworn officers. The BJS LEMAS
survey has collected data on the operations, management,
resources, policies, and officer characteristics of state,
municipal, and county law enforcement agencies since 1987.
The LEMAS Survey included the following question in 2007:
How does your agency address the following
problems/tasks-gangs?
1. Agency has specialized unit with personnel assigned
full-time to address gangs.
2. Agency does not have a specialized unit, but has dedicated
personnel to address gangs.
3, Agency addresses gangs, but does not have dedicated
personnel.
4. Agency does not formally address gangs.
Agencies that selected the first response option to this
question could also be used to compute a rate of gang units
or dedicated gang officers among large local law enforcement
agencies. According to the LEMAS data from this question, 464
agencies (48%), out of the 968 included in LEMAS, reported
having a specialized gang unit (appendix table 1).
Because there was a 14% difference between the rates of gang
units according to CLEGU (34%) versus LEMAS (48%), a rate was
not reported in this report.
Of the 365 agencies that completed the CLEGU survey
instrument, 269 (74%) reported having a gang unit in LEMAS,
49 (13%) reporting having dedicated personnel to address
gangs, 21 (6%) reported no gang unit or dedicated personnel,
and 26 (7%) did not respond to LEMAS. Of the 662 agencies
that did not have a gang unit according to the CLEGU screener
call or the survey instrument, 39% (261) also reported not
having a gang unit in LEMAS. Another 213 (32%) agencies were
either not included in or could not be matched to LEMAS. A
total of 146 agencies (22%) that did not have a gang unit
according to the CLEGU collection, however, did report having
a gang unit in LEMAS.
There are many more instances where LEMAS identifies a gang
unit when CLEGU (146) does not than the reverse (21). Given
that CLEGU employed a more intensive, two stage screening
process it is not surprising that fewer gang units were
identified in this data collection relative to LEMAS. There
are a number of other design differences between the two data
collections that can contribute to differences in the rate of
gang units, including different respondents for the same
organization. Nonetheless, as the data in Appendix Table 1
indicate, the characteristics of the population of large
agencies with gang units are very similar across the two data
collections.
Gang unit region of location
In the report, gang units were grouped by the four regions of
the country: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. The
classification of gang units follows the United States Census
Bureau classification of states into one of these four
regions ***Footnote 2 Region classification based on United
States Census Bureau, Census Regions and Divisions of the
United States
(appendix table 2).***
-------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency
of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.
This Special Report was written by Lynn Langton.
Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., verified the report.
Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report,
Barbara Quinn and Tina Dorsey produced the report,
and Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final
printing under the supervision of Doris J. James.
October 2010, NCJ 230071
---------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
This report in portable document format and in ASCII
and its related statistical data and tables are available
at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site:
.
--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
----------------------------------------------
9/28/2010/JER/8:16am