If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ~ . "',1,.;. 'i' j. ,'.1:\" ,',' J" ,'1" 1 i ' " .' 1 .," ':, , . , , ,,>' '. ,j , , "\ ~ , , , ; , 'I" i'~CJRS, ~, APR 25 \990 \"2..:'\4-'+ A Proposal for Considering Intoxication at ~ Sentencing Hearings: Part II ....... .. ~ ..~ C Q tH s·r:r·1 0 N Gharles J. Felker l2?\L\-r; Not Ordinarily Relevant? Considering the Defendants' Children at Sentencing ........... .. ;'''. .. Eleanor L. Bush \'2:' \ 4\0 When Probation Becomes More Dreaded Than Prison ••.••..••• Joan Peters ilia \'2.3\'\'1 A Practical Application of Electronic Monitoring at the Pretrial Stage ... • . .. Keith W. Cooprider Judith Kerby The Organizational Structure of Prison Gangs: A Texas \-:2.'3 \ '4-Cd .-I M::l ::~. ~~~~t·~· ~~ ·;e~:~~ ;.;.~:. ~y~:e~ .. ;~ ~; ~. Robert S. Fong ...' An Outcome Study •••.•••••.••.••••••.••••••••..•••.• M. A. Conroy 1-:2..3 l SD \1\~Group Counseling and the High Risk Offender ............ James M. Robertson ,I .1\ Beyond Reintegration: Community Corrections in a I z...3 \'5 J ..~Th::::::eJ~n~~";~S~i~ ~~~~. ~. ~~~~: ~. .j ~ ~; ~.~ • •• ~eter J. Beneko. ,r- Journey Back mTIme ..... ·.. ·..... ·.. ·.. ·..... Kathenne van Wormer 1- ,~ ,.".. MARCH 1990 '. ,~ ! --- --------------------------IIIiii.... iliiilliiiliiiiliiiiiilllliiiii.. "iii- -.'iii'--.--".·".·'.'.-- iII-...._ ..._lIIIIiiIiiilii .... · m:d...rl 123144- U.S. Department of Justice 123153 National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ~d material has been granted by Federal Probation to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the ~ owner. = ;~ . \':2..3 \ '+D The O.rganizational Structure of Prison Gangs: A Texas Case Study By ROBERT S. FaNG, Ph.D. * Introduction the historic prison lawsuit of Ruiz v. Estelle (1980), which involved the testimonies of 349 N RECENT years, American courts have witnesses and consumed 161 trial days. On June played an important role in the evolution of 1, 1982, Judge Justice issued the Stipulated Mod­ I prisoners' rights. Through court litigation, ification of Sections lID and lIA of Amended De­ prisoners have successfully defended their claims cree ordering the immediate elimination of the to many constitutional rights. While court-man­ building tender system. The issuance of this court dated changes have improved the treatment of order created two new crises for Texas prison inmates, it is argued that court intrusion has administrators: (1) a severe shortage of security undermined the legitimate authority of correction­ staff as evidenced by a pre-Ruiz staff-inmate ratio al personnel in maintaining order and discipline of 1:10 (Beaird, 1986) and (2) an inability to among inmates (Jacobs, 1977). It is further ar­ monitor inmate illegal activities due to the lack gued that the weakening of control over inmates of inmate informants. In the meantime, they were has created an era where inmate gangs have forced to implement and comply with many court formed for the purpose of sharing and eventually orders with specific guidelines affecting various dominating, through violent means, the power aspects of the daily operations of the prison sys­ base once occupied by correctional personnel (Ja­ tem. k; a result, a state of chaos emerged where cobs, 1977). prison administrators nearly lost control over For decades, the Texas Department of Correc­ their prisons (Beaird, 1986). It was during this tions, the second largest prison system in the period that inmates began actively to organize United States, was virtually free from inmate themselves to fill this power vacuum. Texas De­ gang disruption. This condition might be attribut­ partment of Corrections statistics showed that in able to the institution of the officially approved March 1983, there was only one prison gang, the "building tender" system. Building tenders, often TABLE 1. BREAKDOWN OF PRISON GANGS IN TEXAS referred to as inmate guards, were inmates care­ (SEPl'EMBER 1985) fully selected by prison officials to assist in the performance of staff work. With proper supervi­ Name of Size of Year sion, not only did the building tenders effectively Gang Racial Composition Membership Formed maintain order among the inmates (frequently through the use of force), but, more importantly, Texas Predominantly they served as an intelligence network for prison Syndicate Hispanic 296 1975 officials. In fact, up until 1983, the only known Texas Mafia Predominantly inmate group in the Texas prison system was the White 110 1982 Texas Syndicate, a self-protection gang formed by Aryan Brother· a group of prisoners who had been members of hood of Texas All White 287 1983 the Texas Syndicate in the prisons in California. Mexican Mafia All Hispanic 351 1984 Outnumbered and closely monitored by the build­ ing tenders, the Texas Syndicate caused no major Nuestro Carnel· disruption. es All Hispanic 47 1984 Despite its usefulness, the building tender sys­ Mandingo War· tem, along with several other aspects of prison riors All Black 66 1985 operations, was declared unconstitutional by Chief Self·Defense Federal District Judge William Wayne Justice in Family Predominantly Black 107 1985 "'Dr. Fong is assistant professor, Department of Crim· Hermanos De inal Justice, University of North Carolina. He previous. Pistolero All Hispanic 21 1985 ly served 4 years (1984·89) as a special monitor for the Others 115 1985 Texas Department of Corrections in the Federal civil action case of Ruiz v. Estelle, presently known as Ruiz v. Lynaugh. Source: Data verbally provided by a member of the Gang Task Force of the Texas Department of Corrections. 36 THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRISON GANGS 37 Texas Syndicate, with 56 members. Two and a to propose "peace treaties," the war has continued half years later, eight inmate gangs along with to escalate. several other sman groups formed, and the re­ The purpose of this study is to compare and ported membership increased to 1,400. contrast the Texas Syndicate and the Mexican As these prison gangs competed for power and Mafia, the two largest prison gangs in America, dominance, the number of serious violent inci­ from an organizational perspective. Emphasis will dents also sharply increased. In 1982, the year be placed upon such characteristics as: (1) organi­ the process of eliminating the building tender zational structure; (2) leadership style; (3) meth­ system began, members of the Texas Syndicate ods of recruitment; (4) gang activities and goals; were reported to be responsible for 5 (41 percent) (5) operational strategies; and (6) gang activities of the 12 inmate homicides. In 1984, 20 (80 per­ outside the prison setting. One reason for study­ cent) of the 25 inmate homicides were found to ing the organizational characteristics of these two be gang-related. Of the 20 gang-related inmate inmate gangs is that there is currently very limit­ homicides, 6 (30 percent) were committed against ed information concerning prison gangs. Perhaps members of the Mexican Mafia by members of a more important reason is that without basic the Texas Syndicate. During the same year, 404 knowledge of these characteristics, the application non-fatal inmate stabbings, an aU-time high in of scientific research methods to seek further the history of the prison system, were reported. understanding of prison gangs will be, if not In the first three quarters of 1985, 27 inmate impossible, difficult and impractical. homicides were recorded, of which 23 (85 percent) were gang-related. Of the 23 gang-related homi­ Literature Review cides, 13 (48 percent) were committed against The formation of prison gangs began in 1950 members of the Mexican Mafia by members of when a group of prisoners at the Washington the Texas Syndicate, while 1 (3 percent) was com­ Penitentiary in Walla Walla organized themselves mitted against members of the Texas Syndicate to become known as the Gypsy Jokers (Camp and by members of the Mexican Mafia (Buentello, Camp, 1985). Thereafter, prison gangs continued 1986). to emerge in various jurisdictions. In August 1985, the Texas Syndicate declared The latest statistics show that prison gangs are war on the Mexican Mafia, the largest inmate present in the Federal prison system and 32 state gang in the Texas prison system, by fatally as­ jurisdictions. Of the 33' jurisdictions experiencing saulting four Mexican Mafia members. In Septem­ the presence of prison gangs, 29 are able to iden­ ber 1985, after considering all available strate­ tify individual gangs by name. In those 29 juris­ gies, the director of the Texas Department of dictions, prison officials have identified 114 gangs Corrections ordered the emergency detention of an with an estimated total membership of 12,634. confirmed and suspected gang members. These Overall, gang members make up about 3 percent inmates were subsequently assigned to security of the total Federal and state prison population detention group A (assaultive) or security deten­ (Camp and Camp, 1985). tion group B (non-assaultive) on a permanent With the emergence of prison gangs, two seri­ basis, subject to review for release every 90 days. ous conditions have developed in prisons. The The continuing process