• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Appendix A: Data Sources The primary unit of analysis in this study, as ex- Table A–1: Data Sources, by Phase plained in the first chapter, is a locality for which local authorities report problems with youth gangs. Infor- Phase mation on gang-problem localities was collected over a 25-year period. Most of the information was ob- 12 3 tained from seven types of sources, four major and Data Source (1974–79) (1980–93) (1994–98) three minor. The major sources were youth gang sur- vey reports, media reports, databases, and interviews. Youth gang The minor sources were conferences, academic litera- survey reports X X X ture, and routine police reports. Media reports X X X Databases X Different sets of sources were used during three phases of the study. During phase 1 (1974 through Interviews X X 1979), operations were conducted under the auspices Conferences X X of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Law Enforce- Academic ment Assistance Administration and Office of Juve- literature X X X nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Routine police and the Harvard University Law School. During reports X X X phase 2 (1980 through 1993), the author operated as an independent investigator. During phase 3 (1994 through 1998), operations were supported by the appendix E. These will not be repeated here but will National Youth Gang Center of Tallahassee, FL.1 be described in abbreviated form where appropriate. Table A–1 lists the seven types of data sources and indicates which were used during each phase. Youth Gang Survey Reports Youth gang survey reports, media sources, confer- Tables A–2 and A–3 list 29 printed sources containing ences, academic literature, and routine police re- lists of names of localities that were designated by the ports were used during all three phases. Interviews producers of the reports as having problems with youth were conducted during phases 1 and 3, and data- gangs between 1975 and 1997. Title, sponsoring organi- bases were used during phase 3. The following zations, and date of issuance are specified for each re- sections describe the nature and use of each of the port. The list is not exhaustive, as the tables themselves seven types of data sources. Detailed descriptions reveal. Only those reports that were obtained and ex- of sources and methods used primarily or exclu- amined directly by the author are included. Designa- sively during phase 1 are included in Miller, 1982, tions such as “Report 2” and “fifth edition” in some of the titles indicate the existence of earlier reports. The 1 Findings presented in the first eight chapters of this Report are California Investigators Report, for example, indicates that based on sources available through 1995; findings based on four reports were issued prior to 1993; the Virginia sources available after 1995 are presented in the “1998 Update State report of 1996 notes the existence of three of Selected Data” chapter. A–1 previous surveys—January 1992, September 1992, Three agencies—the U.S. Departments of Justice and August 1994. None of these were obtained by the and the Treasury and the Federal Bureau of Investi- author.2 gation (FBI)—provided sponsorship. Within the Department of Justice, reports were produced These reports are divided into two categories, “unre- under the auspices of the National Drug Intelligence stricted circulation” and “restricted circulation.” The Center, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and first type was made available to the general public OJJDP. Within the Department of the Treasury, with no restrictions. The second contained notices reports were produced by the Bureau of Alcohol, such as “for official use only,” “for law enforcement Tobacco and Firearms. only,” and “confidential.” These reports were made available to the Institute for Intergovernmental Re- The diversity of investigative agencies reflects in search with the condition that specific content such part a struggle by the Federal Government to deter- as the names of survey respondents, gangs, or gang mine the proper jurisdiction for youth gang crime, members would not be made public. The informa- after many years of a Federal policy that maintained tion contained in the present Report conforms with that gangs were a local and not a Federal responsi- these conditions. bility. Federal support of only three reports during the 13 years between 1975 and 1989, following the Although the 29 reports listed here do not represent 1975 report that claimed serious youth gang prob- a complete set of all such reports, they probably lems were prevalent in the United States and pre- include most of the youth gang surveys conducted dicted a substantial increase in these problems, between 1975 and 1997 and thus provide a basis for indicates that the Federal Government took a long some summary statements on the yearly frequency time both to recognize its legitimate interest in the of the reports, the identity of the sponsoring agen- control of gang crime and to allocate increased Fed- cies, and the terms used to refer to the kinds of eral resources to its prevention and control. groups that were the objects of the surveys. The first of the 10 regional agency reports in table The earliest of the listed reports was published in 1975. A–2 (sponsored by the California Gang Investigators After a 7-year gap, one report was issued each year for Association) appeared in 1993, but its designation as 1982 and 1983. After a 6-year gap, 2 reports were is- “fifth edition” indicates 1988 as the initial year of a sued each year in 1991 and 1992, 4 each year in 1993 series of yearly reports. The first of the eight listed and 1994, 10 in 1995, 3 in 1996, and 2 in 1997. State government reports, Gangs in Texas Cities, ap- These figures indicate a substantial increase in the peared in 1991. It is likely that other States conducted number and yearly frequency of the reports, with surveys that were not obtained by this study. Three 1995 as the peak year. The trend suggests that offi- academic institutions, Harvard University, the Uni- cial agencies paid relatively little attention to youth versity of Chicago, and West Virginia University, gangs during the 1970’s and somewhat more atten- worked in conjunction with NIJ and OJJDP to tion in the 1980’s, with a major surge of attention in produce reports. Finally, 2 of the 29 reports were the 1990’s. What appears here as a slacking off after cosponsored by private consulting firms. 1995 may reflect the fact that post-1995 reports The extended dispute over the proper responsibility were not yet available at the time of writing. for youth gang problems was paralleled by an ex- Examination of the agencies that conducted or sup- tended dispute, discussed in the first chapter of the ported the reports shows that the majority of reports Report, over the proper term for the groups that (14) were conducted, sponsored, or cosponsored by were the objects of the surveys. The titles of the the Federal Government, operating through one or tabulated reports cast some light on the terms used more of its numerous branches and subbranches. by the producers of the reports. Of 32 different titles, 26 contain the word “gang.” Of these, 11 use the term “gang” with no modifying adjective. Eight 2 Several surveys reported in 1995 or earlier that are not used or use the term “street gang” or “criminal street gang,” cited in this Report are cited in Curry, 1996. and seven use the term “youth gang.” Of the seven A–2 Table A–2: Printed Reports Containing Lists of Names of Localities With Youth Gang Problems (Unrestricted Circulation) Title of Report Sponsoring Organizations Year Violence by Youth Gangs U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1975 and Youth Groups National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency as a Crime Problem Prevention and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency in Major American Cities Prevention, Washington DC; Law Enforcement Assistance Ad- ministration, Washington, DC; and Harvard University Law School, Center for Criminal Justice, Cambridge, MA Crime by Youth Gangs U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 1982 and Groups in the of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, United States DC, and Harvard University Law School, Center for Criminal Justice, Cambridge, MA Police Handling of Reports of the National Juvenile Justice Assessment Centers 1983 Youth Gangs and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC Survey of Youth U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 1989 Gang Problems and of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, Programs in 45 DC, and University of Chicago, School of Social Service Cities and Sites Administration, Chicago, IL Gangs in Texas Cities: Research and Policy Management Division, Office of the 1991 Background, Survey Results, Attorney General, State of Texas, Austin State-Level Policy Options New Mexico Street Gangs Governor’s Organized Crime Prevention Commission, with the 1991 State of New Mexico, Department of Public Safety, Special Investigations Division, Santa Fe National Assessment of West Virginia University, Department of Sociology and 1992 Anti-Gang Law Anthropology, Morgantown, and National Assessment Enforcement Information Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Resources: Final Report Justice, Washington, DC National Assessment U.S. Department

Load more

  50

Copy Link