ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content Contenu archivé

Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

______Research Report ______

Gang Cohesion and Intervention Strategies: A Review of the Literature

Ce rapport est également disponible en français. Pour en obtenir un exemplaire, veuillez vous adresser à la Direction de la recherche, Service correctionnel du Canada, 340, avenue Laurier Ouest, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0P9.

This report is also available in French. Should additional copies be required, they can be obtained from the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave. West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P9.

2012 Nº R-292

Gang Cohesion and Intervention Strategies: A Review of the Literature

Laura Dunbar

This report was written under a contract managed by the Correctional Service of Canada, Research Branch, Correctional Research Division.

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada

November 2012

Acknowledgements

This review of the literature on gang cohesion and intervention strategies was initially conceptualized and started by the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada. The author would therefore like to thank Yvonne Stys for her development of a thematic framework for the organization of materials as well as for her work in compiling the literature and summarizing some of the resources used in this report. The author would also like to thank Sara Johnson for her editorial expertise and thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this report.

ii

Executive Summary

Key words: gang, definition, cohesion, management, intervention, community-based, institutional.

The proliferation of gang membership and activity has become an increasing concern in Canadian society. As the gang problem becomes more severe, the need to find effective strategies to deal with this problem has become more important. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has recognized the specific challenges that gang-affiliated offenders pose to the safety and operation of its institutions and is actively assessing best practices in gang management and intervention.

This research report outlines the status of gangs in Canada, including current definitions, and provides an overview of the community and institutional landscapes. Gang cohesion is examined including a review of criminological theories and research explaining why individuals seek out and join gangs, remain with a gang, and decide to leave a gang. Further, the cohesiveness of different types of gangs is addressed. Gang management and intervention strategies, both in the community and in the institutional setting, which aim to identify means to address the gang problem in the United States and Canada, are reviewed. Finally, CSC’s establishment of a strategic framework to address gangs in the correctional setting and its continued focus on how to better manage gang activities in institutions is discussed.

Despite numerous attempts, there is no consensus regarding what constitutes gang activity, nor agreement among researchers on the ‘true’ definition of a gang. However, some key elements of gang activity and structure have been identified and several typologies of gangs have been proposed to assist in the definition, recognition and classification of groups. Based on continuous changes and their complex nature, gangs must be defined in the local Canadian context if policy and programming are to proceed effectively.

In the community landscape, street gangs are growing in number and type and are becoming more violent and criminally sophisticated; Canada is becoming the center of operations for some trans-national organized crime groups such as the Hell’s Angels. Furthermore there has been an increase in female gang members. The ethnic composition of gang members varies across the country with British Columbia having the highest proportion of Asian gang members while the Prairie provinces have the highest representation of Aboriginal members. The line between different types of criminal groups is becoming less distinct – there are links between street gangs and organized crime groups and between street and prison gangs.

A combination of rising gang activity in Canada and the introduction of criminal justice interventions has culminated in the growth of gang-affiliated offenders and transformed the profile of the inmate population. Differences have been identified between gang affiliate types suggesting unique offender profiles rooted in gang groupings. In the institutional setting, ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented among gang members and this is particularly evident for Aboriginal gang members. Street gangs and prison gangs present a major challenge

iii

for prison administration because of the high level of violence and criminogenic need commonly associated with these groups. The differences identified between gang types suggest that varying approaches are required to manage these groups.

Since the ‘gang’ emerged as a social concern, researchers have sought to explain its dynamics. Individuals may join gangs for a myriad of reasons including for protection, access to resources and power, emotional support, or based on poor bonds to conventional society; gangs meet the unfulfilled needs of their members. Individuals may maintain membership with their gangs as a result of socialization, greater cohesion and the continued functionality of the gang lifestyle, or because of a fear of leaving and limited options available outside the gang. Individuals may choose to leave their gangs as a result of the temporary nature of membership, experiences with violence, or increasing bonds and attachments to conventional people and activities. Variations in gang cohesion are related to the conditions under which the gang is founded or developed, the characteristics of the members, their collective choices, and the level of loyalty expected.

Community-based gang interventions have adopted several strategies and can be divided into three groups: social development intervention strategies, law enforcement strategies and comprehensive strategies. Detached-worker, school-based intervention, and suppression programs encompass the majority of efforts. Recently, promising multi-faceted approaches to intervention have employed a combination of these strategies along with provision of education and job opportunities as well as individual and family counselling for gang members. What is clear is that before embarking on the implementation of gang intervention strategies in the community setting, a systematic research and development process should be conducted to identify what strategies work in a particular location that is experiencing a particular type of gang problem with particular types of individuals.

In the United States and in Canada, a number of methods, techniques and strategies have been employed to address the influence of gang members in correctional institutions. Included among these are transfers; isolation, segregation and alternative housing options; debriefing; dissociation; zero-tolerance policies; and intelligence gathering, information sharing and training opportunities. However, despite the best of intentions, these interventions have demonstrated limited success. While management and suppression strategies are important for ensuring institutional safety and security, more research is needed on the effectiveness of correctional programming and treatment to address the unmet needs of gang-affiliated inmates including individual cognitive-behavioural treatment; corrections-based disengagement strategies; and Aboriginal-focused interventions. The current state of gangs in Canada makes innovative approaches to the treatment of gang members in the institutional setting necessary.

CSC has a number of policies in place to address the management of gangs in its institutions and it is moving to incorporate more of the promising practices identified in the research literature. It has acknowledged that in order to address the complexity of the gang problem facing Canada, a coordinated and integrated approach involving key criminal justice stakeholders is needed. CSC has set up a strategic framework to address gangs in the institutional setting and is engaging in continued dialogue with respect to how to better manage gang activities in institutions. This suggests that it is becoming better informed and equipped to deal with the gang problem today and in the future.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... ii Executive Summary ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v Introduction ...... 1 Gangs in Canada ...... 3 Defining ‘Gang’ ...... 3 The Community Landscape ...... 5 The Institutional Landscape ...... 9 Gang Cohesion ...... 14 Joining a Gang ...... 14 Sustaining Gang Membership ...... 17 Leaving a Gang ...... 20 Differences in Gang Cohesion ...... 21 Gang Management and Interventions ...... 24 Community-Based Interventions ...... 24 Institutional Interventions ...... 30 Conclusions ...... 47 References ...... 48

v

Introduction

Many Canadians feel that gangs are a serious problem in this country. This is not surprising given that in Canada, criminal activities perpetrated by members of gangs and intervention strategies aimed at reducing such activity have been at the forefront of criminal justice issues and media reports (Nafekh & Stys, 2004). Law enforcement officials and policy makers are concerned about the growing impact of gang crime. This includes the activities of traditional organized crime groups, as well as the presence of emergent groups such as outlaw motorcycle gangs, and the development of more geographically limited street gangs within various regions of the country (Kelly & Caputo, 2005). The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and law enforcement agencies nationwide have reported rising gang membership activities in institutions and on the street (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2008; Mellor, MacRae, Pauls, & Hornick, 2005; Nafekh, 2002). Law enforcement officials report a rise in gang rivalry characterized by mounting gang violence and increases in gun-related assaults and homicides (Beattie, 2009; Kelly & Caputo, 2005). Research has consistently revealed that gang affiliation is associated with a number of negative events and outcomes (Caudill, 2010) and that gangs are harmful to communities. Carrington (2002) suggests that in general, the more serious types of crime (homicide and attempted murder, arson, robbery, and indictable drug offences) are more likely to be committed by groups. Shelden, Tracy and Brown (2004) found that gang members are five times more likely than non-gang members to commit crimes while Lemmer and Johnson (2004) found that compared with their non-gang peers of the same socio-economic background, gang-affiliated youth became involved in crime at a younger age, committed more serious crimes, and continued to engage in higher rates of criminal behaviour into early adulthood. As gangs and criminal organizations have become a growing concern for Canadians and criminal justice officials, identifying the impact of gang-affiliated offenders on correctional staff and institutions has become a priority for the CSC (Westmacott, Stys, & Brown, 2005). Research suggests that irrespective of the prevalence, there is consensus that gang-affiliated inmates constitute a pressing threat in the institutional environment and the presence of gangs in a prison entails numerous costs (Bensimon & Bentenuto, 2006; Nafekh & Stys, 2004). Caudill (2010) found the presence of gang affiliates in institutional settings to be related to institutional

1

incidents while Drury and DeLisi (2011) found that inmates with street gang history and homicide convictions were significantly involved in an array of anti-social acts in prison. There is also some evidence, primarily from the United States, to suggest that gang affiliation is positively associated with violent misconduct in the institution (Camp & Camp, 1985; Huebner, 2003). Griffin and Hepburn (2006) found that gang affiliation had an effect on violent misconduct independent of age, ethnicity, violent history, and prior incarceration while Gaes, Wallace, Gilman, Klein-Saffran and Suppa (2002) found that gang membership encouraged violent and almost all other forms of prison misconduct. Research has also revealed that gang affiliates are at a significantly greater risk of recidivism than non-gang affiliates (Caudill, 2010). McShane, Williams and Dolny (2003) found that gang members had a 71% failure rate on parole, which was 14% higher than an average parolee. The prison represents a microcosm of general society. As numbers of gang members and their activities grow in the community, they also grow in the institutional setting. As the gang problem becomes more severe, the need to find effective strategies to deal with this problem has become more important. While management and intervention strategies are offered in the community, few correctional institutions have implemented gang intervention strategies that go beyond the use of segregation, isolation and the restriction of privileges (Jackson & Sharpe, 1997; Winterdyk, Fillipuzzi, Mescier, Hencks, & Ruddell, 2009). Recent reports by Nafekh and Stys (2004) and Jones, Roper, Stys and Wilson (2004) have recognized the negative effects that gangs and their members can have in the community and the institutional settings in Canada, and have recommended that more thorough research be conducted into effective gang management and intervention strategies. This research report outlines the status of gangs in Canada, including current definitions, as well as an overview of the community and institutional landscapes. Gang cohesion will be examined including a review of criminological theories and research explaining why individuals seek out and join gangs, remain with a gang, and leave a gang. Further, the cohesiveness of different types of gangs will be addressed. A review of gang management and intervention strategies, both in the community and in the institution, will aim to identify means of addressing the gang problem that have been developed in the United States and in Canada. Finally, CSC’s establishment of a strategic framework to address gangs in the institutional setting and its continued focus on how to better manage gang activities in institutions will be discussed.

2

Gangs in Canada

Defining ‘Gang’ Despite numerous attempts, there is no consensus regarding what constitutes gang activity, nor agreement among researchers on the ‘true’ definition of a gang (Jones et al., 2004; Kelly & Caputo, 2005; Peterson, 2000). Many researchers have argued that a uniform definition of a gang and gang behaviour is both needed and necessary. However, gang activity and membership transform constantly and as such, revised definitions are required because of continuous changes in the context, diversity, and complexity of gangs (Grekul & LaBoucane- Benson, 2008; Peterson, 2000). While no universal definition currently exists, there are several key elements of gang activity and structure that have been identified in the research literature. Houston (1996) suggests that a gang is a group of people who interact at a high rate among themselves to the exclusion of other groups. Miller (1980) adds that organizational structure with identifiable leadership and territory are the major factors separating gangs from other groups of people. To be considered a gang, it has been usually accepted that the group be involved in anti-social behaviour or organized illegal activity, often of a violent nature, on a regular basis (Bjørgo, 1999; Houston, 1996; Miller, 1975; Peterson, 2000). Definitions of gangs have also often stressed a youthful component (Ayling, 2011; Bjørgo, 1999). While there is no legislated definition for gangs in Canada, section 467.1 of the Criminal Code defines a ‘criminal organization’ as a group, however organized that: (a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and (b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group. It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence (1985, c. C-46 s. 467.1). This definition is important because of its impact on the way the criminal justice system defines, and therefore deals with accused members of criminal organizations including gangs (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007). CSC defines a criminal organization as a group or association that is involved in ongoing illegal activities including groups, organizations,

3

associations or other bodies that were established in the community before their members were incarcerated, as well as groups established in the institution (CSC, 2003a). Several general typologies of gangs have been proposed in the literature to assist in the definition, recognition, and classification of groups: Street gangs are generally comprised of young adults. They have been known to commit a wide array of crimes and may also be involved in high levels of violence. The level of organization tends to vary between gangs; however these groups usually have a hierarchy and may or may not have connections to organized crime groups. They tend to have moderate levels of leadership and a code of conduct is often imposed. They are often based within a specific geographical area and are highly territorial (Gordon & Foley, 1998; Hébert, Hamel, & Savoie, 1997; Lafontaine, Acoose, & Schissel, 2009; Mellor et al., 2005). Organized crime groups (or traditional gangs) tend to be highly structured and run sophisticated business operations that may operate internationally. They are comprised primarily of adults, including older adults. They engage in criminal activity, primarily for economic reasons, and almost invariably maintain a low profile, a key characteristic distinguishing them from street gangs. Interests are usually highly diversified. Some of these groups may have elaborate rules. They are highly concerned with territorial control, they may use intimidation and violence to promote or protect their interests, and they may even eliminate competitors through violent acts (Gordon & Foley, 1998; Hébert et al., 1997; Mellor et al., 2005). Prison gangs have been defined based on their actual or perceived threat to the orderly management of the prison (Gaes et al., 2002). Prison gangs share common unique characteristics including organization along racial and ethnic lines, well defined lines of authority and responsibility, lifetime commitment with absolute loyalty, adherence to a strict code of silence, clearly defined illicit activities, and achieving their goals through brutal means if necessary (Fong & Buentello, 1991; Fong & Vogel, 1994). It should be noted that the rationale behind typology creation is that intervention is facilitated by the identification of groups with similar characteristics. However, no single definition or theory can account for the heterogeneous gang phenomenon in contemporary Canadian society. It follows that gangs in Canada must be defined in the local context if policy and programming are to proceed effectively (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2008). For the purposes of this report, the focus will be on street gangs, organized crime groups (traditional

4

gangs) and prison gangs as well as their subsidiaries – Aboriginal gangs, Asian gangs and outlaw motorcycle gangs – as they currently exist in community and institutional settings in Canada.

The Community Landscape Gangs are considered a dangerous feature of Canadian society (Chettleburgh, 2003, 2007); gang migration, the proliferation of street gangs, rising gang violence, and the appearance of trans-national gangs are all present in Canada (Kelly & Caputo, 2005). The rise in gang activity and organized crime is viewed as a product of social, political and economic divisions within North American society fuelling socio-economic disparities and the concentration of poverty and other social problems within certain neighbourhoods or groups (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Schneider, 2009). In recent years, street gangs have become a growing concern for the Canadian criminal justice system. They are becoming more powerful and more attractive to people living in poverty, who are often inner city youth who see no other alternative to a life of crime and gang involvement (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007). Street gang activity in Canada has changed over the past several years: there is more violent crime, more inter-gang conflict, and more lucrative drug trafficking, resulting in more turf wars (Kelly & Caputo, 2005). Street gang members commit a variety of offences, including property offences, drug trafficking and importation, fraud, robberies, assaults with weapons, and homicide (Hemmati, 2006). Street gangs currently operating in Canada are described as being on a continuum that ranges from loosely organized groups involved in low levels of crimes at one end, to highly organized groups involved in complex and sophisticated criminal activity at the other (Kelly & Caputo, 2005). Research by the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC) reports that street gangs are presenting themselves more and more in smaller cities, rural areas and on Aboriginal reserves. CISC indicates that Canadian street gangs are becoming more organized and criminally sophisticated. Furthermore, they are also supporting and facilitating the activities of more established crime groups (CISC, 2003; Jones et al., 2004). The number and type of street gangs in Canada are rising, and this is particularly evident in Toronto and Montreal. In 2006, Hemmati found 83 street gangs recorded in the Toronto police database and approximately 25 known street gangs with an estimated membership of 1,250 in Montreal. However, due to the fluid nature of street gangs, many of which lack the structure

5

and/or organization seen in other organized crime groups, it is difficult to accurately determine the exact number of street gangs at any given time. It appears that while ethnicity plays a role in street gang formation in Canada, common neighbourhoods, backgrounds of poverty and social exclusion seem to be more relevant (Casillas, 1994). From the emergence of the Mafia in the 1930s, the expansion of outlaw motorcycle gangs in the 1970s, to the growth of Asian Triads and Columbian Cartels in the 1970s and 1980s, criminal organization activities have had a growing presence in Canadian society (Stys, 2010). There is evidence that in recent years, Canada has become a centre of operations for some trans- national organized crime groups (CISC, 2000). In 2009, the CISC stated that 750 criminal organizations have been identified as being active in Canada. The vast majority of these groups (80 percent, according to the CISC) are involved in the illegal drug trade (Schneider, 2009) and organized crime groups tend to be based on ethnic, racial, or national lines (Casillas, 1994). There are several types of organized crime groups in operation in Canada including Caribbean organized crime groups such as the Jamaican Posse who are extremely violent. Columbian-based organized crime groups, who are among the most sophisticated drug traffickers in Canada, operate in cities such as Toronto and Montreal. Eastern European organized crime (Russian Gangs) groups tend to be very opportunistic and welcome any activity that is profitable and although they remain concentrated in the Toronto/Hamilton area, there are greater indications of criminal activity in Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver. There are the Italian organized crime groups who operate in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec and are involved in drug trafficking, money laundering, tobacco, and alcohol smuggling, gambling, murder, extortion, bribery and counterfeiting currency. Finally, there are Asian organized crime groups which will be discussed in detail in the following section (CSC, 2011). Outlaw motorcycle gangs were a perennial concern within the Canadian police community during the course of the 1990s (Sheptycki, 2003). However, the traditional image of bikers as ‘misfits’, whose anti-social acts are characterized by random violence and criminal activities, is being replaced with an image of sophistication. These groups have an organizational controlling body, referred to as the executive, responsible for the operation of the gang and each gang has its own set of rules and regulations governing membership. Criminal endeavours include money laundering through legitimate businesses; extortion; fraud; contract killing; drug manufacturing and trafficking; prostitution; assaults; and smuggling. The Hell’s Angels is

6

perhaps the best-known motorcycle gang in Canada and has the highest concentration of their chapters in the world (Schneider, 2009). Today the Hell’s Angels exert control over both coasts as there are chapters and affiliated outlaw motorcycle gangs in all regions of the country, however they are most prominent in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario (CSC, 2011). Recently, there has been a rising fear of violent crime committed by women gang members in Canada (Tremblay, 2000). Studies have reported that female gang members engage in similar types of violent criminal activity as male gang members, although less frequently (Brotherton, 1996; Deschenes & Esbenson, 1999; Rosenbaum 1996). While some suggest that female gang members are being allowed the opportunity to engage in more frequent and violent criminal activities, the majority of studies suggest that this is not the dominant trend (Chang 1996; Chesney-Lind, Randall, & Joe, 1996; Laidler & Hunt, 1997; Lurigio, Swartz, & Chang, 1998; Miller 1998). While there has been documentation of street gangs composed strictly of women (Brotherton, 1996; Curry, 1998; Lauderdale & Burman, 2009), the majority of research suggests that they are most commonly members of gangs consisting of male and female members and that strictly female gangs are extremely rare (Lurigio et al., 1998; Mackenzie & Johnson, 2003). Female gang members assume a variety of roles within the male-directed gang: the female as gang property; as an associate through family or other personal relationships, such as wife or girlfriend; or as an equal participating member. This role is malleable and is usually directed by the gang leaders (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009) and determined by the type of gang to which the woman belongs (Tobin, 2007).

Ethnic composition of gangs across Canada In a review of the nature of Canadian urban gangs, Hemmati (2006) suggests the ethnic composition of gangs vary across the country. The 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs1 reported on the composition of gang members across Canada: African-Canadian (25%), Aboriginal (22%), Caucasian (18%), Asian (12%), East Indian (14%), Latino/Hispanic (6%), and Middle Eastern (3%). British Columbia had the highest proportion of Asian members while Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba had the highest representation of Aboriginal members.

1 In 2002, a representative sample of 349 police agencies, situated in every province and territory of the country was surveyed about the presence of youth gang activity in their jurisdictions as well as the size and characteristics of youth gangs. A total of 264 agencies responded to the survey, representing a response rate of almost 76% (Chettleburgh, 2003).

7

Most Aboriginal groups fall into the street gang category (CSC, 2011). Membership is predominately made up of male youth who have moved away from reservations. For Aboriginal families specifically in the Prairie provinces, the gang issue is a growing phenomenon; youth are being recruited into this lifestyle, leaving school and family behind to take on the gangster identity (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Hemmati, 2006). It appears that the majority of Aboriginal gangs might be more dynamic and less organized than some of the other ethnic- exclusive gangs, as members tend to relocate more frequently. These gangs are responsible for a wide range of offences including property crimes and assault (Hemmati, 2006). The centre of operation of Aboriginal street gangs in Canada is Winnipeg. Several street gangs have been identified including The Manitoba Warriors, the Indian Posse and the Deuce. The members of these gangs are exclusively Aboriginal and predominately male (CSC, 2011; Hemmati, 2006). Most members tend to originate from low socio-economic areas of the city, or move to these areas from outside the jurisdiction. New members are usually unsupervised and socially disadvantaged youth recruited from the city core (Hemmati, 2006). Various Aboriginal gangs have also been identified in Saskatchewan and Ontario. Most Asian gangs fall into the organized crime group category. Organized Asian criminals are involved in illegal gambling, extortion, robbery, home invasions, loan-sharking, murder, kidnapping, prostitution and human smuggling. Recently their activities have become more sophisticated, and now include trans-national drug trafficking, credit card fraud, counterfeit cheque scams, money laundering and copyright violations. Organized crime groups such as the Japanese Yakuza and Chinese Triads are secret societies. Each requires that new members be sponsored, each requires the taking of oaths, and in both cases membership is for life. Most of the gangs are highly organized entities with a strong emphasis on hierarchal ties. Although Asian organized crime activity has surfaced in all regions of Canada, the two major centres of activity are Vancouver and Toronto followed by Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. In Vancouver, gang members are exclusively male and gang activity has ranged from simple mischief and drug distribution, to assaults and homicide. Criminal activity, including violence is focused on economic gain. The main criminal activities of the Asian urban gangs tend to be the production of drugs, drug distribution, and trafficking. Five major gangs are operative in the Vancouver area: Big Circle Boys, Lotus, Viet Ching, Ethnic Vietnamese and Red Eagles (CSC, 2011).

8

Linkages between different gang types There is some suggestion by Canadian officials that the line between different types of criminal groups is being blurred. There are growing linkages between street gangs and organized crime groups. In their study of street gang activity in Canada, Kelly and Caputo (2005) found that street gangs in all regions were linked to organized crime groups, mostly involved in the distribution of drugs, collection of drug debts, and protection of the local market. Further, they noted that the nature of the ties between street gangs and organized crime groups varies. In some instances, street gangs may work for organized crime groups as part of an informal drug distribution network while in others they may act as ‘puppet clubs’2. Where ties are loose, the connections between street gangs and organized crime groups are fluid. There are also linkages between street gangs and prison gangs. Involvement with gangs may begin either on the street or while in prison. Street gang involvement often translates, in custody, into involvement in prison gangs while individuals recruited into prison gangs may continue their gang involvement after they are released. Street gangs and their prison affiliations are relatively fluid, gaining or waning in strength and numbers as membership changes, and in response to enforcement strategies (Mathews, 2005; McGloin, 2005; Wood & Adler, 2001). Prison gangs remain a concern for investigative units given the growth in street gang activity in Canada over the past decade and the linkages between prison gangs and street gangs reported in jurisdictions (Kelly & Caputo, 2005; McShane et al., 2003). Canadian correctional personnel are well aware of the pervasiveness of inmates who have connections to illicit activities, power and resources outside the walls of correctional facilities (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007).

The Institutional Landscape The combination of the rise in gang activity in Canada and the introduction of criminal justice interventions targeting organized crime has culminated in the growth of gang-affiliated offenders and transformed the profile of the inmate population in Canadian institutions (Fleisher & Decker, 2001; Jones et al., 2004; Nafekh & Stys, 2004). In 2003, it was reported that the number of gang members within CSC’s correctional facilities had tripled over the last three years (Lafontaine, Ferguson, & Wormith, 2005). In 2009, it was reported that more than one-sixth of

2 A street gang acts as ‘puppet club’ in that it represents the visible criminal enterprise providing an organized crime group with a degree of insulation from the potentially negative consequences of involvement in street-level criminal activities (Kelly & Caputo, 2005).

9

male inmates under federal jurisdiction were affiliated with gangs, increasing from 12% to 16% between 1996/1997 and 2009, and about one-tenth of female inmates had gang affiliations, more than doubling from 5% to 12% during the same time period (CSC, 2009). The rise in incarceration rates has been particularly salient for outlaw motorcycle and traditional organized crime gang affiliates (Nafekh & Stys, 2004). Prison gangs are a cohesive group of inmates, whose negative behaviour has an adverse impact on the institution that holds them (Knox, 2005; Wood, 2006; Wood & Adler, 2001); they are social organizations that resist authority, violate rules, and promote violence (Gaes et al., 2002). In competition with other gangs, and in opposition to administrative efforts, prison gangs focus on the acquisition of money and power (Camp & Camp, 1985; Fong, 1990). Their use of violence and intimidation to acquire social, physical, and economic capital affects the social order and the social climate of the prison for inmates and staff alike (Huff, 1996; Irwin, 1980; Stevens, 1997). Canadian research on the characteristics of gang-affiliated inmates suggests that, in general, gang affiliates are younger than non-affiliates at the time of admission (Nafekh & Stys, 2004; Ralph, Hunter, Marquart, Cuvelier, & Menanos, 1996) and are serving longer sentences (Nafekh & Stys, 2004; Sheldon, 1991). Comparisons of gang and non-gang member inmates reveal that gang members are more likely to have drug problems, will have been arrested more often, and will have used a weapon during their last offence (Sheldon, 1991). Consistent with their use of weapons, incarcerated gang members are typically perceived as more aggressive than non-gang members. Gang affiliated inmates were also rated as having lower motivation levels, lower reintegration potential, and as more likely to have need in the areas of associates and attitudes (Nafekh & Stys, 2004). Nafekh and Stys (2004) also identified several differences between gang affiliate types that suggest unique offender profiles rooted in gang groupings. Specifically, offenders affiliated with a traditional organized crime group were older at admission, less likely to have a history of youth or adult court involvement, generally rated better on both static and dynamic risk ratings, and were more likely to be serving sentences for drug-related convictions. In contrast, street and prison gang affiliates were younger at time of admission, more likely to have had a history of violence and youth and/or adult court involvement, generally rated more poorly on overall static and dynamic risk ratings, and were more likely to be serving current sentences for violent

10

offences. Outlaw motorcycle gang affiliates fall somewhere in between these two profiles, being younger at admission, more likely to have previous adult court involvement, and more likely to be serving a current sentence for a violent and/or drug trafficking offense. There was less consistency in differences between Asian gang affiliates and their matched counterparts, suggesting further research is needed on this particular demographic of the federal offender population. In a sample of Aboriginal inmates who were gang members, Nafekh (2002) found that the gang members were more likely to be convicted for robbery, assault, and weapons- related offences than a matched sample of non-gang affiliated Aboriginal inmates. Canadian research suggests that the overall number of female gang members is growing, and the number of women with gang affiliations sentenced to a federal institution has almost doubled between 1997 and 2007, outpacing the number of imprisoned male gang members (Scott & Ruddell, 2011). Gottschall (in preparation) found that Aboriginal women were most likely to be assessed as having a gang affiliation at intake, followed by White and Black women. Mackenzie and Johnson (2003) found that female gang members were more likely than matched non-members to have been convicted of a violent offence, and in a more recent study Scott and Ruddell (2011) found that female gang members had higher rates of involvement in assault, other violent offences (such as kidnapping and uttering threats) and organized crime offences than their matched non-gang member counterparts. The results of these studies portray female gang members as aggressive, antisocial women with poor education and employment experiences. They are more likely than their non-gang counterparts to have prior experiences with the criminal justice system for serious and/or violent offences as youth and adults. Research has shown that women tend to distance themselves from gang involvement while incarcerated, however this does not mean that they have quit the group. Instead they tend to withdraw or deny any activity, and allegiance and affiliation remains internalized for the duration of the prison sentence. Although the general consensus leans towards ‘remission’, not all female gang members suspend their activity while incarcerated. The female prison experience is vastly different from the male experience and gang involvement and association do not necessarily motivate women’s behaviour in the institution in the same ways they do for men (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009).

11

Ethnic diversity in gang affiliation In correctional settings, race and ethnicity are important factors for examining gang affiliation and involvement (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009) as ethnic minority groups are disproportionally represented among gang members (Stinchcomb, 2002). In a study examining ethnocultural diversity in Canadian federal offender admissions, Gottschall (in preparation) found that all of the visible minority groups of male offenders had higher rates of gang involvement, with Aboriginal and Black offenders most likely to be gang-affiliated. For example, when examining gang involvement as validated by CSC security staff, 19% of Aboriginal offenders and 16% of Black offenders were gang-affiliated, compared to only 6% of White offenders. Most Black offenders with gang affiliations were involved in street gangs while most White offenders were affiliated with outlaw motorcycle gangs, street gangs, or traditional organized crime groups. Most Aboriginal offenders with gang affiliations were associated with Aboriginal gangs. Overall, of those offenders with a gang affiliation, most visible minority groups belonged to a street gang, and Aboriginal and Black offenders were most likely to have a street gang affiliation in general.

Regional comparisons In their examination of gang affiliation within the federally sentenced offender population, Nafekh and Stys (2004) found that the majority of gang affiliates were sentenced in the Quebec region, with all gang types being present in this region. The Prairie region had the next most followed by the Ontario, Pacific and Atlantic regions. Geographic profiles of incarcerated gang affiliate activity confirmed prior research on criminal group crime in general by CISC which found that motorcycle gangs tended to be present in urban areas in Central Canada, Asian gangs tended to be active in the Pacific and Ontario regions (and increasingly in Quebec), and traditional gangs were most likely to be present in urban Quebec (CISC, 2003).

Operation of different gang types in the institutional setting An examination of involvement in institutional incidents by gang type (Nafekh & Stys, 2004) demonstrated that the presence of street, motorcycle, and Asian gang affiliates was most likely to be associated with assaults on staff, while the presence of traditional and prison gang affiliates was most likely to be associated with narcotics-related seizures. Further, street and

12

prison gang affiliates were more likely to be directly involved in all institutional incidents while organized crime affiliates were less likely to be directly involved in any institutional incidents. This corresponds to earlier findings illustrating that street and prison gang members are more likely to be convicted of violent offences while members of traditional organized crime groups are more likely to be convicted of non-violent drug trafficking offences. These results suggest that institutionalization does not necessarily prevent gang affiliates from continuing in their gang-related activities. In the institutional environment, street gangs may be a particular concern given the high level of violence often associated with these groups (CISC, 2009). Past research on gangs within correctional populations has linked gang affiliation with institutional incidents, including violent misconduct (Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Nafekh & Stys, 2004) and offenders with street gang affiliations were also more likely to re-offend than non-affiliates (Nafekh & Stys, 2004). Institutional gangs also present a major challenge for prison administration. First, there is some evidence that prison gangs attract inmates with a higher level of criminogenic need (Krienert & Fleisher, 2001). However, because of the normative structure of the gangs, these inmates are less likely to participate in rehabilitative programming (Sheldon, 1991). Second, formal controls and disciplinary sanctions are less effective deterrents of violent misconduct among gang-affiliated inmates than among other inmates, and prison gangs account for a large proportion of violence in the institution (Casillas, 1994). It should be noted that prison gangs differ from each other in their attributes and activities (some gangs are more troublesome than others) and disruptive behaviour by gangs varies both over time and between correctional facilities (Toch, 2007). The differences identified between gang types suggest that varying approaches are required in terms of community-based and institutional initiatives to prevent and manage gang affiliation. The unique profiles of gang affiliates suggest that the motivation behind the criminal activities of these groups is different (Nafekh & Stys, 2004). For example, organized crime literature suggests that street gang activity differs from other organized crime activity in its sudden, often inexplicable, and brutal eruptions of violence, its political and social motivation, and its lack of sophistication (Kenney & Finckenauer, 1995). Similarly, strategies that may be effective in promoting renunciation with an Aboriginal gang are unlikely to work with a long- established member of an outlaw motorcycle gang (Winterdyk et al., 2009).

13

Gang Cohesion

Group cohesiveness is the result of a number of independent forces. The primary focus is often on internal sources including interpersonal attraction, liking and positive attitudes among group members (Klein & Crawford, 1967). Members of more cohesive groups are more likely to be influenced by other group members, to place greater value on the group’s goals, to be more active and equal participants, to be less influenced by members leaving the group, and to remain in the group for a longer period of time (Goldstein, 1991). Gang cohesiveness is based not only on these normal group processes but, to an even greater extent, on the interaction of these processes with negatively sanctioned behaviour and attitudes. In the gang setting, cohesiveness and delinquent behaviours are mutual interactors and enforcers. Research has illustrated a positive relationship between cohesion and delinquency in that cohesiveness tends to magnify the amount of crime and violence perpetrated by a gang (Ayling, 2011). Finally, gang cohesion is derived from and is perpetuated by sources primarily external to the group including poverty, low educational performance, lack of job-related skills, disrupted family relations and social disorganization, as well as by threats from rival groups (Klein & Crawford, 1967).

Joining a Gang Since the ‘gang’ emerged as a social concern, researchers have sought to explain its dynamics. Why individuals join gangs is a complex issue and it is one that has been the focus of research efforts since the early 1900s (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1965; Klein, 1971; Sutherland, 1939; Thrasher, 1927; Yablonsky, 1959). This section outlines the explanations3 regarding the functional nature of gang membership and briefly discusses recruitment practices.

Functional nature of gang membership Research on the topic of gangs points to their functional role; they exist because they serve a purpose. Individuals join gangs, either in confinement or on the street, for a myriad of reasons (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009). Often this decision is not based on individual risk or

3 The primary focus of this section is on criminological theoretical explanations of gang membership. For an overview of additional psychological theories as well as the social psychological processes involved in joining a gang see Jones et al., 2004 and Wood & Alleyne, 2010. The latter also provides a preliminary unified theoretical model of gang involvement which integrates criminological and psychological explanations.

14

delinquency but on very real, very rational decisions about protection, access to resources and power, emotional support, and poor bonds to conventional society. Gangs serve to meet the unfulfilled needs of their members (Stinchcomb, 2002; Wood & Alleyne, 2010). For individuals who have concerns about personal safety and security, gangs can offer protection to their members, many of whom live in neighbourhood environments where individuals may feel the need for protection from other predatory gangs (Stinchcomb, 2002; Taylor, 2009). Within the prison system, a gang can offer new inmates a source of protection in their new, hostile environment (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007). For some, gang membership provides the means to acquire material possessions and a sense of power, status and respect. Strain theory suggests that delinquency, and gang membership by extension, results from the discrepancy between high economic aspirations and a lack of means by which to achieve them. Gang membership can be seen as an improvisation to overcome difficult social and economic conditions faced by lower-class individuals. Gangs are attractive to recruits because they serve as an economic organization; in many instances joining a gang and a turn to illegal activities is a means to increase income and achieve financial goals (Chang, 1996; Felkenes & Becker, 1995; Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Hemmati, 2006; Laidler & Hunt, 1997; Lurigio, Flexon, & Greenleaf, 2008; Stinchcomb, 2002). The gang can also provide a source of emotional support to their members and offer individuals a sense of belonging. According to conflict theory, young people join gangs as a result of feelings of marginalization. The shared feeling of being outsiders may be related to their socio-economic status, religious affiliation, cultural background, or other identity-forming influences (Mathews, 2005). Several studies indicate that individuals who join gangs come from broken homes, single-parent families, abusive backgrounds and low socio-economic neighbourhoods.4 Gang membership can offer these individuals a source of self-esteem and identity, as well as companionship and support, with the gang becoming a surrogate family for these disenfranchised individuals, and through which they can fulfill personal needs (Hemmati, 2006; Lurigio et al., 2008; Mackenzie & Johnson, 2003; Taylor, 2009). Further, labelling theory

4 It should be noted that not all individuals who share these negative life experiences join gangs. Gangs represent one solution to the shared problems experienced by their members. Research on resilience (a set of qualities that helps individuals to withstand many of the negative effects of adversity and/or the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to positive resources) may provide insight into why some individuals avoid gang membership and experience more positive outcomes than might be expected given the level of adversity threatening their development (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Gilligan, 2001; Ungar et al., 2008).

15

suggests that negative labels and stigmatization by authorities (parents, teachers, police officers, or others) can propel marginalized individuals further into a deviant subculture. Having been rejected by mainstream society, the welcoming arms of fellow peers, similarly labelled, seems like the best and perhaps only choice for support and feelings of belonging (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Williams & McShane, 1999). The level of an individual’s attachment to conventional society also plays a role in gang membership. In general, social control theory postulates that those who do not become involved in gang activity possess stronger bonds to society than those that do become involved. The elements of this bond include attachment to others (family, friends, and positive role models) and institutions (employment, school), commitment to conventional society, and belief in the general values of society (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Hirschi, 1969). Brownfield (2010) examined indices of gang involvement and peer delinquency and found that a lack of belief in general values and commitment to conventional society, are significant predictors of gang membership. Further, in a previous study (2003) lack of educational commitment and involvement were found to be significantly related to the likelihood of becoming a gang member.

Recruitment of gang members Research suggests that about half of gang members join voluntarily, that is they seek out the gang as a solution to individual problems or as a lifestyle that they want to lead; while the other half are recruited into gang life through the lures and attractions that the gang offers (Knox, 1999). In the community gang members tend to be recruited at young ages and remain involved in the gang throughout adolescence (Kenney & Finckenauer, 1995; Stinchcomb, 2002; Taylor, 2009). A current member of the gang recruits a given youth, and once initiated, the youth is introduced to gang norms and values, and subsequently takes on a gang identity, which is then maintained through violence against rivals, vandalism, and other criminal acts. Gangs’ non- conformity to societal ethics, and conformity to their own rules and values, is transferred to members through social learning and modeling (Taylor, 2009). This process is similar to that proposed in differential association theory which suggests that deviant behaviour is learned in interactions with others, especially within intimate social groups (Sutherland, 1939). Two factors combine to facilitate the alternative socialization process used by gangs: an interest in gangs which includes what the gang can offer the individual in terms of instrumental and/or emotional

16

support; and contact with members (at home, in the neighbourhood, at school) (Taylor, 2009). As new members gain acceptance and status through contact with other members, and are allowed to play a role in the delinquent activities of the gang, they are taking part in a process of social learning (Bandura, 1977), a vital part of gang socialization. The process is an on-the-job training of sorts, where the new member gains substantive and intuitive understanding of roles, values, norms, beliefs, and status-gaining activities. Once these attributes are internalized by a new member, the result is an ongoing development of a personal and social identity consistent with the gang (Taylor, 2009). In the institutional setting, bullying may act as a facilitator of gang recruitment, with prisoners bullying other prisoners (O’Donnell & Edgar, 1998; South & Wood, 2006). Those who bully to become a gang member may also do so as a means of avoiding becoming a victim themselves (Wood, Moir, & James, 2009). Women in prison are not being recruited with the same deliberateness and intensity as are men. While men are targeted and often pressured by other inmates to seek protection through physical assaults and intimidation, female inmates are typically not subject to this form of recruitment. Recruitment for females, it appears, extends beyond the stereotypical image of the physical act; that is, they do not go out and get, but rather they educate to maintain and ensure loyalty (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009).

Sustaining Gang Membership There is some research that has examined the reasons why individuals remain with a gang. These explanations can be divided into two groups: those that suggest membership is maintained as a result of socialization, increased cohesion and the continued functionality of the gang lifestyle, and those that suggest membership is maintained as a result of fear of leaving and limited options available outside the gang. Both will be discussed in the following section.

Socialization, cohesion and continued functionality of the gang The psychological and social dimensions of identity are important factors to understanding why individuals maintain membership in a gang. Through the recruitment process, the individual member undergoes an alternative socialization where the gang distorts social rules by using them in deviant contexts, and by applying rules and norms in an exaggerated manner. Once these attributes are internalized by a new member, the result is an ongoing development of

17

a personal and social identity consistent with the gang (Taylor, 2009). At the individual level, there is a systematic deterioration of critical thinking skills for the gang member and a systematic augmentation in the level of dependency on the group identity and organization for one’s personal affirmation and identity as a human being. The ‘group think’ effect encourages gang cohesiveness and results in deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgements as a result of group pressures (Knox, 1999). Ayling (2011) notes that participation in the underground economy and gang subculture becomes ‘normal’ for its members. In its original formulation, moral neutralization (Sykes & Mattza, 1957) sought to explain deviant behaviour such that an individual was able to justify or rationalize it away through an alternative moral code. The group version of moral neutralization suggests that gang members will do things far beyond their original deviance potential. In the collective context of a gang an individual gang member can deny normative restraints and may act based on fear of disapproval or sanctioning from the gang. Bandura (2002) describes this as moral disengagement strategies where deviant conduct is restructured into benign or worthy behaviour. Knox (1999) suggests that gang members develop an ‘us versus them’ mentality that permeates the value system of the gang and results in the identification of clearly defined enemies. In-group members often view members of an out-group as depersonalized prototypes (Taylor, 2009). Klein (1971, 1995) notes that gang cohesiveness thrives on gang-to-gang hostilities. Reactance against opposition may further encourage the gang’s cohesiveness. He further warns that a law enforcement focus on gangs, through arrest, patrol, surveillance, and other mechanisms, can be a powerful external source of cohesion. It can provide the group with a common point of conflict as well as with a label and identity, setting a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion (Carlsson & Decker, 2005; McGloin, 2005). Cohesiveness also tends to magnify the amount of crime perpetrated by a gang (Ayling, 2011); gangs are more likely to be engaged in violent activity when the status and solidarity of their gang is threatened (Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, & Chard-Wiercheim, 1993). In addition, as mentioned previously gangs meet many of the personal and developmental needs of individuals and can be effective solutions to the challenges they face (Mathews, 1992). As long as individuals believe that their needs are fulfilled and satisfied through membership, they will remain with the gang. For example, leaving the gang may require rejecting one’s friends and peers whom provided the sense of belonging that was absent for many individuals

18

prior to joining (Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, in press). Core members are more likely to maintain membership as they are more involved in gang activities and better integrated into the group (Klein, 1971). For members at the fringe of the gang, it may be easier to drift in and out of the gang because of less allegiance or weaker bonds to the group or other gang members (Hagedorn, 1994; Spergel, 1995). The dilemma surrounding gang membership is that it has more enduring consequences than many other affiliations (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002).

Fear of leaving and limited options outside the gang Individuals may maintain membership with a gang out of the fear of violence accompanying gang exit. As Decker and Lauritsen (2002) observed in their study of gang members in St. Louis, “most active gang members strongly expressed the belief that one can never leave the gang,” (p. 61). The entrenched notoriety of being unable to leave a gang – often due to a threat of violence or death – is likely a significant barrier to the decision to exit (Totten & Dunn, 2011). Gangs continue to exist through peer pressure tactics (Warr, 1996) and a leadership of fear. Leaders tend to use coercion and power as the guiding element in working or managing groups; violence is used to maintain discipline and control. Allegiance is crucial to the gang organization and the survival of the individual member (Fortune, 2004; Knox, 1999). Bjørgo (1999) suggests that membership may be sustained if individuals are unable to see any alternative places to go outside the gang, and if they expect to be rejected by conventional society. The majority of individuals involved in gangs tend to come from groups and areas that suffer from the greatest levels of economic inequality, disadvantage and social disorganization (Chettleburgh, 2003; CISC, 2006; Wortley & Tanner, 2004). Further, long-term gang membership may have limited the individual’s ability to acquire marketable skills for the workforce, thereby limiting options for legitimate employment. Limited opportunities in turn may result in the benefits of staying in the gang outweighing the drawbacks of being a gang member. Further, social barriers, such as the ‘gang’ label may limit opportunities as well as an individual’s ability to leave the gang. Gang identities often remain fixed well after the decision to leave the gang has been made and acted on. Individuals may continue to be seen as gang members by their own gang, rival gangs, the police, and the community. Further, gang insignias (e.g., tattoos), criminal records, and other acts committed while a gang member may hinder their ability to integrate into the pro-social world (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Knox, 1999).

19

Leaving a Gang Research suggests that the desistance process includes a combination of reasons or a series of events that act in concert with one another to push or pull an individual away from the gang. This culminates in a decision to leave the gang (Vigil, 1988) and may also lead to the disintegration of the group as a whole (Bjørgo, 1999). Explanations for leaving a gang addressed in the following section include the temporary nature of membership, experiences with violence, and increasing bonds and attachments to conventional people and activities. The process of gang dissociation will also be briefly discussed.

Factors contributing to desistance from gang involvement Research suggests that gang membership is usually temporary, most members leave eventually, and exit is associated with maturity and life course events such as marriage, employment, and parenthood. In a survey of gang members in the United States, Houston (1996) found that three-quarters of respondents agreed that sooner or later, gang members want out of the gang. Nearly all (93.5%) respondents indicated that they would like to get married, get a legal job, and have children. Theories of maturation suggest that gang members age out of the gang; former members often describe having ‘grown out of the gang’, or simply ‘gotten too old’ for the gang lifestyle (Battin, Hill, Abbott, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1998; Bjørgo, 1999; Fong, Vogel, & Buentello, 1995; Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Farnworth, & Jang, 1994). Research has also suggested that gang exit is associated with violent incidents (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Ngo, 2010). Violence within and between gangs is far more prevalent than gang-related harms to the public (Chettleburgh, 2007; CISC, 2006) and gang-affiliated individuals report significantly greater levels of victimization than those who are not gang- involved (Knox, 1999; Wortley & Tanner, 2004). Decker and Lauritsen (2002) found that personal experience of violence was the most commonly reported reason for leaving the gang. While internal violence (initiation rites, ‘beating in’) and mythic violence (stories of altercations between gangs) may serve to intensify gang bonds, the impact of real violence encourages desistance. There is a limit to the tolerance individual gang members have for personal experiences of violence, the threat or fear of personal violence, or having family members be the victims of violence. Fong et al. (1995) also found that a major reason that motivated individuals to leave their gangs included refusing to carry-out a ‘hit’ on a fellow or non-gang member.

20

Members who leave the gang typically develop ties to non-deviant friends, significant others, and family members and a commitment to social institutions (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Vigil, 1988). Decker and Lauritsen (2002) suggest obligations to family as a reason for leaving while Greene and Pranis (2007) cited having children as a reason for exit. For example Varriale (2006) explored the role of motherhood as a potential exit point for female gang members; women use pregnancy as a way to avoid violent repercussions from the gang. Finally, regardless of the specific reason for leaving their gangs, studies suggest that individuals must be ready to leave in order for desistance to be successful (Totten & Dunn, 2011).

Process of gang disintegration Although it is important to encourage individual defection from gangs, making an entire gang fall apart may result in even greater reductions in criminal activities. In an examination of how and why gangs disintegrate, Bjørgo (1999) outlined six main processes which may work separately or in combination. In addition to the process of growing out of gang life through natural maturation and new priorities in life, he suggests that gangs may be defeated by overwhelming external force (rival gang or the state’s apparatus of power); the loss of external enemies or threats; loss of identity, status and image; decay of group cohesiveness, solidarity and attraction value (see also Fong et al., 1995); and fragmentation of the group into smaller units which may be too weak to survive. In another study examining gang dissipation, Bolden (2010) employed charismatic role theory which argues that there are particular members within gang subcultures that are highly charismatic and that these members are key to the continuation of the subculture. Charismatic core members are highly committed to the gang, participate in more serious crimes, and are connection points between peripheral gang members who may not know each other. The findings provide some support to the theory that the removal of core members is related to the dissipation of the gang as a whole.

Differences in Gang Cohesion5 Variations in gang cohesion are related to the conditions under which the gang is founded or developed, the characteristics of their members, their collective choices, and the level of

5 To date, no literature was found that examined variations in gang cohesion as it relates to organized crime groups (traditional gangs), Asian gangs and outlaw motorcycle gangs.

21

loyalty expected, among other things (Ayling, 2011; Bjørgo, 1999). This section discusses the differences between individual gang types as it relates to the elements of membership. In general, street gangs are not stable structures. Most street gangs are comprised of loose and somewhat messy friendship networks and most are temporary or short-lived (Ayling, 2011; Bjørgo, 1999; Lafontaine et al., 2009). Some of the motivations for joining a street gang include money, power, protection, a lack of legitimate alternatives, and social acceptance. Recruitment can be done by friends or family, or by taking in disenfranchised youth. Initiations are usually directed by gang leaders and may involve committing certain offences, being beaten, or for females, having intercourse with all male members. Some gangs may even require proof of criminality. Street gangs are typically difficult to leave but members may have the opportunity of being ‘beaten out’ which involves a severe assault. Street gang members who have already been exposed to the benefits of street gang life may need more coaxing to leave. Those who choose to leave usually require multi-faceted exit strategies with help from the police, community groups, and family (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Mellor et al., 2005). The principal motivating factors for attracting individuals to join Aboriginal street gangs are the same as any other gang. In addition, Aboriginal individuals may join gangs because they feel disenfranchised and experience structural inequality, racism, discrimination, family dysfunction, substance abuse, and violence (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Lafontaine et al., 2009). Their marginalization compounded by institutional labelling makes the gang lifestyle an attractive option. Recruitment by family members on reserve is significant, making gang life the preferable option in many cases, signalling it as a functional response to generations of economic, social, political and educational inequalities (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2008). Like other gangs, Aboriginal gangs also require members to go through an initiation where prospective members are often ‘beaten in’. Violence tends to bind members of these gangs together (CSC, 2011). In order to overcome feelings of isolation and to cope with the everyday threat of violence, incarcerated individuals may feel they have little choice but to affiliate with a prison gang in order to survive the prison experience (Ayling, 2011; Wood & Adler, 2001). If individuals feel they are at risk for assault and victimization because they are members of a visible minority group, joining an ethnic or culturally-based gang may protect them from such assault (Casillas, 1994; Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007; Winterdyk et al., 2009).

22

Incarcerated males and females place a different emphasis on motivation for joining a prison gang. Male offenders typically unite for protection and females for social cliques, families and a sense of belonging (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009). Prison gangs often practice stringent and complicated processes in the recruitment of new members. To become a gang member, the inmate goes through a hazing process where he is ‘beaten’ into the gang. Those inmates who participate in prison gangs are committed to the organization through a brotherhood connection and they may experience a familial sense of social support that endures through the sentence and post-release (Fong et al., 1995; Fortune, 2004; Huff, 1990). Because prison gangs operate in a much more restrictive and scrutinized environment than their street gang counterparts, absolute loyalty is demanded of all members (Drury & DeLisi, 2011). Commitment to the gang is expected to last a lifetime, nevertheless, Fong et al. (1995) found that defection from prison gangs, although uncommon, occurs more than one might expect. They reported that about 5% of prison gang members were able to dissociate from their gangs during incarceration. Those who dissociated were not part of a street gang before joining the prison gang and they tended to hold lower ranks and appeared less inclined towards violence.

23

Gang Management and Interventions

Over the past ten years, a number of literature reviews regarding gang management and intervention strategies both in the community and the institutional setting have been conducted (Curry & Decker, 2003; Jones et al., 2004; Mellor et al., 2005; Pyrooz, Decker, & Fleisher, 2011; Totten, 2008; Westmacott et al., 2005; Winterdyk et al., 2009; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). Similar to the conclusions reached by earlier studies (Spergel et al., 1994; Stinchcomb, 2002), despite significant resources very few gang management strategies and intervention programs have been rigorously evaluated to determine their effectiveness. Further, many of those that have been evaluated lack robust statistical methodology and only a few have demonstrated positive or promising results (Jones et al., 2004; Maxson, Hennigan, & Sloane, 2005; Westmacott et al., 2005). The purpose of the following section is to review current approaches to gang management and intervention in the community and institutional settings, to identify promising approaches, and to briefly discuss some best practices for moving forward.

Community-Based Interventions Community-based gang interventions have adopted several strategies and can be divided into three groups: social development intervention, law enforcement and comprehensive strategies. Detached-worker, school-based intervention programs and suppression programs encompass the majority of efforts. Recently, promising multi-faceted approaches to intervention have employed a combination of these strategies along with provision of education and job opportunities as well as individual and family counselling for gang members (Jones et al., 2004; Westmacott et al., 2005).

Social development intervention strategies Detached street worker programs employ social workers, paraprofessionals or indigenous leaders who operate ‘on the street’ in an effort to provide outreach to gang members and to make referrals for necessary treatment, the provision of assistance and guidance in the vocational area, and to deliver community education (Houston, 1996; Howell, 2000; Stinchcomb, 2002). Research on the use of detached workers in gang intervention strategies has consistently demonstrated that they are ineffective (unable to reduce crime, and in certain instances lead to an

24

augmentation of cohesion); such an effort in and of itself is inadequate to deal with the complexity of interpersonal problems and community-based obstacles faced by gang members (Houston, 1996; Klein, 1971, 1995; Stinchcomb, 2002). More modern versions of the program (e.g., Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development) have included curriculum components addressing consequences of gang involvement, peer pressure, and substance abuse, however these programs have also been found to be ineffective (Westmacott et al., 2005). The Philadelphia Youth Violence Reduction Partnership (YVRP) is a more recent adaptation that aims to reduce violent crime, particularly homicide, committed by or against young people. Evaluation data show that the homicide rate attributable to street gangs decreased overall in the areas where the YVRP was implemented and that close surveillance made it possible to detect a large number of offences that were subsequently penalized. Further, front-line workers were able to persuade a significant number of youth to attend assistance or rehabilitation programs (Jucovy & McClanahan, 2008; McClanahan, 2004). School-based initiatives that have been cited as holding promise for gang prevention and intervention include alternative education programs to teach basic skills and prepare for a GED; vocational training and job placement; pairing gang members with local business owners who act as positive role models; parent education classes; and other programs that strengthen the family unit (Stinchcomb, 2002). In a study examining what works best in gang intervention, Houston (1996) found that gang members and former gang members believed that education coupled with another type of program can be an effective deterrent to gang membership. They believed that employment must be a priority in order to stem the growth of gang membership and more resources should be allocated to activities that prepare youth for the future.

Law enforcement strategies Suppression strategies, loosely based on deterrence principles, have dominated gang interventions for the past several decades (Klein, 1995) and continue to do so. Gang suppression strategies shift the focus from the causes of gang development to criminal behaviour (Jones et al., 2004) and employ a coordinated justice response to gangs, emphasizing arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of gang members (Fritsch, Caeti, & Taylor, 1999; Westmacott et al., 2005). Suppression tactics have often taken the form of ‘crackdowns’, boosts in law enforcement resources applied to the previously under-enforced laws, with a clear goal of

25

enhancing general deterrence of the misconduct. To the extent that police crackdowns have shown any effectiveness, it has generally been in the short-term; they are frequently followed by a return to pre-intervention levels of crime (Fritsch et al., 1999; Sherman, 1990; Stinchcomb, 2002). These suppression tactics can also have unintended consequences. More resilient gangs, that are organized and have cohesive membership, may be more adaptable to sustained police attention. Further, suppression and surveillance tends to promote reactance in targeted gang members resulting in increased delinquent behaviour and/or the encouragement of such behaviour in others (Ayling, 2011). Other research has shown that more directed patrol has been effective to varying degrees. Generally greater success has been found in highly targeted strategies focusing on specific offences, offenders, and places than by simply expanding police presence. A three-pronged suppression strategy of (1) selective incarceration of the most violent and repeat older gang offenders in the most violent gangs, (2) enforcement of probation controls with younger, less violent gang offenders, and (3) arrests of gang leaders in ‘hot spots’ of gang activity have proved somewhat effective in decreasing gang crime in the Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement Team (TARGET) program in Orange County California (Kent, Donaldson, Wyrick, & Smith, 2000; Stinchcomb, 2002). Civil gang injunctions (CGIs) are becoming a popular gang management strategy. They are believed to reduce crime as well as fear of gangs and gang crime in the injunction area, at least in the short term (Ayling, 2011; Maxson et al., 2005). Most often CGIs are spatially-based, neighbourhood level interventions intended to disrupt the gang’s routine activities through the designation and enforcement of certain prohibited behaviours. Several evaluations of CGIs have been conducted. In a rigorous study of crime patterns, Grogger (2002) assessed changes in reported serious violent and property crimes for 14 CGIs. Pooling the injunction areas, he found that violent crime decreased during the year after injunctions by roughly 5% to 10%. In an examination of neighbourhood quality of life, Maxson et al. (2005) found immediate benefits of CGIs including less gang presence, fewer residents reporting acts of gang intimidation and less fear of confrontations with gang members. However, there was little evidence that these immediate effects translated into larger improvements in neighbourhood quality. One of the more recent efforts of the use of a CGI is Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, which combined a focused deterrence strategy with activism from community groups and youth service providers.

26

Researchers determined that implementation of the program was associated with declines in youth homicides and gun assaults (Kennedy, 1999, 2007). Operation Ceasefire also employed a ‘pulling levers’ strategy to manage the behaviour of chronic offenders; removing individuals from the gang who had a higher probability of impacting crime levels. This form of network analysis also nominates certain people for social service intervention; gang members on the periphery are persuaded to abandon gang life in return for needed employment, education and skills training (McGloin, 2005). Although somewhat effective in decreasing gang-related crime in the short term, most studies have not found lasting decreases in gang problems in the areas where suppression tactics have been implemented (Peterson, 2000). Gang suppression interventions fail to recognize core properties of gang dynamics and they are not likely to have a lasting impact without programs that, at the same time, ameliorate the community conditions that give rise to and maintain gangs (Stinchcomb, 2002; Westmacott et al., 2005). These realizations have led to the development of alternative approaches that focus more comprehensively on prevention, intervention and suppression in the context of local communities, through the coordinated action of criminal justice officials and a range of community stakeholders (Fritsch et al., 1999; Howell, 2010).

Comprehensive community-based intervention programs Comprehensive community-based intervention programs seek to mobilize the community affected by gang behaviour to become actively involved in controlling it. Interventions focus on public education, enlisting the support and cooperation of community members in identifying gang members, and building trust between the community and public agencies. They may also include crisis intervention or mediation of gang fights, targeting, arresting and incarcerating gang leaders and repeat violent gang offenders, vertical prosecution, close supervision and enhanced sentences for core gang members (Spergel et al., 1994). The best known example of this type of approach is the Comprehensive Gang Model launched by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the United States. It employs a community assessment approach to guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of community strategies which maximizes available resources and targets the most at- risk and criminally active youth (Boerman, 2007; Howell, 2010). In March 1993, the initial version of the model was implemented in the Little Village neighbourhood of Chicago. Called

27

the Gang Violence Reduction Program, it was an innovative approach to serious gang problems that incorporated targeted control of gang members, expanded police supervision and suppression, and provided a broad spectrum of social services and opportunities for targeted youth (Spergel & Grossman, 1997). The primary goal of the project was to reduce the extremely high level of gang violence among youth who were already involved in gangs. In the outcome evaluation, self-reports of criminal involvement showed that the program reduced serious violent and property crime, and sharp declines were also seen in the frequencies of various types of offences. Active gang involvement was also reduced among project youth, most improved their educational and employment status during the program period, and other favourable results included a lower level of serious gang violence (Spergel, 2007; Spergel & Grossman, 1997; Spergel, Grossman, & Wa, 1998). In their cost-benefit analysis of a community-based crime prevention intervention, LaBoucane-Benson, Hossak, Erikson, and Grunland (2009) found that grass-roots actions by ordinary citizens and community-based organizations can be a powerful anti-gang mechanism. To be effective and to have a lasting impact, it is important to find a way to connect the efforts of individual citizens, community organizations and government into a cohesive whole. The Community Solution to Gang Violence, a community collaborative in Edmonton whose objective is to take collective and individual responsibility for working toward a community free of gang violence (Grekul, 2011; Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007) and the Regina Anti-Gang Services, a partnership between the Regina Police service, community agencies, Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety and Saskatchewan Learning to develop an initiative aimed at gang prevention/intervention in Regina’s inner city (Hemmati, 2006), are two Canadian examples of collaborative efforts to address youth gangs. Evaluations of multi-component programs have indicated that they are successful in reducing arrests for violent crime but fail to impact the size and cohesion of targeted gangs (Westmacott et al., 2005). At least in part, these strategies have been cited as more effective than uni-dimensional strategies. In an assessment of various strategies employed in response to youth gang problems, it was found that positive correlations between selected gang measures and community coordinating structures offers promising potential for intervention. However, not all findings on this topic have been positive (Stinchcomb, 2002).

28

Implementation considerations Before embarking on the implementation of gang intervention strategies, a systematic research and development process that includes assessment of the problem, prototype development, technical assistance and testing should be conducted. Interventions that begin before a problem analysis, may lead to inappropriate and ineffective tactics (McGloin, 2005). A comprehensive approach that addresses multiple facets of a problem should have an integrated strategic framework that embraces multi-faceted techniques. The focus should be on long-term commitment to measures that minimize the adverse effects and multiple measures that deal with different aspects of the problem. Regardless of the particular strategies employed, the quality of implementation will have a substantial effect on outcome results (Stinchcomb, 2002). As a population, gang members are more heterogeneous than homogeneous and in order to encourage the potential for positive outcomes, intervention design must reflect those individual differences and unique needs (Boerman, 2007; McGloin, 2005). Addressing differing ecological and personal variables requires a process of ‘prescriptive programming’ – an assessment-based approach to individualized intervention planning that reflects an understanding of these variables in an individual’s life and their potential effect on the intervention process (Boerman, 2007). Initiatives should also be culture-specific, age-appropriate, and developed on the basis of continuously-updated information (Stinchcomb, 2002). Further, gang-related initiatives must address the specific dimensions of the problem at the local community level (McGloin, 2005). At least some portion of the problem is a reflection of the macro-level social obstacles experienced by communities, and as a result, merely addressing gang problems through intervention, whether street work or suppression, will not have much effect without social and economic improvements. It is the interaction of macro-level social forces in the community with individual and peer group influences that produces gang violence (Stinchcomb, 2002). Gordon (2000) suggests that identifying the gang ‘type’ provides insight into the kinds of policies and programming that may work best in dealing with the group. A criminal organization requires a different strategy than a street gang or group of ‘wanna-bes’. Research has also suggested that the organizational character of street gangs is important to take into account when contemplating intervention options (Klein, 1971, 1995). The key to gang intervention is to determine what works in a particular location that is experiencing a particular type of gang problem with particular types of individuals (McGloin, 2005; Stinchcomb, 2002).

29

Institutional Interventions In correctional settings, gangs are omnipresent and an important part of the reality that correctional professionals must address (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009). In Canada, the number of gang-affiliated inmates under CSC jurisdiction has grown substantially and further, almost one quarter of major institutional incidents involve gang members (CSC, 2010). Gangs pose a serious threat to the safe, secure, orderly and efficient management of correctional operations (Ruddell, Decker, & Egley, 2006; Wood, 2006; Wood & Adler, 2001). In response, correctional institutions have adopted a number of strategies to reduce the prevalence of gang-involved inmates or harms that they pose (Ruddell et al., 2006). The types of interventions developed and employed depend on the pervasiveness and characteristics of gang-affiliated individuals within a prison population and on a number of organizational characteristics such as acknowledgement of the problem, size of the facility, departmental policies and procedures, internal and external resources available, and willingness to involve external stakeholders (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). The following section outlines current gang management and suppression activities as well as correctional programming and treatment interventions, and briefly discusses the implications of these strategies for CSC in its development of a strategic approach to gangs.

Gang management and suppression strategies In the United States and in Canada, the role of corrections in the gang problem is primarily gang management and suppression (Jones et al., 2004; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). A number of methods, techniques and strategies have been employed to address the influence of gang members in correctional institutions (Decker, 2003; Fong, Vogel, & Buentello, 1996; Trulson, Marquart, & Kawucha, 2007; Wilkinson & Delgado, 2006). However, despite the best of intentions, these interventions have largely proven to be ineffective. Gangs continue to be a disruptive element in prison systems contributing to disorder and violence. In some cases, trying to prevent the proliferation of gangs has the opposite effect (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010).

Transferring gang members One major strategy for managing and controlling the gang population has been to transfer a member to another facility in the hope of disrupting gang leadership and activity and causing it to stop or slow down (Decker, 2003; Lafontaine et al., 2005; Pyrooz et al., 2011). Often referred

30

to as ‘bus therapy’, this punitive transfer strategy was reported to be effective in the US in the 1970s with the break-up of a protest or religious group. CSC has also reported that many institutions in Canada have also attempted to remedy the instability created by gang members by raising the number of transfers to other institutions (Lafontaine et al., 2005). However, not all results are positive. For some gangs, transfer of members did not lead to the dissolution of the gang; the move only spread and inflamed the problem exporting gang activity to other prisons (Knox, 2000). Further, this strategy may allow other gang members to move up faster in the ranks within a particular facility and allows for greater recruitment efforts by the gang member moving to another facility (Jackson & Sharpe, 1997; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). Such findings lend support to the contention that the movement of gang members from one institution to another may not be the most effective way of dealing with gangs (Jones et al., 2004).

Isolation, segregation and alternative housing options for gang members Isolation and segregation are commonly used to reduce the amount of gang violence within prisons (Decker, 2003; Kassel, 2003; Ruddell et al., 2006). Options can involve housing gang populations in separate facilities within the correctional system or isolating individual gang leaders in special housing units within the facility to restrict gang communication and recruitment. A common inmate control procedure applied to gang members is administrative segregation, often referred to as ‘secured housing units’ (SHUs) or ‘special management units’ (SMUs). Segregation keeps inmates alone in a cell, 23 hours a day, with one hour assigned to recreation and/or other activities (Jones et al., 2004; Lafontaine et al., 2005; Lauderdale & Burman, 2009; Pyrooz et al., 2011). The growing number of gang members within Canadian correctional facilities has led to an increased use of segregation within maximum-security penitentiaries for identified members (Lafontaine et al., 2005). Based on anecdotal reports there have been some successes in reducing gang-related violence by putting gang leaders and members in segregation (Parry, 1999; Ralph & Marquart, 1991). In the US, several states have experimented with isolating gang members in specific units or facilities to minimize their influence (Hill, 2009). In Texas, outcomes have included a decrease in violence in the general population and fewer armed assaults (Pyrooz et al., 2011) and in Arizona, evaluation findings demonstrated a definite ‘incapacitating effect’ on the violent and disruptive behaviour of segregated inmates (Fischer, 2001; Lafontaine et al., 2005). With prison

31

gang leaders locked down, officials hope vertical communication within the gang will be weakened, resulting in an erosion of group solidarity (Pyrooz et al., 2011). Unfortunately, the establishment of specialized segregation units has not been based on reliable scientific evidence. To the contrary, these approaches have been identified as detrimental to reducing the number of gang members and subsequent rates of prison misconducts (Kassel, 2003; Mackenzie, 2001). Kassel (2003) also found that a significant number of prisoners reported that confinement brought on mental health problems for the first time, or exacerbated existing conditions. Further, even though gang members are isolated and segregated, they may still exert a strong negative influence within the prison system and in the community (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010) and these strategies have been reported to strengthen the cohesiveness of a gang. Since a gang member’s sense of identity and self-esteem is often tied to status in a gang, the use of isolation and segregation may translate into notoriety and esteem amongst gang members (Kassel, 2003). Segregated gang members are also unlikely to receive any services that might reduce their long-term risk to re-offend (Di Placido, Simon, Witte, Gu, & Wong, 2006). The ‘set-off policy' is another strategy that has resulted in negative outcomes. This method strives to counter-balance the gangs housed in a unit so that no single gang becomes dominant (Knox, 2000). For example, in a housing unit of 25, place 10 individuals from one gang, 10 individuals from a rival gang, and five individuals who are considered neutral (either from a non-rival gang or not gang-affiliated). However, evaluations suggest that the use of this method did not alleviate the tension between rival gangs (Jones et al., 2004). A final strategy is the introduction of gang-free prisons where gang-involved inmates are transferred to designated facilities. This approach was intended to reduce the likelihood of inmates being recruited because they were fearful of gang violence or drawn to gangs for better access to drugs or other contraband (Rivera, Cowles, & Dorman, 2003). Winterdyk and Ruddell (2010) found that gang-free prisons were believed to be a valuable strategy as they enable an unaffiliated inmate to survive prison without feeling the need to join a gang for protection; however more investigation into the effectiveness of this approach is needed.

Debriefing / ‘snitch’ farm Debriefing strategies entice a gang-involved inmate to give up information about gang life, including the hierarchy, his position and the main players within the gang. In order to

32

accomplish this objective, an ‘institutional gang investigator’ collects as much information as possible regarding an inmate in order to determine his threat level (through interviews, speaking with other inmates, monitoring telephone conversations, mail and other correspondence, and inspections of personal belonging in the inmate’s cell). Once the inmate is identified as a gang member, he is often placed in a special housing unit until he decides to debrief and denounce his gang. Once that is accomplished, he can slowly be released and make his way back into the general inmate population (Compton & Meacham, 2005; Jones et al., 2004; Knox, 2000). An additional method of debriefing is the ‘snitch’ farm. It is used to protect gang members who are willing to become informants and help convict another gang member, potentially a member from their own gang. In order to protect the individual from suffering severe consequences for his debriefing actions, the snitch farm is a secure and separate facility in which several precautions are taken to protect the identity of the inmate. In the absence of a snitch farm, many violent crimes within institutions would never be solved. This avenue offers a sense of security to the ‘snitch’ (Jones et al., 2004; Knox, 2000).

Disassociation Encouraging dissociation from gangs is an obvious management strategy. However, many gang members consider dissociation difficult and dangerous (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002), particularly in an institutional environment where physically getting away from the gang is often not feasible. Renouncing one’s membership is often viewed as ‘an act of betrayal’ (Fong et al., 1995) and can result in threats of death (Danitz, 2002; Fong, 1990). Some jurisdictions place dissociated gang members in a separate facility (Carlson, 2001), but relatively few correctional facilities have this option. Renunciation programs typically involve debriefing and a transfer to units or facilities where individuals will be safe from members of their former gangs. Other jurisdictions are experimenting with rehabilitative programs that provide a pathway from gang activities (Di Placido et al., 2006). However, only 20% of prison administrators surveyed by Knox (2005) indicated that they had programming for gang members who wanted to leave the gang. One of the challenges of these approaches, however, is that the sincerity of these gang members is sometimes doubtful (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). Targeting individual gang members for dissociation can involve identifying those gang members who might be vulnerable to leaving a gang or who might be useful as informants; and making day-to-day life less

33

comfortable for these targets. This might mean curtailing their contact with other gang members and restricting their privileges (Lafontaine et al., 2005). No empirical evaluation has been undertaken to assess the efficacy of this dissociation approach to gang management (Decker, 2001, 2003; Fleisher & Decker, 2001; Knox, 2000).

Zero-tolerance policies Based on a number of surveys of adult state correctional institutions within the US, Knox (2000) compiled a model for various levels of zero tolerance policies regarding gang membership and activity within the institution. He suggests a minimum strength, medium strength and maximum strength intervention depending on the severity of the problem, but cautions that these are ideal situations, and that not every institution will be able to implement all aspects.6 In addition to these three strength-based policies, an institution must also develop a system of rules and regulations to deal with the threat of gangs. A disciplinary conduct hearing must be held for any infraction of the rules seeking to suppress gang activity. The ‘disciplinary code of conduct’ would impose mandatory sanctions against inmates who violate the rules of conduct that pertain to gang activity (Jones et al., 2004). The Full Integration Model in the State of New York currently emphasizes that the staff maintain a zero-tolerance philosophy where gang leaders and members receive no formal recognition or publicity (CSC, 2008).

Intelligence gathering, information sharing and training opportunities Intelligence gathering and dissemination is a key priority for many prison systems (Lauderdale & Burman, 2009; Ruddell et al., 2006). In the US, Wells, Minor, Angel, Carter, and Cox (2002) reported that over three-quarters of prisons had established gang management strategies that included monitoring inmate communication and collecting and compiling information from searches, informants and correctional officers. In the development of a national strategy to address gangs in the institutional setting, CSC has emphasized the importance of dynamic intelligence as a component to ensure success; including the collection of data on the interconnectivity between gangs and inmate financial tracking, among other things (CSC, 2010). Winterdyk and Ruddell (2010) suggest that these investigative strategies are effective and the Full Segregation Model in the State of Virginia suggests that a holistic approach to intelligence

6 For a detailed description of the three strength-based levels of zero-tolerance policies, see Jones et al., 2004.

34

gathering can help to disable gangs and prevent future gang membership (CSC, 2008). Nadel (1997) noted that investigations may result in the development of profiles of individual gang members and gangs, and information about gang involvement in offences might assist in solving crimes committed either inside or outside the institution. In some instances, aggressive prosecution of unsolved cases or current criminal activity may result in additional prison terms for gang-involved inmates and their associates (Norris, 2001; Ruddell et al., 2006; Thomas & Thomas, 2007; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). As such, these interventions expand the potential legal costs and consequences of gang membership and may deter some prisoners from associating with a gang, as well as further incapacitating those convicted of additional offenses (Lafontaine et al., 2005; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). Some of the other benefits of gang intelligence gathering include staff safety and violence prevention (Parry, 2006). Winterdyk and Ruddell (2010) suggest the importance of intelligence gathering and information sharing within the prison system, with other correctional systems, and with law enforcement. Law enforcement can provide corrections officials with background information on street conflicts among inmates entering facilities and corrections can provide similar information for offenders returning to the community (Pyrooz et al., 2011). Through information sharing and cooperation between agencies, and among divisions within an agency, the result is a greater amount of information that allows various organizations to reach the common goal of solving cases. To ensure safer prisons and communities it is necessary to develop intelligence networks and investigate activity in both settings (Wilkinson & Delgado, 2006). In order to counter the impact of gangs in the institutional setting, corrections officials in the US have used a variety of investigative approaches and techniques. The National Gang Crime Research Center (1997) argued for the development of a security threat group/gang classification system in institutions to manage risk to other offenders and staff where all inmates are classified on a six-level scale. Correctional agencies also now use databases to track prison gang members and gang activities. This allows for more effective communication between a correctional facility and other agencies, and improves data accuracy. The speed and capacity to update intelligence information makes the use of a shared database an effective tool in prison gang management (Pyrooz et al., 2011). Moreover, fusion centers, where information from federal, state, and local law enforcement sources, as well as the private sector, is collated, are becoming more prevalent (Rollins, 2008). There has also been interest in using social network

35

analysis to better understand the structure and organization of gangs and organized crime (McGloin, 2005; Schwartz & Rouselle, 2009). Finally, some correctional departments have partnered with private sector vendors to track goods and services (e.g., telephone records or financial transactions) used by offenders and their associates. It should be noted that many of these approaches are in their development stages, and evaluations of the efficacy of these interventions have generally not been conducted (Winterdyk et al., 2009; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). It is clear that correctional officials can no longer afford to take a reactive approach to institutional gangs; they must be dealt with proactively. Until the early 1990s, correctional officials were said to have categorically ignored or minimized the presence of gangs in the institutional setting and many correctional officers took a reactionary approach to the problem because of a lack of knowledge surrounding gang issues (Fong & Buentello, 1991). Knox (2000) has demonstrated that training for correctional officers has improved, and that over two-thirds of facilities surveyed provided some gang training in 1999. While management and suppression strategies are important for ensuring institutional safety and security, without any structured and evidence-based intervention programs to assist gang members, it is suspect as to whether such measures serve little more than to contain the potential problem as opposed to resolving it. In their review of gang management strategies, Winterdyk et al. (2009) found that only half of respondents indicated that they had formal intervention strategies to respond to gang members’ criminogenic needs. The focus on identification, management and suppression represents a missed opportunity to address the serious challenges presented by gang members, to reduce their violent propensities and to help them to function as constructive members of the prison community and of society at large (Toch, 2007; Toch & Adams, 2002; Winterdyk et al., 2009; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010).

Correctional programming and treatment In their examination of gang affiliation within the federally sentenced offender population, Nafekh and Stys (2004) found that reconvicted gang affiliates were more likely to be convicted for offences similar to those which they were originally incarcerated for; namely gang- related offences. Research indicates that incarceration may not meet the needs of gang members and that effective correctional programming and treatment should be provided to these

36

individuals in addition to static or administrative gang management approaches (Carlson, 2001; Davis & Flannery, 2001; Di Placido et al., 2006; Fleisher & Decker, 2001). In a review of the gang literature, Jones et al. (2004) found that there was no programming available that specifically targets gang members and gang desistance. In addition, very little research has been conducted on the programming available and what is effective. More recent studies have examined the effectiveness of different types of institutional programming and treatment strategies for gang members. However, no systematic evaluation of these programs has been carried out. Measures of success appear to be limited to mostly anecdotal evidence (Di Placido et al., 2006).

Individual cognitive-behavioural treatment Andrews and Bonta (2003) suggest that correctional treatment that follows the risk, need and responsivity principles reduces recidivism and major institutional misconduct. Based on these principles, the Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan offers high intensity, cognitive-behavioural treatment programs for certain offenders – including gang- affiliated inmates. Evaluation results suggest that this type of programming can reduce the likelihood and seriousness of criminal recidivism in the community, and the rate of major institutional misconduct while incarcerated (Di Placido et al., 2006). Cognitive-behavioural programs tend to utilize an interdisciplinary team approach, follow the principles of effective correctional treatment, and emphasize relapse prevention skills delivered through individual and group therapy which includes psycho-educational groups. Although the treatment programs do not require gang members to renounce their membership before participating, they do educate offenders on causal factors that contribute to their criminal, and often, violent behaviour and that avoiding criminal peers is important to reduce their risk of re-offending. Through education and counselling the program facilitators aim to help offenders deal constructively with some of the causal factors linked to gang involvement (Di Placido et al., 2006; Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007). The Means to Effective Community Living is a proposed program that was presented to Stony Mountain Penitentiary7 as a viable gang intervention strategy within a correctional setting.

7 Stony Mountain Penitentiary is a medium security institution under the jurisdiction of CSC located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

37

This program seeks to address the most pronounced criminogenic factors for medium and high risk offenders. However, this program is unique in that it is designed to address criminogenic needs specifically in the context of gang membership. It focuses on four areas: encouraging gang members to address the impacts of family dynamics and community influences on their belief systems; establishing empathy for others, including the impact of their gang involvement within community, family and self; helping gang members develop pro-social values and belief systems that would serve to decrease impulsivity, anger, aggression and future criminal behaviour; and developing and encouraging meaningful community involvement with family, friends, spiritual leaders, and others (Foss, 2000). No research has been found as it relates to the effectiveness of this program. Participation in a treatment or ‘self-improvement’ program is probably less threatening to a gang member and likely more acceptable to gang-affiliated peers than trying to persuade the individual to dissociate outright from the gang. Di Placido et al. (2006) suggest that program managers must be sensitive to the fact that gang members, who wish to change, will have to walk a very fine line in their effort to move away from gang activities. At times, what may appear to be relapses may actually be survival tactics to gain interim acceptance by peers in situations where gang-affiliated inmates have to demonstrate solidarity. Providing treatment to gang members is very challenging for treatment staff as they have to attend to a myriad of clinical, operational, and responsivity issues. In this respect, Di Placido et al. (2006) are developing a set of clinical guidelines for the treatment of incarcerated gang members to assist clinicians to be more effective in providing treatment to this very challenging group of offenders.

Corrections-based disengagement strategies Research has suggested that for individuals to disengage from the gang, membership, with its heavy reliance on a collective identity, must be replaced by an equally meaningful identity (Kassel, 2003). Closed-custody facilities provide an opportunity to educate gang- affiliated inmates about the alternatives to the gang lifestyle. It is critical for correctional-based programs to address the faulty cognitions, values, and behaviours that have been adopted by gang members. Further, evidence-based programs should be adapted to meet the culturally diverse needs of the targeted population (Lafontaine et al., 2005). To date, research on the effectiveness of corrections-based disengagement strategies is limited.

38

In their study examining the attitudes of incarcerated Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal gang members about the effectiveness of types of gang disengagement strategies, Lafontaine et al. (2005) found that in general, Aboriginal offenders endorsed several strategies including: inter- gang mediation from authorities and government prosecution for gang members. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups agreed that the most effective intervention strategy was transfer to a minimum-security prison. It was also observed that the Aboriginal group strongly endorsed receiving a new identity or a secret identity as an effective gang intervention strategy. This suggests that, when deciding to leave their gang, members are often concerned about their safety. Since fear of retaliation from other gang members can provide a powerful reason for continuing membership, providing disillusioned gang members with a new identity can strengthen their willingness to leave their gang. Further, there is a clear tendency for offenders to endorse service-oriented strategies (e.g., mediation), rather than sanction-oriented strategies (e.g., denial of various privileges).

Aboriginal-focused interventions Aboriginal gangs are unlike other gangs in Canada. In the federal correctional system, 27% of inmates with a gang affiliation belong to Aboriginal gangs. With such a high percentage of offenders affiliated with gangs, it is important to develop interventions that address their specific needs (CSC, 2010). Based on their investigation into the formation and recruitment process of Aboriginal gangs, Grekul and LaBoucane-Benson (2007) suggest that the various causal factors, including a lack of bonding to conventional society, lack of educational and employment opportunities, and problematic peer associations, should inform the policy and programming initiatives used in dealing with these groups. Several interventions have been developed to address the unique needs of Aboriginal gang-affiliated offenders, however research on the effectiveness of these types of programs is limited. In 2001, CSC launched the Bimosewin (Aboriginal Gang) Initiative as a pilot program in Winnipeg. The initiative was developed partially as a response to CSC’s effort to specifically target the needs of these Aboriginal gang-affiliated offenders as they move through the correctional system and re-integrate to the community. The purpose of the program was to provide practical guidance and support away from criminal activity using Aboriginal teachings and cultural activities. Opportunities for personal change, training, education and employment

39

were also provided. After 18 months in operation, some preliminary results and signs of positive movement were found. Of the 125 Aboriginal gang members and ex-gang members who gave their commitment to work with Bimosewin: more than 12 Aboriginal individuals were ‘helped out or kept out’ of the gang; meaningful employment was secured for more than 15 Aboriginal gang members; a ‘safe home’ was made available for ex-gang members; credibility of CSC and its staff was established with Aboriginal gang members in Stony Mountain Penitentiary; and gang members had greater exposure to Aboriginal role models (CSC, 2004). Another intervention targeting Aboriginal gang members is Healing Through Dynamic Intervention, a philosophical approach and program offered to long-term offenders with the goal of addressing causal factors which contribute to gang and criminal lifestyles through group and individual therapy sessions. The objective of the program is the reduction of marginalization, discrimination and labelling that contribute to gang involvement. The dynamic approach begins with the assumption that correctional personnel need to learn about the individuals they are working with. Additional components to the intervention process include education and training for correctional staff; preventive education programming for inmates; cultural, spirituality, and healing components; and the use of role models who can provide the support required to aid in the intervention and rehabilitation process. This approach is already in use in one Canadian maximum security institution (The article does not provide any more details – the exact institution or location is not listed.) and has resulted in a relatively peaceful existence between rival Aboriginal gangs, as indicated by correctional officers and inmates involved in the process. It is believed that once a peaceful existence is established it is then possible to employ programming to effectively address the underlying, core causes of the problems that initially lead to gang involvement (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2007), however additional research in this area is needed. The current state of gangs in Canada makes innovative approaches to the treatment of gang members in the institutional setting necessary. The positive impact of efforts to intervene in gang activities and to prevent individuals from joining gangs in the community are compromised when similar efforts are not simultaneously conducted in the prison (Jones et al., 2004; Mellor et al., 2005; Mercredi, 2000). The interconnections that exist between gangs in the community and the institutional setting suggest that intervention in the institutional context is a promising means of reducing gang activities both inside and outside prison walls.

40

Towards the development of a strategic framework The research literature and empirical data available on gang management and intervention strategies in the institutional environment has provided CSC with a foundation for the development of a strategic framework to address the gang problem in the correctional setting. In their review of the research on street gangs, Jones et al. (2004) presented several suggestions for future best practices in gang management in the institutional setting, which have been largely echoed in this report. Paramount is the accurate identification of the gang problem within each institution. Further, gang management may be more realistic and more productive than gang suppression and elimination. As this report has demonstrated, there is no evidence that a management policy based exclusively on suppression is effective in the institutional setting. Without a wide range of research to date on the effectiveness of the various strategies used to manage gangs in prison, the correctional literature is speculative but suggests that correctional programming and treatment should be included in institutional gang management planning. This approach for addressing gang-related issues is offered not only as a way for managing gangs effectively, but also for addressing the root causes of gang involvement (Grekul & LaBoucane- Benson, 2007). Further, recent developments in the institutional setting appear to be moving towards a more comprehensive approach signalled by additional communication and cooperation between corrections and other criminal justice stakeholders. Finally, Jones et al. (2004) suggested the need to establish a multi-disciplinary task force to develop an appropriate action plan for the management of the gang problem in each institution. CSC has already begun to incorporate some of the promising practices identified in the research literature. Commissioner’s Directives have been established to act as guiding principles when it comes to institutional gang management. Commissioner’s Directive 568-3: Identification and Management of Criminal Organizations (CSC, 2003a), recognizes that criminal organizations pose a threat inside and outside the institutions and attempts to prevent members from exerting influence and from enhancing their image or status while also encouraging them to desist from gang membership8 (Jones et al., 2004; Nafekh & Stys, 2004). Commissioner’s

8 Form 1184-02 Assessment of Affiliation with a Security Threat Group is completed by a security information officer when it is believed that the offender has disaffiliated from a security threat group (i.e. from a gang). Form 1184-03 Termination of Membership or Association with a Criminal Organization is completed when an offender claims to have disaffiliated from a criminal organization.

41

Directive 568-7: Management of Incompatibles (CSC, 2003b) outlines further management options for dealing with gang members in Canadian institutions. Gang members are considered incompatibles to the extent that they pose a threat to the safety and well-being of others in the institution, and should primarily be dealt with via conflict resolution. While not a specific gang management policy, it generally addresses problematic offenders (Jones et al., 2004). CSC has also acknowledged that in order to address the complexity of the gang problem facing Canada, a coordinated and integrated approach involving law enforcement and key partners is required. Although a gang management strategy has been in place since 1994, in June 2005 CSC decided to set up a strategic framework in partnership with other sectors also involved in combating organized crime in the correctional setting, all across Canada. This framework is to serve as a guide for operational implementation specific to each of the five administrative regions (Bensimon & Bentenuto, 2006). First, the strategic framework sought to identify and classify gangs in institutions and in the community. Active gang members are those individuals in good standing in gangs or organized crime; either they represent themselves as such, or they are clearly identified as such by justice or police authorities. Non-active gang members are members who are dormant for various reasons, or aspiring members/associates. Non-members represent the bulk of the general population who come under the harmful and counter-productive influence of the first and second groups or, although more rare, they are the disaffiliated members or those who would like to become disaffiliated (Bensimon & Bentenuto, 2006). Second, the gang management strategy is based on three key elements and addresses the three target profiles. Repression tactics are reserved for those for whom crime is a lifestyle and incarceration has little or no effect. Found in the sphere called deterrence, examples include prohibiting gang paraphernalia, correcting inappropriate behaviour, and monitoring interconnectivity between incarcerated and community offenders. Intervention is reserved for all those in the second group (non-active gang members) and involves additional supervision, and greater encouragement to get involved in programs appropriate to the needs identified by the case management team. The ultimate objective of the intervention phase is the disaffiliation of any member of a criminal organization. However, given the particular reality of the dynamic of organized crime and criminal gangs in a prison environment, the intermediate stage would have correctional workers put the main emphasis on the deactivation of gang members through

42

consistently applied discipline and administrative measures like transfers and segregation. Prevention is targeted at the general population, and within it, although extremely rare, those individuals who are attempting to disaffiliate themselves from the gang lifestyle. The main tactic employed is intelligence sharing (Bensimon & Bentenuto, 2006; CSC, 2010). Finally, CSC acknowledges that this strategy must be multi-faceted in order to address the complex and diverse structures of various gangs. As such in addition to the above three key elements, the following components must be included in order to ensure its success: detailed identification and mapping of the gang population including those at women offender institutions; population management; dynamic intelligence; flexibility to allow regions, institutions and districts to adjust and apply the strategy in a manner that best suits their individual needs and dynamics; removal/limitation of gang influence within institutions; and strong community liaison with police agencies (CSC, 2010). More recently, CSC hosted a conference with the topic of managing the inter- connectivity of gangs and drugs in federal penitentiaries (CSC, 2008). Participants were asked to offer new ideas to help CSC “put together a much stronger approach – a stronger attack – against gangs and drugs in our institutions” by sharing best practices to find practical solutions to these issues. In focus groups, participants discussed how CSC could operate within the current legislative framework to better manage gang activities in institutions and put forward several recommendations falling under three general headings: Gang identification, classification and information management: Participants acknowledged that gang membership is very fluid and members are hard to identify. It would be important to develop a classification system that takes this into consideration. One participant suggested the need to develop a threat index to identify severity of risk while incarcerated. Participants supported initiatives being undertaken to restructure institutional units by embedding intelligence officers and asking them to present reports on information and incidents on a regular basis. It was suggested that a well-designed database is necessary. Once stored in a proper format, information can be cross-referenced internationally. CSC staff need access to a national data warehouse on gang information. Gang management strategies: Participants suggested a variety of tactics from the review of gang management policies, to enhancement of consequences for gang membership and activities, to use of placement strategies to ensure segregation of gang members is addressed

43

(e.g., having one institution per region house active gang members), to refocusing treatment and programming needs to address behaviour change. The prioritization of gang interventions across CSC or within regions was also discussed as was enhancing interventions for Aboriginal gang members to reflect best practices. Communication, collaboration and training: Participants suggested the importance of strengthening communication and collaboration in the institutional setting as well as improving staff training to ensure that CSC is proactive and aware of gang-related issues in the institution. Reviewing plans and programs and determining new processes for identifying gang association and enhancing intelligence are critical for keeping staff up to date and focussed on the most problematic groups that need the most attention.

Implications and next steps for CSC The information presented in this section on institutional interventions in addition to the findings from two recent studies – examining the success of different institutional gang management intervention strategies in US prison systems (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010) and examining requirements important in the development of institutional rehabilitative programs (Scott & Ruddell, 2011), respectively – may be informative for the identification of next steps in this area for CSC with respect to operations, management, programming and research. In a survey of all US prison systems, Winterdyk and Ruddell (2010) reviewed different gang management and intervention strategies and found that while they took different forms, the approaches were mostly deterrence-based and oriented toward gang suppression. According to prison officials, inmate containment and sanctions, investigative strategies and intelligence sharing practices were perceived to be very effective in managing gangs. While the current report has demonstrated the limitations of relying exclusively on suppression strategies, it has also shown the growing use of intelligence gathering and information sharing strategies and the development of training opportunities as well as CSC’s recognition of the importance of gang identification, classification and information management as key priorities in the development of a strategic framework. Many of these approaches are in the development stages and additional research needs to be conducted on the efficacy of these interventions. While these strategies are important for ensuring safety and security in the institutional setting, Winterdyk and Ruddell (2010) suggest that it is also of vital importance that other

44

interventions be developed. There continues to be a paucity of knowledge on recruitment practices and pathways to prison gang membership making it difficult to develop meaningful prevention-based interventions. If one of CSC’s priorities is to reduce the likelihood that inmates will become affiliated with gangs in the first place then more research is needed on the potential and effectiveness of some of the prison-based strategies identified in this report (such as gang- free prisons). Further a greater understanding of the processes that ‘push’ and ‘pull’ an individual into a gang, as highlighted in the section of this report on gang cohesion, may help in the future development of interventions that reduce the attraction of affiliating with a gang. In their discussion of the development of rehabilitative programs for female gang offenders, Scott and Ruddell (2011) suggest that more emphasis should be placed on the development of correctional programming and treatment that respond to the unmet needs of gang-affiliated offenders with the goal of moving them away from the gang. These needs should be based on what the research tells us about these populations, and acknowledge that different gang affiliation and involvement will shape the types of interventions that will be effective (Scott & Ruddell, 2011). A better understanding of the characteristics of gang members, as highlighted in the section of this report on gangs in Canada, will enable correctional practitioners to develop treatment-based strategies that are founded on empirical research. As was noted in the current report, some interventions that work well with one group may be ineffective with another. Winterdyk and Ruddell (2010) suggest that corrections officials develop a repertoire of strategies in their ‘toolboxes’ to craft responses to members of these different groups. Scott and Ruddell (2011) further suggest that practitioners developing gang interventions must account for the fact that females and males may follow different paths to gang membership and have varying levels of attachment to these groups. It is also important to acknowledge that these groups are not one-dimensional and, as discussed earlier, range from relatively unsophisticated gangs to well-established criminal organizations. Moreover, the risk and needs of diverse ethnocultural groups, particularly gang-affiliated Aboriginal offenders, may also require distinctive interventions. In moving forward, special attention should be paid to a gang’s history, organization, membership and recruitment practices in the development of interventions. To date, no single strategy has been proven effective at managing gangs in the institutional environment. Winterdyk and Ruddell (2010) suggest that interventions that are

45

effective in one jurisdiction are sometimes less successful when imported into other systems. While this could be a function of the different characteristics of offenders, it could also relate to organizational issues within correctional systems. For CSC, successfully replicating existing gang interventions will require a significant investment in research and program development, with a particular focus on the Canadian institutional context.

46

Conclusions

This research report has presented a comprehensive review of the literature regarding gang cohesion and intervention strategies. In recognition of the growing presence of gangs both in Canadian federal institutions and in society as a whole, the goal of this paper was to use current research to better inform CSC policies and procedures. A review of gangs in Canada, including topics related to definitional issues, the current community and institutional landscapes and gang cohesion, illustrates the complexity of the gang issue in this country. The review of community-based and institutional management and intervention strategies suggests the importance of tailoring a response to the specific gang problem. Not all gangs are alike and therefore, strategies that work in one setting may not work in another. Policies should be geared towards the individuality and diversity of different gangs and should not be applied universally. While CSC currently employs a limited number of specific gang management programs and interventions, research in this report on what has worked in the US and current progress in Canada can serve to inform the development of new initiatives for the future. The establishment of a strategic framework to address gangs in the institutional setting and continued dialogue on how to better manage gang activities in institutions suggest that CSC is becoming better informed and equipped to deal with the gang problem today and in the future.

47

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Ayling, J. (2011). Gang change and evolutionary theory. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56, 1-26.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Toronto, ON: Prentice-Hall of Canada.

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101-119.

Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology, 36, 93-115.

Beattie, S. (2009). Homicide in Canada, 2008. Juristat, 29, Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

Bensimon, P., & Bentenuto, L. (2006). National gang strategy – strategic framework. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Bjørgo, T. (1999, November). How gangs fall apart: Process of transformation and disintegration of gangs. Paper presented at the 51st annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, ON.

Boerman, T. (2007). A call for an assessment-based approach to gang intervention. Journal of Gang Research, 14, 67-73.

Bolden, C. (2010). Charismatic role theory: Towards a theory of gang dissipation. Journal of Gang Research, 17, 39-70.

Brotherton, D. C. (1996). ‘Smartness’, ‘toughness’, and ‘autonomy’: Drug use in the context of gang female delinquency. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 261-277.

Brownfield, D. (2003). Differential association and gang membership. Journal of Gang Research, 11, 1-12.

48

Brownfield, D. (2010). Social control, self-control, and gang membership. Journal of Gang Research, 17, 1-12.

Camp, G. M., & Camp, C. G. (1985). Prison gangs: Their extent, nature, and impact on prisons. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Carlson, P. M. (2001). Prison interventions: Evolving strategies to control security threat groups. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 10-22.

Carlsson, Y., & Decker, S. H. (2005). Gang and youth violence prevention and intervention: Contrasting the experience of the Scandinavian welfare state with the United States. In S. H. Decker & F. Weerman (Eds.), European street gangs and troublesome youth groups (pp. 259-286). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Carrington, P. J. (2002). Group crime in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 44, 277-315.

Casillas, V. A. (1994). Identifying and supervising offenders affiliated with community threat groups. Federal Probation, 58, 11-19.

Caudill, J. W. (2010). Back on the swagger: Institutional release and recidivism timing among gang affiliates. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 58-70.

Chang, J. (1996). A comparative study of female gang and non-gang members in Chicago. Journal of Gang Research, 4, 9-17.

Chesney-Lind, M., Randall, G. S., & Joe, K. A. (1996). Girls, delinquency and gang membership. In R. C. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 185-204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chettleburgh, M. C. (2003). 2002 Canadian police survey on youth gangs. Ottawa, ON: Astwood Strategy Corporation.

Chettleburgh, M. C. (2007). Young thugs: Inside the dangerous world of Canadian street gangs. Toronto, ON: Harper Collins.

Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York, NY: Free Press.

Cohen, A. (1965). The sociology of the deviant act: Anomie theory and beyond. American Sociological Review, 30, 5-14.

49

Compton, T., & Meacham, M. (2005). Prison gangs: Descriptions and selected intervention. The Forensic Examiner, 14, 26-30.

Correctional Service of Canada (2003a). Commissioner’s Directive 568-3: Identification and Management of Criminal Organizations. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (2003b). Commissioner’s Directive 568-7: Management of Incompatibles. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (2004). Effective corrections initiative: Aboriginal reintegration. Final report. Ottawa ON: Evaluation and Review Branch, Performance Assurance Sector, Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (2008, December). Managing the inter-connectivity of gangs and drugs in federal penitentiaries. Unpublished conference proceedings. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (2009). The changing federal offender population: Highlights 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/special_reports/sr2009/sr- 2009-eng.shtml

Correctional Service of Canada (2010). CSC population management strategy – “It’s everyone’s business”. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (2011). Information base on gangs and organized crime. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S. (1985), c. C-46 s. 467.1.

Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada (2000). Transactional criminal activity: A global context. Ottawa, ON: Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada.

Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada (2003). 2003 annual report on organized crime in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada.

Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada (2006). Project spectrum: 2006 situational overview of street gangs in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada.

50

Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada (2009). Annual report 2009. Ottawa, ON: Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada.

Curry, D. C. (1998). Female gang involvement. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 100-118.

Curry, G. D., & Decker, S. H. (2003). Confronting gangs: Crime and community. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Danitz, T. (2002). Prison life encourages gang behavior. In T. L. Roleff (Ed.), What encourages gang behavior? (pp. 77-80). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.

Davis, M. S., & Flannery, D. J. (2001). The institutional treatment of gang members. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 37-46.

Decker, S. H. (2001). From the street to the prison: Understanding and responding to gangs. Indianapolis, IN: National Major Gang Task Force.

Decker, S. H. (2003). Understanding gangs and gang processes. Richmond, KY: Eastern Kentucky University.

Decker, S. H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (2002). Leaving the gang. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (3rd ed., pp. 51-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deschenes, E. E., & Esbensen, F. A. (1999). Violence and gangs: Gender differences in perceptions and behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 63-96.

Di Placido, C., Simon, T. L., Witte, T. D., Gu, D., & Wong, S. C. P. (2006). Treatment of gang members can reduce recidivism and institutional misconduct. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 93-114.

Drury, A. J., & DeLisi, M. (2011). Gangkill: An exploratory empirical assessment of gang membership, homicide offending, and prison misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 130-146.

Felkenes, G. K., & Becker, H. K. (1995). Female gang members: A growing issue for policy makers. Journal of Gang Research, 2, 1-10.

Fischer, D. R. (2001). Arizona Department of Corrections: Security threat group (STG) program evaluation, final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

51

Fitzpatrick, C. (2011). What is the difference between ‘desistance’ and ‘resilience’? Exploring the relationship between two key concepts. Youth Justice, 11, 221-234.

Fleisher, M. S., & Decker, S. H. (2001). An overview of the challenge of prison gangs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 1-9.

Fong, R. S. (1990). The organizational structure of prison gangs: A Texas case study. Federal Probation, 59, 36-43.

Fong, R. S., & Buentello, S. (1991). The detection of prison gang development. Federal Probation, 55, 66-69.

Fong, R. S., & Vogel, R. E. (1994). A comparative analysis of prison gang members, security threat group inmates and general population prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Gang Research, 2, 1-12.

Fong, R. S., Vogel, R. E., & Buentello, S. (1995). Blood-in, blood-out: The rationale behind defecting from prison gangs. Journal of Gang Research, 2, 45-51.

Fong, R. S., Vogel, R. E., & Buentello, S. (1996). Prison gang dynamics: A research update. In J. M. Miller & J. P. Rush (Eds.), Gangs: A criminal justice approach (pp. 105-128). Cincinnati, OH: Andersen.

Fortune, S. (2004). Prison gang leadership: Traits identified by prison gangsters. Journal of Gang Research, 11, 25-46.

Foss, H. (2000). The management and intervention of gangs. Proceedings of the Violence and Aggression Symposium. Saskatoon, SK.

Fritsch, E. J., Caeti, T. J., & Taylor, R. W. (1999). Gang suppression through saturation patrol, aggressive curfew, and truancy enforcement: A quasi-experimental test of the Dallas anti- gang initiative. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 122-139.

Gaes, G. G., Wallace, S., Gilman, E., Klein-Saffran, J., & Suppa, S. (2002). The influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct. The Prison Journal, 82, 359-385.

Gilligan, R. (2001). Promoting resilience: A resource guide on working with children in the care system. London, UK: BAAF.

52

Goldstein, A. P. (1991). Delinquent gangs: A psychological perspective. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Gordon, R. M. (2000). Criminal business organizations, street gangs and “wanna-be” groups. A Vancouver perspective. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 39-60.

Gordon, R., & Foley, S. (1998). Criminal business organizations, street gangs and related groups in Vancouver: The report of the Greater Vancouver Gang Study. Vancouver, BC: Ministry of the Attorney-General.

Gottschall, S. (in preparation). Ethnic diversity in Canadian federal offender admissions. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Greene, J., & Pranis, K. (2007). Gang wars: The failure of enforcement tactics and the need for effective public safety strategies. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

Grekul, J. (2011). Building collective efficacy and sustainability into a community collaborative: Community Solution to Gang Violence. Journal of Gang Research, 18, 23-45.

Grekul, J., & LaBoucane-Benson, P. (2007). An investigation into the formation and recruitment process of Aboriginal gangs in Western Canada. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.

Grekul, J., & LaBoucane-Benson, P. (2008). Aboriginal gangs and their (dis)placement: Contextualizing recruitment, membership, and status. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50, 59-82.

Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 419-448.

Grogger, J. (2002). The effects of civil gang injunctions on reported violent crime: Evidence from Los Angeles county. Journal of Law and Economics, 45, 69-90.

Hagedorn, J. M. (1994). Homeboys, dope fiends, legits, and new jacks. Criminology, 32, 197-219.

Hébert, J., Hamel, S., & Savoie, G. (1997). Youth and street gangs, phase I: Literature review. Montréal, QC: L’institut de recherche pour le développement social des jeunes.

53

Hemmati, T. (2006). The nature of Canadian urban gangs and their use of firearms: A review of the literature and police survey. Research Report rr07-1e. Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice Canada.

Hill, C. (2009). Gangs/security threat groups. Corrections Compendium, 34, 23-37.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Houston, J. (1996). What works: The search for excellence in gang intervention programs. Journal of Gang Research, 3, 1-16.

Howell, J. C. (2000). Youth gang programs and strategies. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J. C. (2010). Lessons learned from gang program evaluations: Prevention, intervention, suppression, and comprehensive community approaches. In R. J. Chaskin (Ed.), Youth gangs and community interventions: Research, practice, and evidence (pp. 51-75). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinates of inmate violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117.

Huff, C. R. (1990). Denial, overreaction, and misidentification: A postscript on public policy. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 310-317). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Huff, C. R. (1996). Gangs in America (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.

Jackson, M. S., & Sharpe, E. G. (1997). Prison gang research: Preliminary findings in Eastern North Carolina. Journal of Gang Research, 5, 1-8.

Jones, D., Roper, V., Stys, Y., & Wilson, C. (2004). Street gangs: A review of theory, interventions, and implications for corrections. Research Report R-161. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Jucovy, L., & McClanahan, W. S. (2008). Reaching through the cracks. A guide to implementing the Youth Violence Reduction Partnership. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

54

Kassel, P. (2003). The crackdown in the prisons of Massachusetts: Arbitrary and harsh treatment can only make matters worse. In L. Kontos, D. Brotherton & L. Barrios (Eds.), Gangs and society: Alternative perspectives (pp. 229-252). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Kelly, K., & Caputo, T. (2005). The linkages between street gangs and organized crime: The Canadian experience. Journal of Gang Research, 13, 17-31.

Kennedy, D. M. (1999). Pulling levers: Getting deterrence right. National Institute of Justice Journal, 236, 2-8.

Kennedy, D. M. (2007). Going to scale: A national structure for building on proved approaches to preventing gang violence. A discussion document. New York, NY: Center for Crime Prevention and Control, John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Kenney, D. J., & Finckenauer, J. O. (1995). Organized crime in America. Toronto, ON: Wadsworth.

Kent, D. R., Donaldson, S. I., Wyrick, P. A., & Smith, P. J. (2000). Evaluating criminal justice programs designed to reduce crime by targeting repeat gang offenders. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 115-124.

Klein, M. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Klein, M. (1995). The value of comparisons in street gang research. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 135-152.

Klein, M., & Crawford, L. Y. (1967). Groups, gangs, and cohesiveness. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 4, 63-75.

Knox, G. W. (1999). A comparison of cults and gangs: Dimensions of coercive power and malevolent authority. Journal of Gang Research, 6, 1-39.

Knox, G. W. (2000). An introduction to gangs (2nd ed.). Berrien Springs, MI: Vande Vere.

Knox, G. W. (2005). The problem of gangs and security threat groups (STGs) in American prisons today: Recent research findings from the 2004 prison gang survey. Retrieved from http://www.ngcrc.com/corr2006html

55

Krienert, J. L., & Fleisher, M. S. (2001). Gang membership as a proxy for social deficiencies: A study of Nebraska inmates. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 47-58.

LaBoucane-Benson, P., Hossack, F., Erickson, K., & Grunland, M. (2009). Soccer moms are part of the solution: A cost-benefit analysis of community-based gang crime prevention. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.

Lafontaine, T., Acoose, S., & Schissel, B. (2009). Healing connections: Rising above the gang. Journal of Gang Research, 16, 27-47.

Lafontaine, T., Ferguson, M., & Wormith, J. S. (2005). Street gangs: A review of the empirical literature on community and corrections-based prevention, intervention and suppression strategies. Saskatoon, SK: University of First Nations, University of Saskatchewan.

Laidler, K. A. J., & Hunt, G. (1997). Violence and social organization in female gangs. Social Justice, 24, 148-169.

Lauderdale, M., & Burman, M. (2009). Contemporary patterns of female gangs in correctional settings. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 258-280.

Lemmer, T., & Johnston, R. (2004). Reducing crime through juvenile delinquency intervention. The Police Chief, May, 38-45.

Lurigio, A. L., Flexon, J. L., & Greenleaf, R. G. (2008). Antecedents to gang membership: Attachments, beliefs, and street encounters with the police. Journal of Gang Research, 15, 15-33.

Lurigio, A. J., Swartz, J. A., & Chang, J. (1998). A descriptive and comparative analysis of female gang members. Journal of Gang Research, 5, 23-33.

Mackenzie, A., & Johnson, S. (2003). A profile of women gang members in Canada. Research Report R-138. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Mackenzie, D. (2001). Corrections and sentencing in the 21st century: Evidence-based corrections and sentencing. The Prison Journal, 81, 299-312.

Mathews, F. (1992). Reframing gang violence: A pro-youth strategy. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Problems, 1, 24-28.

56

Mathews, F. (2005). Youth gangs. In J. A. Winterdyk (Ed.), Issues and perspectives on young offenders in Canada (3rd ed., pp. 203-223). Toronto, ON: Thomson Nelson.

Maxson, C. L., Hennigan, K. M., & Sloane, D. C. (2005). “It's getting crazy out there”: Can a civil gang injunction change a community? Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 577-605.

McClanahan, W. (2004). Alive at 25: Reducing youth violence through monitoring and support. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

McGloin, J. M. (2005). Policy and intervention considerations of a network analysis of street gangs. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 607-635.

McShane, M. D., Williams, F. P., & Dolny, H. M. (2003). The effect of gang membership on parole outcome. Journal of Gang Research, 10, 25-38.

Mellor, B., MacRae, L., Pauls, M., & Hornick, J. P. (2005). Youth gangs in Canada: A preliminary review of programs and services. Calgary, AB: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family.

Mercredi, O. (2000). Aboriginal gangs. A report to the Correctional Service of Canada on Aboriginal youth gang members in the federal corrections system. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Miller, J. (1998). Gender and victimization risk among young women in gangs. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 429-453.

Miller, W. B. (1975). Violence by youth gangs and youth groups as a crime problem in major American cities. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Miller, W. B. (1980). Gangs, groups, and serious youth crime. In D. Shichor & D. Kelly (Eds.), Critical issues in juvenile delinquency (pp. 115-138). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Nadel, B. A. (1997). Slashing gang violence, not victims: New York City Department of Corrections reduces violent jail incidents through computerized tracking data base. Corrections Compendium, 22, 20-22.

Nafekh, M. (2002). An examination of youth and gang affiliation within the federally sentenced Aboriginal population. Research Report R-121. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

57

Nafekh, M., & Stys, Y. (2004). A profile and examination of gang affiliation within the federally sentenced offender population. Research Report R-154. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

National Gang Crime Research Center (1997). Research note: A gang classification system for corrections - A special report of the NGCRC. Journal of Gang Research, 4, 47-57.

Ngo, H. V. (2010). Unravelling identities and belonging: Criminal gang involvement of youth from immigrant families. Calgary, AB: Centre for Newcomers.

Norris, T. (2001). Importance of gang-related information sharing. Corrections Today, 63, 96-99.

O’Donnell, I., & Edgar, K. (1998). Routine victimisation in prisons. The Howard Journal, 37, 266-279.

Parry, B. (1999). Prison gang management: California’s approach. The State of Corrections, 39-44.

Parry, B. (2006). Intelligence: The key to gang suppression. Corrections Today, 68, 42-45.

Peterson, R. D. (2000). Definitions of a gang and impacts on public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 139-149.

Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Fleisher, M. (2011). From the street to the prison, from the prison to the street: Understanding and responding to prison gangs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 12-24.

Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Webb, V. J. (in press). The ties that bind: Desistance from gangs. Crime & Delinquency. doi:10.1177/0011128710372191

Ralph, P. H., Hunter, R. J., Marquart, J. W., Cuvelier, S. J., & Menanos, D. (1996). Exploring the differences between gang and non-gang prisoners. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (2nd ed., pp. 123-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ralph, P. H., & Marguart, J. W. (1991). Gang violence in Texas prisons. The Prison Journal, 71, 38-49.

Rivera, B. D., Cowles, E. L., & Dorman, L. G. (2003). An exploratory study of institutional change: Personal control and environmental satisfaction in a gang-free prison. The Prison Journal, 83, 149-170.

58

Rollins, J. (2008). Fusion centers: Issues and options of congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Rosenbaum, J. L. (1996). A violent few: Gang girls in the California Youth Authority. Journal of Gang Research, 3, 17-23.

Ruddell, R., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A. (2006). Gang interventions in jails: A national analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 31, 33-46.

Schneider, S. (2009). Iced: The story of organized crime in Canada. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons Canada.

Schwartz, D. M., & Rouselle, D. A. (2009). Using social network analysis to target criminal networks. Trends in Organized Crime, 12, 188-207.

Scott, T.-L., & Ruddell, R. (2011). Canadian female gang inmates: Risk, needs, and the potential of prison rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 305-326.

Shelden, R. G., Tracy, S., & Brown, W. (2004). Youth gangs in American society. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Sheldon, R. G. (1991). A comparison of gang members and non-gang members in a prison setting. The Prison Journal, 71, 50-60.

Sheptycki, J. (2003). The governance of organised crime in Canada. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28, 498-516.

Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. Crime and Justice: A Review of the Research, 12, 1-48.

South, C. R., & Wood, J. L. (2006). Bullying in prisons: The importance of perceived social status, prisonization and moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 1-12.

Spergel, I. A. (1995). The youth gang problem: A community approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Spergel, I. A. (2007). Reducing youth gang violence: The Little Village Project in Chicago. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

59

Spergel, I. A., Curry, D., Chance, R., Kane, C., Ross, R., Alexander, A., Simmons, E., & Oh, S. (1994). Gang suppression and intervention: Problem and response. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Spergel, I. A., & Grossman, S. F. (1997). The Little Village Project: A community approach to the gang problem. Social Work, 42, 456-470.

Spergel, I. A., Grossman, S. F., & Wa, K. M. (1998). The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Program: A three year evaluation. Unpublished report. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

Stevens, D. J. (1997). Origins of prison gangs in North Carolina. Journal of Gang Research, 4, 23-35.

Stinchcomb, J. B. (2002). Promising (and not so promising) gang prevention and intervention strategies: A comprehensive literature review. Journal of Gang Research, 10, 27-45.

Stys, Y. (2010). Conditional release of federal offenders convicted of criminal organization offences. Research Report R-227. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Sutherland, E. (1939). Principles of criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.

Taylor, S. S. (2009). How street gangs recruit and socialize members. Journal of Gang Research, 17, 1-27.

Thomas, R., & Thomas, L. (2007, October). Juvenile gangs behind fences. Paper presented at the Correctional Security Network Conference, Cincinnati, OH.

Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., & Chard-Wiercheim, D. C. (1993). The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 300, 55-87.

Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1994). Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behaviour: A longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology, 32, 47-84.

60

Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tobin, K. (2007). Gangs: An individual and group perspective. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Toch, H. (2007). Sequestering gang members, burning witches, and subverting due process. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 274-288.

Toch, H., & Adams, K. (2002). Acting out: Maladaptive behavior in confinement. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Totten, M. (2008). Promising practices for addressing youth involvement in gangs. Vancouver, BC: Victim Services and Crime Prevention Division, British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Totten, M., & Dunn, S. (2011). Final evaluation report for the North Central Community Association Anti-Gang Services Project. Retrieved from: http://tottenandassociates.ca/dn/Resources/tabid/57/Default.aspx

Tremblay, S. (2000). Crime statistics in Canada, 1999. Juristat, 20, Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

Trulson, C. R., Marquart, J. W., & Kawucha, S. K. (2006). Gang suppression & institutional control. Corrections Today, 68, 26-31.

Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L., Boothroyd, R., Kwong, W. M., Lee, T. Y., Leblanc, J., Duque, L., & Maknach, A. (2008). The study of youth resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot study of measurement development. Research in Human Development, 5, 166−180.

Varriale, J. A. (2006). Female gang members and desistance: Motherhood as a possible exit strategy? A quantitative analysis of Fleisher and Krienert (2004). (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park.

Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in Sothern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Warr, M. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 34, 11-37.

61

Wells, J. B., Minor, K. I., Angel, E., Carter, L., & Cox, M. (2002). A study of gangs and security threat groups in America’s adult prisons and jails. Indianapolis, IN: National Major Gang Task Force.

Westmacott, R., Stys, Y., & Brown, S. L. (2005). Selected annotated bibliography: Evaluation of gang intervention programs. Research Brief B-36. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Wilkinson, R. A., & Delgado, A. (2006). Prison Gang and Drug Investigations: An Ohio approach. Corrections Today, 68, 36-40.

Williams, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (1999). Criminological theory (3rd ed.). Toronto, ON: Prentice-Hall.

Winterdyk, J., Fillipuzzi, N., Mescier, J., Hencks, C., & Ruddell, R. (2009). Prison gangs: A review and survey of strategies. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Winterdyk, J., & Ruddell, R. (2010). Managing prison gangs: Results from a survey of U.S. prison systems. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 730-736.

Wood, J. (2006). Gang activity in English prisons: The prisoners’ perspective. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 605-617.

Wood, J., & Adler, J. (2001). Gang activity in English prisons: The staff perspective. Psychology, Crime & Law, 7, 167-192.

Wood, J., & Alleyne, E. (2010). Street gang theory and research: Where are we now and where do we go from here? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 100-111.

Wood, J., Moir, A., & James, M. (2009). Prisoners’ gang-related activity: The importance of bullying and moral disengagement. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 569-581.

Wortley, S., & Tanner, J. (2004). Social groups or criminal organizations? The extent and nature of youth gang activity in Toronto. In B. Kidd & J. Philips (Eds.), From enforcement and prevention to civic engagement: Research on community safety (pp. 59-80). Toronto, ON: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto.

Yablonsky, L. (1959). The delinquent gang as a near-group. Social Problems, 7, 108-17.

62