What Have We Learned About Prison Gangs? Findings from the Lonestar Project

Home , Aryan Circle, Barrio Azteca, Peckerwood, Prison gang, Texas Syndicate

What have we learned about prison gangs? Findings from the LoneStar Project

David C. Pyrooz, Ph.D. Department of Sociology Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado Boulder A Presentation to the UTEP Center for Law & Human Behavior Email: [email protected] Phone: (303) 492-3241 The LoneStar Project Twitter: @dpyrooz This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-MU-CX-0111 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and was made possible with the assistance of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Understanding prison gangs SCHEDULE1. The problem of prison gangs 2. The LoneStar Project 3. Characteristics of prison gangs/gang members 4. Power and control on the inside 5. Q & A

Responding to gangs 1. Joining/leaving in prison 2. Criminal and gang recidivism 3. Renouncement and disassociation 4. Policy/program implications 5. Q & A

The LoneStar Project The problem of prison gangs

25%

Winterdyk & Ruddell (2010) 19% N=37 20% NGIC (2011) Pyrooz & Mitchell 15% N=N/A (2018) 15% N=38 Hill 15% Wells et al. (2009) (2002) 12%, N=38 10% N=39

10%

Camp & Camp (1985) 3% N=23

5% % of Prison Population, Gang Affiliated Gang Population, Prison of %

0% 1984 2002 2008 2009 2011 2016 SOME INCONCLUSIVE “FACTS”

• Misconduct, particularly violence • Orchestration of riots and uprisings • The control and distribution of contraband • At the core of the prison social order • Symbiosis between prison and street gangs • Consequences for inmate recidivism

The LoneStar Project 300 6000 Total Research on Gangs (through 2014) Individuals, Yearly Groups, and Inference 250 5000

s 200 4000

u 150 3000

m 100 2000

50 1000

0 0 1900 1923 1930 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

The LoneStar Project Source: Pyrooz and Mitchell (2015) Years CHALLENGES OF PRISON GANG RESEARCH

Robert Fong and Salvador Buentello (1991)

• Official documentation on gangs is underdeveloped

• Prison administration is reluctant to grant access to researchers

• Gangs are secretive and prohibit the sharing of information

The LoneStar Project The LoneStar Project WHAT IS THE LONESTAR PROJECT?

• National Institute of Justice • Research on Gangs and Gang Violence FY14

• “Gangs on the Street, Gangs in Prison: Their Nature, Interrelationship, Control and Reentry”

. Texas Study of Trajectories, Associations, and Reentry

The LoneStar Project The LoneStar Project Texas, Prisons, and Gangs

The LoneStar Project THE LONESTAR PROJECT

Baseline Wave 2 Wave 3 Population: Sample: Huntsville Unit Huntsville & Estelle Units • Start: 4/18/2016 • Start: 5/30/2016 • Start: 2/7/2017 N=15,644 n=802 • End: 12/10/2016 • End: 5/9/2017 • End: 2/26/2018

• Retention: --- • Retention: 66.3% • Retention: 64.2% Disproportionate random sampling • Constructs: 62 • Constructs: 51 • Constructs: 52 Response rate: 61% • Items: 1,190 • Items: 1,126/1,508 • Items: 1,180/1,552 Participation rate: 94%

Population: Sample: Gang: 1,596 (10.2%); Gang: 368 (45.9%); TheNon LoneStar-Gang: 14,048 Project (89.8%) Non-Gang: 434 (54.1%) 16

San Antonio (n = 71) Dallas (n = 171)

Legend Number of Respondents

Houston (n = 91) 100%

90% 82.5% N=660 80%

70%

60% 46.8% 50% N=374 35.8% 40% N=286

30% 17.5% N=140 20% 10.0% 7.5% N=80 10% N=60

0% Concordance Discordance Admin (yes), Admin (no), Admin (yes), Admin (no), Survey (yes) Survey (no) Survey (no) Survey (yes) The Characteristics of Prison Gangs and Gang Members Gang Members and Gangs in the LoneStar Project

Persons (N=441) Person-Gangs (N*G=477) 1. Tangos – all (5 sets) members: 109 1. Tangos – all (5 sets) members: 111 2. Crips – all (4 sets): 66 2. Crips – all (4 sets): 70 3. Bloods – all (4 sets): 57 3. Bloods – all (4 sets): 59 4. Aryan Brotherhood: 34 4. Aryan Brotherhood: 34 5. Mexican Mafia: 25 5. Mexican Mafia: 25 6. Aryan Circle: 16 6. Aryan Circle: 17 7. Texas Syndicate: 18 7. Texas Syndicate: 18 8. Gangster Disciples: 11 8. Gangster Disciples: 12 9. Peckerwood: 10 9. Peckerwood: 10 10. Barrio Azteca: 9 10. Barrio Azteca: 9 11. Texas Chicano Brotherhood: 8 11. Texas Chicano Brotherhood: 8 12. La Raza Unida: 7 12. La Raza Unida: 7 13. Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos: 5 13. Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos: 5 14. Surenos – all (2 sets): 5 14. Surenos – all (2 sets): 10 15. Black Disciples: 3 15. Black Disciples: 3 16. - 8 gangs>1 N-G 36 16. - 13 gangs>1 N-G 36 G=34 gangs, N*G (>1 NG) = 405 G=39 gangs, N*G (>1 NG) = 434 The LoneStar Project + 36 gangs = 1 N-G 441 + 33 gangs = 1 N-G 47720 DIFFERENCES SIMILARITIES Non-Gang, (N=454) Gang, (N=346) Non-Gang, (N=454) Gang, (N=346) Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Demographic/Individual Age in years 41.64 (10.40) 34.55 (13.67) * Black 28.7% 21.3% Latino 27.8% 41.3% * Married 13.9% 14.8% White 35.7% 22.4% * In a relationship 15.6% 19.0% Education 11.74 (1.65) 10.95 (2.27) * Single 70.6% 66.2% Low self-control 1.33 (0.63) 1.56 (1.11) * Father 67.6% 72.1% Military veteran 10.9% 5.5% IQ 93.33 (10.88) 91.96 17.71) Environmental Informal social control 2.90 (0.79) 2.55 (1.45) * Prison social control 1.79 (0.78) 1.71 (1.26) Good place to live 74.8% 63.2% * Unstructured routines 2.24 (3.40) 2.36 (5.17) Gangs in neighborhood 44.8% 73.4% * Disorder in the prison 7.32 (1.87) 8.66 (2.57) * Health Stress 0.80 (0.49) 0.96 (0.84) * BMI 27.69 (4.40) 27.66 (8.01) Self-rated health 2.01 (0.70) 2.23 (1.16) * Self-esteem 2.13 (0.44) 2.09 (0.80) Exposure to violence 1.60 (0.87) 2.26 (1.39) * Projected age of death 86.21 (15.85) 87.52 (32.03) Social Connections Embeddedness in gangs -0.44 (0.54) 0.73 (1.59) * Social distance 1.03 (0.42) 1.09 (0.72) Family social support 2.36 (0.65) 2.50 (1.02) * Friend social support 1.86 (0.79) 1.87 (1.34) Criminal peers 0.65 (0.59) 0.97 (1.17) * Attitudes and Beliefs Code of the street 1.88 (0.70) 2.42 (1.14) * Ethnic ID—cultural 3.07 (0.49) 3.20 (0.86) Convict code 2.47 (0.48) 2.80 (0.78) * Spirituality/religiosity 3.07 (0.78) 2.93 (1.27) Legitimacy 1.59 (0.43) 1.37 (0.74) * Procedural justice 1.14 (0.50) 0.99 (0.77) * Ethnic ID—social 3.18 (0.53) 3.01 (1.13) * Criminal Justice System Age at first arrest 21.05 (6.87) 18.09 (8.73) * Number of arrests 8.47 (5.04) 9.08 (8.53) Prison stints 1.87 (1.08) 1.73 (1.43) Years incarcerated 4.33 (4.63) 4.78 (7.31) Violent offender 38.4% 43.7% 70% 64%

60% 54%

50% 48%

40% 35%

30%

Involved in Prison 26%

- 25% 21%

20% % % Gang 9% 10% 6% 2% 0% Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: Group 5: Group 6: Group 7: Group 8: Group 9: Group 10: 2-8 RFs 9-10 RFs 11-12 RFs 13 RFs 14 RFs 15 RFs 16 RFs 17 RFs 18 RFs 19-23 RFs (N=97) (N=87) (N=124) (N=79) (N=87) (N=71) (N=74) (N=54) (N=49) (N=80) RFs=Number of Risk Factors Prison Gang Street Gang

Race/ethnicity Single race or ethnicity Mostly single race or ethnicity

Age Concentrated in mid-20s, with members 30s-40s Average age in upper teens

Organizational Structure Hierarchical Situational/Hierarchical

Symbolic; Sources of violence Symbolic and instrumental; Core activity Core activity

Offending style Entrepreneurial Cafeteria style

Visibility of Behavior Covert Overt

Major activity; Varies; Drug trafficking Organized, collective Mostly individualistic Loyalty to gang Absolute Weak bonds

Unqualified fidelity; Abide by gang rules; Real or perceived fidelity; Abide by street rules; Key to membership Willingness to engage in violence Hanging out

Oppositional to Correctional Authorities; Oppositional to authority; Intimidation; TheKey psychologicalLoneStar Project attributes Intimidation; Control; Manipulation Camaraderie 23 Dichotomy of Street and Prison Gangs?

Street Prison Street/ Any Any Street Prison Street/ Any Any Total Total only only Prison Street Prison only only Prison Street Prison f f f f % % f f f f % % STG: admin. segregated Prison-oriented 0 2 0 2 0% 100% Aryan Brotherhood 0 0 34 34 100% 100% Mandingo Warriors Mexicles 0 2 2 4 50% 100% Aryan Circle 0 0 17 17 100% 100% Peckerwood 0 6 4 10 40% 100% Barrio Azteca 0 0 9 9 100% 100% Tangos 1 63 47 111 43% 99% Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos 0 0 5 5 100% 100% Single-rep. gangs 0 2 0 2 0% 100% Mexican Mafia 0 0 25 25 100% 100% Gang Type Total 1 75 53 129 42% 99% Raza Unida 0 0 7 7 100% 100% Street-oriented Texas Syndicate 0 2 16 18 89% 100% 18th street – other 4 0 1 5 100% 20% Gang Type Total 0 2 113 115 98% 100% Aryan Nation 0 0 2 2 100% 100% STG: no admin. segregated Bad Boys 2 0 0 2 100% 0% Black Disciples 0 0 3 3 100% 100% Bloods (all) 7 0 52 59 100% 88% Black Widows 2 0 0 2 100% 0% Crips (all) 6 0 64 70 100% 91% Gangster Disciples 2 0 10 12 100% 83% Partido Revolucionario Mex. 0 1 3 4 75% 100% Latin Kings 2 0 2 4 100% 50% Texas Chicano Brotherhood 0 0 8 8 100% 100% Northsiders 4 0 0 4 100% 0% Texas Mafia 0 1 3 4 75% 100% Surenos – all 9 0 4 13 100% 31% Gang Type Total 13 2 130 145 99% 91% Vice Lords 0 0 3 3 100% 100% The LoneStar Project Single-rep. gangs 32 0 6 38 100% 16%24 Gang Type Total 57 0 31 88 100% 35% Group-Level Characteristics

Instrumental Expressive Profit-Generation Communication

The LoneStar Project 25 Instrumental Expressive Profit-Generation Communication

Aryan Brotherhood Aryan Circle Barrio Azteca Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos segregated THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION La Raza Unida — Mexican Mafia

Texas Syndicate STG

Bloods - Bounty Hunter Bloods - General Bloods - Tree Top Piru Crips - 52 Hoover Crips - Gangster

not segregated not Crips - General

— Crips - Rollin 60s Texas Chicano Brotherhood

STG Texas Mafia

Mandingo Warriors Mexicles Peckerwood Tango - General Tango - Houstone Tango - Orejon Tango - Valluco Prison-oriented Tango - West Texas

18th Street 18th Street - Vagos Ambrose Folk Nation Aryan Nation Bad Boys Black Disciples Black Widows Gangster Disciples Latin Kings

Street-oriented Northsiders Party of Mexican Revolution Surenos - Eastside Surenos - General Vice Lords The LoneStar Project 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Instrumental Expressive Profit-Generation Communication

Aryan Brotherhood Aryan Circle Barrio Azteca Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos segregated THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION La Raza Unida — Mexican Mafia

Texas Syndicate STG

Bloods - Bounty Hunter Bloods - General Bloods - Tree Top Piru Crips - 52 Hoover Crips - Gangster

not segregated not Crips - General

— Crips - Rollin 60s Texas Chicano Brotherhood

STG Texas Mafia

Mandingo Warriors Mexicles Peckerwood Tango - General Tango - Houstone Tango - Orejon Tango - Valluco Prison-oriented Tango - West Texas

18th Street 18th Street - Vagos Ambrose Folk Nation Aryan Nation Bad Boys Black Disciples Black Widows Gangster Disciples Latin Kings

Aryan Brotherhood Aryan Circle Barrio Azteca Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos segregated THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION La Raza Unida — Mexican Mafia

Texas Syndicate STG

Bloods - Bounty Hunter Bloods - General Bloods - Tree Top Piru Crips - 52 Hoover Crips - Gangster

not segregated not Crips - General

— Crips - Rollin 60s Texas Chicano Brotherhood

STG Texas Mafia

Mandingo Warriors Mexicles Peckerwood Tango - General Tango - Houstone Tango - Orejon Tango - Valluco Prison-oriented Tango - West Texas

18th Street 18th Street - Vagos Ambrose Folk Nation Aryan Nation Bad Boys Black Disciples Black Widows Gangster Disciples Latin Kings

Aryan Brotherhood Aryan Circle Barrio Azteca Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos segregated THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION La Raza Unida — Mexican Mafia

Texas Syndicate STG

Bloods - Bounty Hunter Bloods - General Bloods - Tree Top Piru Crips - 52 Hoover Crips - Gangster

not segregated not Crips - General

— Crips - Rollin 60s Texas Chicano Brotherhood

STG Texas Mafia

Mandingo Warriors Mexicles Peckerwood Tango - General Tango - Houstone Tango - Orejon Tango - Valluco Prison-oriented Tango - West Texas

18th Street 18th Street - Vagos Ambrose Folk Nation Aryan Nation Bad Boys Black Disciples Black Widows Gangster Disciples Latin Kings

Street-oriented Northsiders Party of Mexican Revolution Surenos - Eastside Surenos - General Vice Lords The LoneStar Project 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Power and Control

Who “Runs” Prisons?

Non-Gang Gang Non-Gang Gang Members Members Members Members (N=454) (N=346) Diff. (N=454) (N=346) Diff.

% Agree % Agree Rules Order % Agree % Agree Prisons would be more violent w/o gangs 18.5% 34.1% Medium It is more important to follow the rules: Gangs help maintain order in prisons 34.2% 65.6% Large . . . gangs set than prisoners set 15.7% 44.5% Large Gangs fix problems better than COs 28.1% 60.7% Large . . . gangs set than the prison staff 17.7% 40.8% Large Prison suffers when gangs have problems 81.9% 80.9% None

COs must talk to gangs to make changes 36.4% 48.3% Medium . . . prisoners set than the prison staff 30.4% 47.7% Medium Gangs make you feel safer in prison 6.2% 14.8% Medium Non-gang inmates have hard time 25.9% 29.5% Small % Very or % Very or Somewhat Somewhat I trust gangs to fix my problems, not COs 15.0% 38.7% Large How fearful of punishment for violating: Fearful Fearful Control % Agree % Agree . . . the rules that prisoners set 6.8% 12.7% Small Approval of gangs is required for selling: . . . drugs 28.8% 46.4% Medium . . . the rules that gangs set 16.2% 23.5% Medium . . . cell phones 24.2% 41.8% Medium The LoneStar Project . . . other contraband 20.7% 37.1% Medium . . . the rules that prison staff set 13.4% 9.0% Medium 32 Gangs get a cut of contraband profits 20.8% 31.7% Medium Nuances of Gangs and Power

• Rules and social order • Changes in prison gangs • Street/prison symbiosis “you can find a way to do both [inmate “If they was having trouble with code and gang rules] but it is most “Everything has gotten watered someone in the street or somebody important to follow the gang” down, calmed down. It is not as violent as it used to be. It’s a new snitched on them, then that person • Control of contraband generation, younger, that doesn’t comes to prison, then they send word to prison we take care of it here.” necessarily have the same morals as “If you’re not in the gang, you’re not going to sell nothing.” what the older generation does.” “If there’s a war going on in the world, in the penitentiary, the same rival gang, “Less violence now. More inner strife “Only if you are affiliated with them there’s a war, whatever goes on the [prison gangs] – they have guidelines. within the family itself. You don’t outside goes on inside, it works outside- If they want to get something dropped really see opposite gangs go at each in.” out they get a “basketball” (literally) other.” which is full of cellphones, drugs, etc. “The inside pretty much controls the Once the people [gang members] get it “Prison is washed up. It is not what it outside. So they didn’t really do much they are supposed to split it between used to be. It used to be more on the outside if the inside didn’t let them.” the person and their family [gang]. disciplined and gangs meant That is why you get so much at one something. Now the gangs don’t time. mean anything” 33 Joining and Leaving Gangs in Prison N=799 N=359 Never Pre-prison: (70%) Gang - 18% Gang - 82% Non-gang

N=3 N=3 Street (8%) Street Only Prison Origination Only N=80 N=209

N=231 Street N=5 N=36 (10%) Importation Street Importation Street Importation N=151 N=151

(12%) Prison Origination

Sample Street Prison WHY DO THEY JOIN?

Pushes (external to the gang) and Pulls (internal to the gang) Joining on the street Joining in prison • Normative influence (50%) • Normative influence (30%) • Belonging (29%) • Belonging (25%) • Economic (12%) • Ideology (25%) • Status (11%) • Protection (21%) • Ideology (8%) • Status (13%) • Adjustment/guidance (5%) • Adjustment/guidance (8%) • Protection (4%) • Economic (7%) HOW DO THEY JOIN?

Passive and Active Joining on the street Joining in prison • Jumped in (59%) • Jumped in (48%) • Prospected (12%) • Prospected (20%) • Other violence (12%) • Other violence (18%) • Nothing (10%) • Nothing (15%) • Attacked rivals/exes (9%) • Attacked rivals/exes (7%) • Other non-violence (7%) • Other non-violence (6%) • Gang ties (5%) • Gang ties (2%)

WHY DO THEY LEAVE?

Pushes (internal to the gang) and Pulls (external to the gang) Left on the street Left in prison • Disillusionment (76%) • Disillusionment (79%) • Family (38%) • Family (36%) • Triggering events (29%) • CJ involvement (26%) • Positive influences (13%) • Triggering events (12%) • CJ involvement (10%) • Religion (10%) • Gang structure (2%) • Positive influences (6%) • Work (2%) • Gang structure (5%) • Religion (2%) • Work (1%) HOW DO THEY LEAVE?

Passive and Active Left on the street Left in prison • Nothing (40%) • Giving notice (34%) • Stopped associating (24%) • Nothing (27%) • Giving notice (18%) • Jumped out (14%) • Jumped out (16%) • Intervention (12%) • Moved (8%) • Stopped associating (12%) • Permission/meeting (3%) • Permission/meeting (7%) • Intervention (2%) • Moved (4%) POST-EXIT VALIDATION

Criminal Justice Rival Gangs Family

Gang

Self Criminal and Gang Recidivism REARREST

Months Post-Release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Percent ArrestedPercent 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% Everyone Non-Gang Active Gang Former Gang RECONVICTION

Months Post-Release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

35% Percent Reconvicted Percent 40% 45% 50% 55% Everyone Non-Gang Active Gang Former Gang REINCARCERATION

Months Post-Release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0%

10%

15%

20% Percent Reincarcerated Percent

25%

30% Everyone Non-Gang Active Gang Former Gang GANG CONTINUITY AND CHANGE Gang Renouncement and Disassociation WHAT IS GRAD? Stage Disassociation Phase I: Phase II: Phase III: Investigation Normalization Socialization Reintegration Unit Administrative Ramsey or Ellis “GRAD wing” Ramsey or Ellis "GRAD wing" Ramsey or Ellis “gen pop” segregation Red wristbands Orange wristbands Blue wristbands Time 12 months 2 months 4 months 3 months Contact None Limited contact Expanded contact Standard contact  Single-celled;  Double-cell with inmate from  General population  First month, solo rec time; historical rival (race, gang); interaction  Second month, double rec  Group-based programming Privileges None Limited privileges Phase I, plus: Phase II, plus:  Different clothing (2-piece  Regular visitation; More in-and-out of cell rather than white jumper);  Phone calls; privileges;  More programming and  Commissary; movement  Work assignments; One visit per weekend  GRAD completion ceremony Programming None Stabilizing programming Classroom programming Vocational opportunities STG office investigates In-cell videotaped lessons  Cognitive intervention (180  When educational classes are sincerity/commitment,  Substance abuse hours), journaling not in session, comparable to conflicts, and eligibility * Informants and state's  Domestic violence  68 hours of substance abuse, GP inmates witnesses can bypass this  "Thinking errors“ anger management, and phase criminal addictive behaviors Counselor meetings  Role playing, group activities WHO PARTICIPATES IN GRAD?

All (N=117) Non-GRAD (N=64) GRAD (N=53) Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Different? Age (in years) 43.61 (8.77) 42.00 (9.24) 45.56 (7.83) Yes Latino 49.6% 48.4% 50.9% No White 40.2% 39.1% 41.5% No Multi-racial 10.3% 12.5% 7.5% No Skin color (0-10) 1.83 (1.00) 1.97 (0.99) 1.66 (0.99) No Married 14.5% 14.1% 15.1% No In a relationship 10.3% 6.3% 15.1% No Single 75.2% 79.7% 69.8% No Father 69.2% 68.8% 69.8% No TDCJ stints 3.09 (1.68) 3.00 (1.55) 3.19 (1.84) No Prior arrests count 11.50 (6.56) 11.11 (6.93) 11.96 (6.12) No Violent offender 37.6% 40.6% 34.0% No

Eligible gangs N N N Aryan Brotherhood 31 18 13 Aryan Circle 15 5 10 Barrio Azteca 8 4 4 Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos 6 3 3 Mexican Mafia 23 13 10 Raza Unida 8 3 5 Texas Mafia 4 3 1 Texas Syndicate 22 15 7 GANG MEMBERSHIP

100% 95% 91% 90%

80% 73% 70%

60% 56%

50% 44% 40%

30% 21% 20% 9% 10% 3% 0% Survey: Survey: Official: Official: Current gang Former gang Current gang Former gang Non-GRAD GRAD GANG EMBEDDEDNESS

0.60

0.50

0.40 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.02

0.00 score

z -0.03 -0.10

-0.20 -0.18 -0.18 -0.30 -0.25

-0.40 -0.34 -0.33 -0.40 -0.50

-0.60 Gang embedded Position Importance Gang Influence Contact Friends in in gang of gang fights on gang w/ gang gang Non-GRAD GRAD MISCONDUCT AND VICTIMIZATION

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 44% 40% 39% 40% 34% 30% 25% 24% 20% 20% 20% 18% 14% 10%

0% Survey: Survey: Official: Survey: Survey: Any Violent Any Any Violent Misconduct Misconduct Misconduct Victimization Victimization Non-GRAD GRAD Implications for Policy and Practice 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry 1. Mass incarceration and gangs 2. Gang-oriented programming 3. Group intervention in prison 4. The grip of the gang 5. Prison as a turning point 6. Gang variation 7. Housing gang members 8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs 9. Preparing gang members for reentry Thank you

[email protected] @dpyrooz

Department of Sociology Institute of Behavioral Science 483 UCB Boulder, CO 80309 303-492-3241

This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-MU-CX-0111 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The research contained in this document was coordinated in part by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (723-AR15). The contents of this article, including its opinions, findings, and conclusions, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.