Assignment: Proposal for Effective Interventions Against Criminal Organizations

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENTS

Assignment: Proposal for Effective Interventions Against Criminal Organizations

Over the past 2 weeks, you have examined several different criminal justice interventions for combating criminal organizations. As you did so, you may have had some initial thoughts about whether those interventions are or would be effective for combating criminal organizations in your own community. Periodically reviewing the effectiveness of existing criminal justice interventions is important because criminal organizations are constantly evolving and what once worked well may no longer be effective. New or different interventions may be needed to keep up with the threat of those organizations.

For this Assignment, imagine that you are tasked with developing a proposal to improve criminal justice interventions against criminal organizations in your community. Think about existing interventions you would continue to use and the ones you would replace.

HELLO PLEASE READ EVERYTHING FROM TOP TO BOTTOM ON THIS PAGE I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME INFORMATION THAT NEED SPEACIAL ATTENTION. I HAVE ADDED SOME READING MATERIAL TO THIS ASSIGNMENT TO HELP YOU PUT THE PAPER TOGETHER. MAKE SURE YOU PROOFREAD YOUR WORK FOR ANY MISSTAKES AND REFERENCE YOUR WORK AND MAKE SURE IT’S FREE OF ALL PLAGARIZM. ALSO THIS PAPER GRADE IS WORTH 225 POINTS AND I NEED THEM TO PASS THIS COURSE PLEASE DO YOUR ABSOLUTE BEST WORK ON THIS SO I CAN PASS THE COURSE AND IF YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT THANKS

Submit a 950-word proposal that includes the following components:

Part I: Current Interventions (350 WORDS)

Briefly summarize existing law enforcement, judicial, and correctional interventions used to combat criminal organizations in your community.

Explain which interventions should be retained and which interventions should be eliminated or changed and why.

Part II: Proposed Interventions (350 WORDS)

Propose at least one new intervention that should be implemented for each of the criminal justice subsystems (law enforcement, courts, and corrections).

Explain why each would be more effective than current interventions alone.

Part III: Obstacles (250 WORDS)

Describe the obstacles you may encounter while attempting to implement these recommendations.

Explain how you could overcome the obstacles. Be specific.

Be sure to reference the course readings to support your responses.

Praxis and the disruption of organized crime groups

Stuart Kirby1 & Nicki Snow

2

Published online: 8 March 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Although reports state the frequency of general crime has fallen across the
developed world, no such trend is evident within organised crime. This has caused law
enforcement agencies to search for more innovative approaches to tackle this global
problem. Emerging prominently within this period has been a ‘disruption’ approach,
albeit little systematic research currently supports its use. This study explores the way
one English Police Force has tackled 15 Organised Crime Groups (99 individuals),
using this type of approach. The study specifically examines the characteristics of the
offender, the tactics used, and the re-offending levels following the police activity. It
concludes by highlighting: the methodological challenges associated with the measure-
ment of organised crime disruption; the ethical questions surrounding this type of
intervention; and the overall effectiveness of the approach.

Keywords Organised crime groups . Disruption . Policing organised crime . Organised
crime group reoffending

Introduction

Although commentators observe general crime levels have fallen across the
developed world since the 1990s (Farrell et al. 2008), no such trend is evident
in organised crime (Lambsdorff 2005). Organised crime is becoming an increas-
ingly important priority to governments, who highlight its ability to impact upon

Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–12

4

DOI 10.1007/s12117-016-9269-0

* Stuart Kirby
skirby1@uclan.ac.uk

Nicki Snow
n.snow@lancaster.ac.uk

1 School of Forensic and Applied Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston,
Lancashire PR1 2HE, UK

2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Lancashire LA

1

4YT, UK

all levels of society, creating instability at a national level and violent territorial
disputes at street level (Home Office 2011).

As Organised Crime is a hidden, ambiguous and diverse phenomenon, this creates
an immediate methodological challenge as to how it is identified and measured (Levi
and Maguire 2004). An extensive body of literature illustrates the difficulties academics
have faced when addressing this issue. The UK government describe it as, ‘…serious
crime, planned, coordinated and conducted by people working together on a continuing
basis, their motivation is often, but not always, financial gain’ (Home Office 2013:14),
however this is but one of approximately 180 other definitions on the subject (von
Lampe 2015). Not withstanding the lack of agreement surrounding the definition, it is
clear organised crime exists as a diverse phenomenon. Francis et al. (2013) have shown
this category can involve many different types of offences, with perpetrators ranging
from late onset offenders (who receive their first criminal sanction in middle age), to
early and persistent offenders, who evolve to more serious co-offending.

Whilst this definitional debate continues, for governments (as well as international,
national and local policing agencies), the visible ramifications of organised crime
require a tangible and urgent response. Strategy and tactics have generally revolved
around three themes: enforcement (prosecution), prevention and disruption. These are
implemented at various geographic and operational levels and are all associated with
strengths and weaknesses. For example enforcement focuses on the prosecution and
incarceration of specific organized criminals, and although it brings clear benefits in
terms of justice, the process of transnational investigation can be extremely costly
(Kirby and Penna 2010). Further, a simple mathematical calculation questions its
efficacy in terms of eradication. In the UK, an estimated 6000 Organised Crime
Groups (OCGs) exist, comprising 38,000 active offenders (Home Office 2011). If
85 % are recidivists (Sproat 2012) and less than 6 % are targeted at any one time
(HMIC 2006:5), then prosecution appears a slow and cumbersome method to tackle the
threat. Coupled with this there are many examples of individuals who continue to
facilitate their crimes when in prison, whilst others merely view incarceration as
presenting a business opportunity for others to exploit. Unsurprisingly more flexible
approaches have emerged. Situational Crime Prevention approaches, defined by Kirby
& Penna (2010:205) as ‘those interventions that successfully stop or dismantle a single
organized crime event, specifically those that change a process of environment in a
sustainable manner’, look to block the opportunity for a particular crime event to occur.
However, this type of approach remains elusive and evades common practice (Bullock
et al. 2013). This is because preventative approaches require careful analysis and
partnership activity, which are culturally unpopular with Police agencies, who histor-
ically prefer more action oriented approaches (McLean and Hillier 2011). Finally there
is disruption, which has become increasingly common in law enforcement parlance,
although has generated little academic examination.

The overall aim of the study is to increase academic knowledge in relation to the
disruption of organised crime, and it does so in three ways. First it examines the
literature to understand the theoretical underpinnings of the approach, as well as
exploring any existing evidence that relates to its efficacy. Second, the paper will
introduce empirical data, generated by a Police Force in the North of England, who
engaged in a disruption approach against 15 organised crime groups (OCGs).
Specifically the paper will provide insight as to the type of offender tackled and the

112 Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124

type of intervention used. Finally, the study will examine the effectiveness of the
disruption approach by exploring reoffending patterns following the interventions.

Literature review: the theory and practice of disruption

The theoretical underpinning of a disruption approach

Perhaps the most widely cited example of disruption was the incarceration of Al
Capone, a violent American gangster, eventually imprisoned in 1931 for the tangential
offence of tax evasion. Tilley (2009), points out the term ‘disruption’ was highlighted in
the title of a 2001 annual report by the Organised Crime Agency of British Columbia,
although it emerged more commonly in the latter part of the decade, as traditional
responses were increasingly challenged (Ratcliffe 2008:13). However as Ratcliffe
continues, although disruption, ‘is part of the lexicon of intelligence led policing in
many police organizations (it is)….ambiguous and not clearly defined by most agen-
cies’. This viewpoint is supported by Tilley (2009:5), who argues whilst many refer-
ences to disruption appear in the organized crime/terrorism literature, there has been
little attempt to ‘articulate the logic of disruption or to codify its methods’.

Disruption in the context of organised crime has previously been defined by Kirby &
Penna (2010:205) as a, ‘flexible, transitory, and dynamic tactic, which can be used
more generally to make the environment hostile for the organised crime group….this
approach focuses on disrupting the offender’s networks, lifestyles and routines’. Indeed
from this initial exploration, a conceptual distinction can be observed between the three
approaches mentioned earlier. Crime Prevention focuses on the crime event, whereas
disruption (and enforcement) concentrates on the offender. Further, as Tilley (2009:3)
observes, disruption focuses on threat reduction, whilst enforcement aims to facilitate
justice, and prevention aims to reduce the frequency of crime. Finally disruption
concentrates on the present whilst enforcement concentrates on the past and prevention
focuses on the future.

There is a clear theoretical base to support the potential efficacy of a disruption
approach in relation to general crime. Positivist criminologists argue crime is not spread
randomly, but concentrates around particular places and people. Many argue this
predictability is generated by the opportunities that emanate from the rhythms of
everyday life (Felson 2002). Indeed, for a crime to occur, a motivated offender must
come together, in the same time and place, as a suitable target, in the absence of a
capable guardian (Clarke and Felson 2008). As all three conditions are necessary for
the crime to occur the control of any one can reduce the likelihood of criminal activity
(Clarke and Felson 2008). One of the most cited theories in this regard is Rational
Choice Theory, which suggests offenders are rational actors who balance the cost of
committing the crime with its potential rewards. Therefore by: increasing the effort
needed to commit the crime; increasing the risk of detection; reducing the rewards
obtained; removing the provocation; or the excuses associated with its commission – the
offender can be disrupted (Cornish and Clarke 1986; Kirby and Nailer 2013).

Across the world law enforcement agencies have used these theories to devise a
variety of strategies, such as ‘Intelligence-led’, ‘Hot Spot’ and ‘Predictive’ policing.
These have met with various levels of success (Braga 2007), and whilst concerns

Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124 113

surface that blocking crime would merely displace it to another area, or in another form,
this anxiety has never been fully warranted (Guerette and Bowers 2009). However the
question, for this study, is whether these approaches would have a similar impact if
transferred to something as complex as organised crime. To date, this finding has not
been replicated in this approach at a systematic level. This is of particular concern as
there is an increasing strategic turn to this form of policing, both at government and law
enforcement policy level. It is to this operational practice the paper now turns.

Applying the theory: the praxis of disruption

The bridge between academic theory and successful practice is often a fragile pathway.
The term ‘praxis’ highlights the process by which theory is enacted or realized (Seng
1998), and this section will unpack this process and explore recent studies relating to
the effectiveness of disruption in organised crime.

The limited studies that currently exist, serve to question the effectiveness of a
disruption approach in relation to organised crime. Leong (2007) supports the impor-
tance of disruption strategies, however she questions their effectiveness, pointing out
they often rely on a partnership approach, which is historically difficult to implement.
Secondly, Duijin et al. (2014) question whether disruption can work in practice. They
used value chain simulations on 19 Dutch cases of cannabis cultivation, to examine the
dynamics of criminal networks. They conclude that as cannabis cultivation is built on
flexible and adaptive networks, the disruption approach (that extracts specific perpe-
trators at specific times from the crime process) barely affects the resilience of the
network. Indeed, they argue efficiency increases over time as new actors bring:
improved processes, efficient new shortcuts, and opportunities for expansion. Finally
Sproat (2012:332) argues that even if the disruption tools are present this does not
guarantee their use. In recent years UK, government policy has increasingly developed
legislative tools, in the form of orders were specifically designed to prevent or deter re-
offending. These include: travel restriction orders (TROs); financial reporting orders
(FROs) and Serious Crime Prevention Orders (SCPOs). Sproat calculated, between
2006 and 11, the Serious & Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) used these ancillary
orders on no more than 15 % of offenders associated with their investigations. A wider
examination also found limited use of other relevant powers. For example during the
five-year assessment period SOCA were associated with 28 exclusions, 13 citizen
revocations and 331 alerts (an average of 66 each year).

However these findings should not be surprising as reduction approaches, even
when addressing low-level crime, are often problematic and associated with the
phenomenon of implementation failure (Rosenbaum 1986). Laycock (2012) argues
their effectiveness relies on a carefully considered approach. First an effective mech-
anism (the rationale to support the proposed intervention) must be devised, which is
appropriate to the specific context (Laycock 2005). So, for example, arresting an
individual for domestic violence, (which relies on the mechanism of deterrence,
generated through social stigma), is seen to deter the future offending of employed
professional workers, but has less impact in deterring chaotic unemployed offenders
(Sherman 1997). However, when considering the disruption of organised crime, there
appear further layers of complexity. As previously intimated organised crime is an
umbrella term for a multitude of separate offences, which involve a wide diversity of

114 Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124

offenders, who have different levels of seniority and capability. For example, a
‘principal’ or core offender, coordinating logistics at a transnational level may be less
visible and more protected than an enforcer who collects outstanding drug debts, or
guards a ‘safe house’ to house trafficked women. Therefore, if the approach is to prove
successful, the intervention must be tailored according to the offence type, profile of
offender, and the crime process context.

In summary it appears the academic literature has generated little information on the
use of disruption as an approach to tackle organised crime. Although there is some
theoretical support for the approach, there is little evidence that it works in practice
(other than at an anecdotal level). Specifically this literature review suggests the praxis
of disruption is complex due to: the type of organized crime, the sophistication of the
offender, the type of intervention (mechanism), and whether and how it is implemented.
As such an increased level of systematic analysis is required to illuminate understand-
ing. The aim of this study is to add to this small body of existing knowledge by
examining the experiences of a Police Force in the North of England that used a
disruption strategy against Organized Crime Groups (OCGs).

Methodology

Data collection

The Police Force from which the data was obtained is situated in the North of England.
Home Office analysis has previously indicated the approximate distribution of OCGs
using a scale of low (1) to high (5) (Home Office 2013:23). The majority of UK police
forces outside London, have a low or moderate distribution of OCGs, and this area was
graded as 2, which was similar to the majority of Police Forces across the country. Prior
to the data gathering process the researchers were subjected to a national vetting
process and benefitted from numerous meetings with analysts and practitioners, at both
strategic and tactical level, to develop a greater understanding of the disruption process.

It was highlighted from the outset that the lack of a common definition in organised
crime creates difficulty in generating consistency and accuracy in the identification of
offenders. To promote consistency within the UK, two approaches are used. First, as
highlighted earlier, there is a national definition, albeit this allows for subjective
interpretation. Second, across Britain a standardized process is in place to identify
OCGs. The mapping project scores OCGs on six categories, evidencing the level of: (i)
injury caused, (ii) community impact, (iii) reputational/political impact (public attitudes
of police impartiality and effectiveness), (iv) level of cross border offending; (v)
economic impact; and (vi) criminal capacity/capability (Tusikov 2012: 107). This
process generates a ‘threat score’ that describes the perceived menace from each
OCG (Gilmour 2008).

At the time of this study, once the Police had decided the OCG was no longer a
threat, they were removed from the Force and national database, and archived. The
authors were provided with material relating to the 15 most recent archived OCGs, who
the Police had categorized as ‘successfully disrupted’. This was a subjective Police
decision, supported by the ‘threat matrix’ score. Each of the OCGs had a police
intelligence report, describing the analysis of the suspects as well as the police tactics

Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124 115

used. This was supplemented by data on the individuals accessed through the Police
National Computer (PNC) (Home Office 2014). PNC data includes; personal descrip-
tions, criminal convictions and sanction history, and is often used as a reliable instru-
ment to establish offending patterns (Francis et al. 2013). This allowed criminal
sanctions to be analysed before and after the police intervention. This material was
provided to the authors, who within the confines of police premises were able to engage
in content analysis across the available data sources. The identity of all of the offenders
was anonymised and the data was analysed using SPSS, a statistical software pro-
gramme, widely used for managing and analysing social scientific data.

As such the study primarily uses a quantitative approach, using secondary data.
Quantitative approaches focus on using statistical methods to analyse numerical data
for the purpose of measuring and interpreting the variables in question. This method is
often associated with greater accuracy, validity and reliability of data, allowing for
comparison and replicability (Sarantakos 2004). Secondary data involves the re-
analysis of data already collected, for the purpose of answering new questions
(Glass 1976). Using secondary data has obvious advantages, and in this example
allowed accessibility to data not normally available due to a combination of confiden-
tiality, high financial cost, and time constraints (Wincup 2009).

Results

The results will be presented in three sections; a) the organised crime group sample; b)
the process of disruption and c) the offending behavior before and after the police
perceived the group to be successfully disrupted.

The OCG sample: characteristics of the organized crime groups

The first tier of analysis was at OCG level. There were 15 OCGs, each ranging in size
between three and fifteen members. Table 1 (below) shows the primary areas of
criminality the OCGs were involved with. 11 (73 %) exhibited engagement in more
than one area of criminality, and (67 %) involved in the supply and/or distribution of
drugs. The Police, following national protocol, had divided the 99 organised crime
offenders into three categories: principal (n = 20), significant (n = 42) and peripheral
(n = 37) members. Principal members are those who direct the group, and the data
showed only four of the groups had more than one individual undertaking this role.
Significant members (ranging between 0 and 7 members per group) are those who
perform a critical role in the organised crime enterprise and are closely linked to the
principal members. Finally the peripheral members, as the label intimates, are supple-
mentary and impermanent members, not involved in planning. In this sample the
majority of peripheral offenders (59.6 %) were recorded as acquaintances, with
(30 %) being blood relatives (predominantly brothers).

The next stage analyzed only the principal and significant members of each OCG.
This decision was made for two reasons. First the data mining required additional police
assistance, which would ultimately detract officers from core policing duties. Further, as
the peripheral members are neither permanent nor significant elements of the OCG, it
was felt the information would disproportionately distort the overall findings.

116 Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124

Of the 62 suspects that remained, 87 % were male and 13 % female, all of whom
were categorized as white British ethnicity. Suspect ages ranged between 17 and
64 years, with an average age of 37 years. Only one suspect was below 18 years
(1.6 %); 19 subjects were in the 20–30 and 31–40 year category (30 % respectively); 16
offenders (25.8 %) were between 41 and 50 years, with seven (11 %) being older.
Although a high proportion were unemployed (26 or 41.9 %), a variety of occupations
were disclosed, including ten business owner/directors (16.1 %), two self employed
(3.2 %), and eight (13 %) involved in driver related businesses.

57 (92 %) of the sample had a previous criminal sanction. the start of their recorded
criminal careers show a clear pattern, with the majority (44 or 71 %) below 20 years of
age on first conviction, and far fewer receiving this first conviction after 30 years of age
(8 %). nearly 13 % of the offenders were convicted for multiple offences during their
first sentencing hearing and there is also a clear pattern in the type of crime committed,
with over 30 % of first sanctions relating to dishonesty (including burglary, shoplifting
and theft from both motor vehicles and persons). Of the five offenders (8.1 %), without
prior sanctions, two had previously been prosecuted without success

The disruption process: management and interventions

The Police Force involved within this study was observed to use a Gold-Silver-Bronze
(GSB) management structure, which is a well-tested approach to deliver successful
project implementation in operational environments (Salmon et al. 2011). The process
uses a hierarchical chain of command, overseen in this case by a Chief Officer of
Police, who acts as Gold Commander. The Chief Officer sets the strategy, maintains an
overview, and negotiates multi-agency support at an executive level. At the next level
the Silver Commander outlines the tactics that should be used against each individual
OCG. It is then the role of the Bronze Commanders to implement these tactics. This

Table 1 Primary Areas of Criminality

Primary Areas of Criminality Number of OCG groups
involved in area of criminality

Percent

Drugs 10 66.7

Money Laundering 3 20

Illegal waste disposal 2 13.3

Vehicle Theft 2 13.3

Feud/damage to property of another OCG 2 13.3

Illegal Money Lending 2 13.3

Handling of Stolen Goods/Equipment 2 13.3

Vehicle related offences 2 13.3

Theft and selling vehicles/equipment 2 13.3

Fraud 1 6.7

Abstracting electricity 1 6.7

Metal Theft 1 6.7

Burglary 1 6.7

Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124 117

means that the Police Force concerned tailored a specific approach to each individual
OCG. Further the GSB system provides accountability, allowing problems to be
quickly diagnosed and rectified.

Full details relating to disruption interventions were only available for 14 of the
OCGs, and content analysis across this data found overall 161 interventions, ranging
from 1 to 29 interventions for each OCG (mean 11.5). Table 2, shows the variety of
interventions utilized, although not every group received the same type or level of
interventions. The authors have arbitrarily divided the interventions into five categories
to assist their analysis. The first can be viewed as policing behaviours, which relates to
activity designed to make the subject aware they are being targeted. This may relate to
warnings about their behavior or requests for information. The second category relates
to specific investigation activity, the most frequently observed action in this section
being the use of search warrants. The third section relates to the use of the Criminal
Justice System, specifically prosecuting the suspects for a wide range of low-level
tangential offences (most commonly motoring offences). The fourth section relates to
the control of assets, be that through the Criminal Justice System (asset recovery) or the
use of civil powers (repossession of business or residential property). The final section
relates to activity that explicitly controls or modifies the behavior of the suspect. In one
case a harassment notice was served to prevent further contact with a particular
individual, although this particular category would also include the ancillary orders
mentioned earlier.

In relation to the intervention itself, this was often a multi-agency affair. For example
one of the OCGs received attention from the police and nine other partner agencies
(including: Environment Agency, Local Authority Building Control (LABC), Vehicle
and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA)). Overall the most popular type of intervention was to arrest for lower
level offences (36.6 %) with some of the individuals facing multiple arrests for
numerous offences.

Offending behavior before and after the OCG archive

Each of the 15 OCGs in the sample had been archived by the Police, as they were no
longer perceived as generating a current threat. The most common documented reason
for this decision related to a lack of evidence, suggesting that no offending was
occurring (53.3 %). Three OCGs (20 %) were said to exhibit diminished offending
or were no longer acting as a co-ordinated group, and for two groups (13.3 %) the
principal members had been imprisoned. The period of police activity, between being
highlighted as a significant threat to being archived, varied between three months and
five years (mean 27.8 months).

The study allowed a limited time to observe offending patterns after the intervention
period. There was an average of 15.5 months between the group being archived and the
subsequent sanction check being made. Table 3 shows suspects from the 15 OCGs had
accumulated 861 criminal sanctions prior to the Police operation and 70 in the short
period afterwards.

The analysis found the majority of individuals (66 %) did not commit any crime (or
at least were not caught committing any crimes) since their OCG was archived. 73 % of
the 15 OCG groups had at least one offender who had since registered a conviction, and

118 Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124

many of these had multiple convictions recorded against them, covering a wide range
of offence types. Prior to archive theft was the offence most commonly seen, whilst
following the archive process drug offences were the most frequent.

Discussion

The increased emergence of organised crime as a global threat, combined with the
limitations of an enforcement-based response, has encouraged governments and law
enforcement practitioners to identify innovative and (hopefully) more effective re-
sponses. The concept of disruption, whilst not new, has emerged with improved vigour

Table 2 Showing type and frequency of disruption activity

Category Intervention Frequency

Increase awareness
to suspect

Cocoon letters asking to be vigilant to
crime and provide information.

2

Monitor adherence of good behavior in
relation to current sentences

12 (7 Community order; 3 suspended
sentence; 1 restraining order;
1 referral order)

Criminality notice asking to desist from
criminal activity

4

Warning in relation to other behavior 1

Document inspection 3

Investigation Search warrant 12 (6 goods seized, 6 NFA)

Firearm warrant 1

Fraud check 1

Telephone analysis 1

Stop search 1

Vehicle search 2

Some level of surveillance/monitoring 7 (5 Police, 2 external agency)

Criminal Justice
System prosecutions

Arrested 59 (7 led to imprisonment;
10 led to NFA).

Charged criminal offences 10

Caution 1

Prosecution leading to driving
disqualification

1

Fixed penalty notice/fine 2

Summonsed for minor offence 2

Issue vehicle defect (VDRS) form 2

Assets House repossession 1

Asset Investigation Recovery 8 led to asset recovery;
3 NFA;

Weapons revoked 2

Control movement
or behaviour

Prevent travel another country 1

Harassment order 1

Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124 119

and become common practice. However, whilst the approach has been reported widely
in volume crime studies, its suitability is less known in organised crime and there
appears little challenge to the increasing level of policy and operational interventions
using this approach. This section wishes to comment upon three areas: the methodo-
logical ambiguity surrounding the measurement of organised crime and disruption; the
ethical and moral concerns of a disruption approach; and the effectiveness of
implementation.

First, in any study of this nature, there is a legitimate question relating to the
representativeness of the OCGs in the sample. Without reiterating the arguments
articulated in more detail elsewhere, organised crime is a difficult phenomenon to pin
down, resistant to definition and measurement. It is always of concern as to whether
specific offenders fit within the label of organised crime. At one level the British OCG
mapping process provides some quality assurance, and whilst some subjectivity always
exists in the process, a standardized approach is in place for each police force across
England and Wales, with the information forwarded and quality assured through a
central database. The 15 OCGs in this sample does appear representative, both in
terms of criminal activity and offender characteristics when compared with a wider
UK study by Francis et al. (2013). They are predominantly male and exhibit a
similar age profile, and age of first offending. The only major difference concerns
the higher level of ‘White British’ offenders which emerges as a result of the local
demographics (ONS 2013). A further interesting finding surrounds the disclosure
that 40.4 % of OCGs in this sample are related or in a relationship with other OCG
members (40.4 %). Obviously these groups are partaking in secretive, high-risk
activities, which require a high degree of trust between members (Kirby 2013).

Table 3 Criminal conviction data before and after archiving

OCG Total sanctions prior
archiving

Time between
mapping/archiving

Time between archiving
and sanction check

Total sanctions
since archive

1 47 16 months 0 months 0

2 124 7 months 2 months 0

3 213 3 months 24 months 14

4 66 9 months 12 months 9

5 54 49 months (>4 years) 16 months 0

6 34 9 months 18 months 7

7 33 67 months (>5 years) 5 months 2

8 50 51 months (>4 years) 14 months 5

9 31 39 months (>3 years) 16 months 4

10 20 6 months 21 months 16

11 56 45 months (>3 years) 20 months 2

12 78 25 months (>2 years) 19 months 9

13 4 36 months (3 years) 19 months 1

14 14 Unknown Unknown 1

15 37 Unknown Unknown 0

N = 861 Mean 27.8 months Mean 15.5 months N = 70

120 Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124

Although it is accepted many OCGs are assembled around loose networks, traditional
forms of organised crime have always been reliant on traditional family structures, a
persistent feature across generations (Hobbs 1998). As such there is some assurance
that these offenders are consistent with other organised crime offenders described
across Britain. However this does not help in assessing how this sample is represen-
tative of organised crime offenders, overall. A Police database highlights offenders
captured by pro-active police methods, which is open to practitioner bias, as to the
types of crimes and people investigated. There is no doubt some organised crime
offenders do evade this database, although their number and profile, is unknown.

This study also shows disruption is a complex process and asking whether the
approach is effective is too simplistic. It is evident that organised crime operates within
different contexts, involving different crime types (i.e. drug trafficking, fraud); different
geographic levels of operation (international/national/local); different scales of opera-
tion (signified by the level of asset associated with the OCG); different roles within the
OCG (principal/significant/peripheral); and different levels of OCG capability (moti-
vation/knowledge/experience). The study also illustrated within the operational context
a diverse array of disruption interventions (mechanisms) can be used, and this paper
highlighted a number including legal (ancillary orders), partnership approaches, and
tactical (police only) interventions. This level of variation makes the probability of
success difficult to predict, especially when one considers the further permutations
generated by law enforcement agencies themselves. Each agency will have different
levels of capacity and capability, operating at either at international/national/local level.
Further, when this is coupled with the varying level of enthusiasm, knowledge and
competence of both leaders and practitioners, potentially the outputs and outcomes can
vary drastically. As such the question needs to be more specific than asking whether
disruption works – it should ask what works, in what context, against what level of
organised crime. As an example, reflecting again on this study, cursory analysis allows
the question to be positioned with a greater degree of specificity. It examines a diverse
sample of 15 OCGs who are operating at a national (rather than international) level,
committing a range of offences. The disruption interventions are implemented by a
local Police Force, supported by local partners.

The discussion now turns to the second issue, which relates to the process of
disruption. This paper argues this approach concentrates operational activity on the
present, looking to make the environment hostile to organized crime offenders. Based
upon perspectives, such as Routine Activity and Rational Choice theory, if an of-
fenders’ motivation can be reduced, or the prominence of capable guardians increased,
then offenders can be diverted from crime (Eck and Spelman 1987; Clarke and Felson
2008). Therefore, in theory, disruption is an operationally viable method to deal with
organised crime groups. By analysing the organised crime groups in detail, the type of
offences they are involved in and the opportunities they are exploiting (in order to
commit their crimes), the police should be able to block these opportunities and
consequently prevent future offending.

However it is when the theory is implemented that the challenges appear. During the
field research we found this approach to generate interesting discussion in two ways.
The first is whether society wants law enforcement agencies to subvert the Criminal
Justice System through more informal approaches. Indeed there were some challenging
questions asked of the Criminal Justice System, as to whether it was effective overall

Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124 121

and the level of proportionality in relation to sanctions and deterrence. For example,
officers explained they found an endangered house bird in the possession of a person
suspected of serious violent offences. For this ancillary offence the person received a
much harsher sanction than the offence for which they were investigating. Second, and
perhaps the widest concern, relates to the ethics of specific interventions. Disruption
interventions are generally intrusive and coercive, and focus on the individual. As an
emerging process, often at the periphery of the official Criminal Justice System, there is
no judicial precedent or rulebook; indeed it is often at the discretion of an individual
officer as to how far he or she thinks lawful harassment may go. Unsurprisingly the
Police were clear supporters of the approach and some of the anecdotal responses
showed they felt it ‘leveled the playing field’. Further, they argued, an intelligence led
approach meant they had the information to show the suspects involvement with
organised crime (even if there was insufficient evidence to convict). They also
highlighted that although suspects complained and made threats to litigate, this was
never carried through. In this paper there is insufficient space to fully explore these
issues however they are worthy of further examination.

This brings the paper to its final point. Putting these concerns aside is the process
successful? The data shows that the 15 OCGs were all archived between three months
and five years after they were initially targeted for intervention, the average time being
28 months. After this period the police felt the threat for each crime group (in this
sample) was no longer present. However, the most cited reason for the archiving of the
group was a lack of evidence or intelligence to show they were offending (53.3 % of
cases). So, even after prolonged monitoring or investigation, the police were either
unable to provide intelligence regarding the perceived criminality of the groups, or the
criminal activity was perceived to be minimal. There are three possible explanations to
explain this. The first is that the interventions and attention were successful and
disrupted the group from further offending. Secondly, that the perceived threat was
over exaggerated and the individuals were not as criminally active as first thought.
Finally, it could be that the assessment is inaccurate and the OCG merely desist from
crime temporarily whilst under the spotlight. Further research is needed to identify the
most probable explanation. There were clearer reasons given for other archiving
decisions. These included the principal or significant members of the OCG moving
away from the region, or the OCG member being incarcerated. Again, ambiguity
surrounds the level of disruption as offending may continue in another jurisdiction.

One obvious method of analyzing the level of disruption is to look specifically at
whether the suspects have been further convicted for any criminal offence, following
the archiving decision. It is important to note these suspects would no longer be
involved in a proactive operation, therefore any prosecution would result from general
police activity. Also important to remember is the sample generally comprise motivated
and prolific offenders, who have an average of 15 convictions each. Not withstanding
these caveats it was found that following the archiving decision (on average
15.5 months later) 19 of the individuals (33.9 %) have been prosecuted for further
crimes. The data is insufficient to establish the level of offending, or whether these
individuals are acting on their own due to the successful disruption of their group.
Further, although prosecution provides some level of justice against those committing
crimes, it is possible that arresting one member of an OCG simply leaves a void, which
another person will come to fill, or the group is simply on a hiatus until the member is

122 Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124

released from prison. Again, without a much more detailed follow up, it is difficult to
understand the sustainability emanating from the approach.

Conclusion

This study initially examined the concept of disruption when tackling organised crime.
It then examined a Police Force in the North of England who used a disruption
approach to target fifteen Organised Crime Groups, incorporating 99 offenders.
Specifically the interventions against 62 of the principal and significant members of
the OCGs were examined.

The study highlighted a number of areas of interest. Whilst there is a theoretical
underpinning to a disruption approach, it is surrounded by methodological concerns
relating to the identification of organised crime and the measurement of impact.
Further, although disruption is becoming more prevalent in policy and practice it raises
some concerns as to the appropriateness of this approach. These concerns have received
little discussion in academic literature and are worthy of greater exploration. Finally,
putting these concerns aside despite the large number of interventions from the police
and external agencies, and even after being archived as no longer a threat, a significant
number continued to offend. However, it should also be highlighted that many of these
OCGs would have gone unchecked if the Police had not used these more flexible
disruption tactics. This study has revealed current research on the disruption of
organised crime is limited and further research within the field is necessary before
the most efficient and effective method of dealing with organised crime can be
established.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by
any of the authors.

Conflict of interest Author A (corresponding author) declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Author B declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

Braga A (2007) The effects of hot spots policing on crime. Reviews, Campbell Systematic
Bullock K, Chowdhury R, Hollings P (2013) Public Concerns about Organised Crime, London: Home Office

Research Report:16
Clarke RV, Felson M (2008) Routine activity and rational choice: advances criminological theory, 2nd edn.

Transaction publishers, New Jersey
Cornish DB, Clarke RV (1986) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer,

New York
Duijin PAC, Kashirin V, Sloot PMA (2014) The relative ineffectiveness of criminal network disruption.

Scientific Reports 4(4238):1–15
Eck JE, Spelman W (1987) Problem Solving: Problem Oriented Policing in Newport News. Police Executive

Research Forum, Washington DC

Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124 123

Farrell, G., Tilley, N., Tseloni, A. & Mailley, J. (2008) ‘The Crime Drop and the Security Hypothesis’, British
Society of Criminology Newsletter, No. 62.

Felson M (2002) Crime and everyday life, 3rd edn. Pine Forge Press, Newbury Park
Francis, B., Humphreys, L., Kirby, S., & Soothill, K. (2013) Criminal careers in organised crime. Report

submitted in pursuance of Home Office Research Grant.
Gilmour S (2008) Understanding organized crime: a local perspective. Policing 2(1):18–27
Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 5(10):3–8
Guerette RT, Bowers KJ (2009) Assessing the the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits. A

Review of Situational Crime Prevention Evaluations, Criminology 47(4):1331–1368
HMIC (2006) Closing the Gap, www.hmic.gov.uk/media/closing-the-gap-20050911 .
Hobbs D (1998) Going down the glocal: the local context of organised crime. The Howard Journal of Criminal

Justice 37(4):407–422
Home Office (2011) Local to Global: Reducing the Risk from Organized Crime, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

publications/crime/organised-crime-strategy.
Home Office (2013) Serious and Organised Crime Strategy, Online at https://www.gov.uk/government/

publications/serious-organised-crime-strategy
Home Office. 2014. Police National Computer (PNC). [pdf] Available at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/

sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/modernised/enforcement/11-criminal-financial/PNC?view=Binary
[Accessed: 17 Feb 2014].

Kirby S (2013) Effective policing: implementation in theory and practice. Basingstoke, Palgrave
Kirby S, Nailer L (2013) Reducing the offending of a. UK Organized Crime Group Using an Opportunity

Reducing Framework – a three Year Case Study, ‘Trends in Organised Crime’ 16(4):397–412
Kirby S, Penna S (2010) Policing mobile criminality: towards a situational crime prevention approach to

organised crime. In: Bullock K, Clarke RV, Tilley N (eds) Situational prevention of organised crime.
Willan Publishing, Collumpton, pp. 193–212

Lambsdorff, J. (2005) Corruption perception index 2004. Transparency International global corruption report
2005. England: Yeoman Press.

Laycock G (2005) Deciding what to do. In: Tilley N (ed) Handbook of crime prevention and community
safety. Willan publishing, Collumpton

Laycock G (2012) Happy birthday. Policing 6(2):101–107
Leong AVM (2007) The disruption of international organised crime – An analysis of legal and non-legal

strategies. Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire
Levi M, Maguire M (2004) Reducing and preventing organised crime: An evidence based critique. Crime Law

& Social Change 41:397–469
McLean F, Hillier J (2011) An observational study of response and neighbourhood officers. NPIA, London
Office of National Statistics (2013) UK Population estimates 2013. Accessed from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/

rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk–england-and-wales–scotland-and-northern-ireland/2013/
sty-population-estimates.html. Accessed on 7.7.15

Ratcliffe J (2008) Intelligence led policing. Willan Publishing, Collumpton
Rosenbaum, D.P (1986) Community crime prevention: does it work? Beverley Hills: Sage Publishing.
Salmon P, Stanton N, Jenkins D, Walker G (2011) Coordination during multi-agency emergency response:

issues and solutions. Disaster Prevention And Management: An International Journal 20(2):140–158
Sarantakos S (2004) Social research, 3rd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Seng JS (1998) Praxis as a conceptual framework for participatory research in nursing. Advance Nurse

Science 20(4):37–48
Sherman LW (1997) Policing for crime prevention. In: Sherman LW, Gottfredson D, Mackenzie D, Eck J,

Reuter P, Bushway S (eds) Preventing crime,: what works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington,
National Institute of Justice

Sproat PA (2012) Phoney war or appeasement? The Policing of Organised Crime in the UK, Trends in
Organised Crime 15:313–330

Tilley N (2009) Intelligence, analysis, prevention and disruption of organised crime. Presented at a Workshop
on Intelligence and Policing, University Of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, April 2-3:2009

Tusikov N (2012) Measuring organised crime related harms: exploring five policing methods. Crime, Law &
Social Change 57:99–115

von Lampe, K. (2015) Definitions of organized crime. Online at http://www.organized-crime.de/
organizedcrimedefinitions.htm

Wincup E (2009) Researching crime and criminal justice. In: Hale C, Hayward K, Wahidin A, Wincup E (eds)
Criminology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 103–125

124 Trends Organ Crim (2016) 19:111–124

Trends in Organized Crime is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice  
Office of Justice Programs 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

 
 

Gang Prosecution  
Manual 

 

July 2009

Copyright 2009 Institute for Intergovernmental Research®. All Rights Reserved.

Gang Prosecution Manual

 
 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Justice Programs 
810 Seventh Street NW 
Washington DC 20531 

 
 
 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 
Attorney General  

 
 

Laurie Robinson 
Acting Assistant Attorney General/Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General  

 
 

Jeff Slowikowski 
Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

 
 
 
 

 

This document was prepared by the National Youth Gang Center under Cooperative 
Agreement Number 2007‐JV‐FX‐0008 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice
Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Community Capacity
Development Office; the National Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims of
Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking (SMART). Points of view or opinions in this
document are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Gang Prosecution Manual

Gang Prosecution Manual 

July 2009 

 

This document was developed by the National Youth Gang Center.  The following 
individuals are authors of various chapters of this document. 

Mr. John Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, Orange County District Attorney’s 
Office, Supervisor of the TARGET Gang Unit, Santa Ana, CA 

 
Sergeant Mark Nye, Westminster Police Department, Westminster, CA 

 
Mr. Ron Freitas, Chief Deputy District Attorney of the Homicide‐Gang Division, San 
Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, Stockton, CA 

 
Mr. Jarrett Wolf, President, the Law Firm of Jarrett Wolf, former Assistant State 
Attorney and DEA Agent in Miami, FL.   

Gang Prosecution Manual

i Table of Contents

Table of Contents 
 
 
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 
 
Section 1:  Investigating the Gang Case:  Law Enforcement’s Impact on 
  Successful Prosecution ……………………………………………………………………………….4 

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 
Gang Member Identification and Documentation …………………………………………… 5 
Legal Consideration in Obtaining Gang Records ……………………………………………. 7 
Gang Books, School Yearbooks, and Other Resources …………………………………….. 9 
Field Interview Cards …………………………………………………………………………………… 11 
Crime and Incident Reports ………………………………………………………………………….. 13 
Gang Databases:  Storing and Retrieving Gang Records ……………………………….. 14 
Gang Database Legal Considerations ……………………………………………………………. 16 
Gang Search Warrants ………………………………………………………………………………….. 18 
Use of Informants and the Need for an Informant Policy ……………………………… 20 
Confidentiality Issues …………………………………………………………………………………… 22 
Gang Search Warrant and Affidavit Language ……………………………………………… 22 

 
Section 2:  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability and Investigation  
  Considerations:  Why the Liability Net Gets Thrown Over So Many …………27 

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27 
Group Crime Dangers …………………………………………………………………………………… 29 
Teenage Group Crime Dangers …………………………………………………………………….. 31 
Gang Group Crime Dangers …………………………………………………………………………. 31 
Basic Concepts of Group Criminal Liability ………………………………………………….. 32 
Investigation Considerations ………………………………………………………………………… 33 
Extended Liability From Group Crime Participation…………………………………….. 40 
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42 
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42 

 
Section 3:  Filing the Gang Case …………………………………………………………………………………43 

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 
Preparing to File the Gang Case ……………………………………………………………………. 44 
Directing Further Investigations …………………………………………………………………… 46 
Juvenile or Adult Prosecution ………………………………………………………………………. 48 

Gang Prosecution Manual

ii Table of Contents

Section 3:  Filing the Gang Case (Continued) 
Criminal Liability …………………………………………………………………………………………. 48 
Aiding and Abetting …………………………………………………………………………………….. 49 
Conspiracy ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51 
Natural and Probable Consequences Liability ………………………………………………. 54 
Theories Specific to Murder ………………………………………………………………………….. 56 
The Felony Murder Rule ………………………………………………………………………………. 56 
Provocative Act Murder ……………………………………………………………………………….. 57 
Concurrent Causation …………………………………………………………………………………… 58 
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59 

 
Section 4:  Presentation of the Case …………………………………………………………………………..60 

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 60 
Witnesses ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 61 
Gang Evidence ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 69 
The Jurisprudence of Gang Prosecution ……………………………………………………….. 71 
Litigating the Admissibility of Gang Evidence ……………………………………………… 76 
Admissibility of Gang Expert Testimony ……………………………………………………… 78 
Qualifying the Gang Expert ………………………………………………………………………….. 79 
Jury Selection ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 82 
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86 
 

Section 5:  Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases ………………………………………………………………88 
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 88 
Types of Crimes ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 89 
Alternatives to Criminal Filings and Diversion Programs …………………………….. 90 
Filing Decision ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 91 
Method of Conviction …………………………………………………………………………………… 94 
Probation Hearings …………………………………………………………………………………….. 100 
Parole Considerations …………………………………………………………………………………. 100 
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 101 
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 102 

 
Exhibit 1:  Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Advisement and  
  Waiver of Rights for a Felony Guilty Plea, F026‐412.6 (R10/04) ……………..103 
Exhibit 2:  Defendant’s Waiver of Constitutional Rights for Guilty Plea 
  to Misdemeanor, F0232‐330.11 (3/88) ………………………………………………………109 
Exhibit 3:  Attachment No. 1, Factual Basis for Plea of Guilty ………………………………..112 
Exhibit 4:  Adult, Orange County Probation Department, Gang Terms and  
  Conditions of Probation …………………………………………………………………………114 

Gang Prosecution Manual

1 Introduction

Introduction

 

The  National  Youth  Gang  Center  estimates  that  there  were  approximately 
778,000 gang members and 27,000 gangs active in more than 3,550 jurisdictions served 
by city and county law enforcement agencies in 2007. 
 

Gangs remain a serious problem in the United States, and local prosecutors and 
district attorneys play an important role in addressing gang‐related violence.  The vast 
majority  of  violent  gang‐related  crimes  will  be  prosecuted  at  the  local  level  by 
prosecutors  in agencies where budgets are  tight and resources  for  training are often 
minimal. 
 

Gang‐related crimes are, by their very nature, more difficult to prosecute than 
other  sorts  of  crimes—full  of  interconnected  relationships  and  complex  dynamics 
between rival gangs.   Today’s gang member victim may be  tomorrow’s perpetrator.  
Witnesses and juries may be intimidated by the inherent and implied threat of violence 
from a gang‐involved defendant.  The awareness and sophistication of court employees 
and  judges  in  dealing  with  gangs  vary  from  place  to  place.    Further,  successful 
prosecution of a gang case may require expert testimony to help the  jury understand 
the  complicated  cultural  issues  that  are  foundational  to  gang‐related  crime.    Trying 
gang‐related cases takes time, preparation, and knowledge. 
 

For  those  reasons,  this  publication  has  been  prepared  to  bring  together 
information  on  the  basics  of  gang  crime  prosecution  at  the  local  level.    This  is  a 
workbook designed to help local prosecutors and investigators visualize and prepare 
for  every  step  of  a  gang‐related  crime  prosecution,  from  the  initial  crime  scene 
investigation  to  preparing  and  presenting  the  case  and,  finally,  sentencing  issues 
specific to gang cases.  This document has been prepared by working prosecutors and 
investigators from states with very different  legal requirements.   They have years of 
experience in dealing with the complexities of violent gang‐related crime.  The intent of 
this  manual  is  to  assist  local  prosecutors  in  holding  gang‐involved  offenders 
accountable for their actions and, ultimately, guarding the community from gangs. 
 
When a gang member has committed a violent act that has caused loss and pain to the 
entire community, the goal of effective prosecution should be a finding by a judge that 
protects the community and demonstrates an understanding of the negative toll taken 
on the victims by these acts: 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

2 Introduction

“Everything I know about gangs tells me that gangs are dedicated to violence and 
crime.    And,  while  there  may  be  a  certain  brotherhood,  it  is  done  only  to 
perpetuate whatever joy they get from drug abuse, the crimes they commit, the 
people they hurt, and the people they bully . . . I really cannot find any reason why I 
should not protect this community and keep Mr. Cortes off the street.  He is one of 
the links of the chain that goes from the criminality and the violence of gangs, to 
our schools and to our community.  This link, I intend to break . . . Mr. Cortes, 
this Court hereby sentences you to 25 years  in the state prison [for attempted 
murder].  The court is departing from the guidelines to do so.  I believe I have 
valid legal reasons to do so.  I do not think you have a clue.  I do not know how 
else, at this point, to teach you that you have done wrong.” 

 
—The  Honorable  Maxine  Cohen  Lando,  Circuit  Judge,  Miami‐Dade 
County, Florida, State of Florida v. David Cortes, March 29, 1999. 

 
 
Section  1:    Investigating  the  Gang  Case:    Law  Enforcement’s  Impact  on  Successful 
Prosecution 
 

Law enforcement’s preparation for gang‐related crimes is the crux of successful 
prosecution.    This  section  includes  information  on  every  aspect  of  law 
enforcement/prosecution  cooperation,  including  police  documentation  of  gang 
affiliation and activity,  legal considerations  in obtaining gang records, resources  that 
can assist in documenting gang affiliation on the part of defendants, gang databases, 
search warrants, and the use of informants.  It is designed for use by both prosecutors 
and law enforcement agencies.   A sample gang search warrant and affidavit are also 
provided.   
 
Section 2:  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability and Investigation Considerations:   
Why the Liability Net Gets Thrown Over So Many 
 

In most instances of gang‐related crime, a complex dynamic of connections exists 
between  suspects  and  victims.    The  group  dynamics  of  gang‐related  crimes  and 
conspiracy liability are discussed in this section, along with ways that investigators can 
respond to crime scenes with multiple participants, gang expert testimony related to 
group crimes, and dealing with aiders and abettors to gang‐related crimes. 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

3 Introduction

Section 3:  Filing the Gang Case 
 

In many ways, gang cases are  likely  to be  the most complex cases  filed by a 
prosecutor.  This section describes preparation for filing the case, further investigation 
that may be required, discussion as to whether cases should be filed in juvenile or adult 
court, decisions about filing against accomplices/accessories using theories of liability, 
and filing issues specific to murder trials.   
 
Section 4:  Presentation of the Case 
 

Once the case actually gets to trial, a host of unforeseen issues can arise.   This 
section deals with anticipating the challenges when presenting gang cases,  including 
witness  issues,  presentation  of  gang  evidence,  litigating  the  admissibility  of  gang 
evidence,  dealing  with  gang  expert  testimony,  and  jury  selection  issues  specifically 
related to gangs. 
 
Section 5:  Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases 
 

From  the  time  the case  is filed, sentencing  issues should be paramount  in  the 
mind of the prosecutor.  This section addresses sentencing issues during filing, such as 
misdemeanors versus felonies, alternatives to criminal filings, how filing in juvenile or 
adult court may affect sentencing, sentencing options for gang offenders, conditions of 
probation  that  are  appropriate  for  criminal  street  gang  members,  and  parole 
considerations.   

Gang Prosecution Manual

  4  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

Section 1. 
 
Investigating the Gang Case: 
Law Enforcement’s Impact on 
Successful Prosecution 
 
 

By
John Anderson, Assistant District Attorney
Orange County District Attorney’s Office
Supervisor of the TARGET Gang Unit

Santa Ana, California

and

Mark Nye, Sergeant
Westminster Police Department

Westminster, California
 
 

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  5  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

INTRODUCTION 
 

Successful gang prosecutions are a result of the combined efforts of the district 
attorney’s office and the local police gang unit investigators and/or robbery/homicide 
investigators handling the investigation.  The strength of a gang case rests almost solely 
on the strength of the available gang evidence and the credibility of the gang expert.  
Experienced  gang  investigators  who  testify  as  court‐recognized  experts  base  their 
expertise on their knowledge of area gangs (and their enemy counterparts) and gang 
methodology,  information  provided  by  numerous  street  contacts,  and  other  gang 
records  that  are  properly  documented  and  cataloged.    Consistent  and  reliable 
recordkeeping, therefore, is essential for the successful operation of the gang unit and 
its future prosecutorial efforts. 

 
 
GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION  
AND DOCUMENTATION 
 

Without proper documentation of gang contacts, expert opinions lack a basis of 
fact that defense attorneys may attack, making it difficult for juries to render verdicts.  
Therefore, gang unit  investigators (experts) must have hands‐on street knowledge of 
jurisdictional  gangs  and  must  develop  and  maintain  up‐to‐date  gang  records  in  the 
form  of  field  interview  cards,  police  reports,  probation  and  parole  records,  court 
adjudications  of  prosecutorial  efforts,  and  cataloged  photographs  of  gang  members, 
tattoos, and graffiti. 
 

Gang investigators conduct regular street patrols; provide probation, parole, and 
search  warrant  services  at  gang  members’  residences;  and  make  arrests  for  various 
violations of law.  All of these contacts need to be documented and cataloged in an in‐
house  database,  and,  when  available,  state  or  countywide  databases,  for  other 
departments to utilize.   
 

Patrol officers (first responders) spend a great deal of time on the street; more 
than many gang, narcotic, or other detective units.   These patrol officers need  to be 
tapped for their knowledge and trained in the proper collection and dissemination of 
gang information.   Many patrol officers have regular contacts with gang members in 
their local areas.  Patrol officers, if trained in proper collection of gang documents (field 
interview cards or crime and incident reports), can be an invaluable source to the gang 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  6  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

unit.  The more “eyes and ears” the gang unit has on the street, the more information it 
will be able to collect, maintain, and store in its gang/intelligence files.   

 
Gang investigators first and foremost must be familiar with the gang dynamics 

in their cities and surrounding  jurisdictions.  They need to know the nuances of each 
gang; i.e., its racial makeup, territory or lack thereof, affiliate gangs, enemy gangs, use 
of  tattoos,  graffiti,  clothing,  and  its  criminal  propensities  or  methods  of  operation.   
Gang  investigators  need  to  know  the  history  of  the  various  gangs  indigenous  to  or 
otherwise active  in  their  jurisdictions.   They need  to  familiarize  themselves with  the 
dynamics of the gangs,  including but not  limited to their membership size, territory, 
local hangouts, rivalries, and types of crimes committed, as well as the identification 
and personal and criminal backgrounds of individual members.   
 

Before gang investigators collect, document, and catalog gang information, it is 
important that they  and their  agency have policies and procedures in place regarding 
documentation, collection, storage, and use of such records.   Local, state, and federal 
restrictions or guidelines on maintaining gang and intelligence files must be upheld for 
the successful operation of the unit and its prosecutorial efforts.  Gang unit supervisors 
and their investigators must be well‐versed in these policies and procedures to ensure 
consistency in records and avoid claims of arbitrary enforcement.  Gang units should 
include the entire department in the efficient and ethical collection of gang (documents) 
records.    Therefore,  gang  investigators  should  take  the  time  to  conduct  regular 
briefings/trainings  for  patrol  officers,  detectives,  and  others  in  the  department 
responsible for the collection of gang documents.   New officer orientation with gang 
unit  detectives  is  also  a  good  measure  to  ensure  the  proper  collection  of  gang 
information.   
 

Efficient and up‐to‐date documentation of gangs and gang members is critical for 
gang  cases  and  is  the  key  to  the  successful  prosecution  of  gang‐related  cases.  
Documentation lends credence to the allegation of gang membership, status, and street 
presence  and  provides  motives  behind  gang‐related  attacks  or  other  gang  behavior.  
Many patrol officers and even gang investigators sometimes have a strong knowledge 
of individual gang members with whom they have frequent contact, but because of the 
frequency of these contacts, these persons are often not field‐interviewed or the contacts 
are not otherwise documented.  Because of this lack of documentation, in court a case 
may lack critical documentary evidence of gang membership.  All contacts with gangs 
or gang members should, therefore, be documented or memorialized in some fashion.   

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  7  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

 

Hispanic Gang Graffiti on a Resident’s Van

 
 
LEGAL CONSIDERATION IN  
OBTAINING GANG RECORDS  
 

Good records detailing how gang information was obtained are important.  The 
usefulness of gang records depends on the constitutionally permissible procurement of 
the information in the records.  Information from suspected gang members or pictures 
taken of them in the field or at the police station may be obtained by consent or may be 
derived from another legally permissible avenue, such as a probation search, a lawful 
arrest, or a lawful investigatory detention.   It is important to thoroughly document a 
gang  member’s  consent  in  cases  of  consensual  encounters.    The  documentation  of 
consent is useful to survive a future challenge of lack of consent when the records are 
used in court.  Absent consent, there must be a lawful justification for detaining a gang 
member to obtain gang‐related information from the individual.   
 

It  is not against the  law to be a gang member, nor can a  law outlawing gang 
membership (by  itself) withstand a constitutional challenge.   Laws outlawing certain 
gang behavior usually focus on the active participation of an individual in the criminal 
objectives of a criminal street gang.  Police may not stop gang members against their 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  8  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

will  to  interrogate  and/or  photograph  them  merely  for  belonging  to  a  gang.    The  
United States Supreme Court has stated that the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment 
do  not  allow  stopping  and  demanding  identification  or  information,  or  taking 
photographs from individuals without any specific basis for believing they are involved 
in criminal activity, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1  (1968) and Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 
(1979).     
 

To  justify  an  investigative  stop  or  detention,  the  circumstances  known  or 
apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing the officer to 
suspect that (1) some activity relating to a crime has taken place or is occurring or about 
to  occur  and  (2)  the person  the  officer  intends  to  stop  or  detain  is  involved  in  that 
activity, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, supra.  Further, evidence obtained during an illegal 
detention  or  arrest  and  evidence  that  is  derived  from  initially  illegally  obtained 
evidence may be suppressed, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).  Derivative 
evidence, such as a photo identification of a suspect obtained from the use of evidence 
that  was  illegally  obtained  by  the  police  explicitly  for  use  in  further  criminal 
investigations (e.g., photos for gang books or field interview cards for gang databases), 
may be suppressed in court.   
 

 

A Gathering of White-Supremacist Skinhead Gang Members

Gang Prosecution Manual

9 Section I. Investigating the Gang Case

GANG BOOKS, SCHOOL YEARBOOKS,  
AND OTHER RESOURCES 
 

Gang files or books should be gang‐specific and include evidence showing the 
existence,  territory,  and  dynamics  of  the  gangs  in  the  jurisdiction.    They  should, 
therefore, include photos of gang graffiti and its location; examples of various names 
and symbols used to identify the gang; photos of various tattoos worn by individual 
members affiliated with the gang; and group photos and/or photos of gang members 
throwing hand signs, holding firearms or other weapons, or dressed in obvious gang 
attire or having other indications of gang affiliation, including specific styles and colors 
of clothes and numbered or lettered jerseys associated with a particular gang (e.g., “AB” 
or “12” for Asian Boyz or “22” [22nd  letter of the alphabet] for V‐Boys—both Asian 
street gangs in Orange County, California).   
 

This  documentation  should  also  include  examples  of  personal  items,  such  as 
letters to and from various members  in correctional facilities; other  letters with gang 
reference; schoolwork; and phone books with reference to individual members’ names, 
monikers, and phone numbers.  It is also important to document and catalog any and 
all examples of disrespect to rival gangs, newspaper articles of gang homicides or other 
felonious assaults, photos of crossed‐out graffiti  in public places, and personal  items 
with negative references to rivals with names crossed out.  All of these aforementioned 
items should be properly cataloged by gang name, with the date and time they were 
discovered,  the  locations where collected, and  the names of  the  individuals, officers, 
deputies, or agents who collected the cataloged items.   
 
 

Asian Boyz (Asian Gang) Hand Sign

The V-Boys (Asian Gang) Tattoo

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  10  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

Gang  books  serve  as  a  way  to  collect  and  maintain  gang  records  and/or 
photographs of individual members.   They should include photographs of all known 
gang members  from a particular gang  identified by self‐admission or  through other 
reliable  sources.    The  books  are  used  for  possible  suspect  identification  when  the 
circumstances of an offense indicate it was committed by a member or members of a 
particular gang.  Gang books tend to change or evolve over time as new members join 
the gang, gang members are killed off by rivals, or other members leave the jurisdiction 
or are sentenced to prison for long‐term commitments.  The gang books need to reflect 
these  changes  if  they  are  to  be  used  effectively  in  identifying,  apprehending,  and 
prosecuting  gang  members.    Without  continual  updating,  gang  books  become  less 
effective for investigative, enforcement, and prosecutorial efforts.   It is also critical to 
keep a record of what a gang book looked like at the time it was shown to a witness or 
victim  (whether  there  was  an  identification  or  not)  for  use  in  court.    Investigators 
should photocopy any and all photos shown to witnesses or victims and include them 
in the case file along with any admonitions given.   
 

Another method used for identification is the arrangement of gang photos (in a 
gang book)  in a multiple “six‐pack” organizational scheme.   If  identification  is made 
from a six‐pack, not all photos from the gang book need to be copied and entered into 
the case file, only those shown in the lineup or series of lineups.  This also protects the 
integrity and confidentiality of the gang book in its entirety.   
 

School yearbooks from elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools in 
the  jurisdiction are also a great tool to utilize  in the  identification of gang offenders. 
Given the youthful nature of most gang offenders, the yearbooks are an invaluable aid 
in  the  identification process when  the perpetrator  is known  to  the victim or witness 
from  school  and,  particularly,  if  no  other  photos  exist.    Gang  investigators  should, 
therefore, regularly obtain up‐to‐date yearbooks to have at their disposal and should 
also  maintain  a  close  working  relationship  with  school  officials  or  resource  officers 
regarding specific gang activity and/or membership on campus.   
 

Photos  showing  gang  members  either  alone  or  posing  with  other  known  or 
suspected  gang  members  that  are  seized  during  the  service  of  search  warrants  or 
probation and parole searches or that are otherwise lawfully obtained during criminal 
investigations should also be maintained and cataloged by gang and date.   
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  11  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

 

V-Boys (Asian Gang) Dressed Up for Party Flashing Hand Signs

 
 
FIELD INTERVIEW CARDS 
 

Gang  records  and/or  databases  should  also  be  gang‐member‐specific.    They 
should evidence an individual’s specific affiliation and allegiance to his gang.   These 
records should include original field interview (FI) cards that were completed by patrol 
officers, detectives, and gang investigators.   
 

Information from  the FI cards should  then be entered  into a  local database  to 
include  the  member’s  name,  physical  description,  address,  phone  numbers  (home, 
work, and cellular), scars, marks or tattoos, vehicles, and associate members with whom 
the individual has been in contact.  Frequently, a fingerprint of a gang member is placed 
on the back of an FI card to ensure that there is no question later regarding the identity 
of the individual contacted.  The documentation should also include the reason for the 
contact, such as reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or consensual encounter.  A brief 
recitation  of  the  facts  surrounding  the  contact  can  be  used  later  to  refresh  officer 
recollections  and  for  suppression  motions  and  impeaching  inconsistent  defendant 
testimony.   Also  included on the FI card should be the gang member’s status  in the 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  12  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

gang and how it is known—not just that the member belongs to a gang but how that 
fact was established (self‐admission, tattoos, clothing, or involvement with other self‐
admitted  members  in  gang‐related  activity).    Whatever  the  basis,  it  needs  to  be 
documented.  Any self‐admission should be in quotes: “I claim West Trece,” or “I was 
jumped into the Orphans,” or “I kick it with Asian Boyz.”   
 

 

Female Racist Skinheads
 

All  gang‐related  FI  cards  should  be  sent  to  the  gang  unit  or  other  unit 
responsible for keeping records on gang members or gang crime.  Some departments 
send all FI cards to the records bureau and may eventually forward them to the gang 
unit.    To  be  most  effective,  FI  cards  need  to  be  promptly  sent  to  the  gang  unit 
investigators.    Therefore,  an  NCR  (ticket  format)  FI  card  is  an  effective  method  of 
disseminating  the  FI  cards  in  a  timely  manner.    A  three‐part  form  can  be  utilized, 
wherein one copy  is disseminated  to and maintained by  the gang unit, one copy  is 
given  to  the records bureau  for departmentwide recordkeeping, and  the  last copy  is 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  13  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

provided to the regular detective bureau and reviewed by all members of the division.  
All members of the department (patrol, detectives, gang unit, etc.) should be involved 
in  the  process  of  completing  FI  cards  and  ensuring  that  they  are  disseminated 
accordingly to ensure effective law enforcement and investigative efforts.   
 

There  should  also  be  a  policy  or  procedure  in  place  that  outlines  the 
circumstances  in  which  FI  cards  may  or  should  be  completed.    Law  enforcement‐
generated gang member photographs frequently accompany FI cards or other official 
documents of the police department (gang notifications—California STEP Act notices 
explained below).   Information on the back of an FI card or other document should, 
therefore, include a photo consent signature line.   The photo should also include the 
date and  time  it was  taken and under what circumstances  (e.g., during a detention, 
following an arrest, by consent).  Photos taken without legal justification are subject to 
exclusion from evidence in court, and identifications from illegally obtained photos are 
subject to suppression.  In court, identifications must then be proven by the prosecution 
to  be  the  independent  product  of  the  witness’s  recollection  and  not  tainted  by  a 
suppressed photo used in the out‐of‐court identification process.   

 
 
CRIME AND INCIDENT REPORTS 
 

Any report documenting a gang member’s criminal activity or in which he or she 
is identified as the victim of a gang‐related crime should be maintained and cataloged 
by individual member, gang, and date.   
 

In  addition  to  police  and  incident  reports,  police  and  probation  and  parole 
officers serve notices on gang members of  the penalties  for active participation  in a 
criminal street gang under the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention 
(STEP) Act.   The notice  informs a gang member  that  the police, probation or parole 
officers, or the courts have determined that the recipient is an active participant in the 
street  gang  and  that  continued  participation  may  result  in  criminal  prosecution, 
including enhanced penalties (sentences) for gang‐related criminal violations.  A copy 
of this notice, or “proof of service,” is kept as proof that the gang member received the 
notice.  A juvenile offender’s parents are also given a copy of the form and are notified 
of their child’s gang membership or participation.  The proof of service usually includes 
the same information as the FI card, with an emphasis on gang activity, and is often 
accompanied by a photo of the gang member who was served with the notice.  The FI 
card can include the STEP information on the reverse side.  The STEP notice includes 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  14  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

the gang member’s name, the name of his gang, and the fact that his gang is a criminal 
street gang pursuant to Section 186.22 et al. of the California Penal Code.  This notice 
also outlines the related 33 criminal offenses that define criminal gang activity.  There is 
a signature line for the gang member to sign and date indicating that he/she has read 
and understands the nature of the information in the act.  These documents should be 
maintained and cataloged  in  the same manner as  the other gang records previously 
mentioned.   
 

 
 

“White Power” Tattoos

 
 
GANG DATABASES:  STORING AND  
RETRIEVING GANG RECORDS 
 

The backbone of any successful gang unit is the strength of its intelligence files or 
gang  records.    Gang  unit  investigators  should  not  only  contribute  their  gang 
intelligence  information  to  regional  gang  databases,  to  be  shared  with  other  law 
enforcement  agencies,  but  should  also  develop  and  maintain  their  own  in‐house 
records,  in  case  regional  databases  “crash”  or  are  otherwise  unavailable  because  of 
updates or repair.  Regional databases typically offer thousands of records of gangs and 
gang members  from many  jurisdictional areas where authorized users can read and 
update  files,  download  and  retrieve  photos,  and  utilize  the  system  to  further  their 
investigations.    Many  of  these  databases  contain  gang  members’  names,  addresses, 
vehicles, and probation and parole status and have a wide range of search capabilities.    

Gang Prosecution Manual

  15  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

An in‐house database should be designed as a system for collecting, analyzing, 
and storing  information that qualifies as criminal  intelligence and should allow only 
limited dissemination and use of the intelligence to enhance public safety.  Gang unit 
investigators need  to preserve  the  integrity of  the system by keeping  it secure  from 
others who have not been authorized or  lack responsibility  for maintenance of such 
files.    The  constitutional  protection  of  privacy  of  individuals  (whose  information  is 
listed in the system) must be followed and a purging system must be adhered to for the 
credibility  and  integrity  of  the  files.    There  should  also  be  a  policy  and  procedure 
governing access to the system and for determining what information may be entered 
and maintained.  This procedure must follow applicable federal and state laws.   
 

The  in‐house database should allow  the authorized user  to enter and retrieve 
information  on  the  gang’s  history,  individual  members,  monikers,  addresses,  phone 
numbers, vehicle  information,  tattoos, marks or scars, and specific  incident or crime 
reports.  The in‐house database is an invaluable tool that can provide instant access to 
up‐to‐date  information on gang membership, expedite  the  investigation process, and 
lead to successful prosecution of gang cases.   
 

 
 

White-Supremacist Tattoos

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  16  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

GANG DATABASE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 

As  noted  above,  the  United  States  Constitution  prohibits  criminalizing  mere 
membership in an organization (even ones with an apparent criminal nature), Scales v. 
United  States,  367  U.S.  203,  223  (1961).    However,  associating  with  members  of  an 
organization and performing acts  that carry out criminal objects of  the organization 
may be criminalized.  Most state constitutions have similar associational protections.  It 
is important to note that while states may not allow for less constitutional protection 
than is guaranteed by the federal constitution, the states may afford individuals more 
protection.    The  usual  attack  on  intelligence  files  is  that  the  databases  are  targeting 
groups  not  engaged  in  criminal  behavior  or  associating  an  individual  with  a  group 
whose members engage in criminal acts.  
 

Citizens  have  a  right  to  be  free  from  governmental  intrusion,  Griswold  v. 
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967); and Katz v. United 
States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).  On the other hand, law enforcement has a legitimate interest 
in monitoring  individuals and groups  that engage  in criminal group behavior.   The 
process  of  collecting  evidence  on  these  individuals  and  groups,  however,  creates  a 
tension between the need of society to be protected by law enforcement and the privacy 
expectations of individuals.  
 

As  a  result  of  these  competing  interests,  in  1968,  the  United  States  Congress 
passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which attempted to recognize 
the need  for  intelligence databases and  the right  to privacy.   The act resulted  in  the 
passage of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Part 23 (28 CFR Part 23), which 
outlines the requirements for entering information about an individual or a group into 
an intelligence system and purging the data from such a system.  While the regulation 
was designed for multiple jurisdictional intelligence databases, it is an excellent guide 
for  individual  police  departments  as  well  because  the  regulation  balances  law 
enforcement’s intelligence needs and individual privacy requirements. 
 

Criminal intelligence information is defined in 28 CFR Part 23, Section 23.3(b)(3), 
as data which has been evaluated to determine that it: 

 
(i)  Is relevant to the identification of and the criminal activity engaged 

in  by  an  individual  who  or  an  organization  which  is  reasonably 
suspected of involvement in criminal activity. 

 
(ii)  Meets criminal intelligence system submission criteria. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  17  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

The  submission  criteria  (the  basis  for  entry  into  an  intelligence  database)  are 
delineated in 28 CFR Part 23, Section 23.20(a), (b), (c), and (d), and include the following: 
 

(1)  A reasonable suspicion (an abstract term that depends on the facts of 
particular situations) that an individual or organization is involved 
in criminal activity. 

 
(2)  Prospective  information  to  be  entered  is  relevant  to  the  criminal 

activity. 
 
(3)  Information does not  include  information about political, religious, 

or  social  views,  associations,  or  activities  except  where  such 
information relates directly to the criminal activity that is the basis 
for focusing on the individual or group. 

 
(4)  Information was not obtained  in violation of any  federal, state, or 

local law or ordinance. 
 
(5)  Information  establishes  sufficient  facts  to  give  a  trained  law 

enforcement or criminal investigative agency officer, investigator, or 
employee  a  basis  to  believe  that  an  individual  or  organization  is 
involved in a definable criminal activity or enterprise. 

 
Under  the  guidelines  in  28  CFR  Part  23,  Section  (b)(6),  information  in  an 

intelligence database must be evaluated for its relevance and importance at least every 
five years.  Information not in compliance with the submission requirements should be 
purged, even if it is discovered to be noncompliant before five years.  No information 
from the database should be disseminated without a legitimate law enforcement reason, 
such as a criminal case being filed against a suspect with information in the database.  
 

 
Juvenile Hispanic Gang Members

Gang Prosecution Manual

  18  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

GANG SEARCH WARRANTS 
 

Investigations  in  serious  gang  offenses  frequently  include  obtaining  a  search 
warrant  seeking,  among  other  things,  evidence  of  the  suspect’s  gang  membership.  
Gang evidence is invaluable in helping to explain the motivation for the commission of 
some  gang  crimes  and  is  helpful  in  identifying  the  suspects  by  establishing,  for 
example, membership in a gang rival to the victim’s gang.  There is no such thing as too 
much gang evidence, even in cases of clearly gang‐motivated crime.   
 

Gang dynamics frequently allow for search warrants permitting the searching of 
multiple locations.  The most basic element of a gang is that it is a group that perceives 
itself as a group and acts as a group during the perpetration of delinquent or criminal 
offenses,  hiding  the  instrumentalities  or  fruits  of  such  offenses.    Given  the  group 
dynamics and group criminal liability involved in many gang‐related offenses, criminal 
investigations focus on many suspects in gang cases.   The mere existence of multiple 
suspects normally allows for a search warrant for multiple locations.  Gang practices of 
hiding  evidence  or  instrumentalities  of  crimes  for  fellow  gang  members  also  afford 
more possible locations to be searched in gang cases. 
 

An affidavit in a gang search warrant requires all of the care and content of a 
non‐gang  search  warrant  and  much  more.    The  affidavit  in  a  gang  search  warrant 
includes the following necessary components: 

 
(1)  The  affiant’s  identity  and  training,  education,  experience,  and 

expertise relating to the existence and activities of street gangs. 
 
(2)  The  affiant’s  personal  observations  and  information  from  other 

persons and sources relevant to establishing probable cause. 
 
(3)  A  statement  of  the  facts  justifying  the  affiant’s  belief  that  the 

information included in the affidavit from other sources is accurate 
and reliable. 

 
(4)  A conclusion with the opinion that based on the affiant’s training and 

experience  and  the  facts  in  the  affidavit,  the  items  sought  will  be 
found at the requested locations to be searched.    

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  19  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

(5)  Specific opinions to establish that: 
 

(a)  The  warrant  affidavit’s  probable  cause  to  believe  the 
suspect gang exists,  

 
(b)  The suspects are members of that gang, and  
 
(c)  The crime was done for a gang‐related purpose. 
 

(6)  Facts  regarding  the  suspect’s  membership  in  the  gang  as 
documented  in FI cards, police reports, or any other documents or 
photographs need to be spelled out in detail in the affidavit.  

 
(7)  An  expert  opinion  explaining  gang  dynamics—such  as  passing 

evidence,  instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime among fellow gang 
members—that allows for the search of multiple locations or is useful 
in  overcoming  staleness,  if  much  time  has  passed  since  the 
commission of the crime. 

 
In a typical gang‐related search warrant, a gang investigator should seek items of 

evidence to prove that the underlying crime occurred, as well as instrumentalities or 
fruits of the committed crime.  Additional items would include evidence of street gang 
membership, such as documents, photos, drawings, writings, objects, graffiti depicting 
the  named  suspects  in  the  case  or  gang  or  gang  member  names,  initials,  logos, 
monikers,  or  any  newspaper  clippings  referencing  the  crime  under  investigation.  
(Examples of language for the affidavit in a gang search warrant and the language for 
the  warrant  itself  are  found  in  the  “Gang  Search  Warrant  and  Affidavit  Language” 
section of this document.)  Of course, the investigator also must request permission to 
search for any articles of personal property tending to establish dominion and control 
over the premises and/or automobile(s) to be searched. 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  20  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

 
 

Hispanic Gang Tattoos
 
For a number of reasons, it is important to analyze and catalog the items seized 

in a “gang warrant” following the service of the warrant.  First, it allows the magistrate 
who approved the warrant to determine that only items authorized in the warrant were 
seized.  Second, although it is a tedious task, all of the seized letters need to be read, 
seized  film developed, and seized  tapes  listened  to, because  their value depends on 
their content.  Finally, a detailed inventory itemizing the evidence should be prepared 
for  use  in  the  instant  case  and  for  future  use.    Such  an  inventory  allows  for  easy 
retrieval and should also be included in the gang intelligence files. 

 
 
USE OF INFORMANTS AND THE NEED  
FOR AN INFORMANT POLICY 
 

“It  takes  one  to  know  one”  is  the  age‐old  premise  of  using  CIs  (cooperating 
individuals  or  confidential  informants)  in  criminal  investigations.    Cooperating 
individuals  is  the  preferred  reference  to  individuals  who  cooperate  with  the  police, 
because the definition is more expansive and recognizes that great care must be taken 
when  one  is  using  the  information  from  a  cooperating  individual.    A  cooperating 
individual  is  any  person  who  knowingly  provides  information  to  law  enforcement 
related to another’s criminal activity, whose motivation for doing so is other than that of 
an uninvolved witness who  is a victim or private citizen primarily acting  through a 
sense of civic responsibility, and who, as a general rule but not necessarily, expects 
some  sort  of  personal  benefit  or  advantage  or  the  same  for  another  individual.    A 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  21  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

benefit is usually financial or reduced punishment or some other favorable treatment 
given in exchange for the information.   
 

Typical CIs in gang cases include mercenaries (paid informants), gang members 
cooperating to obtain leniency in another case, codefendants, or friends not involved in 
the present crime.  Cooperation covers a range of possibilities, including (among other 
things)  making  tape‐recorded  telephone  calls,  supplying  information  regarding  the 
suspects of a crime or  their present whereabouts, wearing a recording  device while 
attending  a  meeting  of  gang  members,  recapturing  stolen  property  for  the  police, 
and/or testifying.   
 

While the benefits of CI‐supplied information can be enormous, CIs should be 
used with great caution.  Juries do not like “snitches.”  Police and prosecutors should 
carefully  log all benefits conferred on a CI during an  investigation and  disclose  the 
benefits before trial to the defense.  Such benefits are viewed legally as motivation for a 
CI  to  favor  law  enforcement  while  testifying.    Great  care  must  also  be  given  to 
disclosing to the defense any exculpatory Brady material that might be discovered as a 
result of the CI’s cooperation, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).   
 

CIs should only be used after a written agreement is signed that fully discloses 
the  agreement  between  the  CI  and  the  police  (in  conjunction  with  the  prosecution).  
Police should also maintain a log of all supervision of and direction given to a CI and 
document the performance of the CI, both good and bad.  It is critical to present the CI 
in  the  most  accurate  light  possible  to  avoid  the  appearance  that  the  police  and 
prosecution are hiding things.   
 

Juveniles should not be used as CIs absent extraordinary (usually life‐or‐death) 
circumstances.  Use of juveniles is normally highly restricted by law.  In California, for 
example, no juvenile can be used as a CI without authorization from the juvenile court 
following  a  hearing  on  the  matter.    As  a  practical  matter,  juveniles  are  never  used 
because of the showing necessary for the  juvenile court’s authorization.   Restrictions 
also frequently exist regarding the use of probationers and parolees.  Acting as a CI and 
being  around  criminal  behavior  and  characters  are  viewed  as  inconsistent  with  the 
reformative nature of probation or parole.    

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  22  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES  
 

Juvenile Court Records  
 

It is becoming increasingly easier to obtain juvenile court records.  Throughout 
the 1990s, efforts were made to distinguish less serious juvenile offenders from serious 
and violent recidivist  juvenile offenders.   More  juveniles are now remanded to adult 
court for trial, which means the court proceedings and records are open to the public.  
In addition, many states now allow for open juvenile hearings on alleged offenders who 
are over a certain age or are accused of committing a serious or violent felony offense.  
Since  2000  in  California,  juvenile  records  evidencing  adjudication  for  a  serious  or 
violent felony offense may never be sealed and are open to public inspection.   
 

Typically, juvenile records are available to the prosecution in new cases against a 
specific  juvenile offender.   Juvenile records, however, are also useful in cases besides 
the specific offender’s case in jurisdictions that require the prosecution to establish that 
a gang has committed a certain number of predicate offenses.  Given the young age of 
many gang member offenders,  juvenile records are frequently helpful in showing the 
required  predicate  offenses  committed  by  juvenile  members  of  the  gang.    At  times, 
there are no adult convictions available, necessitating the use of  juvenile adjudication 
records.  Occasionally, a court order is necessary to inspect or copy records of a juvenile 
gang member for a case other than his own.   

 
 
GANG SEARCH WARRANT AND  
AFFIDAVIT LANGUAGE 
 

Gang Paraphernalia Language 
 
Search Warrant Description 
 

Any evidence of street gang membership or affiliation with any street gang, said 
paraphernalia to include, but not limited to, any reference to XXXXX; said items 
to include any (color used by specific gang) bandanas, drawings or miscellaneous 
writings, or objects, or graffiti depicting gang members’ names,  initials,  logos, 
monikers, slogans, or containing mention of street gang membership affiliation, 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  23  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

activity, or identity; any paintings, drawings, photographs or photograph albums 
depicting  persons,  vehicles,  weapons,  or  locations  which  may  appear  upon 
observation to be relevant on the question of gang membership or association, or 
which may depict items sought and/or believed to be evidence in the case being 
investigated with  this warrant, or which may depict evidence of any criminal 
activity; any newspaper clippings  tending  to relate details or reference  to any 
crime or crimes of violence; and any address books, lists of, or single references to, 
addresses or telephone numbers of persons who may later be determined to belong 
to or be affiliated with any street gangs. 

 
Affidavit Language to Justify Seizure of Gang Paraphernalia 
 

I request permission to seize any evidence of street gang membership or affiliation 
with  any  street  gang,  said  paraphernalia  to  include,  but  not  limited  to,  any 
reference  to  XXXXX;  said  items  to  include  any  drawings  or  miscellaneous 
writings, or objects, or graffiti depicting gang members’ names,  initials,  logos, 
monikers, slogans, or containing mention of street gang membership affiliation, 
activity, or  identity, as  it  is my experience that most street gang members are 
known by street names or monikers to their fellow gang members, and that they 
frequently write their names or monikers of their associates on walls, furniture, 
miscellaneous items, or papers, both within and on their residences, and within 
and  on  their  vehicles;  any  paintings,  drawings,  photographs  or  photograph 
albums depicting persons, vehicles, weapons, or locations which may appear upon 
observation to be relevant on the question of gang membership or association, or 
which may depict items sought and/or believed to be evidence in the case being 
investigated with  this warrant, or which may depict evidence of any criminal 
activity, as  it  is my experience that most gang members keep photographs and 
photograph  albums,  in  which  are  depicted  (1)  fellow  gang  members  who  are 
posing and giving hand gang signs that indicate gang identity or affiliation, (2) 
gang members or associates posing with weapons, particularly firearms that are 
often used for criminal activities, (3) gang members or associates posing beside 
vehicles that are occasionally used during the commission of crimes, and (4) gang 
members or associates posing at  locations  that are known  to be  specific gang 
hangouts; any newspaper clippings tending to relate details or reference to any 
crime or crimes of violence, as it is my experience that gang members occasionally 
maintain scrapbooks or newspaper articles that describe crimes committed by or 
against their gang; and any address books, lists of, or single reference to, address 
or telephone numbers of persons who may later be determined to belong to or be 
affiliated with any  street gangs,  since  it  is my  experience  that gang members 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  24  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

frequently  maintain  the  current  phone  numbers  or  addresses  of  fellow  gang 
members whom they associate with. 

 
It is my opinion that evidence of gang membership or affiliation with any street 
gang is important, as it may suggest motive for the commission of the crimes, in 
the  instant  case,  and  it  may  provide  evidence  which  tends  to  identify  other 
persons who may have knowledge of or be  involved  in  the  commission of  the 
crimes  in the  instant case, or  it may tend to corroborate  information given by 
other witnesses. 

 
I  believe  that  these  are  not  the  types  of  items  normally disposed  of  after  the 
commission of a crime and that they will, therefore,  likely still be  found  in the 
locations or on the persons to be searched.   

 

Dominion and Control Language 
 
Search Warrant Description 
 

Any articles or personal property tending to establish the identity of persons who 
have dominion and control over the premises, automobiles, or items to be seized, 
consisting  of  rent  receipts,  utility  company  receipts,  miscellaneous  addressed 
mail, personal  letters, personal  identification, keys, photographs, vehicle  titles, 
and vehicle registration slips. 

 
Affidavit Language to Justify  
Seizure of Dominion and Control Evidence 
 

I request permission to seize any articles of personal property tending to establish 
the  identity  of  persons  who  have  dominion  and  control  over  the  premises, 
automobiles, or  items  to be seized, consisting of rent receipts, utility company 
receipts, miscellaneous addressed mail, personal  letters, personal  identification, 
keys, photographs, vehicle titles, and vehicle registration slips. 
 
I  believe  that  all  of  these  items  will  tend  to  connect  the  premises,  persons, 
locations, and vehicles  to be searched with  the  items  to be seized and  the case 
being  investigated.    It  is my  experience  that  these  types of  items are usually 
present at  the  types of  locations  sought  to be searched  in  this warrant, and  I 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  25  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

believe that these items are not the type normally disposed of and can, therefore, be 
found at the locations to be searched. 

 
Affidavit Language to Establish Relevance of Gang Evidence  
(overcoming staleness with the dynamic of guns and evidence being passed among 
fellow gang members)  
 

Based upon all of the above, the attached exhibits, and my expertise on gangs, I 
have the following opinions regarding this case: 

 
(1)  That  there  is  a  longstanding  and  ongoing  war  between 

members of the XXXXX and the XXXXX and that this war 
has involved many acts of violence on both sides. 

 
(2)  That I personally know that the XXXXX are a close‐knit group 

and that  it  is not uncommon  for many of the members to be 
involved in related acts of violence. 

 
(3)  That when an ongoing war situation involving many separate 

members of the same gang exists, it is not uncommon for the 
violent members at  the central core of  the gang  to associate 
with each other, and  to plan  together aggressive acts and/or 
acts of violent retaliation to be perpetrated by a few members of 
this violent central cadre. 

 
(4)  That the pattern of violent acts between the XXXXX and the 

XXXXX and the large number of separate people involved in 
these acts makes it more likely than not that there is a general 
common plan existing among the XXXXX to commit acts of 
violence with the XXXXX. 

 
(5)  That  in a  longstanding, gang‐shooting war, members of  the 

victim gang  in one shooting  frequently know or suspect that 
they know who the perpetrators are because of the “word on the 
street,” which  is  information passed  from person  to person, 
often  based  on  sources  within  the  perpetrators’  gang,  on 
eyewitnesses reluctant to cooperate with the police, or on gang 
graffiti that is composed of writings on buildings or walls and 

Gang Prosecution Manual

  26  Section 1.  Investigating the Gang Case 

is a means used by some gang members  to  take credit  for a 
violent incident. 

 
(6)  That because of the above, a person involved as a shooter in a 

gang‐related war incident will generally assume his identity is 
known  on  the  streets  and  that,  while  he  must  temporarily 
dispose of the weapon used in the underlying offense, he must 
at the same time have accessible to himself a weapon which can 
be used for self‐defense upon short notice. 

 
(7)  That gang members who are  involved  in an ongoing war of 

shooting  incidents  frequently do not permanently dispose of 
their weapons, preferring to retain access to them for protection 
from retaliation or for further use in acts of aggression while 
the war is continuing. 

 
(8)  That gang members who use a firearm in gang war situations 

frequently  borrow  the  weapon  used  from  a  fellow  gang 
member, and after  the  commission of a violent act with  the 
weapon, they return  it to the gang member they borrowed  it 
from,  to  prevent  it  from  being  seized  by  law  enforcement 
officers  pursuant  to  a  search  conducted  shortly  after  the 
commission of the crime. 

 
(9)  That gang members who do use their own firearms in gang war 

situations  frequently  pass  the  weapons  used  to  fellow  gang 
members for safe keeping, in order to prevent the weapons from 
being seized by law enforcement officers pursuant to a search of 
their residences, vehicles, or persons. 

 
(10)  That when a gang member in the above situation believes that 

he is no longer liable to be searched as a suspect in the shooting 
incident, he will frequently retrieve the weapon used and store 
it where  it would be readily accessible  for defense or offense, 
such as in his residence, on his person, or in a vehicle to which 
he has access. 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

27  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

Section 2. 
 
Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability  
and Investigation Considerations: 
Why the Liability Net Gets Thrown  
Over So Many 

By
John Anderson, Assistant District Attorney
Orange County District Attorney’s Office
Supervisor of the TARGET Gang Unit

Santa Ana, California

INTRODUCTION 
 

Gangs  represent  perhaps  the  greatest  violent  crime  threat  facing  society.  
Successful  gang  crime  investigations  and  prosecutions  usually  require  an  intimate 
familiarity with  typical gang dynamics and  the  legal  theories associated with group 
criminal behavior.   Before a gang can be anything else,  it must first be a group and 
almost always a group that involves itself, as a group, in serious and violent criminal 
conduct.   
 

Unfortunately, one of the few consistent findings in gang research is that gang 
members commit a disproportionately  high number of delinquent and criminal acts 
compared  with  other  non‐gang‐involved  youth.    Frequently,  gang  members  commit 
crime as a group, and such group criminal behavior poses unique dangers to society far 
more  serious  than  the  risk  typically  related  to  individual  criminal  behavior.  
Understanding the legal theories of group criminal liability assists in the investigation 
of  most  gang‐related  crimes—especially  in  crime  scene  considerations,  victim  and 
witness interviews, and the interrogation of suspects.   
 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

28  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

Consider the following hypothetical yet typical gang activity scenario:   
 

Three  documented  members  of  the  Crazy  Punkz  (CP)  street  gang  notice  that 
someone from the Not So Smart Boyz (NSSB) has come into CP territory and “plaqued 
up” (spray‐painted) a wall in the CP territory with NSSB graffiti.  The plaqued‐up wall 
is the main wall used by CP to spray‐paint CP graffiti and is in the heart of CP territory.  
The NSSB culprit also crossed out the CP graffiti.  Naturally, the three CP members feel 
disrespected and agree to collectively retaliate against NSSB by likewise spray‐painting 
walls in the NSSB turf.   
 

The CP members decide that because they are going  into NSSB territory, they 
should bring along a firearm in case they are confronted while spray‐painting and that 
two of the three will paint while the third watches for rivals and the police.  The three 
agree that the gun will ONLY be used, if at all, to scare a rival, assuming the group is 
confronted while in NSSB territory. 
 

The three enter the NSSB neighborhood and leave their CP graffiti everywhere 
they can.  Sure enough, several NSSB gangsters see the CP members and confront them.  
The CP member keeping lookout (and possessing the handgun) immediately takes out 
the handgun and fires several shots at the NSSB members while screaming, “Die, you 
cheese‐eating rats!”  Two NSSB gangsters are killed and two others severely wounded. 
 

Who is liable for what crimes?  Hint:  consider group crime dynamics, conspiracy 
and  aiding  and  abetting  laws,  and  extended  or  derivative  liability  principles.  
Sequentially, the CP members conspired to commit a misdemeanor (vandalism), which 
makes the target crime a felony in many states; they jointly possessed the handgun (one 
actually, the others constructively); they are each liable for the acts of vandalism (two as 
direct perpetrators, the other as an aider and abettor); and the shooter CP gang member 
directly perpetrated  the murder of  the  two dead NSSB members and  the attempted 
murder of the other two who survived.  The remaining two CP members are also liable 
for the murders and the attempted murders as the natural and probable consequences 
of  conspiring  to  vandalize  the  NSSB  territory  while  possessing  a  firearm.    To  fully 
appreciate  the  application  of  these  concepts,  it  is  necessary  to  review  group  crime 
dynamics,  the  basic  principles  of  aiding  and  abetting  and  conspiracy  laws,  and 
extended derivative liability.  

 
 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

29  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

GROUP CRIME DANGERS 
 

The old adage “two heads are better  than one” exemplifies  the dynamics and 
dangers  associated  with  group  participation  in  criminal  acts.    Often,  group  actions 
synergistically affect the outcome of an intended goal.  While group work and synergy 
are  normally  considered  positive  attributes,  these  principles  work  dangerous 
consequences  when  applied  to  criminal  enterprises.    Criminal  law  has  historically 
responded with severe sanctions against participants in group crime.  Specialized legal 
theories and crimes and criminal punishments have been developed in response to the 
dangers of group criminality.  
 
  “Unquestionably, the purpose of the law in making it an offense to [agree 

to commit a crime as a group] is to reach everyone who has participated in 
forming  the  evil  plan  irrespective  of  who  or  how  many  carry  out  the 
design, and well may this be a protection to society, for a group of evil 
minds planning and giving support to the commission of crime is more 
likely to be a menace to society than where one individual alone sets out 
to violate the law.” 

People v. Luparello, 187 Cal. App. 3d 410, 437 (1986) 
    

The above is true because group behavior in crime represents a unique danger to 
society.    The  potential  for  harm  to  society  increases  when  multiple  participants  are 
involved in the planning and execution of criminal schemes.  As one court has said,  
 

“The punishment of conspiracy as a felony . . . is explained on the theory 
that concerted criminal activities are a much more serious danger  than 
individual criminal acts, and therefore justify drastic sanctions against the 
criminal agreement itself.”   

Williams v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 3d 8, 11 (1973) 
 

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  stated  the  following  concerning  the 
dangerous dynamics associated with group criminal behavior: 
 
  “Collective criminal agreement—partnership in crime—presents a greater 

potential  threat  to  the public  than  individual delicts.   Concerted action 
both  increases  the  likelihood  that  the  criminal  objective  will  be 
successfully  attained  and  decreases  the  probability  that  the  individuals 
involved will depart from their path of criminality.  Group association for 
criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of 

Gang Prosecution Manual

30  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish.  Nor 
is the danger of a [criminal] group limited to the particular end toward 
which  it  embarked.    Combination  in  crime  makes  more  likely  the 
commission  of  crimes  unrelated  to  the  original  purpose  for  which  the 
group was formed.  In sum, the danger which [group criminal behavior] 
generates is not confined to the substantive offense that is the immediate 
aim of the enterprise.” 

Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587, 595 (1961) 
 

Group crime represents not only the danger of a crime being committed but also 
a uniquely elevated danger potential.  As stated by the California Court of Appeal: 

 
“The basic [group crime prohibition] principle has some place in modern 
law,  because  to  unite,  back  of  a  criminal  purpose,  the  strength, 
opportunities and resources of many  is obviously more dangerous and 
more  difficult  to  police  than  the  efforts  of  a  lone  wrongdoer.  
Collaboration  magnifies  the  risk  to  society  both  by  increasing  the 
likelihood  that a given quantum of harm will be successfully produced 
and by increasing the amount of harm that can be inflicted.”   

People v. Williams, 101 Cal. App. 3d 711, 721 (1980) 
 

The specific dangers of group crime include an increased chance of the planned 
crime  actually  occurring,  a  greater  possibility  of  criminal  success,  a  higher  risk  of 
violence, and an increased likelihood of escape or not being detected.  Group behavior 
increases courage and lowers inhibitions among group members.      
 

Group criminal participation historically has received severe sanctions because 
of the unique dangers associated with group criminal dynamics.  When a group is set 
upon committing a crime, there are accompanying dangers.  For example, the chance of 
the crime actually occurring increases because the group dynamics result in increased 
courage,  perceived  strength  from  numbers,  lowered  inhibition  among  the  group 
members,  higher  degrees  of  negative  peer  influence,  and  a  reluctance  for  group 
participants to back out of the criminal design because the others are relying on them. 
Simply stated, people do things in a group environment that they would not do alone. 
Many hands make light work, and many minds can formulate better plans and more 
thoroughly  prepare  for  contingencies.    Compared  with  a  single  individual,  a  group 
increases  the  chances  of  a  crime  being  better  planned.    Groups  also  possess  more 
physical strength (helpful in carrying away stolen property, subduing victims, passing 
or concealing weapons, breaking down doors, etc.) than individuals and can expedite 
the commission of an offense by dividing the tasks necessary for the completion of the 

Gang Prosecution Manual

31  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

crime.    Finally,  the  enhanced  physical  and  mental  attributes  of  a  group  criminal 
enterprise better allow a group to escape following a crime.  This is accomplished by 
quicker execution of the crime, given the enhanced physical and mental attributes of a 
group. 

 
 
TEENAGE GROUP CRIME DANGERS 
 

The group crime dangers described above are exacerbated when  the group  is 
composed  of  teenagers  and  young  adults  and  even  more  so  with  gang  members.  
Teenagers and young adults, on a percentage basis, are more frequently  involved  in 
criminal  acts  than  adults.    Youthful  offenders  have  limited  or  immature  levels  of 
judgment  and  social  development.    Peer  influence  is  at  its  highest  among  younger 
people, and this age cohort frequently involves itself in group activities (criminal and 
noncriminal).   A startling reality  is  that more  than 90 percent of delinquent acts are 
committed in groups of two or more (Bursik, 1993, p. 142).   

 
 
GANG GROUP CRIME DANGERS 
 

Gang group criminal involvement represents the zenith of group crime dangers.  
While there is no universal definition of a gang, every available definition recognizes a 
gang as a group (Klein, 1995, p. 94).   In fact, a gang draws its identity, strength, and 
reputation from its strength as a group and the crimes it commits, usually as a group.  
Research has consistently shown that gang members have extraordinarily high levels of 
delinquency and criminal involvement (Esbensen, 1993, p. 110).  Gangs not only commit 
crime as a group but also do so more frequently than other youthful offenders who, in 
turn, commit a greater percentage of crime than older‐age cohorts.  Compounding the 
problem  is  that  gang  members  possess  an  antisocial,  oppositional  mind‐set;  reject 
 
middle‐class  values;  more  frequently  drop  out  of  school  (which  increases  free  time, 
leading to more criminal opportunity); have high levels of substance abuse; and identify 
more  closely  with  negative  peers.    The  bottom  line  is  that  gangs  represent  one  of 
society’s greatest group criminal threats. 

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

32  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

BASIC CONCEPTS OF GROUP CRIMINAL LIABILITY 
 

Direct Criminal Liability 
 

Most  states  consider persons  who  directly  and  actively  commit  or  attempt  to 
commit  acts  constituting  a  crime  as  principals  in  the  commission  or  attempted 
commission  of  the  crime.    All  such  perpetrators  are  equally  guilty  of  the  crime,  no 
matter  if the  involvement of all  is not equal.   So  long as each  is a perpetrator of the 
offense, each is legally culpable and, therefore, legally blameworthy.   
 

Aiding and Abetting  
 

Principals in a crime also include those who aid and abet the commission of the 
offense.  Aiders and abettors are liable for the same crime as the direct perpetrator(s) 
and are punished the same.  A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when 
he or she (1) aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates another person or persons in the 
commission of a crime; (2) has knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator(s); 
and (3) has the specific intent or purpose of committing or encouraging or facilitating 
the commission of the crime.*  
 

(*Many states require only willful assistance of another in the commission of a 
crime with knowledge of the perpetrator’s intent.  There is no requirement of intent in 
the mind of the aider and abettor for the crime to actually occur.) 
 

Simply  stated,  an  aider  and  abettor  is  a  person  who  helps  someone  in  the 
commission  of  a  crime  while  having  at  least  knowledge  of  the  direct  perpetrator’s 
criminal or unlawful purpose.  The aider and abettor either has to act knowing that the 
act will help facilitate a crime or, in a minority of the states, must share with the direct 
perpetrator the specific intent for the crime to actually occur.  The aider and abettor by 
act  or  advice  (words)  aids,  promotes,  encourages,  facilitates,  or  instigates  the 
commission of the direct perpetrator’s crime.   
 

  There is no requirement that an aider and abettor be present at the scene of a 
crime,  merely  that  he  or  she  knowingly  helped  the  perpetrator  commit  the  offense.  
Drawing a diagram of  the  interior of a robbery  location, giving  the alarm codes, or 
loaning the instrumentalities of a crime (getaway car, guns, rope, or duct tape) are good 
examples  of  assisting  the  commission  of  a  crime  while  not  being  present  for  its 
execution.    On  the  other  hand,  merely  being  present  during  the  commission  of  an 

Gang Prosecution Manual

33  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

offense is not a crime.  Likewise, knowing that a crime is about to occur and failing to 
report or prevent it is not a crime. 

 

Conspiracy Liability 
 

Collective  gang  criminal  action  frequently  also  constitutes  a  conspiracy.    A 
conspiracy is two or more persons agreeing to commit a crime.  Many states also require 
that one of the conspiring parties commit some act, known as an overt act, toward the 
completion of the agreed‐upon crime before criminal liability attaches against all of the 
conspirators.  There is no requirement that the overt act be a crime, just that it be done 
to further the criminal goal of the conspiracy.   
 

Regarding the required mind‐set of the conspirators, each must have the specific 
intent to agree and to commit a crime.  There is no requirement that the planned offense 
actually occur or  that all of  the conspirators be present  if  the crime  is attempted or 
completed.    Because  of  the  recognized  dangers  of  group  criminal  activity,  the  law 
usually punishes a conspiracy the same as if the target crime actually occurred.  Finally, 
if the target crime is attempted or actually occurs, there is separate criminal liability for 
attempted or completed crime. 

 
 
INVESTIGATION CONSIDERATIONS 
 

Frequently, in a gang context, a group rather than an individual commits crime.  
Anytime multiple participants commit a crime, it is important to investigate the crime 
with  group  criminal  liability  concepts  in  mind.    When  there  are  multiple  possible 
criminal perpetrators, it is important to focus on the actions of each suspect, not just the 
obvious ones.    
 

Crime Scene 
 

Evidence  found  at  a  crime  scene  may  indicate  the  involvement  of  multiple 
suspects.    Physical  evidence  is  powerful  corroboration  of  victim,  witness,  and/or 
suspect statements.  Every reasonable effort should be made to collect and analyze all 
available crime scene evidence.  Issues to consider include: 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

34  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

(1)  Were multiple weapons used? 
—  Were  different  caliber  expended  bullet  casings  or 

projectiles found at a shooting? 
—  Were different types of weapons left at the crime scene? 
—  Do the victim’s wounds indicate more than one weapon 

was used? 
 

(2)  Is  the  available  fingerprint,  blood,  or  DNA  evidence  indicative  of 
several perpetrators? 

 
(3)  Were  any  other  instrumentalities  of  the  crime  left  behind 

demonstrating group criminal behavior? 
—  Items of clothing, notes, multiple vehicles, etc.  

 
(4)  Is  there  any  security  video  available  from  the  scene  or  nearby 

locations where the suspects may have been just before or after the 
crime? 

 
(5)  Is  there  any  other  physical  evidence  that  has  a  tendency  to  show 

there was a group of perpetrators involved in the crime who were 
assisting each other in the commission of the offense or facilitating or 
encouraging the commission of the offense? 

 
(6)  Was there any fresh graffiti sprayed in the area immediately before 

or after the crime that could be a gang’s claim of responsibility for 
the crime? 

 
(7)  Were  the  victims  or  intended  victims  documented  gang  members 

based on police records? 
 

Witness Statements 
 

Obviously,  witnesses  are  a  valuable  source  of  information  in  multiple‐
perpetrator crimes.  Sometimes, however, witnesses are allowed to give conclusionary 
statements  (e.g., “They all attacked  the victim!” or “The skinny guy was acting as a 
lookout.”) instead of detailed accounts of each suspect’s involvement.  It is important 
for  witnesses  to  fully  describe  the  actions  of  each  perpetrator,  whenever  possible.  
Witnesses should also be separated from each other as soon as possible and interviewed 
individually.  Finally, whenever possible, witnesses should be tape‐recorded to ensure 

Gang Prosecution Manual

35  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

that  the  witnesses’  stories  are  unquestionably  memorialized  should  the  witnesses 
become uncooperative during court testimony. 

 
Witnesses to a crime can provide important information in the following areas: 

 
(1)  Number of suspects. 
 
(2)  Specific actions of each suspect. 
 
(3)  Whether the suspects arrived and/or left together. 
 
(4)  How the suspects talked and interacted with each other.  (Did they 

speak  to  one  another  as  if  they  were  associated,  and  were  they 
directing each other during the commission of the crime?) 

 
(5)  Were there multiple direct perpetrators of the crime (e.g., shooters, 

stabbers, spray‐painters, or beer grabbers in a beer run)? 
 
(6)  Were the suspects dressed similarly or in the same color of clothes? 
 
(7)  Was  a  gang  name  announced  or  were  hand  signs  used  before, 

during, or immediately after the commission of the crime?   
 
(8)  Were the suspects known to the victim(s) and witness(es) and known 

as gang members? 
 
(9)  Was someone acting as a  lookout  (have  the witness be specific  in 

describing the suspect’s actions) or as a distraction while others were 
stealing  property  or  running  out  of  the  convenience  store  with 
alcohol or other stolen property? 

 
(10)  Any  other  suspect  actions  that  indicate  prior  planning  and 

agreement. 
 

It is important to remember that a conspiracy is a completed crime either at the 
time of the agreement to commit a crime or, in those states requiring it, at the time of an 
overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the agreement to commit a crime.  
There  may  be  no  traditional  crime  scene  with  a  conspiracy  because  the  would‐be 
perpetrators  did  not  complete  the  agreed‐upon  crime  before  something  caused  the 
cessation of the movement toward the crime’s completion.  Likewise, in an aiding‐and‐

Gang Prosecution Manual

36  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

abetting  situation,  if  the  crime  is  attempted  but  not  completed,  then  the  direct 
perpetrators and the aiders and abettors are still liable for the attempt. 
 

Consider the following scenario to demonstrate when criminal liability attaches 
despite the perpetrator(s) not completing the intended crime.   
 

While driving in a car, a group of four gang members are stopped by a patrol 
officer for a routine vehicle code violation.  The car turns out to be stolen.  A search of 
the car reveals four ski masks, two handguns, a roll of duct tape, a stun gun, and a map 
to the home of a jewelry merchant, who is neither related to any of the gang members 
nor knows any of them.  To the experienced gang investigator or prosecutor, these facts 
are powerful evidence of a conspiracy to commit a residential robbery. 
 

Gang Expert Testimony 
 

A gang expert’s testimony is critical in gang aiding‐and‐abetting situations.   A 
gang  expert  is  someone  who,  through  training,  experience,  and/or  education,  is 
thoroughly conversant with gang dynamics.  The expert can help explain typical gang 
behaviors that are pathetically predictable but beyond the common experience of most 
jurors.  Following is a listing (although in no way an exhaustive list) of several common 
gang  dynamic  concepts  and  gang  behavior  examples  of  aiding‐and‐abetting  and/or 
conspiracy situations:   
 

(1)  Backing up.  Gang members are expected to stand by while a fellow 
gang  member  confronts  or  is  confronted  by  a  rival  or  commits  a 
crime in case the fellow gang member needs help.  The fellow gang 
members  are  not  merely  present  but  rather  standing  ready  and 
willing to step in with assistance should the fellow perpetrating gang 
member need help.  The gang members backing up the perpetrating 
gang  member  lend  confidence  to  the  perpetrator(s)  and  help 
encourage the commission of the offense. 

 
(2)  Driving  the car.   The driver  in a number of crimes  is a necessary 

facilitator in the commission of the offenses.  Drive‐by shootings and 
commercial  robberies  are  good  examples  of  crimes  frequently 
involving drivers who are not the direct perpetrators of the offenses. 

 
(3)  Yelling the gang name.  Fellow gang members often claim (speak or 

yell) their gang’s name while one of their gang members commits a 

Gang Prosecution Manual

37  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

crime.  This affords notoriety to the gang for the criminal activity of a 
member.   It also  lends encouragement for the direct perpetrator to 
complete the offense. 

 
(4)  Throwing  hand  signs.    Gang  members  enjoy  their  notoriety.  

Frequently,  immediately  preceding  a  crime  or  during  the 
commission  of  a  crime,  gang  members  who  are  not  direct 
perpetrators  of  the  offense  throw  their  gang  hand  signs  as 
encouragement to their fellow, direct perpetrator gang members or 
as a sign to the victims of the perpetrators’ status as gang members.  

 
(5)  Preventing  others  from  interfering.    Gang  members  occasionally 

prevent  others  from  interfering  in  a  fight  between  a  fellow  gang 
member and another person or in the commission of some other sort 
of crime.  This conduct promotes and assists in the completion of a 
crime by ensuring unfettered access to the victim. 

 
(6)  Keeping  lookout or watching  for  the police.   Gang members often 

keep guard while  fellow gang members commit criminal offenses.  
The knowledge that others are watching out for you encourages the 
continued commission of a crime.   It also allows the perpetrator to 
focus solely on the crime instead of looking around to see whether he 
or she has been detected.  A lookout is commonly utilized in street 
narcotics transactions or spray‐painting expeditions. 

 
(7)  Calling  the  “homies”  when  rivals  are  seen.    This  behavior  alerts 

fellow gang members to the presence of rivals, which, in turn, allows 
for assaultive conduct against the rivals.   

 
(8)  Stealing  a  car  (G‐ride)  for  some  other  crime—usually  a  drive‐by 

shooting or robbery.  When a gang member knowingly steals a car 
for  use  in  some  other  crime,  the  gang  member  is  facilitating  the 
commission  of  the  other  offense.    The  gang  member  is  therefore 
equally liable for the commission of the crime done in the car after it 
was stolen. 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

38  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

(9)  Getting  or  holding  a  weapon—the  “gang  gun.”    Gang  experts 
usually opine that when a gang member has a gun, anyone  in the 
gang can use the gun.  Further, following a crime, it is common for a 
noninvolved gang member to hold the gun until the heat dies down.  
Either situation helps the gang obtain, use, and conceal its collective 
cache of firearms. 

 
In order  for an expert  to render such opinions, however,  it  is critical  to have 

plentiful evidence of a suspect’s gang affiliation.  All prior field interview cards; crime 
reports;  pictures;  correspondence;  documented  admissions  of  gang  membership  to 
teachers, probation or parole officers, or to jailers; interview statements; and any other 
piece of gang membership evidence should be gathered for use by the expert in court. 
 

Suspect Interview—Statements 
 
Some of the most damaging evidence in a criminal case is admissions made by a 

suspect.  In a gang crime situation, gang dynamics are important areas of inquiry for an 
investigating officer during a suspect interview.  It is helpful in a group crime scenario 
to keep the dynamics of group crime in mind; e.g., allegiance to the group, a sense of 
invincibility while in the group, reliance of the group on those who have committed to 
the planned behavior, the division of tasks possible with multiple crime partners, and 
alcohol or narcotic use. 
 

Often, gang members discuss their gang membership with the police even when 
reluctant  to  admit  participation  in  a  crime.    Under  such  circumstances,  valuable 
information is obtainable from gang member suspects.  Interview topics should mirror 
the eventual testimony of the gang expert.  It is useful to have the gang suspect lay out 
the gang group dynamics that are explained above.   
 

Interview topics with a gang member suspect should include: 
 

(1)  Attachment to and identification with the gang. 
 
(2)  The gang being  the primary focus and most  important aspect of a 

gang member’s life. 
 
(3)  Allegiance to the gang and to fellow gang members. 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

39  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

(4)  Putting in work for the gang when called upon and knowing when 
joining a gang that someday the gang member will be expected to 
commit crime on behalf of the gang. 

 
(5)  “Representing” or being “down” for the gang by never backing away 

from a challenge and always backing up a fellow gang member. 
 
(6)  The code of never cooperating with the police and the importance of 

never being labeled a “snitch” or a “rat.” 
 
(7)  History of  the suspect’s gang,  the number of members,  the gang’s 

territory (if territorial), and the types of crimes the gang is known for 
(even if the suspect denies any involvement in those crimes). 

 
(8)  Initiation rituals of walking  in,  jumping  in, “criming  in,” or being 

“sexed in.” 
 
(9)  Rivalries—especially  if  the  crime  under  investigation  is  one  of 

violence against a rival of the suspect gang. 
 
(10)  Expected behavior of gang members when confronting rivals and the 

territories of the rivals of the suspect’s gang. 
 
(11)  Antisocial,  oppositional  attitudes  of  gang  members  toward  the 

criminal  justice  system,  education,  employment,  and  legitimate 
society. 

 
(12)  The role of drugs and alcohol for gang members—getting buzzed is 

not  passing  out.    Drugs  and  alcohol  increase  courage  yet  do  not 
result  in  the  loss  of  self‐control.    Gang  members  usually  are 
experienced  drinkers  and  recreational  drug  users.    This  line  of 
questioning  is  important  and  helps  to  offset  any  later  claim  of  an 
alcohol‐ or drug‐induced reduced mental capacity.  

 
If a gang member  is willing to talk about his  involvement  in the crime under 

investigation, discuss that last.  Get as much detail about the suspect’s involvement as 
possible.  Also, have the gang member explain in detail the involvement of the other 
suspects.   Frequently, gang members will acknowledge behavior  they believe makes 
them less culpable than the direct perpetrator(s), such as watching out for the police, 
keeping others from intervening during the commission of a crime, driving the car in a 

Gang Prosecution Manual

40  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

drive‐by shooting, supplying the gun(s) used in an offense, or being present to back up 
fellow  gang  members  during  a  crime  should  the  need  arise.    Legally,  the  above 
admissions are sufficient to establish liability as an aider and abettor, a conspirator, or 
both. 

 
 
EXTENDED LIABILITY FROM 
GROUP CRIME PARTICIPATION 
 

Aiders  and  abettors  and  conspirators  may  be  liable  for  crimes  committed  or 
attempted by their crime partners, other than those crimes that were aided and abetted 
or  the  target offense of a conspiracy.   Each member of a conspiracy,  for example,  is 
liable for each act of every other member of the conspiracy that was done in furtherance 
of the object of the conspiracy.  A conspirator is liable for all acts of his coconspirators—
intended, unintended, or even actually forbidden—provided only that such acts be in 
furtherance of the common purpose of the conspiracy.  
 

Another  proviso  of  aiding  and  abetting  and  conspiracy  law  is  the  concept  of 
extended liability for crimes committed besides those originally contemplated.  Aiders 
and abettors and conspirators are not only guilty of the crime(s) aided and abetted or 
the object crime(s) of a conspiracy but are also liable for all other crimes committed by a 
fellow principal that are a “natural and probable consequence” of the crime(s) originally 
aided and abetted.  A natural and probable consequence is a result that is reasonably 
foreseeable to the aiders and abettors to a crime or the members of a conspiracy.  

 
Whether a consequence is natural and probable is an objective test based on what 

a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence would have expected.   
 

The following crimes committed during group crime situations have been found 
to be the natural and probable consequences of the original crime aided and abetted or 
the object crime of a conspiracy: 
 

(1)  A collective act of vandalism in rival gang territory led to an assault 
with a deadly weapon against a rival gang member by one of  the 
vandalizing gang members.  All of the other gang members involved 
in the vandalism were held liable for the assault.  

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

41  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

(2)  Several  gang  members  involved  in  a  robbery  were  liable  for  an 
assault with a deadly weapon committed during the robbery by one 
of their fellow perpetrators.  

 
(3)  An agreement to shoot from a vehicle  led to group  liability for an 

attempted murder. 
 
(4)  Gang members agreeing to fight in public were all held liable for the 

attempted murder committed by one of their members against a rival 
during the fight. 

 
(5)  A group of robbers were held  jointly  liable  for  the murder of  the 

victim by one of the perpetrators. 
 
(6)  A murder was a natural and probable consequence of a group plan 

to commit an assault with a deadly weapon. 
 
(7)  Gang  members  who  agreed  to  fight  in  public  (a  low‐grade 

misdemeanor offense) were each found culpable for the murder of a 
combatant on the other side of the fight committed by one of their 
fellow gang members. 

 
Interview suspects along the lines of foreseeability and expected outcomes.  For 

example, ask: 
 

Question:  Why did you bring a gun to the fistfight? 
Predictable response:  I took the gun along because I might have needed it.   

 
Under these circumstances, it is hard to deny the gun’s use was foreseeable. 

 
Other examples: 

 
Question:  Why did you go to back up your fellow gang members in the fight? 
Predictable  response:    Because  there  might  be  violence,  and  my  fellow  gang 

members might have needed help. 
 

Question:  Why did you bring a gun when spray‐painting graffiti in rival gang 
territory? 

Predictable response:  Because if I had been seen by rival gang members while 
spray‐painting, there might have been violence.   

Gang Prosecution Manual

42  Section 2.  Gang Group Crime Theories of Liability 
  and Investigation Considerations 

In each of these situations, violence was a planned, foreseeable outcome, rather 
than a spontaneous coincidence. 

 
 
CONCLUSION 
 

The  above  is  meant  only  as  an  introduction  to  the  interplay  of  group  crime 
theories and how they relate to the investigation and prosecution of group gang crime.  
Familiarity  with  the  theories  enhances  the  odds  of  solving  crime  and  successfully 
prosecuting  gang  criminal  conduct.    Work  with  these  concepts,  and  remember  that 
there is no substitute for experience in this area.   

 
 
REFERENCES 

 
Bursik, Robert J., and Harold G. Grasmick, Neighborhoods and Crime:  The Dimensions of 
Effective Community Control, The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1993. 
 
Esbensen,  Finn‐Aage,  Davis  Huizinga,  and  Anne  W.  Weiher,  “Gang  and  Nongang 
Youth:    Differences  in  Explanatory  Factors,”  Journal of Contemporary Criminal  Justice, 
9:94–116, 1993. 
 
Klein,  Malcolm  W.,  Cheryl  L.  Maxson,  and  Jody  Miller,  The  Modern  Gang  Reader, 
Roxbury, Los Angeles, California, 1995. 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

43 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

Section 3. 
 
Filing the Gang Case 
 
 

By
Ronald J. Freitas

Chief Deputy District Attorney
San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office

Stockton, California

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 

  In many ways, gang cases may be the most complex cases filed by a prosecutor.  
Since a gang  is a group of people, multiple defendants and complex  litigation about 
using  their  statements  against  one  another  should  be  expected.    Because  gangs  are 
constantly recruiting, initiating, and training, expect juveniles to be involved.  Witnesses 
are  often  hostile  to  law  enforcement  and  will  recant  at  trial.    A  gang  prosecution 
generally involves extended or vicarious liability for aiders and abettors, conspirators, 
or others involved in the criminal enterprise.  If the crime is murder, individuals may be 
found guilty within the felony murder rule, provocative act murder, or other theories. 
 
  Filing  a  gang  case  may  be  extremely  difficult.    Compounding  your  filing 
decisions are many other factors.  Supervisors will want to be briefed about the case.  
Clerical  and  court  staff  need  paperwork  as  soon  as  possible.    The  jail,  probation 
department, and  juvenile hall will also be awaiting your decisions.   The media will 
want you to answer the questions the investigating agencies will not touch.  If charges 
are  filed, will  the vertical prosecutions gang unit retain  the case or will mainline or 
another unit, such as homicide, prosecute? 
 
  The real issues, however, are simply what crimes were committed and who is 
liable for them.  How you answer these questions and what charges you file with the 
court will set the tone for this case from the beginning.  These charges, for example, will 
greatly affect whether the defendant will remain in custody or be eligible for bail and 
how much the bail will be.  These charges can affect the amount of resources that will 

Gang Prosecution Manual

44 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

be  spent  on  further  investigation  of  the  case.    The  charges  may  also  determine  the 
resources  available  to  the  defense.    The  charges  will  affect  later  plea  bargains  and 
indicated sentence  judgments from the court, as well as the defendant’s eligibility for 
probation and the terms of that probation, including registration requirements. 
 
  To decide which charges to file and against whom to file them, you must have an 
unsurpassed understanding of the case.  You must also understand theories that extend 
criminal liability to the participants.  Additionally, the prosecutor must be prepared to 
decide whether juveniles should be tried as adults or remain in juvenile court. 
 
  One fundamental principle cannot be stressed enough.  As a prosecutor, you are 
ethically bound to file charges only when there is a reasonable possibility of proving the 
charges.  A typical filing standard reads, “The admissible evidence should be of such 
convincing force that it warrant conviction of the crime charged by a reasonable and 
objective  factfinder after hearing all of  the evidence  .  .  . and after hearing  the most 
plausible,  reasonably  foreseeable  defense  that  could  be  raised  under  the  evidence 
presented to the prosecutor.”1  Under no circumstances is this rule to be violated.  There 
is not a different or lower filing standard for gang cases.  When tactical decisions are 
discussed in this chapter, it will always be assumed that probable cause supports the 
filings.  If probable cause does not exist to file charges, your decision is easy:  you do 
not file charges.  On the other hand, once probable cause exists, aggressively prosecute 
everyone who is responsible in the interests of justice. 

 
 
PREPARING TO FILE THE GANG CASE 
 
  As  a  prosecutor,  you  must  know  more  about  your  case  than  anyone  else, 
including the defense attorney or the judge.  You cannot be surprised or embarrassed 
about problems with the evidence  in your case.   By acknowledging and overcoming 
these problems, you can confidently ask the jury to return a verdict of guilty at the end 
of your trial.  Knowing everything there is to know about your case begins at intake. 
 
  While rushing to comply with constitutional and statutory scheduling, you must 
obtain a great amount of information in a short period of time.  Reports generally will 
not be completed, so you may have  to rely on  the statements and  integrity of your 
investigators.  Learning about the case includes learning not only the strengths but the 

1 Uniform Crime Charging Standards, CDAA, p. II‐1. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

45 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

weaknesses of the case.  The author has often been told the magic words, “the suspect 
confessed,” only  to  later  learn  that what was really said was, “I shot back after  the 
victim shot at me.”  This is a long way from a confession. 
 
  To file the case, review whatever reports are available.   Quite often, detectives 
will not have finished their reports but will have prepared affidavits for search‐and‐
arrest warrants that you should read. 
 
  When you speak with the investigators, ask multiple questions.  Obtain as much 
information as you can about the defendant, the victim, the gangs involved, the area 
where  the crime happened, and  the motive or reason  the crime happened.   Become 
familiar with witnesses and their biases or shortcomings.  Find out what other contacts 
these people have with law enforcement or the criminal justice system.  Also determine 
who has been untruthful during the investigation and why. 
 
  When establishing evidence, ask the following questions:   
 

What is the physical evidence?   
To  what  extent  does  the  crime  scene,  injuries,  or  other  evidence 
support or contradict the victim, witnesses, or defendant?   

Does  physical  evidence  exist  that  proves  or  disproves  a  victim, 
witness,  or  defendant?    What  are  the  opinions  of  the  forensic 
pathologist?   

Has a criminalist been contacted, and if so, for what?   
What will this expert be able to testify to? 

 
  Ask questions about the investigation:   
 

Are  there  legal  issues  that  you  need  to  be  aware  of  regarding  the 
investigation, searches, or interrogations?   

What scientific testing is available to further the investigation?   
What other witnesses need to be contacted?   
Are  there  witnesses  who  need  to  participate  in  photographic  or 
physical  lineups before  the defendant appears  in court or before his 
picture appears in the newspaper or on television?   If so, make sure 
that  this  is  done  so  that  outside  sources  will  not  later  discredit  the 
identification as being suggestive. 

 
  In states where you have an option, you must decide whether to initiate the court 
proceeding  by  grand  jury  or  preliminary  examination.    Generally,  a  preliminary 

Gang Prosecution Manual

46 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

examination  will  be  the  best  route,  especially  if  your  jurisdiction  allows  hearsay 
evidence.   However,  in certain  instances, a grand  jury  indictment may be  the better 
route.  Because the grand jury proceedings are closed, witnesses may testify and have 
their identities protected.  The author used a grand jury to protect a store owner in a 
gang neighborhood who overheard the defendant confess to murder.  Using the grand 
jury allowed him to have the witness’s name redacted from the transcript, protect the 
witness from retaliation, and make arrangements to move the witness safely.   Grand 
juries can also prevent  long cross‐examinations that can tie up courts for days when 
many defendants are  involved.   A grand  jury  indictment  is also a successful way to 
arrest several members of a conspiracy at the same time.2 
 
  By  having  a  thorough  understanding  of  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the 
case,  the  prosecutor  can  file  the  most  appropriate  charges  to  initiate  the  court 
proceedings. 

 
 
DIRECTING FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS 
 
  An  unfortunate  assumption  is  that  once  the  case  is  filed,  the  job  of  the 
investigating  agency  is  done.    Nothing  is  farther  from  the  truth  in  gang  cases.  
Successful  resolutions  require  teamwork  from  all  members  of  the  prosecution  team.  
The greatest prosecutor cannot win a poorly investigated case.  Witnesses will have a 
rapport  with  the  detectives  who  initially  took  their  statements—not  with  district 
attorney investigators who are strangers to them.  Many witnesses are more cooperative 
at  trial  if  the detectives stay  in contact with  them and make arrangements  for  their 
safety.    Small  things,  such  as  extra  presence  of  patrol  officers  in  the  neighborhood, 
create goodwill that pays off greatly at trial time. 
 
  Unfortunately, the axiom for prosecutors generally is that cases get worse after 
filing.    Get  commitments  from  the  investigators  so  that  the  efforts  they  made  in 
developing a case warranting a criminal filing will continue through the pendency of 
the  litigation.    If  necessary,  set  up  a  schedule  for  completing  further  investigations.  
Arrange  deadlines  with  investigators  for  receiving  their  reports  and  providing 
discovery to the defense. 

2 This practice is used frequently in San Joaquin and San Diego Counties to arrest many members of a gang after making several 
controlled drug buys on videotape.  The “buy‐bust” operation is a successful way to incarcerate many members of a gang in a single 
day. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

47 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

  Investigate the defendant’s activities at the  jail.   At a minimum, the defendant 
will  answer  a  classification  questionnaire.    Such  questionnaires  usually  determine 
which gang  the defendant associates with and who his enemies are.   Even  the most 
sophisticated  defendant  answers  these  questions  truthfully  for  fear  of  being  housed 
with his enemies.  Records at the jail will show who visits the defendant, who is putting 
money on the defendant’s books, and who picks up his property.  Knowing who the 
defendant trusts can be very important; it may be a preview of your defense witness 
list.  Some jails tape record jail visits.  Obtain copies of the nonattorney visits or phone 
calls,  especially  the  initial  ones.    While  defendants  may  try  to  minimize  their 
involvement  to  loved  ones,  they  often  make  damaging  admissions.    Have  the 
defendant’s mail screened and cell searched for gang indicia to prove his membership.  
 
  Make arrangements for case detectives to attend the arraignment and, if possible, 
introduce you to the victim or his family.  Try to arrange a brief meeting afterwards to 
explain your job and the court process.  This is a good time to prepare the victim for the 
long haul.  Reinforce, however, that you will always be available to answer whatever 
questions  the victim has.   Direct  the victim’s family  to  those  in your office who can 
provide reimbursement for medical, counseling, and  funeral expenses.   Take  time  to 
answer their questions and return phone calls. 
 
  Make proper security arrangements with the courts.  The first court appearance 
for a defendant is very emotional and often well attended by the friends and families of 
both  the  defendant  and  the  victim.    If  the  victim  and  defendant  were  rival  gang 
members, this is a recipe for disaster inside the courtroom, in the hallways, outside the 
courthouse, and in parking lots.   Properly anticipating such a gathering may prevent 
violence  and  create  an  opportunity  to  develop  important  intelligence  regarding  the 
victim’s or defendant’s gang involvement. 
 
  About the same time as the first arraignment in a murder case, the family will be 
planning  a  funeral.    Have  your  detectives  monitor  this  ceremony  and  the  related 
gatherings.  If the victim was a gang member, it is not unusual for him to be dressed in 
gang  attire.    Floral  arrangements  may  have  gang  insignias  or  symbols.    People 
attending the funeral or participating in the ceremony, such as pallbearers, may identify 
themselves  as  gang  members  by  wearing  gang  attire  or  displaying  hand  signs.  
Additionally, members of the defendant’s gang may attend the funeral.  Violence can 
break out between the rival gangs.  In one instance, gang members forced their way into 
the ceremony, snatched the victim from the casket, and stomped on his body outside 
the funeral home! 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

48 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

  By having a strong understanding of the facts and developing a plan to continue 
the  gathering  of  evidence,  the  prosecutor  will  be  better  prepared  to  successfully 
prosecute the criminal street gang member. 

 
 
JUVENILE OR ADULT PROSECUTION 
 
  Depending on the jurisdiction, if the suspect is 17 years old or younger he may 
be eligible for prosecution as an adult.  Several factors influence whether a minor can be 
prosecuted in adult court, such as the crimes committed and the criminal history of the 
minor.  If the minor is prosecuted in adult court, there will be a longer prison sentence.  
However, the minor is entitled to a jury trial.  If he remains in juvenile court, he will 
receive a much shorter sentence but will serve the time in facilities better equipped for a 
minor’s education and rehabilitation.  Minors in juvenile court are not entitled to jury 
trials. 
 
  In some instances, prosecution in juvenile court may be more beneficial than in 
adult court if the evidence is weak against the minor.   Also, if the  juvenile is a small 
player in the crime, juvenile court may be more appropriate.  Juvenile court may be a 
better  choice  when  the  minor  will  be  used  to  prosecute  the  adults  in  the  crime  by 
testifying.    Finally,  juvenile  court  rules  frequently  do  not  require  independent 
corroboration of a cosuspect’s statement regarding a  juvenile’s involvement in a case, 
whereas adult criminal procedure rules on accomplice statements usually do.   
 
  The decision  to prosecute a minor  in adult or  juvenile court should never be 
taken lightly, and all factors should be considered. 

 
 
CRIMINAL LIABILITY 
   

If  your  defendant  is  the  shooter,  stabber,  robber,  etc.,  liability  is  direct  and 
generally easy, but what if your defendant is not directly liable?  What if the defendant 
was the driver or provided the guns?  What if he participated in the planning stages but 
is not present at the crime?  What if the defendant agreed to participate and then did 
little during the commission of the crime; e.g., an unarmed backseat passenger along as 
backup?  What if the crime committed was not the intended crime but a crime greater 
than  the  one  intended,  yet  it  is  a  logical  and  direct  consequence  of  the  originally 

Gang Prosecution Manual

49 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

planned crime?   What  if an unintended victim  is  injured or killed?   Or what  if one 
defendant is not present when the crime occurs but had earlier agreed to participate? 
 
  The  answers  to  many  of  these  questions  are  contained  in  accomplice  liability 
laws, such as aiding and abetting or conspiracy.  Also, if the crime is murder, additional 
theories  of  vicarious  liability  exist,  such  as  the  felony  murder  rule,  provocative  act 
murder, and concurrent causation murder. 
 

If the witness is an accomplice, his testimony alone may be legally insufficient to 
convict a defendant.   An accomplice  is someone who can be charged with  the same 
crimes  as  the  defendant.    In  California,  an  accomplice’s  testimony  requires  some 
corroboration  connecting  the  defendant  to  the  crime  before  the  defendant  can  be 
convicted.  If your case is based solely upon an accomplice’s testimony, you will not be 
able  to  convict  without  additional  evidence,  such  as  a  confession,  eyewitness 
identification, or physical evidence. 
 
  By understanding each of these concepts, their similarities, and differences, the 
gang prosecutor may prosecute every defendant who is criminally liable to the fullest 
extent of the law. 

 
 
AIDING AND ABETTING 
 
  Principals are individuals who are criminally liable for the crime and include not 
only those who directly commit the crime (e.g., a shooter) but also those who aid and 
abet the crime.  If a defendant is an aider and abettor, he is as liable for the crime as if he 
had committed the crime himself.  
 
  Mere presence at a crime does not make someone an aider and abettor.  An aider 
and  abettor  must  have  an  intent  to  promote  the  illegal  conduct.    For  example,  if  a 
defendant’s girlfriend drives him to the liquor store and does not know he is going to 
rob it, she is not an aider and abettor.   
 

State statutes on aiding and abetting differ on the required mental state of an 
accomplice.   Some states require  that  the accomplice share  the criminal  intent of  the 
direct perpetrator, State v. Kendrick, 9 N.C. App. 688 (1970).   As one court put it: 
 

“Complicity  is not a theory of strict  liability. It  is not sufficient that the 
defendant  intentionally  engaged  in  acts  which  ultimately  assisted  or 

Gang Prosecution Manual

50 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

encouraged  the  principal.  Rather,  the  complicitor  must  intend  that  his 
conduct  have  the  effect  of  assisting  or  encouraging  the  principal  in 
committing or planning the crime committed by the principal.”  

Bogdanov v. State, 941 P.2d 247 (Colo. 1997) 
 

  Other states require a lesser mental state for aiding and abetting. The accomplice 
must only have knowledge or reason to know of the actor’s mental state, State v. Lewis, 
514 N.W. 2d 63 (1994 Iowa Sup). 
 

“The seller may not ignore the purpose for which the purchase is made if 
he  is advised of that purpose, or wash his hands of the aid that he has 
given the perpetrator of a felony by the plea that he has merely made a 
sale of merchandise. One who sells a gun to another knowing that he is 
buying  it  to  commit  a  murder,  would  hardly  escape  conviction  as  an 
accessory to the murder by showing that he received full price.” 

Backun v. United States, 112 F.2d 635 (4th Cir. 1940) 
 

  An aider and abettor need not be present to be liable.  If a gang member provides 
guns for a drive‐by shooting on rivals, he is an aider and abettor, even if he stayed at 
home during the shooting. 
 
  An aider and abettor is liable for the crimes committed unless there is a legally 
sufficient withdrawal.   Generally, to withdraw from aiding and abetting liability, the 
defendant cannot merely walk away from the crime; the defendant must announce his 
withdrawal and do all in his power to prevent the commission of the crime.  
 
  Aiders and abettors are common in gang crimes.  They generally are the drivers 
in drive‐by shootings.   They also  include  individuals who  furnish  the stolen cars or 
guns to commit the crimes or who serve as lookouts during the commission of a crime.  
In each of  these examples, even  though  the defendants did not directly commit  the 
crime (i.e., shoot and kill the victim), they are aiders and abettors (or accomplices) and 
are as guilty as if they had committed the crime. 
 
  Aiders and abettors, however, are not accessories.  While aiders and abettors aid 
in the commission of the crime, accessories aid the principals only after the crime has 
been committed.   For example, a girlfriend of a gang member who hides him or the 
weapon  after  the  crime  is  not  an  aider  and  abettor  but  an  accessory.    Because  her 
participation  begins  only  after  the  commission  of  the  crime,  her  criminal  liability  is 
limited  to being an accessory.   A gang member who  intimidates a witness after  the 
crime to prevent his testimony is also an accessory.  However, if one of the defendant’s 

Gang Prosecution Manual

51 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

fellow gang members tells a friend of the victim to stay out of a gang fight or blocks 
intervention while the fight  is taking place, the fellow gang member  is an aider and 
abettor. 
 
  A  difficult  prosecution  for  aiding  and  abetting  is  a  situation  in  which  the 
defendant is an unarmed passenger during a drive‐by shooting.   The defendant does 
not act during the crime and may not be criminally culpable.  However, an argument is 
made through gang‐expert testimony that this individual is an aider and abettor.  By the 
act of entering the car and choosing to be present at the shooting, he can be a lookout to 
identify the victims or to warn the perpetrator of police activity.  Also, this passenger 
can act as backup to the shooter, having the ability to continue shooting if the initial 
gunman  is  wounded  or  killed.    Investigators  should  be  trained  to  establish  such 
information when interviewing a nonshooting backseat passenger.  This is a tough sort 
of case that may better be handled as a conspiracy. 
 
  Gangs  have  used  juveniles  as  shooters  because  of  lesser  penalties  they 
traditionally receive in juvenile court.  Females can be aiders and abettors too.  Gangs 
may use females to carry weapons and drugs because they generally do not attract the 
same  level of police attention as males.   Female gang members can be  lookouts and 
even drivers in shootings for the same reasons.  When investigated, these females may 
not be interrogated or searched as thoroughly as male gang members.  Do not jump to 
conclusions about an individual’s guilt based solely on age or gender. 

 
 
CONSPIRACY 
 
  A  conspiracy  is  an  agreement  between  two  or  more  persons  for  an  unlawful 
purpose.  In some jurisdictions, the crime of conspiracy is complete when the agreement 
for an unlawful purpose has been reached, State v. Condrey, 349 S.C. 184, 562 S.E.2d 320 
(2002).  Other jurisdictions require an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy, State 
v. Heitman, 262 Neb. 185, 629 N.W.2d 542 (2001).  An overt act need not be criminal; just 
an action  taken  toward  the completion of  the object of  the agreement  to commit an 
illegal  act.    In  those  jurisdictions  requiring  an  overt  act  of  conspiracy,  liability  is 
established once the act is completed.   
 

Not every member of the conspiracy needs to commit an overt act; one member 
committing  one  is  sufficient,  United  States  v.  Leonard,  61  F.3d  1181  (5th  Cir.  1995).  
Further, not every member needs to know who the other members are in the conspiracy 
and that an overt act has occurred, Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 68 S.Ct.248, 

Gang Prosecution Manual

52 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

92  L.Ed.  154  (1947).    Examples  of  overt  acts  include  obtaining  weapons,  stealing 
vehicles, driving, or shooting or stabbing. Juries usually need not unanimously agree 
which overt acts happened, but in some jurisdictions the overt acts must be pleaded in 
the  charging  documents.  In  other  jurisdictions,  however,  “it  is  not  necessary  for  an 
indictment to charge that an overt act was done pursuant to the conspiracy,” Am Jur 2d 
Conspiracy. 
 
  The agreement  in a conspiracy  is  the primary requisite act. The United States 
Supreme Court stated, “The prohibition against criminal conspiracy, however, does not 
punish mere thoughts; the criminal agreement itself is the actus reus,” United States v. 
Shabani, 513 U.S. 10  (1994).   There  is great uniformity among American  jurisdictions 
regarding  what  constitutes  a  sufficient  agreement  for  conspiracy  purposes  and  how 
such an agreement  is proven.   The following excerpt  is a typical discussion on these 
issues:  
  

“To obtain a conspiracy conviction, the government must prove that there 
was  an  agreement  between  two  or  more  participants  to  achieve  a 
particular  illegal end.  ‘The agreement need not be shown  to have been 
explicit. It can instead be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the 
case. A tacit understanding will suffice to show agreement for purposes of 
a conspiracy conviction. There need not be any written statement or even 
a  speaking  of  words  which  expressly  communicates  agreement. 
Furthermore, the participants in a conspiracy need not be fully aware of 
the details of the venture so long as they agree on the ‘essential nature of 
the plan.’ Finally, evidence sufficient to  link a particular defendant to a 
conspiracy  ‘need  not  be  overwhelming,’  and  may  be  demonstrated  by 
circumstantial evidence,”  

United States v. Amiel, 95 F.3d 135, 144 (1996). 
 
The  agreement  need  not  be  proven  by  direct  evidence  only;  it  may  be  proven  by 
circumstantial evidence.   
 
  Some jurisdictions limit conspiracy liability to a misdemeanor.  See, for example, 
State v. Carbone, 10 N.J. 329 (1952).  Some allow it to be charged as a felony, Gaines v. 
Malone, 244 Ala. 490 (1943).  Some even allow an agreement to commit a misdemeanor 
with an overt act to be charged as a felony, State v. Pooler, 141 Me. 274 (1945).  Check 
your jurisdiction’s decisions. 
 
  Like aiding and abetting, a conspirator need not be present when the acts are 
committed; and mere presence does not make one a conspirator.  To withdraw from a 

Gang Prosecution Manual

53 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

conspiracy, a defendant must announce his withdrawal to the other known conspirators 
and do all in his power to prevent the commission of the crime.  A conspirator is liable 
for the crimes of the conspiracy unless there is a legally sufficient withdrawal.  Also, a 
withdrawal  must  precede  the  overt  act  in  those  jurisdictions  requiring  one, State v. 
Kaiser,  260  Kan.  235  (1996).    Finally,  a  withdrawal  does  not  constitute  a  defense  in 
jurisdictions where an overt act is not required.  The crime is considered complete after 
the involved parties agree to commit a crime, People v. Juarez, 158 Mich. App. 66 (1987). 
 
  Conspiracy is useful as a prosecution theory when the defendant who agreed to 
engage in criminal activity has no further involvement.  If the defendant had aided by 
action or words, he would be an aider and abettor.  However, if the defendant agrees to 
participate in a drive‐by shooting on enemy gang members on rival turf but, instead of 
driving or shooting, remains as a backseat passenger,  this defendant may not be an 
aider  and  abettor.    But  just  by  agreeing  to  the  crime,  he  is  liable  as  a  conspirator.  
Conspiracy does not require that a defendant do anything beyond agreeing to commit a 
crime to become criminally liable in some jurisdictions.  In most jurisdictions, as long as 
another member of the conspiracy commits an overt act, even those conspirators who 
do  nothing  other  than  agreeing  are  liable.    This  liability  continues,  absent  a  legally 
effective withdrawal. 
 
  An  additional  benefit  of  conspiracy  may  be  the  opportunity  to  admit  the 
coconspirator’s  statements.    A  statement  of  coconspirators  is  a  well‐established 
exception to the hearsay rule, Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953).  A conspiracy 
need not be charged for the hearsay exception to apply.  If, however, you have charged 
a conspiracy, you may be in a better strategic position for a court to allow the hearsay 
exception. 
 
  Conspiracies are punished for the agreed‐upon crimes; i.e., the target crimes.  So 
if a gang member agrees to drive to rival territory and shoot his enemies but misses, he 
is liable for conspiracy to commit murder.   He is not liable for conspiracy to commit 
attempted murder.  Also, the conspiracy to commit murder is punished as first‐degree 
murder, not second‐degree murder.  In this way, conspirators receive the punishment 
for murder, even when no one was injured! 
 
  Conspiracy is a useful tool  in prosecuting criminal street gangs.   Not only are 
drive‐by shootings conspiracies, but conspiracies also include drug trafficking and the 
activities of prison gangs.  

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

54 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

NATURAL AND PROBABLE  
CONSEQUENCES LIABILITY 
 
  The  natural  and  probable  consequences  doctrine  applies  to  both  aiding  and 
abetting and conspiracy laws.  The doctrine applies when something other than what 
was planned or intended happens. 
 
  A common example is an agreement to aid and abet in a gang fight against rival 
gang members by attending and fighting.  In addition to a fight occurring, someone is 
killed.   Another example  is a defendant who claims he only agreed to go scare rival 
gang  members,  and  instead,  someone  is  shot  and/or  killed.    When  the  natural  and 
probable consequences doctrine is applied in either of these examples, the defendant is 
liable of murder, not the lesser crimes of assault or battery.  Since, in both examples, the 
death was reasonably foreseeable, the defendants are not only criminally liable for the 
crimes they agree to commit but for the murders as well. 
 
  The natural and probable consequences doctrine makes aiders and abettors and 
conspirators liable not only for those crimes they aid and abet or conspire to commit, 
but  also  for  those  crimes  that  are  the  natural  and  probable  consequences  of  their 
original  criminal  design.    A  natural  and  probable  consequence  means  reasonably 
foreseeable.  If the crimes actually committed are reasonably foreseeable to the crimes 
aided and abetted or agreed  to,  the defendant  is  liable  for  the greater crime, United 
States v. Masotto, 73 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1996). 
 
  The inquiry is defined in this way.  First, determine the crime that is aided and 
abetted or agreed to.   Call this the “target” crime.   Next, determine what crime was 
actually committed either  instead of or  in addition  to  the  target offense.   This  is  the 
“charged”  crime.    The  natural  and  probable  consequences  doctrine  applies,  creating 
extended  liability  if  the  charged  crime  is  reasonably  foreseeable  to  the  target  crime.  
When the charged crime is reasonably foreseeable to the target crime, the aiders’ and 
abettors’ or  conspirators’ liability extends to all other crimes that are the natural and 
probable consequences of  the original  target offense, and  they are placed  (in a  legal 
sense) in the shoes of the direct perpetrator of the charged crime. 
 
  Going back to the above examples, is it reasonably foreseeable that someone will 
die during a gang fight?  Is it reasonably foreseeable that someone will die when gang 
members invade rival territory shooting guns?  Because both of these questions can be 
answered “yes,” the defendants are liable for murder. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

55 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

  Whether the committed crime is reasonably foreseeable is a question for the jury, 
not the defendants.  Therefore, it is no defense when a gang member claims he never 
intended  for anyone  to die.    If  the  jury  finds  it reasonably  foreseeable  that someone 
would die from the agreed crime, the defendant is guilty of murder.  If the crimes are 
reasonably  foreseeable  to  a  reasonable  person,  the  doctrine  applies.    Also,  liability 
extends, even when the criminal parties contemplate and agree not to do the committed 
crime, if the crime is reasonably foreseeable.  For example, if all the gang member agree 
there  will  be  no  killing,  but  someone  still  dies,  they  are  guilty  if  the  death  was 
foreseeable. 
 
  A perfect example is the case of People v. Luparello, 187 Cal. App. 3d 410 (1986); 
see also [Commonwealth v. La], 433 Pa. Super432 (1994).  Dr. Luparello was a chiropractor 
who hired gang members to obtain information from Martin about the whereabouts of 
Gadzinski, who had recently ended  their romantic relationship. During a meeting at 
Luparello’s home (during which the gang members were openly armed with deadly 
weapons), one of the gang members stated that he was going to “thump” the person 
from whom they wanted information. Luparello replied he would like the information 
“at any cost.” The next evening,  the gang members, while again armed with deadly 
weapons, met with Luparello. They then proceeded to Martin’s house and killed him. 
The next day, Luparello told someone that he hired some Mexicans who were going to 
take care of Martin. The court concluded, “That a homicide resulted from a planned 
interrogation undertaken ‘at any cost’ by armed men confronting an unwilling source is 
unquestionably the natural and probable consequence of that plan. The evidence thus 
supports Luparelloʹs liability for the conspiratorial acts.” 

 
In People v. Montano, 96 Cal. App. 3d 221 (1979),   Montano and his fellow gang 

members pretended to be in a different gang to lure and assault a rival gang member.  
Once the victim joined them, they drove him to their turf.  Montano left, and then his 
fellow gang members murdered the rival.  Because the murder was foreseeable to the 
agreed conduct, Montano’s conviction for murder was upheld. 
 
  Through  the natural and probable consequences doctrine, aiders and abettors 
and coconspirators are liable not only for the agreed‐upon crimes but for those crimes 
that are foreseeable if the plans change and more serious crimes happen. 

 
 
 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

56 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

THEORIES SPECIFIC TO MURDER 
 
  In many ways, murder cases are different.  They require increased investigation, 
usually by a specially trained unit of the police department.   Generally, murders are 
vertically prosecuted by the district attorney’s office by those with special training who 
handle  only  murder  cases.    Murders  have  special  sentencing  laws  and  may  expose 
defendants to the death penalty.  Murder cases have theories of extended liability that 
are not available in other cases, in addition to aiding and abetting and conspiracy. 
 
  The previous theories discussed—such as aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and 
the  natural  and  probable  consequences  doctrine—are  available  in  murder  cases  and 
should be utilized.  However, theories such as the felony murder rule, provocative act 
murder,  and  concurrent/proximate  causation  murder  can  be  used  only  to  extend 
criminal liability for homicides. 
 
  Many gang‐related murders fall  into  long‐established categories of aggravated 
liability.  The typical drive‐by shooting is usually a premeditated (planned beforehand) 
and deliberated (reasons for and against were considered before the action was taken) 
murder when a victim is killed.  Additionally, drive‐by murders are good examples of 
lying‐in‐wait homicides.  It is common for gang members to slowly approach a group of 
rivals in a car with the radio turned down and sometimes even the lights turned off.  By 
the  time  the  victims  realize  that  a  car  has  pulled  up  to  the  place  where  they  are 
congregating and that it contains rivals, it is too late.  They have been ambushed, which 
falls into a lying‐in‐wait classification in most jurisdictions.  As explained below, there 
are many other theories that seem tailor‐made for gang cases.   

 
 
THE FELONY MURDER RULE 
 
  When a victim  is killed during  the commission or attempted commission of a 
felony, all persons aiding and abetting the felony are guilty of murder.  The qualifying 
felony must either be specified by statute or be an inherently dangerous felony.  This 
applies irrespective of whether the killing was intentional, unintentional, or accidental.  To 
be liable, the defendant must aid and abet before the killing and not join in afterwards.  
Certain felonies committed in conjunction with the murder may increase the degree of 
the murder to first degree.   In addition, the commission of certain felonies may be a 
special circumstance and make the defendant eligible for the death penalty.  Unlike the 

Gang Prosecution Manual

57 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

natural and probable consequences doctrine, the killing need not be foreseeable.  Once 
the killing occurs during a specified felony, all defendants are liable for murder.   
 
  The  felony  murder  rule  can  be  used  in  the  case  of  an  armed  robbery  with  a 
getaway driver.   Even  if  the robber and getaway driver agree  that  there will be no 
killing, both are liable for murder if the store clerk is killed.  The robber and getaway 
driver are guilty of murder, even if the killing was unintentional or accidental.  If the 
defendants were burglarizing a home and their gun went off, accidentally killing the 
homeowner, both defendants are guilty of murder, no matter whose gun it was and that 
the  gun  went  off  accidentally.    However,  the  merger  doctrine  prevents  the  felony 
murder  rule  from  applying  for  the  felonies  of  assault  with  a  deadly  weapon  or 
attempted murder.  

 
 
PROVOCATIVE ACT MURDER 
 

What if defendants were engaged in a gun battle with the police?  During the shootout, a 
police officer misses the defendants and hits a bystander or the store owner.  For what crimes are 
the defendants guilty?  Are they only guilty of attempting to murder the police, or can they be 
found guilty of the third party’s death? 
 
  The above scenario is an example of provocative act murder.  The defendants are 
not only guilty of attempted murder of the police officers, they are also guilty of murder 
because their actions provoked another, the police officer, to kill the third party.  When 
someone other than a defendant kills, after the defendant commits an act provoking the 
killing,  the  defendant  is  guilty  of  provocative  act  murder.    Provocative  act  murder 
differs  from  felony  murder  because  a  defendant  or  codefendant  is  not  the  killer.  
However, the victim may be a bystander or a defendant. 
 
  For  instance, during an armed robbery, a store clerk shoots at  the defendant, 
killing a customer or a codefendant.   Because the defendant provoked the killing by 
another  individual—the  store  clerk—the  defendant  is  guilty  of  murder.    The 
defendant’s  acts  provoking  the  killing  must  be  intentional  and  deliberate.    The 
provocative acts must be  those  in which  the natural consequences are dangerous  to 
human life, such as brandishing or shooting a gun. 
 
  The provocative act must be close in time and directly related to the killing.  In 
People v. Cervantes, 26 Cal. 4th 860 (2001), the defendant shot but did not kill a rival gang 
member at a party. Minutes after the first shooting, a member of the rival’s gang shot 

Gang Prosecution Manual

58 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

and killed a member of  the defendant’s gang  in retaliation.   The defendant was not 
liable  for  murder  for  the  second  shooting  because  it  was  an  independent  and 
intervening act and Cervantes was not guilty of murder.  The provocative act murder is 
limited to murder of the second degree. 

 
 
CONCURRENT CAUSATION 
 
  Recently, a new  theory of extended  liability, called concurrent causation, was 
created to answer a situation common to gang disputes. 
 
  More  and  more  frequently,  gang  members  hold  shootouts  in  public  places.  
These gun battles on residential streets, in parks, or at businesses create a great danger 
to the public and often result in the death of an innocent bystander.  If the killer can be 
identified, he  is guilty of murder.   Because the killer shot with the  intent to kill, the 
transferred intent doctrine finds him guilty of killing the unintended victim. 
 
  What about the other shooter?  Is he guilty only of attempted murder, with the 
victim  being  the  rival  target  who  is  now  charged  with  murder?    What  if  the  killer 
cannot be determined by the forensic or police investigations? 
 
  In these gun‐battle situations, courts have found that all the shooters are guilty of 
murder, irrespective of whether they were the killers.   Because both shooters directly 
caused the bystander’s death by shooting at each other, both are guilty of murder.  The 
concurrent causation theory reasons that since the shooters aided each other in killing 
the bystander by shooting at each other without concern of harm to the public, they are 
equally guilty of murder.  This theory is relatively new and may not be available in all 
jurisdictions. 

 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
  The  filing  of  criminal  charges  initiates  the  prosecution  in  the  courtroom.  
However,  this  is  not  when  the  criminal  investigation  ends,  and  prosecution  should 
make arrangements to continue developing the case. 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

59 Section 3. Filing the Gang Case

  Several  decisions  must  be  made  by  the  prosecutor,  such  as  whether  the 
defendant is directly liable or liable as an aider and abettor or coconspirator.  Through 
these vicarious liability theories, the defendant is liable not only for the intended crimes 
but  also  those  that  are  reasonably  foreseeable.    If  the  defendant  is  a  minor,  the 
prosecutor must decide between adult or juvenile court. 
 
  Additional  theories  extend  liability  to  nonkillers  for  murder  cases.    Vicarious 
liability theories in murder cases also include felony murder, provocative act murder, 
and concurrent causation murder. 
 
  Prosecutors  must  use  all  theories  available  to  them  to  properly  hold  gang 
members accountable for promoting violence in the community.  The pursuit of justice 
is best accomplished when the prosecutor commands a thorough understanding of the 
theories  that  make  gang  members  guilty  for  all  the  crimes  they  commit.    With  this 
knowledge,  the  prosecution  team  can  aggressively  arrest  and  prosecute  everyone 
responsible for the crimes. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

60 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Section 4. 
 
Presentation of the Case 
 
 

By
Jarrett Wolf

President, the Law Firm of Jarrett Wolf,
Former Assistant State Attorney and

DEA Agent, Miami, Florida

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 

The  trial  of  a  gang  case  is  not  unlike  other  cases  except  that 
witnesses  tend  not  to  cooperate,  lie  at  all  times,  surprise  the 
prosecutor with theretofore unknown evidence, refuse to talk at 
all, disappear, require expert testimony the judge never heard of, 
etc.  In short, the trial can be a mess.1 
 

  Gang cases are among  the most difficult  to  try.   Gang member witnesses, no 
matter how many versions of a story they have previously given, may, while on the 
stand, give yet another version.  Civilian witnesses may shut down completely.  A gang 
expert, who is supposed to make sense of everything, may be met with an objection by 
the defense and a perplexed  look by the  judge.   Reacting to situations such as these 
requires litigation expertise, a very good understanding of the rules of evidence and the 
law, and an intimate knowledge of the jurisprudence of gang prosecution. 
 
  Many aspects of criminal  law and procedure are not significantly different  in 
gang cases as opposed to other criminal cases.  Other aspects are unique under the rules 
of each state.  Certain aspects of gang cases, however, are of such overriding importance 
that an effective discussion of gang prosecution cannot take place without their being 
addressed.   

1 Keith Burt, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney, San Diego, California, “Prosecution of
Street Gangs.”

Gang Prosecution Manual

61 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Gang membership is not a crime but a dynamic that will affect the evidence, the 
manner  in  which  it  is  presented,  the  witnesses,  and  the  jury.    Until  one  begins  to 
approach  these  cases  as  “gang  prosecutions,”  rather  than  merely  as  cases  involving 
gangs, it is practically impossible to take them to trial.  This section includes anecdotal 
discussion from gang prosecutions as well as case law and questions that must be asked 
to get certain evidence legally introduced at trial.  

 
 
WITNESSES 
 

Any  prosecutor  who  has  handled  a  gang  case  knows  that  gang  violence 
prosecution means dealing with difficult witnesses.  Witnesses in a gang case generally 
fall  into one of  three categories:    (1) members of  the victim’s gang who often prefer 
retaliation over prosecution, (2) members of the defendant’s gang who will not testify 
against their fellow gang member, or (3) members of the community who live in fear of 
the gangs and refuse to get involved.  Each of these types of witnesses must be dealt 
with differently and resourcefully.   

 
[V]iolent street gangs, which often engaged in drug trafficking, required a more 
specialized approach.   For example, police stressed  that street gang cases often 
involve witnesses or victims who do not possess great jury appeal.  Furthermore, 
these witnesses and victims may be reluctant or even unwilling to cooperate with 
law  enforcement  due  to  intimidation  and  fear  or  out  of  loyalty  to  the  gang.  
General  prosecutors  often  lacked  the  special  expertise  required  to  solidify  an 
investigation  containing  problem  witnesses  or  victims  and  bring  it  to  trial.  
Opportunities to target high‐profile gang members were lost and prosecutors not 
specifically charged with making an impact on the street‐gang problem had little 
time for proactive involvement at the investigative stage.  As a result, criminal 
cases involving street gangs tended to receive inadequate attention.2 

 
Members of the Victim’s Gang as Witnesses 
 
  In State of Florida v. Herbert Wilson,  the  state  charged  that  on  June  3,  2000,  the 
defendant, Herb Wilson, shot Steven Rudolph.  Rudolph had been walking down the 
street when Wilson jumped from a truck and opened fire.  Wilson shot several times at 
Rudolph, who tried running for cover while returning fire with his own gun.  Rudolph 

2 Urban Street Gang Enforcement, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997.

Gang Prosecution Manual

62 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

was struck one time in his back but survived.  Wilson was arrested and charged with 
attempted first‐degree murder with a firearm—a life sentence felony in Florida.   
 
  The state’s theory was that Wilson shot at Rudolph on June 3 in retaliation for the 
murders of Kevin Trought and  Trevor Clayton  on  May 25 and  that  the murders of 
Trought and Clayton on May 25 were in retaliation for the murder of Anthony Leggett 
on  May  23.    Related  to  those  events,  the  state  theorized,  were  the  shootings  of  
Quinton Toombs and Antoine Harris on May 21.  The Toombs and Harris shootings, the 
state  further  theorized,  were  related  to  the  nonfatal  shooting  of  Trevor  Clayton  on  
May 14.   
 
  From  the  time  the  first police officers arrived on  the scene, Rudolph  identified 
Wilson as the person who had tried to kill him.  On July 31, 2000, Rudolph attended a 
prefile  conference  at  the  State  Attorney’s  Office,  during  which  an  affidavit  was 
prepared for Rudolph detailing his recitation of the facts surrounding his being shot on 
June  3,  2000.    On  January  30,  2001,  Rudolph  was  deposed  by  defense  counsel  for  
Wilson.  During that deposition, Rudolph testified that Wilson shot him on June 3, 2000.   
 
  Ten months later, on or about May 25, 2001, Rudolph contacted Wilson’s attorney 
directly  and  advised  that  he  wished  to  drop  the  charges  against  Wilson.    Wilson’s 
attorney scheduled a second deposition for the following Friday, June 1, 2001, at which 
time  Rudolph  recanted  his  previous  identifications  of  Wilson.    This  time,  Rudolph 
testified that he “was going through a lot at the time of the shooting and was stressed 
out.”   He  later added  that  the police coerced him  to  identify Wilson as  the shooter.  
Meanwhile, prosecutors learned from a confidential informant that Rudolph planned to 
take care of Wilson on his own and that he was going to lie to secure Wilson’s release so 
that he could shoot him. 
 

It is probably difficult for traditional prosecutors to believe what transpired in 
the Herb Wilson case, yet  those events demonstrate how difficult  it can be  to get a 
victimized gang member witness to testify against a rival gang member.  

 
Even when a victim is not trying to derail a prosecution to retaliate against the 

defendant, the victim’s testimony or that of witnesses from the victim’s gang may be 
difficult to secure.  Gang member witnesses are particularly difficult to bring in for trial.  
The code of silence among gang members and the fact that cooperating with police or 
prosecutors will be viewed by other gang members as a sign of weakness are factors 
that will negatively affect cooperation from gang member witnesses.  Gang prosecutors 
should  be  familiar  with  the  intricacies  of  their  respective  jurisdictions’  procedures 
regarding  rules  to  show  cause,  contempt  proceedings,  and  material‐witness  bonds.  

Gang Prosecution Manual

63 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Judges  can  be  reluctant  to  issue  material‐witness  bonds,  so  a  prosecutor  making 
application needs to be prepared to educate the judge and ensure that the judge will be 
free of any wrongdoing.   

 
Finally,  once  the  prosecutor  gets  the  gang  member  victim  or  member  of  the 

victim’s gang on the stand, there will be yet another problem—bias.  Whether that bias 
is real or imagined, prosecutors have to know that just getting the victim or member of 
the victim’s gang on the stand is not the end of the battle.  It is preferable to stick to facts 
that can be verified  through other witnesses or evidence, such as what happened or 
what the relationship is between the two gangs. 

 
Members of the Defendant’s Gang as Witnesses 
 
  In State of Florida v. David Cortes, 761 So. 2d 1115, Fla. Dist. App. 3rd Dist., 2000 
(unpublished opinion), several members of  the Miami gang known as Take No Shit 
(TNS)  jumped a group of  individuals  they recognized as members of  the rival gang 
International Posse (IN/P).   By all accounts, this was to be a “beat down,” using fists 
and  feet  to beat  their rivals, whom  they had  fortuitously encountered one Saturday 
night  on  a  busy,  nightclub‐lined  street  on  Miami’s  South  Beach.    David  Cortes, 
however, fancied himself an up‐and‐comer in TNS.  In an effort to “catch rank,” Cortes 
pulled a knife from his pocket and, in the melee of the assault, stabbed an IN/P member, 
puncturing his lung.   
 

Following the assault, the TNS gang members ran to the car in which they had 
driven to South Beach.  As they made their getaway from South Beach back to Miami’s 
mainland, an excited David Cortes held up a bloody knife and proclaimed, “I stuck that 
IN/P!” 

 
The victim survived, but although he and his fellow IN/P gang members knew 

they had been attacked by several TNS gang members, they could not identify all of 
their  attackers.    More  important,  no  one  could  identify  the  actual  stabber.    Gang 
detectives  began  interviewing  TNS  members.    During  the  interviews,  they  learned 
which TNS members had been  involved, and  they  learned  that Cortes had been  the 
stabber.  Moreover, detectives learned that it was not until after the attack that anyone 
even knew that Cortes had possessed a knife.  This was, by all accounts, to have been 
only a beat down.  Detectives then approached Cortes, who denied everything.   

 
Although one might argue that a stabbing is a natural and foreseeable outcome 

of a gang assault, based on  the specific  facts of  this case, prosecutors elected  to  file 

Gang Prosecution Manual

64 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

battery and aggravated battery charges against Cortes’  fellow attackers and charged 
only Cortes with attempted second‐degree murder with a deadly weapon.   

 
Cortes’  codefendants  all  pleaded  guilty;  however,  none  entered  into  a 

cooperation agreement with  the state.   Cortes went  to  trial, and  the prosecutor was 
faced with a situation in which the only way to prove identification—in other words, 
that  Cortes  was  the  person  who  had  stabbed  the  victim—would  be  to  call  Cortes’ 
former codefendant and fellow TNS gang member, Edgar Gonzalez, as a witness.   

 
The night before Gonzalez was to testify, the prosecutor and two gang detectives 

met  with  Gonzalez  to  review  his  testimony.    The  next  morning,  at  the  prosecutor’s 
request, the gang detectives picked up Gonzalez from his house, drove him to court, 
and babysat him all day, lest he walk out of the courthouse and never be seen again.  
Finally, Gonzalez was called  to  the stand.   During direct examination, he  identified 
Cortes as the stabber, recounting for the jury that when Cortes returned to the car, he 
displayed  the  bloody  knife  and  bragged  about  what  he  had  done.    During  cross‐
examination, though, Gonzalez stated that he made up the story about Cortes and the 
knife and the bragging.  He also stated that the only reason he had come to court and 
testified was that the prosecutor had threatened to have his probation violated if he did 
not identify Cortes.  The  jury, the  judge, and the defense attorney were all surprised.  
The  defense  attorney  terminated  her  cross‐examination,  confident  that  she  had  just 
destroyed the state’s case and that her client was on his way to an acquittal.   

 
Perhaps  the  only  person  in  the  room  not  particularly  surprised  was  the 

prosecutor.  Midtrial surprises like this one are not uncommon in gang cases.  During a 
brief redirect examination, the prosecutor then locked Gonzalez into what he had just 
stated on  cross‐examination,  thereby opening  the door  to Gonzalez′ prior consistent 
statements.    The  prosecutor  next  called  the  lead  detective,  through  whom  the  state 
introduced  Gonzalez′  previously  inadmissible  hearsay  statements  to  police  about 
Cortes, the knife, and the bragging.  For added measure, the prosecutor also called the 
gang detectives who had been present the night before, to assure the jury that no one 
had threatened Gonzalez in order to get him to testify.   

 
Cortes was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison, based on the testimony 

of his own fellow gang member. 

 
 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

65 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Members of the Community as Witnesses 
 
  Members of  the community become both  intended and unintended victims  in 
gang cases.  Victims may be the target of a robbery or burglary or some random act of 
violence, but they may also be accidentally injured during the commission of a gang‐on‐
gang assault, such as in cases involving victims struck by stray bullets.   
 

While a few innocent civilians victimized by gang violence may be too afraid to 
pursue prosecution, most are usually willing to come forward as witnesses.  The mere 
presentation to a jury of an innocent victim in a gang case instantly communicates to the 
jury  all  the  evils  of  gangs,  without  the  prosecutor  ever  saying  anything  reversible.  
Prosecutors  must  be  wary,  however,  of  a  gang  member  defendant′s  fellow  gang 
members intimidating a witness, either while the witness is on the stand or before the 
witness testifies, such as in the hallways of the courthouse.  A prudent measure is to 
have gang detectives ensure safe access to the courtroom for witnesses. 

 
Innocent‐bystander  witnesses  are  much  more  reluctant  to  come  forward  than 

innocent victims, for obvious reasons.  Unlike their victim counterparts, these witnesses 
have  very  little  incentive  to  testify.    For most,  the  idea  of  doing  their  civic  duty  or 
contributing  to a better community  is  far outweighed by  the  fear of retaliation  from 
gang members.  A prosecutor can try to persuade these witnesses to cooperate, but in 
truth,  it  is  difficult  to  argue  with  their  logic  in  not  wanting  to  participate.    The 
possibility of a material‐witness bond exists, but a prosecutor should seriously consider 
whether  to  lock  up  an  innocent  civilian  just  because  that  person  is  afraid  to  testify 
against gang members. 

 
One important way to objectively protect witnesses and to subjectively gain their 

continued cooperation is by keeping a defendant detained pretrial.  Thus, a defendant’s 
first appearance is an important proceeding and should be attended by both the gang 
prosecutor and the lead detective.  There, the prosecutor should give the magistrate an 
applicable  treatment  of  the  bond  statute,  arguing  for  an  increased  bond  or,  when 
applicable, no bond. 

 
Another important way to ensure cooperation is by dealing with the problem of 

witness reluctance ahead of time.  The gang prosecutor already knows the geographic 
areas from which gang cases are most likely to come.  By being proactive and having a 
presence  in  the  community,  the  prosecutor  will  not  be  viewed  as  a  stranger  but  as 
someone whom victims and witnesses can trust. 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

66 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Cooperating Defendants 
 
  One last type of witness for which the gang prosecutor should be prepared is the 
witness  who  was  a  participant  in  the  crime.    Cooperating  defendants  are  often 
necessary in gang cases to give the jury a complete understanding of what happened or 
who did it.  The process of presenting flip witnesses, however, is something that begins 
long before the witness takes the stand.  (A flip witness is a defendant who has been 
offered limited‐use immunity in exchange for cooperating testimony.) 
 
  The  first  thing  a  prosecutor  has  to  consider  is  who  to  flip.    Obviously, 
prosecutors should want to strike a balance between those defendants  least culpable 
and those able to provide the evidence needed to prove the case.   Shooters, stabbers, 
and rapists are not the defendants prosecutors want to flip.  Rather, prosecutors should 
be seeking people such as the driver or a passenger actively looking for victims in a 
drive‐by  shooting,  someone  who  was  involved  in  an  assault  but  did  not  present  a 
weapon, or someone who was present at the scene and may have aided and abetted the 
crime by cheering everyone on but who did not actually touch or strike the victim. 
 
  Part of selecting the right cooperator involves interviewing defendants under the 
conditions set out in an immunity letter.  Such an immunity letter might be referred to 
as a Kastigar  letter or a queen  for a day  letter3; however, regardless of  its name,  its 
purpose is the same.  In the letter, written to the defendant’s attorney, the prosecutor 
should state  that  it  is his understanding  that  the defendant  is  interested  in speaking 
with law enforcement in hopes of resolving his current charges.  The conditions of such 
an  interview  should  be  set  out  in  the  letter  and  will  ordinarily  confer  limited‐use 
immunity  for  a  defendant′s  testimony.    The  letter  should  not,  however,  provide 
derivative‐use immunity.  Sample language is as follows: 
 

3 In Kastigar v. United States, it was found that the United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness
who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as
provided by 18 U.S.C. 6002, from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent
criminal proceedings, as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege
and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. Transactional immunity would afford broader
protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege and is not constitutionally required. In a subsequent criminal
prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving affirmatively that evidence proposed to be used is derived
from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.

Proffer or “queen for a day” letters are written agreements between federal prosecutors and individuals under
criminal investigation that permit these individuals to tell the government about their knowledge of crimes, with the
supposed assurance that their words will not be used against them in any later proceedings. (The individuals can
either be witnesses, subjects, or targets of a federal investigation, although it is subjects and targets who provide
most proffers.)

Gang Prosecution Manual

67 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Pursuant  to our  conversations,  I understand  that your  client  is  interested  in 
speaking  with  the  State  Attorney’s  Office  regarding  his  involvement  in  the 
conspiracy  to  traffic  in  cocaine,  for which he  is presently  charged.    I  further 
understand  that your client  is  interested  in entering  into  these discussions  in 
hopes of eventually being able to resolve his current charges. 
 
If your client  is willing to cooperate with the State Attorney’s Office and  law 
enforcement,  I  will  grant  him  limited‐use  immunity  for  his  testimony.    No 
statements provided by him  in  this matter pursuant  to  this agreement will be 
offered  into  evidence against him, other  than a prosecution  for perjury  in  the 
event that he did not provide truthful  information.   The obligation of truthful 
disclosure  includes an obligation to provide the attorneys and  law enforcement 
officers  with  any  documents,  records,  or  other  tangible  evidence  within  his 
custody or control relating to the matters about which he is questioned. 
 
The  state  of  Florida  and  the  United  States  government  remain  free  to  use 
information derived from the debriefing, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of 
obtaining  leads  to other evidence  that may be used against your client.   Your 
client  expressly  waives  any  right  to  claim  that  such  evidence  should  not  be 
introduced because it was obtained as a result of the debriefing.  This is to obviate 
the need for a Kastigar hearing.  Furthermore, the state and/or the United States 
government may use statements made in the debriefing and all evidence derived 
directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of cross‐examination, if your client 
testifies at any trial contrary to  information he has provided.   This  limited‐use 
immunity agreement does not apply  to any crime of homicide.   No additional 
promises, agreements, or conditions have been entered into other than those set 
forth in this letter.  I hope this letter clarifies the conditions under which I would 
be willing to speak to your client. 
 

  If  the  defendant  and  his  attorney  agree  to  the  conditions,  an  interview  is 
arranged  and  attended  by  the  defendant,  the  defense  counsel,  the  prosecutor,  and 
investigators.    It  should  be  anticipated,  the  letter  notwithstanding,  that  it  is  highly 
unlikely a defendant is being 100 percent truthful from the outset.  Over the course of 
the interview or even follow‐up interviews, the prosecutor should be able to assess the 
value of this individual as a witness by answering the following questions:   

 
Does he have the necessary evidence?  

 In other words, does he know what happened or who did it?   
Will his testimony prove a crime and/or identification?   

Is the evidence admissible?   

Gang Prosecution Manual

68 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

In other words, how does he know it?   
Did he witness it firsthand?   
Did he acquire the information through coconspirator statements 

or is it just ″word on the street″ hearsay?   
Will the witness stand up to cross‐examination?   
Has he previously been convicted of a  felony or a crime  involving 

dishonesty?   
If so, how many times?   

How great is his motive to cooperate?   
Obviously, he is going to want to resolve the instant case, but what 

other issues, such as probation or parole violations, must also be 
factored into the equation? 

 
  Having made the decision to flip a codefendant, the prosecutor should reduce 
the agreement to writing.   Plea agreements should set forth all the conditions of the 
agreement, and prosecutors should anticipate that the agreement will be used during 
cross‐examination and introduced into evidence.   
 
  One  thing  to  consider  is  that  plea  agreements  often  contain  a  polygraph 
provision,  even  though Frye v. United States,  293  F.  1013  (D.C.  Cir.  1923),  prohibits 
polygraph  results  from  being  admitted.    Frye  should  not,  however,  motivate  a 
prosecutor  to  forego  polygraph  examination  of  a  cooperating  defendant  if  the 
agreement calls for it, lest the argument be made that the prosecutorʹs reason for not 
polygraphing the witness was that the prosecutor himself did not believe the witness.  
Polygraph results are not admissible.  But the conscious decision by a prosecutor not to 
polygraph a defendant who has signed a plea contract agreeing to a polygraph may be 
admissible.    If a contract calls  for a polygraph, a polygraph should be given.    If no 
polygraph is going to be given, the contract should not provide for it. 
 
  Preparing a jury to accept the testimony of a flip codefendant is a topic discussed 
in  the  section  on  jury  selection,  but  the  theme  is  essentially  this:    Nobody  likes  a 
tattletale, but everybody wants to know what happened.   Who better to tell us what 
happened than somebody who was there and participated? 
 
  In presenting the codefendant, prosecutors should not attempt to hide anything.  
If he is in jail, he should be wearing his jail clothes.  If he has been brought to court from 
prison, he should, ideally, be wearing his prison clothes.  Some state prison systems do 
not allow inmates to travel in their prison uniforms, instead sending them from prison 
to jail in their civilian clothes, where they are then given jail uniforms.  The idea is that 
prisons are able to account for all uniforms by ensuring that the uniforms never leave 

Gang Prosecution Manual

69 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

the facility.  A phone call from a prosecutor to the prison, however, can sometimes get 
prison officers to send an inmate to court with his prison uniform.  This is a small detail 
but one that the prosecutor may want to consider if, when presenting the cooperator, 
the idea of letting the flip codefendant mitigate his sentence by cooperating is balanced 
by the flip codefendant’s accepting responsibility for his actions, pleading guilty, and 
getting on with his sentence.  Incidentally, cooperators should be pleading GUILTY, not 
nolo contendere or no contest. 

 
 
GANG EVIDENCE 
 

When  compared  with  individual  criminal  behavior,  gang  crime  is  unique.  
Rather  than  occurring  as  snapshots,  gang  crimes  occur  as  part  of  a  filmstrip.    To 
understand the instant crime, it is often necessary to understand a preceding crime, the 
history between the defendant and victim, or the history between the gangs to which 
each belongs.   In other  instances,  the relationship between perpetrators of a crime—
common gang membership—may be relevant to proving they acted in concert. 

 
Violent crimes, such as assaults and murders, can be motivated by nothing more 

than rivalry between two groups.  Violent crimes (such as robbery) and property crimes 
(such as burglary and theft), regardless of whether the gang members committing the 
crime  ever  share  the  proceeds  with  the  entire  gang,  are  often  facilitated  by  the 
relationship  among  the  people  committing  the  crimes—common  gang  membership.  
The testimony of gang member witnesses is often skewed in favor of or biased toward 
or against a defendant or victim.   

 
Gang prosecution as an area of law is relatively new.  However, by considering 

gang  crime  at  its  core—group  criminal  behavior—appellate  courts,  particularly  in 
California and Illinois, have carved out an area of law without which gang prosecution 
would  cease  to  exist.    As  a  general  rule,  where  gang  evidence  is  relevant,  it  is 
admissible. 

 
  The  touchstone  consideration  herein  is  whether  the  evidence  concerning  the 
defendant’s gang affiliation was relevant to the charges filed.  Where the information is 
relevant, it is admissible, despite any prejudice toward the accused from its disclosure.  
The probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial impact.  An accused may 
not  insulate  the  trier  of  fact  from  his  gang  membership  where  it  is  relevant  to  a 
determination of the case, simply because prejudice attaches to that revelation, People v. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

70 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Rivera, 495 N.E. 2d 1088 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1986), citing People v. Hairston, 263 N.E. 2d 840 
(Ill. App. 1970);  People v. Calderon, 424 N.E. 2d 671 (Ill. App. 1981); and People v. Deacon, 
473 N.E. 2d 1354 (Ill. App. 1985).   
 
  Proof of gang membership  is relevant and admissible where  there  is sufficient 
proof of a relationship between such affiliation and the crime charged (e.g., to show a 
motive or common purpose), and where its relevance is so established, such evidence 
need not be excluded merely because of its tendency to prejudice the defendant, People 
v. Anderson, 505 N.E. 2d 1303 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1987), citing People v. Hairston, 263 N.E 2d 
840 (Ill. App. 1970); People v. Jackson, 424 N.E. 2d 1207 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1986); and People 
v. Calderon, 424 N.E. 2d 671 (Ill. App. 1981).   
 
  It is proper to introduce evidence of membership in a gang or any type of group 
that relates to a question, such as motive.  Thus, it has repeatedly been held that it is 
proper  to  introduce  evidence  that  is  unpleasant  or  negative  pertaining  to  an 
organization  where  it  is  relevant  to  motive  or  to  the  subject  matter  at  trial.    In  
In re Darrell T., 90 Cal. App. 3d 325 (1979),  the court discussed evidence concerning the 
history of various juvenile gangs as it pertained to the proof of the existence of a motive 
relative  to  the  crime  of  murder.    In  the  case  within,  gang  membership  was  quite 
relevant.  The victim and some of his companions were admitted members of a gang 
that was inside the territory or turf of another gang.  Additionally, appellant Bazurto 
admitted having been a past member of the gang that claimed the scene of the crime as 
its territory, People v. Frausto, 135 Cal. App. 3d 142 (1982), citing People v. Dominguez, 
Cal. App. 3d 481 (1981) and People v. Perez, 114 Cal.  App. 3d 470 (1981). 
 

Gang  evidence  is  admissible  to  prove  motive,  intent,  identity,  conspiracy, 
knowledge, principal, preparation, plan, absence of mistake or accident, and bias, as 
well as to explain the demeanor of a witness.   

 
  Evidence of this type is usually considered in the context of Fed. Rule of Evid. 
404(b) or  its equivalent  in state evidence codes. Under these rules, evidence of other 
crimes, wrongs, or acts  is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show 
action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such 
as  proof  of  motive,  opportunity,  intent,  preparation,  plan,  knowledge,  identity,  or 
absence  of  mistake  or  accident,  provided  that  upon  request  by  the  accused,  the 
prosecution  in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice  in advance of  trial, or 
during  trial  if  the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of  the general 
nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial, Fed. Rule of Evid. 404(b).  
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

71 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

  Most gang evidence, however,  is not collateral but  is  inextricably  intertwined, 
thus  taking  it  outside  the  purview  of  404(b)  analysis.  In  other  words,  it  would  be 
impossible for the  jury to understand the case being tried without understanding the 
gang dynamics of  the case. The United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit,  in 
United  States  v.  Williford,  764  F.  2d  1493  (1985),  stated,  “Evidence  of  an  uncharged 
offense arising from the same series of transactions as that charged is not an extrinsic 
offense  within  Rule  404(b).”  For  example,  understanding  the  rivalry  that  existed 
between  two  gangs  and  that  members  of  the  victim’s  gang  had  earlier  in  the  day 
assaulted a member of the defendant’s gang will help a jury understand the motive and 
intent of  the defendants;  in other words, why  they drove  to  the  turf of  the victim’s 
gang—each  person  in  the  car  armed  with  a  firearm—and  all  but  the  driver  were 
shooting at the victim, who was innocently walking down the street.   
 
  The decision to admit evidence that falls under Rule 404(b) or  is shown to be 
intertwined  in  the  crime  depends  on  Fed.  Rule  of  Evid.  403.  Although  relevant, 
evidence  may  be  excluded  if  its  probative  value  is  substantially  outweighed  by  the 
danger  of  unfair  prejudice,  confusion  of  the  issues,  or  misleading  the  jury,  or  by 
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative 
evidence, Fed. Rule Evid. 403.4 The United States Supreme Court, in Old Chief v. United 
States,  519  U.S.  172  (1997),  stated,  “The  term  ‘unfair  prejudice,’  as  to  a  criminal 
defendant,  speaks  to  the  capacity  of  some  concededly  relevant  evidence  to  lure  the 
factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense 
charged.” 

 
 
THE JURISPRUDENCE OF GANG PROSECUTION 

 
The following section provides examples of courts allowing the  introduction of gang 
evidence  for  various  relevant  purposes.  Gang  evidence  has  been  used  in  court  for 
several decades  in  jurisdictions  throughout  the United States.   There has emerged a 
substantial  body  of  law  regarding  the  circumstances  when  gang  evidence  has  been 
admitted and excluded.     A good example of the extent to which gang evidence has 
been considered in several states is found in a Virginia Court of Appeals case, Utz v. 
Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 422, footnote 2 (1998): 
 

4 See California Evidence Code, Section 352 for an equivalent state statute.

Gang Prosecution Manual

72 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

“Siler v. State, 705 So. 2d 552, 556‐59 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (admission of 
past  gang‐related  activity  and  rivalry  was  directly  relevant  to  show 
motive and state of mind; due  to  its direct relevance,  it was not overly 
prejudicial); State v. Romero, 178 Ariz. 45, 870 P.2d 1141, 1147–48 (Ariz. Ct. 
App.  1993)  (evidence  of  defendant’s  gang  affiliation  established  a  link 
between the crime and gang rivalry and was relevant to establish motive; 
trial  court  properly  balanced  probative  value  with  prejudice); People v. 
Williams, 16 Cal. 4th 153, 940 P.2d 710, 738  (Cal. 1997)  (in gang‐related 
case, gang evidence is admissible if relevant to motive or identity, so long 
as probative value not outweighed by prejudicial effect); State v. Taylor, 
239 Conn. 481, 687 A.2d 489, 500 (Conn. 1996) (finding evidence of gang 
affiliation  relevant  and  not  overly  prejudicial  to  establish  motive  for 
murder); People v. Knox, 241 Ill. App. 3d 205,608 N.E. 2d 659, 663, 181 Ill. 
Dec. 586 (Ill. Ct. App. 1993) (explaining that gang‐related evidence ‘is only 
admissible  where  there  is  sufficient  proof  that  gang  membership  or 
activity  is  related  to  the  crime  charged,’  holding  that  gang‐related 
evidence was sufficiently linked to offense and was, therefore, admissible 
to provide motive for otherwise inexplicable murder); State v. Toney, 253 
Kan. 651 862 P.2d 350, 352–53 (Kan. 1993) (evidence of defendant’s gang 
membership and expert testimony about gang conduct was relevant and 
admissible  in  government’s  case‐in‐chief  to  show  motive  for  murder); 
Hoops v. State, 681 So. 2d 521, 529–31 (Miss. 1996) (upholding admission of 
evidence  of  defendant’s  involvement  in  gang  that  had  rivalry  with 
victim’s gang to show motive for otherwise unexplained assault; finding 
that  probative  value  outweighed  danger  of  unfair  prejudice);  Tinch  v. 
State,  113  Nev.  1170,  946  P.2d  1061,  1064–65  (Nev.  1997)  (upholding 
admissibility  of  evidence  of  gang  affiliation  where  it  was  relevant  to 
charged offense and probative value was not substantially outweighed by 
danger of unfair prejudice;  ‘concluding  that  the  [gang‐related] evidence 
was relevant to the gang enhancement charge and could show motive’); 
People v. Connally, 105 A.D. 2d 797, 481 N.Y.S. 2d 432, 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 
1984) (limited evidence of gang affiliation was relevant and admissible to 
prove motive and intent); State v. Campbell, 78 Wash. App. 813, 901 P.2d 
1050  (Wash. Ct. App. 1995)  (holding  that evidence of defendant’s gang 
affiliation was sufficiently linked with crime and was probative to show 
motive and premeditation, supporting state’s  theory of case;  trial  judge 
carefully limited evidence so as to avoid undue prejudice).” 

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

73 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Motive 
 
It is proper to introduce evidence of membership in a gang or any type of group that 
relates to a question in issue, such as motive, People v. Frausto, 185 Cal. Rptr. 314 (App. 
1982).  For example, gang expert testimony on the role of respect in gang culture was 
relevant to provide a motive for an otherwise inexplicable act by assisting the  jury in 
understanding why the defendant would attack a person seeking to avoid a fight, State 
v.  Jackson,  714  N.W.  2d  681  (Minn.  2006).    In  a  drive‐by  shooting  case,  an  Illinois 
appellate court found that gang testimony regarding a gang war was relevant since the 
defendant admitted he knew that his armed passengers were going to shoot at rival 
gang  members.  The  court  said,  “Gang  evidence  is  relevant  when  it  corroborates  a 
defendant’s confession . . . [and] is admissible despite the prejudice that attaches if it is 
relevant and particularly if it is crucial in establishing motive,” State v. Davis, 335 Ill. 
App. 3d 1 (2002). 

 
Motive and Identity 
 

The defendant’s membership in the Diamond Gang was relevant to his identity 
as a participant in the group action and relevant to his credibility as a witness.   The 
defendant’s  membership  in  the  Diamond  Gang  was  also  relevant  to  his  motive  for 
participation in the charged offenses, People v. Contreras, 192 Cal. Rptr. 810 (App. 1983).   

 
Intent 
 

The court implicitly found the requisite specific intent by finding that the drive‐
by shooting here was “a crime of shooting at somebody with a shotgun” and that Sergio 
and  Leonardo  “both  had  knowledge  of  what  was  going  to  happen”  (i.e.,  someone 
would be killed), In re Sergio R., 279 Cal. Rptr. 149 (Cal. Rptr. 2 Dist. 1991).  In a case out 
of Hawaii, evidence of a prior gang‐related shooting was relevant to prove the intent to 
enter a conspiracy, State v. Renon, 73 Haw. 23 (1992). 

 
Knowledge and 

Principal 
 

Evidence established that the juvenile was not merely present at the scene of the 
robbery but acted with requisite knowledge of criminal purpose so as to be the aider 
and abettor in facilitating the robbery of an automobile, Matter of Jose T., 282 Cal. Rptr. 
75 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1991). 

Gang Prosecution Manual

74 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Principal 
 

A defendant was found to be a principal in a case in which the evidence was not 
contradicted that the defendant was one of those present at the discussions held by the 
Crips immediately before their venture was undertaken and that, along with the others, 
he departed the murder scene as soon as the shooting had occurred, People v. McDaniels, 
App., 166  Cal. Rptr. 12 (1980). 

 
Aiding and Abetting 
 

Gang evidence is critical at times to prove aiding and abetting liability.  The Ohio 
Supreme Court addressed the relevancy of gang evidence in light of aiding and abetting 
in a case where the defendant actively encouraged a member of his gang to shoot his 
gun at someone as retaliation for an earlier gang‐related incident. 

 
“This court has held that the state need not establish the identity of the 
principal  in  order  to  convict  an  offender  of  complicity.  To  support  a 
conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting…the evidence must show 
that  the  defendant  supported,  assisted,  encouraged,  cooperated  with, 
advised, or incited the principal in the commission of the crime, and that 
the defendant shared  the criminal  intent of  the principal. Such criminal 
intent can be inferred from the presence, companionship, and conduct of 
the defendant before and after the offense is committed.”; State v. Johnson, 
93 Ohio St. 3d 240 (2001) (in a gang motivated shooting gang evidence was 
allowed  to show defendant aided and abetted  in  the murder of a  three 
year old bystander). 

In re T.K., 109 Ohio St. 3d 512, 514 (2006). 
 
Conspiracy 
 

Gang evidence is often admissible to establish the existence of a conspiracy, State 
v. Torres, 47 Conn. App. 149 (1997) [Gang membership and leadership position in the 
gang were found to be relevant to the criminal charge of conspiracy to commit murder 
because  it  helped  establish  that  the  defendant’s  actions  of  being  at  a  café  and 
communicating by walkie‐talkie were carried out  to advance a plan  to harm a rival 
gang  member.];  United  States  v.  Hartsfield,  976  F.2d  1349  (1992)  [gang  membership 
relevant to prove a conspiracy charge  in order to show defendant and coconspirator 
were both members of a particular gang whose main purpose was to distribute drugs].  

Gang Prosecution Manual

75 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

While mere association with perpetrators of crime does not establish participation in a 
conspiracy, it does provide a starting point.  Here, the evidence shows much more than 
the “mere association” of appellant with the conspirators.  The members of the “family” 
(a gang) and their supporters quite clearly formed a plan to hunt down and assault B‐
Wingers to retaliate for the stabbing of a “family” member, In re Nathaniel C., 279 Cal. 
Rptr. 236 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1991).  In a Pennsylvania case, evidence of the victim’s and 
defendant’s gang affiliations and rivalries and a specific past incident where a member 
of the defendant’s gang was stabbed by a member of the victim’s gang were properly 
admitted  to help establish a conspiracy.   The court declared, “Evidence of relations, 
conduct of circumstance of the parties is relevant circumstantial evidence to establish a 
conspiracy. [Thus,] evidence of the gang activity involved in the present case is highly 
probative  of  whether  a  conspiracy  existed,”  Commonwealth  v.  Gwaltney,  497  Pa.  505 
(1982).  

 
In  another  case,  the  defendant  was  present  at  one  or  more  discussions 

concerning Reggie T.’s fight with Daryl W. and the plan to get even.   The defendant 
traveled to a rival gang’s (The Fives) area in a caravan of three cars with nine or ten 
other youths.  Before the shooting occurred, the defendant (along with Michael P. and 
Nicardo  P.,  members  of  the  same  Crips  faction  as  the  defendant)  was  identified  by 
McCormick as one of the boys standing with McDaniels when the victim was killed.  
Michael P., Nicardo P., and the defendant ran back to the car together.  After the car 
failed to start, the defendant and Nicardo P. ran from the scene on foot.  The evidence, 
although  circumstantial,  is  clearly  sufficient  to  support  a  conspiracy  finding,  In  re 
Darrell T., 979 App., 153 Cal. Rptr. 261.   

 
Bias 

 
  Membership  of  the  defendant  and  a  defense  witness  in  a  prison  gang  whose 
tenets required its members to lie, cheat, steal, and kill was admissible to show bias of 
the witness, United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed. 2d 450 (1984).  Gang 
membership was also found admissible in a Florida case to show two defense witnesses 
had a motive for lying because the defendant and they were all members of the same 
gang, which created an “unusual loyalty,” Martin v. State, 797 So. 2d 6 (Fla. Ct. App. 
2001).   In the Kansas case of State v. Knighten, 260 Kan. 47 (1996), the defendant was 
charged  with  the  first‐degree  murder  of  a  correctional  officer.  The  defendant’s 
supporting witnesses attesting to his alibi were all members of the same gang. Gang 
membership was admissible to the issues of witness bias and credibility.  The court held 
that “proof of bias  is almost always relevant because  the  jury, as  finder of  fact and 

Gang Prosecution Manual

76 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might 
bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness’ testimony.”   

 
 
LITIGATING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF  
GANG EVIDENCE 
 
  Particularly in emerging jurisdictions, where gang prosecution is a relatively new 
concept, litigating the admissibility of gang evidence can be tricky.  Even in established 
jurisdictions, gang evidence might need  to be  litigated on a case‐by‐case basis.   The 
admissibility of gang evidence should be litigated pretrial.   The pleading on which a 
prosecutor  should  rely  is  a  “Memorandum  of  Law:    Points  and  Authorities  on  the 
Admissibility of Gang Evidence.”  Typically, such a pleading will summarize the facts 
of the case and then give an offer of proof and argument, essentially laying out all the 
reasons  why  the  gang  evidence  is  relevant.    Next,  the  pleading  should  include  a 
discussion  of  cases  where  gang  evidence  was  similarly  relevant  and  admitted.  
Obviously, in an emerging  jurisdiction, the majority of cases cited will be from other 
states.   
 
  In State v. Tran, 847 P. 2d 680 (Kan. 1993), the Kansas Supreme Court found itself 
having to look to other jurisdictions, such as California and Illinois, for guidance in a 
gang case.   
 
  Two groups had gone to a skating center one night:  one group was made up of 
two brothers, Toan and Toan Q., and  their girlfriends―the other group consisted of 
several members of the Local Boys, a street gang, of which the defendant, Hieu Tran, 
was a member.  Inside the skating rink, a fight occurred between one of the brothers 
and Jimmy Nguyen, a Local Boy.  The fight was broken up by a security officer, who 
arrested Jimmy Nguyen for assault and battery.   
 
  The two brothers and their girlfriends, leaving the skating rink, headed towards 
the parking lot.  Kevin Nguyen followed and stated, “You fought my friend.  Why don’t 
you  fight me?”   The  four were confronted by “a whole bunch of guys,” and Kevin 
Nguyen then said, “Why’d you mess with my brother?  You mess with him, you mess 
with me.” 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

77 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

  Eight to ten people attacked the two brothers.   Hieu Tran, the defendant, was 
seen pulling a gun from his pocket and pointing it toward Toan’s head.  A shot rang 
out, and everybody scattered.  Toan died from a head wound.  
 
  At  trial,  Officer  Brad  Carey,  a  gang  intelligence  officer  for  the  Wichita  Police 
Special Community Action Team  (SCAT),  identified Hieu as a member of  the Local 
Boys gang.  Officer Carey’s identification was based on observations of Hieu associating 
with other gang members on two occasions and on information provided by a reliable 
informant. 
 
  On appeal, the defendant claimed that he was denied a fair trial by the admission 
of gang characteristics and purported gang associations.  The defendant reasoned that a 
gang is not simply a group of kids who hang out together.  According to the defendant, 
“The term ‘gang’ in its current usage connotes opprobrious implications.  The use of the 
word  ‘gang’  takes on a sinister meaning when  it  is associated with activities.”   The 
Kansas Supreme Court disagreed, stating:  
 

Evidence of gang association or characteristics may only be admitted if relevant.  
Relevance is present in the case at bar.  (Tran, at 686.) 
 
The Tran court agreed with the state that the evidence of gang membership was 

relevant to establish Hieu’s motive for the crime.  Following the fight inside the skating 
rink, Corby Turner heard a group of three to five Vietnamese males talking about the 
incident.  Turner heard the people say they were going to get even, and they knew how 
they were going to do it.  According to the state, that conversation established a link 
between the fight in the skating rink and the fight in the parking lot that led to Toan’s 
death.  The motivation or desire to get even with the brothers who were involved in the 
arrest of Jimmy Nguyen, a member of the Local Boys, led to the confrontation in the 
parking lot.  Hieu was a participant in the fight in the parking lot.  Hieu made sure the 
gang retaliated against the brothers when he shot Toan in the back of the head.   

 
Absent evidence of gang affiliation, the jury would wonder why Hieu felt the need 
to get even with the brothers.  Again, evidence of gang affiliation established an 
alliance among Jimmy, who started the initial fight inside the skating rink; Kevin, 
who started the fight in the parking lot; and Hieu, who fired the shot that killed 
Toan.   Without  evidence of gang affiliation,  the  state’s attempt  to  establish a 
motive for the crime would have been impeded.  (Tran, at 688.)   
 

  The  Tran  court  went  on  to  analogize  the  motive  concept  in  that  case  
to  the concept adopted by  the United States Supreme Court  in United States v. Abel,  

Gang Prosecution Manual

78 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

469 U.S. 45, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed. 2d. 450 (1984), that gang evidence may be admitted to 
prove bias.   
 
  Additionally,  the  Kansas  Supreme  Court  found  that  several  facts  in  Tran 
supported the admission of gang testimony as res gestae and acknowledged that they 
had recently approved the admission of gang evidence on a res gestae basis in State v. 
Walker, 843 P. 2d 203 (1992) and State v. Hooks, 840 P. 2d 483 (1992). 

 
 
ADMISSIBLITY OF GANG EXPERT TESTIMONY 
 
  In People v. Langford, 602 N.E. 2d 9 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1992), a properly qualified 
gang expert was allowed to testify that the defendant was a member of one of the two 
gangs involved in that case.  He recounted the history of the gangs and described the 
continuing dispute between  them over  the right  to sell drugs  in  the area where  the 
murders at  issue  in  that case occurred.   The expert witness  testified  that  it was  the 
dispute that motivated the defendant to shoot the victims, who were members of the 
rival gang. 
 
  In People v. Buchanon,  570  N.E.  2d  344  (Ill.  App.  1  Dist),  a  gang  specialist  was 
allowed  to  testify,  among  other  things,  that  the  Insane  Unknowns  and  the  Imperial 
Gangsters  were  rival  gangs  that  belonged  to  different  “umbrella”  organizations 
(Buchanon, at 348). 
 
  In People v. Gamez, 286 Cal. Rptr. 894 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. 1991), “[T]hree Santa Ana 
police officers testified as experts regarding their knowledge of gangs in general and the 
Southside and Highland Street gangs in particular.  One of the officers opined that the 
shooting was a  ‘payback’  for a prior shooting by Highland Street against Southside.  
Another  opined  the  defendant  was  a  member  of  Southside.    Photographs,  taken  in 
October 1987, showing the defendant with other known Southside members throwing 
the gang’s hand signs were introduced to corroborate the officers’ opinions.  Based on 
his  own  personal  knowledge,  crime  and  victim  reports,  conversations  with  other 
officers, and statements by gang members, one officer gave his opinion that Southside 
was  a  criminal  street  gang  engaged  in  a  pattern  of  criminal  street  gang  activity.”  
Relying on In re Darrell T., 90 Cal. App. 3d 325 (1979) and People v. McDaniels, 107 Cal. 
App. 3d 898 (1980), the Gamez court found the use of gang expert testimony admissible. 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

79 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

QUALIFYING THE GANG EXPERT 
 
  Below are sample predicate questions for qualifying a detective  to  testify as a 
gang expert and to offer opinion testimony. 

 
Background 
 

Please state your name. 
How are you employed? 
How long have you been employed as a police officer? 
To what unit are you presently assigned? 
Prior  to  being  assigned  to  the  gang  unit,  to  what  units  were  you 

assigned? 
While in the uniform patrol division and the street narcotics unit, did 

you have occasion to come into contact with gang members? 
Are you presently a member of any task force? 
What is the mission of the Violent Gang Task Force? 
As a member, what specifically do you do? 
How often does the task force conduct such an operation? 
The intelligence meetings to which you referred—how often are they 

held? 
Are you a member of any professional associations? 
What is the mission of the      Gang Investigators Association? 

 
Training and Expertise 
 

Have  you  received  any  specialized  training  in  the  areas  of  gang 
enforcement, investigation, or prosecution? 

Have you ever taught any courses? 
To whom are the gang awareness courses taught? 
Do you keep current on literature, articles, or studies in the areas of 

gang enforcement, investigation, or prosecution? 
What are some of the materials you have read? 
By whom were they written? 
Have you ever written any materials on those subjects? 

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

80 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Experience 
 

As a gang detective, do you have occasion to personally come into 
contact with gang members? 

How often? 
Is that always in a custodial context? 
Describe a typical casual contact with a gang member. 
In  your  five  years  as  a  gang  investigator,  your  two  years  as  a 

detective  in  the narcotics unit, and your  two years  in  the uniform 
patrol division, approximately how many gang members have you 
spoken with? 

Is it your experience that gang members have a unique culture, with 
its own habits, trends, customs, language, values, and morals? 

Is  it part of your  job as a gang detective  to keep current on gang 
culture—the habits, trends, customs, and language? 

How do you do that? 

 
Information Sharing 
 

As a member of  the gang unit, do you share what you  learn with 
other gang detectives? 

Do other gang detectives share information with you? 
Do you share what you learn with police officers in other units? 
How do you do that? 
Do you also share information with other police agencies? 
How do you do that? 
As a gang detective, do you have the responsibility to help maintain 

an ongoing gang file by collecting information and intelligence and 
forwarding it to the gang crime analyst? 

Is it part of your job to be familiar with gang rivalries? 
Is it part of your job to be familiar with gang alliances? 

 
Courtroom Experience 
 

Have you ever testified before in court in a gang case? 
How many times? 
Have you ever been recognized by a court as an expert witness in the 

field of gangs?  

Gang Prosecution Manual

81 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

How many times? 
Were you allowed to testify regarding gangs, gang membership, gang 

culture, gang rivalries, and gang alliances? 

 
Gangs in Question 
 

Are you familiar with the term “Chicago‐style” as it relates to gangs? 
Please explain. 
Do “Chicago‐style” gangs align themselves by nation? 
Please  explain  what  these  nations  are  and  how  they  relate  to  one 

another.  
Are there different levels of participation within gangs? 
Do “Chicago‐style” gangs have a hierarchy? 
Describe the typical hierarchy of a “Chicago‐style” gang. 
How does one progress or move through the ranks? 
Are you familiar with a gang called TNS? 
For what do the initials TNS stand?  
When did you first come into contact with members of TNS? 
Is TNS a “Chicago‐style” gang? 
To what nation does TNS belong? 
Does TNS have colors? 
What are their colors? 
How do they display the colors blue and red? 
Does TNS have any signs or symbols? 
What are their signs or symbols? 
Where do they put these signs or symbols? 
Are you familiar with a gang called IN/P? 
For what do the initials IN/P stand? 
When did you first come into contact with members of IN/P? 
Is IN/P a “Chicago‐style” gang? 
To what nation does IN/P belong? 
Does IN/P have colors? 
What are their colors? 
How do they display the colors blue and red? 
Does IN/P have any signs or symbols? 
What are their signs or symbols? 
Where do they put these signs and symbols? 
What is the relationship between TNS and IN/P? 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

82 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Defendant’s Membership 
 

Are you familiar with the defendant Mauricio Solarzano? 
Do you know him by any other names? 
What is the street name by which you say you know him? 
When did you first come into contact with “Desca”? 
Where was that contact? 
With whom was the defendant hanging out? 
Did you memorialize that contact in any way? 
Is this the field interview (FI) card you prepared? 
Did  you  ever  come  into  contact  with  the  defendant  on  other 

occasions? 
Did you also prepare FI cards on those occasions? 
Are these those cards? 
Do  you  have  an  opinion  as  to  whether  the  defendant,  Desca,  is  a 

gang member? 
What is that opinion? 
On what do you base that opinion?  
To  what  gang  do  you  believe  Mauricio  Solarzano,  also  known  as 

Desca, belongs? 

 
 
JURY SELECTION 
 
  Because of the seriousness of gang crime and the serious threat to public safety 
posed by gang member defendants, gang prosecution is ultimately about making the 
most  problematic  cases  prosecutable  and  winnable.    From  dealing  with  problem 
witnesses, to litigating the admissibility of gang evidence, to introducing that evidence 
through a gang expert, gang prosecutors should be able to explain evidence to jurors in  
common‐sense terms.   
 

Jurisdictions vary over how  involved attorneys  for  the parties will be  in  jury 
selection.    Certain  jurisdictions  are  so  restrictive  that  jury  selection  is  essentially 
conducted  from  the  bench,  although  attorneys  for  each  side  might  submit  certain 
questions.  In other jurisdictions, the attorneys are able to voir dire prospective jurors for 
a reasonable period of time.  “Reasonableness” is determined on a case‐by‐case basis.   

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

83 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Jurors’ reactions to gangs vary.  Some jurors want to convict all gang members 
based on gang membership alone, regardless of whether there exists any evidence that 
the  defendants  actually  committed  the  crimes  charged.    At  the  other  end  of  the 
spectrum  are  jurors  who  are  so  afraid  of  retaliation  that  they  will  never  be  able  to 
convict, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence.   A gang prosecution requires 
jurors who are somewhere in between.   

 
Below are sample predicate questions for discussing gangs during jury selection, 

designed to seat a fair and impartial jury whose members will listen to the evidence and 
render a true and correct verdict. 

 
Juror’s Basic Attitude Toward Gangs 
 

What do you think of when you hear the word “gang”? 

 
Personal Knowledge About Gangs 
 

In what area do you live? 
Are there gang problems in your neighborhood? 
Have you ever seen graffiti in your neighborhood?   
Does any of it appear to be gang graffiti? 
Have you ever tried to interpret it? 
Are you aware of any gang rivalries in your neighborhood? 

 
Gangs Involved 
 

Have you ever heard of a gang called TNS or Take No Shit? 
Where? 
What effect will it have? 
Have you ever heard of a gang called IN/P or International Posse?   
Where? 
What effect will it have? 
Have you ever heard of: 

Folk Nation? 
People Nation? 
Outlaws (not the motorcycle gang)? 

Have you ever had personal contact with gang members? 
Has anyone here ever been a gang member? 

Gang Prosecution Manual

84 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Is anyone here currently a gang member?  
Does anyone have any family members who are gang members or 

who they think are gang members?  
Does anyone have friends or know anyone who is a gang member? 
Have  you  ever  seen  anyone  whom  you  believed  to  be  a  gang 

member?  Why did you believe that person to be a gang member? 
Are your children confronted at school by gang members? 
Are your children confronted at school by gang problems/issues? 
Have you ever been the victim of a gang‐related crime? 
Do you know anyone who has been a victim of a gang‐related crime? 
Have you ever witnessed a gang‐related crime? 

 
Juror’s Knowledge of Gang Culture 
 

Discuss with the jurors the following in regards to gang culture: 
 

Dress 
Understanding that dress  is not the “be all” and “end all” of gang 

membership 
Nowadays, everyone looks like a gang member 
Tattoos 
Graffiti 
Hand signs 
Slang 
Monikers 
Territories (hoods or turf) 
Source of knowledge—personal or from the media 
Television  shows  or  movies  watched  or  books  read  on  gangs  or 

about gangs 

 
Gang Problem 
 

Do you think there is a gang problem in (city/county)? 
What are your feelings about that problem?   
Do  you  think  it  is  blown  out  of  proportion,  or  is  it  increasing  in 

seriousness?   
Do  you  understand  that  this  trial  is  not  supposed  to  be  your 

opportunity to get back at every gang member in the county?   

Gang Prosecution Manual

85 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

Gang evidence will be introduced to help you understand the crimes 
charged.  No one is charged with being a gang member.  The judge 
will instruct you that it is not against the law to belong to a gang, but 
it is against the law to commit the crimes charged. 

 
Gang Membership and Motive to Commit Crimes 
 

Rival gangs 
Increased status in gang catching rank/respect 

 
Reluctant Witnesses 
 

Witness intimidation and/or fear of retaliation is a motive to lie. 

 
Juror’s Fear of Retaliation as an Obstacle to Deliberation in a 
Gang Case 

 
I expect the victim to testify in this case, and I expect it to come out 

that he is a gang member.  I should also point out that this is an open 
courtroom and some of the victim’s friends may attend part of this 
trial.  Likewise, some of the defendant’s friends may attend part of 
this  trial.    I  also  want  you  to  understand  that  your  personal 
information, such as your address at which you received your  jury 
summons, is not made available to the defendant, the victim, or any 
of the witnesses.  

Would the fact that the victim is a gang member affect your ability to 
render a guilty verdict?  In other words, do you think that as a gang 
member  he  deserves  what  he  gets,  even  if  that  means  being  the 
victim of a crime? 

Similarly, if the charges are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, 
would you have any problem finding the defendant not guilty?  In 
other words, would you be able to acquit the defendant and not be 
afraid of what the victim or the victim’s gang might think? 

Likewise,  if  the  charges  are  proven  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt, 
would you have any concerns about convicting the defendant?   In 
other words, would you be able to convict the defendant and not be 
afraid of what the defendant or the defendant’s gang might think?  

Gang Prosecution Manual

86 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

General Factors to Consider 
 

Offensive language. 
Circumstantial evidence. 
How do we know what someone’s intent is?    
Actions speak louder than words. 
Sympathy factor—defendant is young. 
Not to consider punishment or consequences of verdict.  That is the 

judge’s job.  We all have separate jobs.   
What would you do if during deliberations, a juror told you he was 

not  convinced  the  defendant  committed  the  crime  but  wanted  to 
convict the defendant anyway because he believes all people who are 
arrested are guilty?   

What would you do if during deliberations, a juror told you he was 
convinced the charges had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt 
but did not want to convict the defendant because he felt bad about 
what might happen to the defendant at sentencing? 

Report juror misconduct to court . . . it does not make you a tattletale.  
We are just relying on everyone.  

 
Legal Theories That Extend Criminal Liability 
 

Principal theory/instruction 
Three Musketeers—“all for one” and “one for all” 

 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
  Gang cases are not easy.  They are time‐intensive and labor‐intensive.  Because of 
the nature of street gangs, specialized prosecutors can expect multiple codefendants 
and serious charges.  Management of such cases can be overwhelming and requires that 
the  prosecutor  have  experience  and  expertise  in  dealing  with  complex  litigation 
issues—such  as  404(b)  evidence,  Bruton  issues5  multiple  juries,  declarations  against 

5 Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), granted a new trial, finding error in the admission in a joint trial of a
nontestifying codefendant’s confession which directly implicated the defendant, 391 U.S. at 125–26, 137. The court
held this violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, even though the jury had
been instructed not to consider the codefendant’s statement on the issue of the defendant’s own guilt.

Gang Prosecution Manual

87 Section 4. Presentation of the Case

interest, prior testimony, and self‐defense—as well as experience and expertise dealing 
with gang issues, such as what gang evidence is, where it comes from, for what it can be 
used, and how it is introduced.  Gang prosecutors often handle serious crimes involving 
serious defendants.  Meticulous care must be taken at each stage.  There is no substitute 
for preparation. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

88 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

Section 5. 
 
Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases 

By
John Anderson, Assistant District Attorney
Orange County District Attorney’s Office
Supervisor of the TARGET Gang Unit
Santa Ana, California

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 

Sentencing  issues  in  a  gang  case  are  important  from  the  time  of  initial 
consideration of the case for filing.  An appropriate disposition of a case (or a potential 
case) is often a function of the charges filed, a decision to delay the filing of a case, or 
deferring the entry of  judgment following a guilty plea.   The  less serious an offense 
committed  by  a  gang  member,  the  more  options  exist  to  fashion  a  disposition  that 
punishes  the  offender  but  still  allows  an  opportunity  for  rehabilitation.    The  more 
serious and violent felony gang offenses usually are met with the most severe charges 
and the harshest possible punishments. 
 

The  fact  that  the  majority  of  street  gang  members  are  most  criminally  active 
between  the  ages  of  14  and  24  creates  additional  difficult  sentencing  issues.    Gang 
prosecutions require that prosecutors be  thoroughly familiar with  juvenile and adult 
court procedures and know when a juvenile may be prosecuted under the adult law.  It 
is not uncommon for juvenile and adult street gang members to be suspects in the same 
case.  This dynamic dictates split juvenile and adult court prosecutions at least until the 
juvenile suspects are remanded to adult court.   

 
Sentencing  in  gang  cases  is  a  complicated  process,  depending  on  the  type  of 

crime, the range of possible punishments for the crime, on what charges the defendant 

Gang Prosecution Manual

89 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

is  convicted,  how  the  defendant  was  convicted  (by  plea  or  trial),  and  whether  the 
defendant was initially placed on probation following a conviction.   

 
 
TYPES OF CRIMES 
 

Most states classify crimes based on the seriousness of the offense as measured 
by the level of violence or the amount of loss.  Different classes of crimes carry different 
levels of punishment.  Some public disturbance offenses, such as making unreasonable 
noise or disturbing the peace, often are considered noncriminal infractions punishable 
by fines or community service hours but no jail time.  The first level of criminal offense 
is a misdemeanor, which is punishable by fines and typically up to one year of local jail 
time.  Common gang‐related misdemeanors include vandalism, challenging another to 
fight in public, simple assault, and possession of alcohol by a minor.   
 

Felonies are serious or violent crimes punishable by confinement in state prison, 
sometimes for life, or even by death in many states for special‐circumstance murders.  
Often, states have sentencing schemes that allow for more custody time based on how 
the crime was committed (use of a weapon or firearm, for example), the nature of the 
victim (for instance, an elderly person or a government official), the motivation for the 
crime (for example, hate crimes based on race or sexual orientation), or the amount of 
loss.    Common  gang‐related  felonies  include  rape,  robbery,  attempted  murder,  and 
murder.    
 

In  between  felonies  and  misdemeanors  is  sometimes  a  crossover  category  of 
crimes  that  can  be  charged  as  either  felonies  or  misdemeanors.    The  initial  filing 
decision rests with the prosecutor, but during the pendency of a case, a charge filed by 
the prosecutor as a  felony can be reduced  to a misdemeanor.   A court’s decision  to 
reduce such an offense from a felony to a misdemeanor usually cannot be overturned 
absent a clear abuse of discretion by the court.  Common gang‐related offenses falling 
into this category of crime include assault with a deadly weapon, joyriding, and grand 
theft.   
 

More  than  70  percent  of  states  have  enacted  some  form  of  antigang  crime 
legislation.  A number of states have laws that focus on so‐called criminal street gang 
activity.    Criminal  street  gang  statutes  create  crime  and  sentence  enhancements 
(additional custody time) for crimes committed for the benefit of, in association with, or 
at  the direction of a criminal street gang.   The statutes have elaborate definitions of 

Gang Prosecution Manual

90 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

what constitutes a criminal street gang and what activity is included in criminal street 
gang activity.   Precision  in  the definitions helps avoid  the constitutional  infirmity of 
vagueness in the laws but also creates difficulty in proving the charges.  

 
 
ALTERNATIVES TO CRIMINAL FILINGS AND 
DIVERSION PROGRAMS 
 

The initial question when a case is presented by the police to the prosecutor for a 
filing decision is whether the case warrants a filing.  Just because a case can be filed does 
not always mean it should be filed.  Prefiling alternatives can be explored, especially in 
juvenile cases  involving minor offenses committed by first‐time gang offenders (e.g., 
possessing spray paint).   
 

Police often counsel  juveniles and  their parents  in  nonviolent  and nonserious 
first‐time offenses.   The  idea behind such a strategy  is  informing  the parents of  the 
juvenile’s activities and enlisting the parents’ help in keeping the juvenile offender on 
the straight and narrow.  Sometimes police departments have the juvenile and parents 
come to the station for a more formalized counseling session.   
 

If a case is referred to the juvenile authorities (usually the probation department) 
for presentation to the prosecutor’s office for a filing decision, the authorities sometimes 
have the discretion to place the juvenile offender on informal probation.  In such cases, 
the charges are never presented to the prosecutor if the juvenile offender completes the 
requirements  of  the  informal  probation.    These  programs  are  typically  limited  in 
application to first‐time petty offenders.  
 

If  a  case  is  filed  in  either  juvenile  or  adult  court,  there  are  a  number  of 
alternatives to a judgment of guilty.  Diversion programs allow many types of offenders 
to participate  in structured counseling programs.   Narcotics violations  (usually only 
possession offenses, not possession for sale, sale, or manufacturing cases) are the most 
common crimes eligible for diversion programs.  In California, narcotics offenders are 
allowed  to  participate  in  three  different  drug  diversion  programs.    Each  allows 
offenders a chance to complete narcotics offender diversionary programs in exchange 
for  a  dismissal  of  their  cases.    Gang  members  are  notorious  substance  abusers  and 
therefore prime candidates for narcotics diversion programs.  Other types of diversion 
programs cover petty theft and domestic violence cases. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

91 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

FILING DECISION 
 

The  decision  to  file  a  criminal  case  is  the  first  step  in  which  sentencing  is 
considered.  Gang case filing decisions are subject to the same ethical standards as any 
other case.  A prosecutor should not file a case unless, after a careful consideration of all 
of the available admissible evidence and taking into consideration any possible defense 
apparent  in  the  available  evidence,  the  prosecutor  is  satisfied  there  is  a  reasonable 
probability  of  proving  the  truth  of  the  charges  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  to  an 
objective fact finder (a jury or a judge in a court trial).  Prejudice toward a gang member 
suspect (or gangs in general) or public pressure never justifies a case filing if there are 
insufficient facts to support the filing. 
 

Sentencing  implications  related  to  the  charging  decision  include  that  some 
charges  make  a  defendant  ineligible  for  probation  upon  conviction  or  require 
mandatory minimum sentences upon conviction.   It  is critical at the time of filing to 
obtain and thoroughly review all of a defendant’s prior conviction records to ensure 
that all applicable crimes and enhancements (i.e., strikes, prior felony convictions, and 
prior prison  terms) are alleged.   Finally, while sentencing considerations start at  the 
filing of a case, getting the sentence requires a successful prosecution in the trial court 
and no loss of the conviction on appeal.   Thus, a prosecutor must remain completely 
within ethical boundaries from the filing of a case through its conclusion.  It is senseless 
to secure a conviction that will be reversed on a new trial motion before sentencing or 
on appeal.   

 
Adult or Juvenile Court 
 

Given the youthful age of many gang offenders, often a decision must be made 
when charges are filed whether to seek to try a juvenile as an adult or keep the offender 
in juvenile court.  Most states allow for minors as young as 16, 14, or even 12 years old 
to be tried as adults if a juvenile offender is found unfit for juvenile court proceedings.  
This process requires filing charges in  juvenile court and setting the case for a fitness 
hearing.  With serious and violent felonies, the threshold of unfitness is lower than for 
misdemeanor or nonserious/violent offenses.   Factors considered  in a  fitness hearing 
include  the  gravity  of  the  current  offense,  the  level  of  sophistication  of  the  minor 
offender in the commission of the offense, the minor’s previous record, and the prior 
attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the offender. 

 

Gang Prosecution Manual

92 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

Some  states  allow  for  the  direct  filing  of  certain  criminal  charges  against  a 
juvenile in adult court without the need of a fitness hearing.  In California, for example, 
crimes committed in association with, for the benefit of, or at the direction of a criminal 
street gang are chargeable at the prosecution’s discretion in adult court without judicial 
acquiescence.    Further,  some  states  require  the  filing  of  adult  court  charges  against 
juveniles in murder cases (at least where the minor was the direct perpetrator of the 
murder) or serious sex offenses.  (See California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 
707.)      
 

A minor offender faces much less severe consequences staying in juvenile court 
than  being  remanded  to  adult  court.    There  are  usually  age  limits  on  how  long  a 
juvenile offender can be incarcerated (i.e., until 18, 21, or 25 years old).  In adult court, 
the juvenile offender may face as much as life in prison without possibility of parole.  
The only true prohibition on the sentences imposed on juvenile offenders tried as adults 
is that juveniles cannot face the death penalty.   
 

The decision of where to try a juvenile gang member is obviously an important 
one.  It is a decision that requires careful consideration of the offense and the offender.  
If  there  is  a  good  chance  the  gang  member  may  rehabilitate  while  incarcerated  in 
juvenile facilities, it is sometimes best to keep the minor in juvenile court by not direct 
filing or requesting a fitness hearing.  On the other hand, if the offense is sophisticated, 
with much violence, and/or the gang member offender is a recidivist, it is probably best 
to  seek  an  adult  conviction  to  better  protect  society  by  the  longer  periods  of 
incarceration  available  in  adult  court.    Even  when  a  juvenile  is  prosecuted  in  adult 
court,  there  are  opportunities  for  the  minor  to  be  returned  to  juvenile  court  on  the 
motion of the prosecutor or sometimes at the discretion of the court at sentencing.     

 
Types of Charges  
 

In adult court, the charges filed affect possible sentences.  Conduct may often be 
charged  in  different  ways  and  sometimes  for  strategic  reasons.    A  gang‐related 
attempted  murder,  for  example,  can  also  be  charged  as  an  assault  with  a  deadly 
weapon as a backup charge to the attempted murder.  The sentence for an attempted 
murder  (especially  one  committed  with  premeditation  and  deliberation)  is  much 
greater than the sentence for an assault with a deadly weapon.  Charging both crimes 
allows  the  jury  to  find a defendant guilty of both changes or  just  the  lesser assault 
charge.  Sometimes a prosecutor does not want to give the jury that option and charges 
only an attempted murder.  That charging decision forces the jury to convict or not on 
the greater charge of attempted murder.    

Gang Prosecution Manual

93 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

In  states  with  anti‐street  gang  laws,  the  decision  to  seek  conviction  on  those 
charges can significantly alter a possible sentence.  In California, for example, felonies 
committed for the benefit of, in association with, or at the direction of a criminal street 
gang  have  several  sentencing  consequences.    First,  the  crimes  receive  an  additional 
punishment  of  two,  three,  or  four  years  for  regular  felonies;  five  years  for  serious 
felonies; and ten years for violent felonies.  Second, crimes punishable with straight life 
sentences (which are normally eligible for parole consideration after 7 years) require a 
defendant  to serve 15 actual years before becoming eligible for parole consideration.  
Third, all felonies committed for the benefit of, in association with, or at the direction of 
a criminal street gang are “strikes” for future sentencing under the three‐strikes law.  
Fourth, certain violent felonies are punishable by  life  in prison,  if committed for  the 
benefit of,  in association with, or at  the direction of a criminal street gang.   Finally, 
misdemeanor  offenses  committed  for  the  benefit  of,  in  association  with,  or  at  the 
direction  of  a  criminal  street  gang  (e.g.,  vandalism,  fighting  in  public,  and  simple 
assault and battery) are chargeable as felonies.  (See generally, California Penal Code, 
Section 186.20 et seq.) 
 

Often the crimes committed by gang members carry significant sentences even 
without the additional time imposed under anti‐street gang laws.  For example, it is not 
uncommon  for an attempted murder or a kidnapping  for specific purposes  (such as 
carjacking, rape, or robbery) to carry a life sentence.  Carjacking, robbery, and assault 
with a deadly weapon also carry significant prison terms, especially if weapons were 
used  or  the  victim  was  injured.    Nearly  all  gang  crime  convictions  (and  frequently 
juvenile  convictions  called  adjudications)  are  strikes  for  future  sentences.    It  is  not 
uncommon for gang members to reach their 18th or 19th birthdays with multiple strike 
convictions.    As  such,  it  is  critical  to  carefully  examine  gang  member  defendants’ 
criminal histories for prior strike convictions whenever filing a gang case.  Obviously, 
strikes affect any sentence imposed on the new case and may subject a youthful gang 
offender to a sentence of life in prison. 
 

Gang members also commonly perpetrate street violence using firearms.  Many 
states  significantly  increase  the  punishment  for  crimes  committed  with  a  firearm.  
California, for example,  imposes an additional mandatory term of three, four, or ten 
years  in prison for the use of a firearm  in nonviolent felonies.   (See California Penal 
Code,  Section  12022.5.)    The  penalty  for  using  a  firearm  in  violent  felonies  is 
significantly higher.    In violent  felonies,  the use of a gun  (showing  it or pointing  it) 
carries  a  mandatory  10‐year  extra  prison  term,  discharging  the  firearm  carries  a 
mandatory 20‐year additional prison term, and discharging a firearm causing death or 
great bodily injury requires an additional prison term of 25 years to life.  Most firearm 
use  enhancements  require  the  personal  use  of  a  firearm.    In  California,  firearm  use 

Gang Prosecution Manual

94 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

enhancement  applicability  is  specifically  expanded  for  gang  member  accomplices 
committing a crime.  For gang members jointly perpetrating a crime, all are punished 
equally for firearm use by one of the gang members if the underlying crime was being 
committed for the benefit of, in association with, or at the direction of a criminal street 
gang.  (See  California  Penal  Code,  Section  12022.53.)    Other  states  allow  for  such 
expanded firearm use enhancements for all accomplices involved in a felony crime (or a 
specific category of crime, e.g., violent felony).  

 
 
METHOD OF CONVICTION 
 

The method of conviction has great impact on the sentencing consequences of the 
finding of guilt.  Guilty pleas come in a few different forms.  The most common is a plea 
negotiated between the defense and the prosecution.  In exchange for pleading guilty, a 
defendant  is  commonly  given  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  crimes  that  must  be 
admitted or a lighter sentence.  Negotiated dispositions require a court’s concurrence in 
the soundness of the deal and the determination that the disposition is not against the 
public interest as being too light.  A plea bargain should always require a defendant to 
give up the right to appeal.  The terms of the plea can also include restrictive probation 
terms  that  allow  police  officers  to  search  the  defendant  without  probable  cause  to 
believe a new crime is being committed while the defendant is on probation. 
 

The  second  most  common  plea  is  that  of  a  defendant  pleading  guilty  to  an 
indicated sentence by the presiding judge.  Under either scenario, the defendant admits 
guilt before trial and receives a lighter sentence in exchange for an early admission of 
guilt.  Guilty pleas to the court often allow a defendant to avoid a harsher punishment 
desired  by  the  prosecution.    In  another  type  of  plea,  a  court  indicates  a  lid  or  a 
maximum  sentence  that  the  court  will  impose  at  a  later  sentencing  date.    At  the 
sentencing  hearing,  both  sides  present  evidence  or  argument  on  what  the  sentence 
should be.  A major shortcoming of pleas to the court is that a defendant must plead 
guilty to all of the charges.  A court typically cannot dismiss charges on its own motion.    
 

Guilty pleas require a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights from a defendant.  
Specifically, defendants must give up  the right  to remain silent, confront, and cross‐
examine witnesses and the right to a  jury trial.   They must further be advised of all 
direct  consequences  of  their  guilty  pleas  (length  of  incarceration  or  deportation,  for 
example).  Finally, defendants must offer a factual basis for their guilty pleas, describing 

Gang Prosecution Manual

95 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

their actions that constituted the crimes.  (See the attached examples of typical felony 
guilty plea form, Exhibit 1, and misdemeanor guilty plea form, Exhibit 2.)  

 
In gang cases,  it  is  imperative to obtain a detailed factual basis describing the 

gang nature of the crime.  This leaves no room for defendants to later contest the gang‐
related nature of the admitted crimes.   The required elements of criminal street gang 
laws are numerous, detailed, and difficult to quickly reduce to writing at the time of a 
plea.  A good practice is drafting the factual basis for a criminal street gang crime far 
enough in advance of a guilty plea to include all required elements of the crime.  Some 
jurisdictions  with  such  crimes  use  prefabricated  forms  for  guilty  pleas.    (See  the 
attached Exhibit 3.)     
 

Defendants not pleading guilty face a trial either by jury or a judge (also known 
as a court or bench trial).  A jury may convict on some or all of the charges or end in a 
stalemate (a “hung” jury), in which they are unable to reach a verdict in all or some of 
the charges.  If a jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, which is required in most 
states for a conviction, a mistrial is declared on the case or the unresolved counts if the 
jury is able to decide some of the charges.  The prosecution then must decide whether it 
wishes to seek a retrial on the case or the hung counts.  If the prosecution requests a 
retrial, then the trial court must decide whether there is a reasonable probability of a 
future jury reaching a decision on the hung counts in a retrial.  Sometimes prosecutors 
move for dismissal of the hung charges in exchange for a greater sentence on the guilty 
charges.  This process helps a court avoid a costly retrial and defendants to limit their 
sentence exposure.    
 

A court trial is another option in which the judge alone hears the evidence and 
determines the guilt or  innocence of a defendant.   Usually the  law requires both the 
defendant and the prosecution to waive a jury trial for a court trial to occur.  Unlike a 
jury trial, a court trial cannot end in a hung verdict because it involves only one fact 
finder—the  judge.  Sometimes a court trial is used as a way for a defendant to avoid 
pleading  guilty.    Instead,  the  court  finds  the  defendant  guilty  on  the  basis  of  the 
preliminary hearing  transcripts or  the available police reports, as  long as both sides 
agree to the process.  This process is known as a slow plea.  It allows a defendant to 
effectively plead guilty yet reserve the right to appeal.   
 

No  matter  how  the  conviction  arrives  (by  plea,  slow  plea,  court  trial,  or  jury 
trial), the crimes on which the defendant stands convicted in large part determine the 
sentence.  For example, if the defendant is convicted of crimes that carry a mandatory 
jail or prison sentence, the court must follow the law.  It is an abuse of discretion for a 
court to dismiss a count supported by the evidence  just to avoid the imposition of a 

Gang Prosecution Manual

96 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

sentence that the court considers excessive.  Some charges afford a sentencing option 
whereby  a  judge  may  strike  an  otherwise  mandatory  sentence  if  the  judge  puts 
sufficient  justification  on  the  record  for  imposing  less  than  the  otherwise  required 
sentence.  Still, other crimes allow a court to fashion a sentence that the judge considers 
appropriate for the offense without having to justify the sentence on the record.   
 

Sentence Options 
 

A court usually has three options at the time of sentencing a street gang offender.  
First,  a  court  can  suspend  the  imposition  of  a  sentence  and  place  the  defendant  on 
probation  with  a  number  of conditions.    Jail  time  is  often  a  condition  of  probation.  
Probation is a grant of  judicial leniency allowing defendants a chance to reform their 
conduct and avoid an immediate harsher sentence.  If a defendant fails to comply with 
the conditions of probation, a judge can then sentence the defendant to the full jail or 
prison value of the crime or reinstate probation with or without additional jail time.   
 

The second sentencing option is to sentence a defendant but then suspend the 
execution of the sentence.   Frequently, suspended sentences are used as a last resort, 
giving a recidivist defendant one last chance.  Unlike when the imposition of a sentence 
is  suspended,  in  a  suspended  sentence  situation,  defendants  know  exactly  what  faces 
them should they fail on probation.  The sentence is typically higher than it would have 
been had sentence been immediately imposed.  In essence, defendants agree to a higher 
term in exchange for that one last chance to be successful on probation. 
 

Imposing a sentence is the final option.  Misdemeanors allow courts to sentence 
up to one year in jail, depending on the offense.  Felonies result in state prison terms—
sometimes for life or even capital punishment for some forms of murder, in states that 
have capital punishment as a sentencing option.   Currently, 38 states and the federal 
government  have  the  death  penalty  as  a  sentencing  option.    When  a  sentence  is 
imposed—whatever it is—the punishment should fit the crime.   
 

Gang  members  disproportionately  commit  serious  and  violent  crimes  in 
comparison to other youthful offenders.   Nowhere is this dynamic more pronounced 
than  in  homicide  cases.    Typical  forms  of  special‐circumstance  homicide  include 
intentional  murder  during  a  drive‐by  shooting;  murder  occurring  during  the 
commission of serious or violent felonies (the felony murder rule); murder committed 
while  lying  in  wait;  and  in  some  states,  murder  committed  for  the  benefit  of,  in 
association with, or at the direction of a criminal street gang.   In states allowing the 
death penalty, it is the ultimate penalty in criminal law and requires the ultimate level 

Gang Prosecution Manual

97 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

of preparation by  the prosecution.   No prosecutor should  try a capital case without 
significant  trial experience and  training on  the  laws of homicide and  the ponderous 
procedural  requirements  of  death  penalty  cases,  such  as  a  specialized  jury  selection 
process, the requirement that all proceedings be on the record, and bifurcated trials for 
the guilt phase and the penalty phase.   
 

The  jury  must  first  decide  whether  the  death  penalty  should  be  imposed.  
Without  the  jury’s recommendation,  the death penalty cannot be  imposed.    In most 
states, a  judge can overrule a  jury’s recommendation of death, but in no state may a 
judge  impose  the  death  penalty  if  the  jury  recommended  against  it.    In  evaluating 
whether a defendant deserves death, a jury typically considers factors in mitigation and 
aggravation regarding the defendant and the murder, including: 

• Circumstances of the crime and the impact of the loss of the victim to 
the next of kin. 

• Other crimes of violence and felonies committed by the defendant. 
• Whether the murder was committed while the defendant was mentally 

or emotionally disturbed. 
• Whether the victim participated in/consented to the acts that resulted 

in his murder. 
• Whether the defendant had a reasonable belief that his conduct was 

justified. 
• Whether the defendant had mental problems or was intoxicated at the 

time of the crime. 
• The age of the defendant at the time of the crime. 
• Whether the defendant had a minor role in the murder. 
• Any other extenuating circumstances or evidence of  the defendant’s 

good character.   
 

Alternative Sentencing Choices 
 

There are many alternatives to county  jail time as a condition of probation for 
gang offenders.  These options are sometimes imposed in lieu of or in addition to jail 
time.    Common  alternative  sentencing  options  include  community  service,  highway 
litter  removal,  graffiti  removal,  home  confinement,  live‐in  treatment/rehabilitation 
programs,  and  drug  or  alcohol  treatment  sessions.    Community  service  requires  a 
defendant to work a specified number of hours at a program approved by the court or 
the  probation  department.    For  physically  fit  defendants,  litter  removal  alongside 
highways or at parks can likewise be an option.  However, people convicted of violent 
crimes are often excluded from participating in such programs.   

Gang Prosecution Manual

98 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

Graffiti removal seems  like a fitting punishment for many minor gang crimes, 
especially  vandalism.    Safety,  however,  is  a  primary  concern  because  the  types  of 
graffiti being removed are frequently gang‐related.  Care must be taken to keep gang 
defendants out of rival gang territory.   
 

Many defendants would like to avoid county jail time because of overcrowding 
or  the  volatile  mix  of  offenders,  from  misdemeanants  to  murderers,  in  jail  awaiting 
disposition of  their cases.   Home confinement programs allow defendants  to remain 
confined at home on the condition of checking in with a probation officer periodically 
or  wearing  an  electronic  monitoring  device  that  alerts  home  confinement  program 
supervisors  if  a  defendant  wanders  too  far  from  a  transmitting  device.    Home 
confinement  programs  are  usually  expensive,  given  the  rigorous  supervision  or 
equipment needs.  Another county jail alternative is a “pay to stay” program at a local 
city jail.  In these programs, defendants pay the cost of jailing to avoid doing time in the 
county jail.  Violent offenders are typically ineligible for pay to stay programs. 
 

Cooperating witnesses in gang cases are many times codefendants to the others 
charged  in  an  offense.    Given  the  severity  of  gang  crimes,  however,  cooperating 
defendants are not normally released upon their agreement to cooperate.   A reduced 
sentence  may  be  in  order,  but  usually  not  a  complete  dismissal.    As  such,  it  is 
imperative  to  protect  cooperating  witnesses  in  custody  from  their  fellow  gang 
members.  In a large county, the  jail system probably has branch  jails throughout the 
county.  This allows a sheriff’s department to keep cooperating witnesses housed apart 
from  the other defendants.    It  is sometimes better  for  the prosecuting authorities  to 
house cooperating witnesses at a city jail if the witness cannot be adequately protected 
in  the  county  jail.    At  the  conclusion  of  a  case  in  which  a  cooperating  witness  is 
sentenced  to  prison,  albeit  for  a  shorter  period  than  the  other  defendants,  it  is 
imperative to ensure the witness’s safety while the witness is in prison.   
 

Common Gang Case Probation Terms 
 

Probation is often given to gang defendants convicted of their first felony (e.g., 
robbery without a firearm or injury) or misdemeanor offense.  Probation lasts from one 
to five years, with three years typical in felonies.  While on probation, defendants face 
imposition of their sentences that could result in several years of state prison should 
they fail to comply with the requirements of their grants of probation.   
 

Usual terms and conditions of probation, besides jail time and/or fines, require 
defendants  to  violate  no  law;  comply  with  all  lawful  orders  of  the  court,  jail,  and 

Gang Prosecution Manual

99 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

probation  department;  maintain  employment  and  associates  as  approved  by  the 
probation officer; pay restitution; submit their persons, places, and things to any search 
required by a probation officer; and obey any other condition a court  finds  justified 
under the circumstances of the case.  (See the attached Terms and Conditions of Felony 
Probation, Exhibit 1, page 5.) 
 

Many  jurisdictions  have  specialized  probation  terms  for  criminal  street  gang 
members convicted of a gang‐related crime called gang terms of probation.  In addition 
to  the  normal  conditions  of  probation,  gang  terms  have  a  number  of  stringent 
restrictions  designed  to  curtail  further  gang  activity.    Following  are  some  of  the 
restrictions included in gang terms of probation:   

• No presence in a known gang gathering area. 
• No possession of spray paint, any etching device, a “slim‐jim,” a dent 

puller, a cell phone, or a beeper. 
• No clothing associated with or signifying membership in a street gang. 
• No appearances at any court proceeding unless a party in the action, a 

defendant, or subpoenaed as a witness.  (See the attached Gang Terms 
and Conditions of Probation, Exhibit 4.) 

 

Sentencing Hearing 
 

Both the defense and the prosecution have a right to ask for a sentencing hearing 
following  the  conviction  of  a  defendant  by  jury  or  when  a  court  has  allowed  a 
defendant to plead guilty with a promise of a lid or a maximum sentence.  Usually, in 
felony cases a sentencing report is prepared by the probation department outlining the 
defendant’s  family and social, employment, and criminal history.   At  the sentencing 
hearing,  the prosecution highlights  the aggravated  facts  in  the probation report and 
presents additional evidence, if necessary, regarding the serious nature of the offense, 
the offender, or both.   
 

Often, a defendant’s gang affiliation may be relevant to an appropriate sentence.  
This is true even if gang evidence was excluded at trial because the court decided the 
probative  value  of  gang  evidence  was  substantially  outweighed  by  its  prejudicial 
impact.  The nature of the offender, including his gang affiliation, is a relevant factor to 
consider at sentencing.  A prosecutor should also check for any violations of jail rules by 
the defendant during the pendency of the case.  Such rule violations bode poorly for the 
defendant’s  prospects  to  comply  with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  probation 
department.    The  violations  are  also  common  incidents  of  gang  rivalry,  which  help 
present  the  defendant  as  being  thoroughly  gang‐involved.    It  is  difficult  for  a  gang 

Gang Prosecution Manual

100 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

member defendant in court to claim reformation while participating in gang fights at 
the jail.   
 

It  is common to prepare sentencing briefs for the court delineating the crimes 
and  their  accompanying  possible  punishments.    Most  states  allow  victims  to  make 
impact  statements  about  how  a  crime  affected  their  lives  before  the  court  imposes 
sentence.  Finally, a court determines the amount of any restitution owed and orders the 
defendant to pay it.  Prosecutors should always obtain a restitution order even when a 
defendant  is sent  to prison  for  life.    In most states, a percentage of prison wages  is 
devoted to the payment of restitution, if the sentencing judge orders it.    

 
 
PROBATION HEARINGS 
 

Gang  members  on  probation,  especially  those  with  gang  terms,  are  frequent 
violators of their probation conditions.  The clearest example of a probation violation is 
a defendant’s commission of a new crime.   Absent the commission of a new offense, 
common gang member probation violations include failing to report to the probation 
officer, wearing gang clothing, associating with fellow gang members, or other gang 
term disobedience. 
 

The  prosecution  must  prove  the  defendant  has  committed  a  violation  if  the 
defendant refuses to admit to the violation.  The normal burden of proof in a probation 
violation  hearing  is  a  mere  preponderance  of  the  evidence  (more  likely  than  not).  
Probation violations are sometimes referred to as “state prison on the installment plan.”  
Moreover, depending on the severity and frequency of probation violations, many gang 
member defendants eventually end up in prison.  Defendants in violation of probation 
may  have  their  probation  reinstated  with  additional  jail  time  imposed,  may  be 
sentenced  if  the  imposition  of  their  sentences  was  suspended,  or  may  have  their 
sentences imposed if the execution of the sentences was suspended.   

 
 
PAROLE CONSIDERATIONS  
 

It  is  important  for  a  prosecutor  to  ensure  that  the  true  picture  of  a  gang 
defendant and a gang crime is preserved for future use by a parole board should the 
defendant become eligible for parole consideration.  The time to gather the necessary 

Gang Prosecution Manual

101 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

components of the record for future use at a parole hearing is at the time of sentencing.  
A good parole package should include a sentencing transcript of the judge’s comments 
about the defendant’s behavior, a probation or sentencing report, autopsy photos and 
reports (in murder cases), tapes or transcripts of the defendant’s statements, any crime 
scene photos, and documentation of any rules violations while in jail during pendency 
of  the  case.    Any  written  statements  or  transcripts  of  oral  statements  made  by  the 
victims or the next of kin during the sentencing hearing should likewise be preserved.  
Finally, phone numbers, addresses, and other information that will ensure notification 
of the victims or next of kin of any parole consideration hearings should be collected.     

 
 
CONCLUSION  
 

Gang cases range from vandalism to multiple murder, and gang offenders can be 
inexperienced  youths  in  their  early  teens  to  hard‐core,  violent  adult  gang  member 
recidivists.   Appropriate sentencing  in gang cases requires  factoring  the aggravating 
and  mitigating  circumstances  of  the  offense  and  the  offender.    The  lesser‐involved 
young  gang  associate  committing  a  relatively  minor  offense  may  be  the  perfect 
candidate for counseling and minimum court involvement.   
 

On the other hand, the hard‐core, violent gang member recidivist committing a 
new  violent  offense  is  a  good  candidate  for  the  maximum  incapacitation  through 
incarceration.  It is the gang members in between, committing perhaps serious but not 
violent  crimes,  who  require  the  most  careful  attention  regarding  appropriate 
dispositions of their criminal cases.  A thorough knowledge of gang dynamics, theories 
of  criminal  liability,  and  specialized  antigang  laws  lends  insight  into  what  an 
appropriate sentence might be in any given case.    

 
 

Gang Prosecution Manual

102 Section 5. Sentencing Issues in Gang Cases

REFERENCES 
 
“Analysis  of  Gang‐Related  Legislation,”  Institute  for  Intergovernmental  Research, 
March 1, 2006, www.iir.com/nygc/gang‐legis/analysis.htm. 
 
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).  In re Tah, 1 Cal. 3rd 122 (1969). 
 
California Penal Code, Section 667 and for example, Section 190.3. 
 
California Rules of Professional Conduct 5–110. 
 
“Capital Punishment Statistics,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC, March 11, 2006, www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs/cp.htm. 
 
Coalition for Juvenile Justice, “Childhood on Trial,”  Washington, DC, 2005.  
 
Egley, Arlen, Jr., et al. (eds.), The Modern Gang Reader, 3d ed., Roxbury, Los Angeles, 
California, 2006. 
 
Roper v. Simons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). 
 
Thornberry, Terence, “Membership  in Youth Gangs and  Involvement  in Serious and 
Violent  Offending,”  The  Modern  Gang  Reader,  3d  ed.,  Arlen  Egley,  Jr.,  et  al.  (eds.), 
Roxbury, Los Angeles, California, 2006. 

Gang Prosecution Manual

103 Exhibit 1

Gang Prosecution Manual

104 Exhibit 1

Gang Prosecution Manual

105 Exhibit 1

Gang Prosecution Manual

106 Exhibit 1

Gang Prosecution Manual

107 Exhibit 1

Gang Prosecution Manual

108 Exhibit 1

Gang Prosecution Manual

109 Exhibit 2

Gang Prosecution Manual

110 Exhibit 2

Gang Prosecution Manual

111 Exhibit 2

Gang Prosecution Manual

112 Exhibit 3

Gang Prosecution Manual

113 Exhibit 3

Gang Prosecution Manual

114 Exhibit 4

Gang Prosecution Manual

115 Exhibit 4

Gang Prosecution Manual

116 Exhibit 4

This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement Number 2007-JV-FX-0008 from

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed

in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgement

s

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) wishes to thank the National

Youth Gang Center (NYGC) for its help and guidance in revising and updating this document. In

particular, OJJDP would like to thank Michelle Arciaga, Van Dougherty, John Moore, Kimberly

Hale, Steve Ray, and James Howell, who prepared the document.

This guide relies heavily on the research and experiences of a number of practitioners and

professionals in the field of youth gangs. Many people contributed directly and indirectly to this

document. OJJDP is grateful for the work of Dr. Irving Spergel, University of Chicago, and his

associates who, in the early 1990s, collected and analyzed the practices of agencies involved in

combating gangs. From this research, Spergel developed a model comprehensive program to reduce

gang violence. In 1993, Spergel began to implement the Model in the Little Village neighborhood of

Chicago. The Spergel Model has been tested, evaluated, and found to have positive results.

With some adaptation, this design gave rise to the OJJDP Comprehensive Community-Wide

Approach to Gangs. The initial demonstration sites (Bloomington, Illinois; San Antonio, Texas;

Riverside, California; and Mesa and Tucson, Arizona) began implementation of the Model in 1995.

In 1998, OJJDP launched the Rural Gang Initiative in four sites (Glenn County, California;

Mt. Vernon, Illinois; Elk City, Oklahoma; and Cowlitz County, Washington). In 2000, OJJDP

began the Gang-Free Communities and Schools Program. Four sites participated in the

Gang-Free Communities Program (East Los Angeles, California; Broward County, Florida;

Lakewood, Washington; and San Francisco, California). Four sites also participated in the Gang-Free

Schools Program (Houston, Texas; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; East Cleveland, Ohio; and Miami-Dade

County, Florida). In 2003, the Gang Reduction Program was started. This program was a further

adaptation of the Model in that it added prevention and reentry to the Model’s concept. The program

was initiated in Richmond, Virginia; Los Angeles, California; North Miami Beach, Florida; and

Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

OJJDP thanks the project directors, the staff, and the many individuals at these sites who have

contributed so materially to this program and, in the process, helped identify the best practices and

lessons learned contained in this implementation manual.

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction 1
Purpose of the Implementation Guide 3

2. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model

4

The Five Strategies of the Model 5

3. Planning for Implementation 8
Using the Assessment Data 8
The Planning Process 9

Exhibit 3.1—Sample Intervention Target Population 11

Exhibit 3.2—Sample Problem Statements 13

Exhibit 3.3—Sample Activities 15

4. Five Core Strategies 21
Exhibit 4.1—The Five Core Strategies 21
Community Mobilization 22
Opportunities Provision 22

Social Intervention 22

Suppression 23

Organizational Change and Development 24

Exhibit 4.2—Table With Recommended Activities, by Model Strategy 25

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 29
The Steering Committee 29
The Lead Agency 31

Exhibit 5.1—Lead Agency, by Type 32

The Project Director 34

The Research Partner 35

The Intervention Team 36

Coordination of Effort 37

Exhibit 5.2—Sample Project Director Job Description 38

Exhibit 5.3—Sample Research Partner Job Description

40

Exhibit 5.4—Sample Research Partner Scope of Work 41

6. Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression 44
Prevention 44

Intervention 45

Suppression 47

7. The Intervention Team 49
Creating the Team

50

Selecting Team Members 51

Formalizing Information-Sharing Protocols 52

Developing a Referral/Screening Process 52

Client Consent Issues 52

Needs Assessment 53

Exhibit 7.1—Sample Referral Form 54

Exhibit 7.2—Sample Client Consent Form 55

Table of Contents

Page

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 57
Creating an Intervention Plan 57

Team Member Roles 58

Exhibit 8.1—Client Intervention Plan 61
Exhibit 8.2—Client Contact Log 62

Exhibit 8.3—Sample Intervention Plan Checklist Form 63

Exhibit 8.4—Sample Client Tracking Form 64

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 67
Role of the Outreach Worker 67
Hiring Outreach Workers 68

Hiring Versus Contracting 69

Exhibit 9.1—Outreach Worker Job Description 70
Supervising Outreach Personnel 72

Exhibit 9.2—Sample Outreach Worker Client Contact Attempt Log 74

Exhibit 9.3—Weekly Outreach Worker Contact Tracking Form 75

10. Evaluation and Sustainability 76

11. Resources 79
Program Contacts 80

1. Introduction 1

Chapter 1. Introduction
During the 1980s, the gang problem in the United States became widespread and communities around the

country were struggling with an increase in associated youth violence. In 1987, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) began supporting a research and development project to

design a comprehensive approach to reduce and prevent youth gang violence. The initial phase of this

project was directed by Dr. Irving Spergel at the University of Chicago. The project concluded in the

early 1990s and resulted in the development of the Spergel Model of Gang Intervention and Suppression,

later renamed the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model (Model). The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang

Model was based on best practices to address gang-related violence and crime as implemented in a

number of communities around the country.

Drawing principally on social disorganization theory to frame the development of the Model,

Dr. Irving Spergel and a research team from the University of Chicago expected that there were core

strategies to address gang youth, their families, and the community institutions that would promote

youths’ transition from adolescence to productive members of society. With this in mind, law

enforcement and other agency personnel in 65 cities reporting problems with gangs were surveyed.

Analysis of that information, in conjunction with site visits and focus groups, led Dr. Spergel to conclude

that communities should adopt activities in five specific areas (referred to as the five strategies):

Community mobilization: Involvement of local citizens, including former gang youth, community groups

and agencies, and the coordination of programs and staff functions within and across agencies.

Opportunities provision: The development of a variety of specific education, training, and employmen

t

programs targeted at gang-involved

youth.

Social intervention: Youth-serving agencies, schools, grassroots groups, faith-based organizations, police,

and other criminal justice organizations reaching out and acting as links to gang-involved youth, their

families, and the conventional world and needed services.

Suppression: Formal and informal social control procedures, including close supervision or monitoring of

gang youth by agencies of the criminal justice system and also by community-based agencies, schools,

and grassroots groups.

Organizational change and development: Development and implementation of policies and procedures

that result in the most effective use of available and potential resources, within and across agencies, to

better address the gang problem.

In 1993, Dr. Spergel began implementing the initial version of the Model in the Little Village

neighborhood of Chicago. The goal of the project was to reduce gang-related violence connected to two

local gangs. Called the Gang Violence Reduction Program, the project lasted five years. An evaluation

of the project was conducted, with several positive results: serious violent and property crimes were

reduced, gang involvement of older gang members decreased, gang members participated successfully in

educational and employment endeavors, and violent crime and drug arrests for the target group were

reduced. (Spergel, 2007)

In 1995, OJJDP began to test the OJJDP Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang

Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program in five sites—Bloomington, Illinois; Mesa and

Tucson, Arizona; Riverside, California; and San Antonio, Texas. In the process of establishing these

sites, it became clear that to successfully implement the Model, the lead agency and its partner agencies

1. Introduction 2

must fully understand the Model, the implementation process, and perhaps most important, the nature and

scope of the community’s gang problems. Experience with these sites reinforced the principle that a

thorough assessment of the community’s gang problem was a prerequisite to implementation. The

evaluations of each site, as well as the evaluation of the Little Village project, can be accessed through the

National Criminal Justice Reference Service at http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Search/SearchResults.aspx?

txtKeywordSearch=Spergel&fromSearch=1.

Responding to the continuing problems of youth gangs and youth gang violence, over the past ten years

OJJDP launched three initiatives based on the lessons learned from the original urban sites’ demonstration

of the Model.

In 1998, citing recent evidence that youth gangs were emerging in rural areas, OJJDP developed the

Rural Gang Initiative (RGI), which included conduct of a comprehensive gang problem assessment and

development of a plan to implement the Comprehensive Gang Model. Four RGI sites were funded.

In 2000, OJJDP began the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative. In this initiative, the Gang-

Free Schools Program sought to develop a school component to the Comprehensive Gang Model to

develop programs within the school setting and link the school component to community-based gang

prevention, intervention, and suppression activities. Four Gang-Free Schools sites were funded. Six sites

in the Gang-Free Communities Program were given seed money to demonstrate the Model, but they were

to leverage local resources more extensively.

In 2003, OJJDP launched the Gang Reduction Program to reduce gang activity in targeted

neighborhoods in four cities. The program integrates prevention, intervention, suppression, and reentry

activities and uses existing community resources to sustain itself.

While these projects have had varying degrees of success at the local level, the nation’s youth gang

problem as a whole continues to affect a large number of jurisdictions, according to annual National

Youth Gang Surveys (NYGS). Since the early 2000s, not only has every large city (population more than

100,000) in the United States experienced gang problems in some form or another, but so have a majority

of suburban counties and a sizeable number of smaller cities and rural counties. In fact, it is estimated

that more than 3,500 jurisdictions experienced gang problems in 2007, a 25 percent increase from the

2002 estimate. Moreover, during this same period, the number of reported gangs and gang

members

increased 25 percent and 8 percent, respectively, reaching an estimated nationwide total of more than

27,000 gangs and 788,000 gang members in 2007 (OJJDP 2007 Fact Sheet).

Of course, it is the activities of gang members that are of central concern, particularly their involvement

in serious and/or violent offenses within the community. NYGS data reveal a substantially varying

pattern of gang crime across the country. In terms of lethal gang violence, NYGS data show that, with

few exceptions, nearly all gang-related homicides recorded annually by law enforcement occur in the

largest cities and metropolitan counties. However, the less-populated areas are not without gang crime

problems. In these communities, gangs are frequently reported to be involved in property and drug

offenses. Of further concern, NYGS data reveals recent increases in two serious gang-related offenses,

aggravated assault and drug sales, among a majority of gang-problem jurisdictions nationwide (OJJDP

2006 Fact Sheet). Data from these survey findings indicate that gangs continue to remain a significant

and ongoing problem across the United States.

The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model remains one of the few approaches to gangs that encompasses a

multidisciplinary response to gangs on multiple levels—prevention, intervention, and suppression—and

that has been shown to reduce serious gang-related crimes in affected communities. This manual is based

on the best practices of almost

20

years of implementation experience with the Model in communities

large and small.

1. Introduction 3

Purpose of the Implementation Guide
The purpose of this guide is to assist communities in designing a plan to implement the OJJDP

Comprehensive Gang Model (Model). It is intended for use by the Steering Committee and project staff

as they determine the goals and objectives of their

plan.

A companion guide, Assessing Your Community’s Gang Problem, contains information and direction

about the importance of conducting an assessment prior to developing an implementation plan. Sites that

conducted a comprehensive assessment found they were better equipped during the planning and

implementation process to design appropriate responses. The assessment process helped sites determine

types and levels of gang activity, gang crime patterns, community perceptions, and service gaps. The

assessment also enabled sites to better target appropriate populations, understand why those populations

merited attention, and make the best use of available resources.

In this manual, the following information is provided:

1. An overview of the Comprehensive Gang Model. (Chapter 2, page 4)

2. A guide to using assessment data from a local community to plan a comprehensive response to

gangs

that fits the community’s needs, history, and challenges. (Chapter 3, page 8)

3. An overview of the Model’s five strategies, including in-depth descriptions of what each strategy
means, in practice. (Chapter 4, page 21)

4. A description of the staffing structure necessary to ensure that the implementation plan is carried out
on a day-to-day basis. (Chapter 5, page 29)

5. An overview of Model activities, sorted by prevention, intervention, and suppression categories.
(Chapter 6, page 44)

6. A description of the work of the Intervention Team, including examples of individual agencies’
activities and the role each agency plays in the Model. (Chapter 7, page 49)

7. An exploration of how gang members should be case managed by the Intervention Team. (Chapter 8,
page 57)

8. An in-depth discussion of the street outreach component of the Model. (Chapter 9, page 67)

9. An overview of evaluation and sustainability activities within the Model. (Chapter 10,
page 76)

For more information on the research and development of the Model, as well as

information about demonstration sites, refer to Best Practices To Address Community

Gang Problems, pp. 1–4 and Appendix A (OJJDP, 2008). This document is available at

http://www.ojjdp.gov/publications/PubAbstract.asp?pubi=253257. It is also recommended that project

staff review The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach by Dr. Irving Spergel for a more in-depth

discussion of Dr. Spergel’s theory (Oxford University Press: New York, New York, 1995), Reducing

Gang Crime: The Little Village Project (Spergel, 2007), and The Comprehensive, Community-Wide,

Gang Program Model: Success and Failure (Spergel et al., 2006).

2. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model 4

Chapter 2. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model
The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model is a flexible framework that communities can use to plan a

comprehensive approach to gangs. For optimum effectiveness, several elements are essential:

1. Acknowledgment of the problem. The presence of a youth gang problem must be

recognized before anything meaningful can be done to address it. If denial is present, it

must be confronted.

2. Assessment of the problem. Those with responsibility for addressing the problem—

representatives of police, schools, probation, youth agencies, grassroots organizations,

government, and others—participate in identifying its nature and causes and in

recommending appropriate responses. The assessment results in an understanding of who

is involved in gang crime and where in the community it is concentrated. This, in

conjunction with other data and information, enables targeting:

 Gang-involved youth.

 The most violent gangs.

 The area(s) where gang crime most often occurs.

3. Setting goals and objectives. Once the problem(s) is described, goals and objectives

should be consistent with the assessment findings. Goals specify ends, while objectives

describe the means to an end. Goals and objectives should be clearly linked to the data

and the identified priority issues.

4. Relevant services and activities. Rationales for services, tactics, and policies and

procedures that involve each of the key agencies should be developed for each objective.

Services and activities should be clearly articulated and then implemented for each of the

five core strategies. These activities must be closely coordinated and integrated to ensure

that the work of collaborating agencies is complementary. Selecting appropriate activities

is an important step to ensure that project goals are achieved. Activities fall into four

categories: prevention, intervention, suppression, and reentry. Most comprehensive gang

projects include a prevention component. Primary prevention focuses on the entire

population in the community, while secondary prevention focuses on youth aged 7–14

who are at a high risk of joining gangs. Intervention targets active gang members and

close associates. Suppression activities within comprehensive projects go beyond

traditional activities. Law enforcement agencies partner with other community agencies

that hold youth accountable and enforce community norms for youth behavior. Because

many gang-involved individuals are constantly leaving or entering one system or another,

often for brief periods, reentry activities are often handled as an overlapping function

with intervention.

5. A multidisciplinary intervention team is the primary service delivery strategy and targets

gang-involved youth. It is important to remember that while youth gang members must

be held accountable for their criminal acts, they also must be provided with services for

their academic, economic, and social needs. Gang members must be encouraged to

control their behavior and to participate in legitimate mainstream activities. At the same

time, external controls must be exercised on gang and gang-member behavior. For some

gang members, secure confinement will be necessary. For others, graduated degrees of

community-based supervision, ranging from continuous sight or electronic supervision to

incarceration, will be appropriate. It is important that youth understand that they will

face consequences if they do not follow rules, laws, conditions, or reasonable

2. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model 5

expectations of the project. Thus, a range of services and sanctions is required, often in

some interactive way.

6. The work of the collaborating agencies is overseen by a Steering Committee of decision

makers from agencies and organizations that have an interest in or a responsibility for

addressing the community’s gang problem. These representatives should not only set

policy and oversee the overall direction of the gang project, but they should take

responsibility for spearheading efforts in their own organizations to remove barriers to

services and to social and economic opportunities; develop effective criminal justice,

school, and social agency procedures; and promote policies that will further the goals of

the gang strategy.

7. Evaluation and sustainability. Results from the evaluation of the Little Village Gang

Violence Reduction Project show that the Model is effective in lowering crime rates

among youth gang members. Results from an evaluation of five communities chosen as

demonstration sites for the Model show that a combination of intervention, suppression,

and prevention strategies, along with a coordinated team approach to delivering services,

is effective in having a positive impact on reducing gang crime. For these reasons, the

incorporation of a strong evaluation component is critical to assessing the impact of the

project. Equally important is a plan for sustaining the project over the long term.

The Five Strategies of the Model
Communities should select appropriate activities within each of the five strategies for local

implementation, and these strategies should be planned to address local community conditions and

targeted gang members.

The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model requires that these strategies be delivered in a focused manner,

but it allows flexibility for local communities to select activities within each of the strategies that are

appropriate to the community’s specific concerns. Although early implementation of the Model

specifically and principally involved intervention and suppression, more recent demonstration sites have

included prevention as a key component of their projects. The inclusion of prevention activities is based

on the premise that focused gang prevention efforts must work in conjunction with the other strategies. In

fact, it is the combination of the five strategies that ensures both short- and long-term reduction in gang

crime and violence, and that the most cost-effective approach, prevention, can have an effect on those

most at risk of gang involvement (Wyrick, 2006).

The five strategies will be discussed throughout this manual. They include:

Community Mobilization: Involvement of local citizens, including former gang youth, community

groups, and agencies; and coordination of programs and staff functions within and across agencies.

Opportunities Provision: Development of a variety of specific education, training, and employment

programs targeting gang-involved youth.

Social Intervention: Youth-serving agencies, schools, grassroots groups, faith-based organizations, law

enforcement agencies, and other criminal justice organizations reaching out and acting as links to gang-

involved youth, their families, and the conventional world and needed services.

Suppression: Formal and informal social control procedures, including close supervision or monitoring

of gang youth by agencies of the criminal justice system and also by community-based agencies, schools,

and grassroots groups.

2. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model 6

Organizational Change and Development: Development and implementation of policies and procedures

that result in the most effective use of available and potential resources, within and across agencies, to
better address the gang problem.

These strategies are equally important, and all should be implemented concurrently. A more lengthy

description of each of these strategies, and relevant activities, is found in Chapter 4,

page 21.

The following information should be considered by communities that are implementing the Model:

1. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model was designed primarily for use with young adult and
teenage gang members.

Adult crime organizations, such as motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, ideological gangs, and hate

groups composed primarily of adults, are not the intended focus of this Model.

2. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model was designed for communities with a serious, violent,

and entrenched gang problem.

Since the Model is resource-intensive, the strategies implemented in the target community should

address gang-involved youth or youth who exhibit multiple risk factors for gang involvement and

their families, not all the youth in the target area or community. To that end, intervention and

suppression activities should focus on immediate threats, real or perceived, to the community.

3. The plan should incorporate prevention, intervention, and suppression approaches.

These approaches must be integrated to respond to the interrelated aspects of the gang problem, from

root causes to outward threats to public safety. For that reason, the Model calls for a mix of those

strategies across the criminal justice system, social service agencies, schools, community groups, and

citizens.

Gang members who are already involved in serious and chronic crime should be targeted with

suppression and/or intervention activities. Gang members who are likely to become involved in

serious crime should be targeted by the Intervention Team with strategies such as social intervention,

provision of job training and employment, family counseling, academic tutoring, or anger

management classes, as appropriate, based on local conditions and as suggested by the Assessment

Report. Prevention strategies should be implemented for youth who exhibit multiple risk factors that

may increase the probability of joining a gang.

4. The Model asks agencies and individuals to go beyond their traditional roles.

For example, justice agencies such as law enforcement and the courts tend to restrict their roles to

suppression approaches. However, over time, their roles can expand to include intervention and

community mobilization activities. Gang officers continue to be primarily involved with arrests of

gang members and investigations of gang crime, but they also can intervene in a youth gang

member’s life by referring the youth to a social service program.

2. The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model 7

5. No single agency can solve the gang problem.

Police officers must be a key part of any anti-crime effort because of their expertise and experience.

However, other government and service delivery organizations must participate in project planning.

These entities bring different perspectives on problems and solutions, as well as different approaches

and resources, to the process. Aside from law enforcement, local agencies that should be involved

include housing, health, parks and recreation, economic development, planning, mental health,

schools, juvenile and adult probation, corrections, prosecution, judiciary, the faith community,

grassroots groups, employment agencies, and social services.

3. Planning for Implementation 8

Chapter 3. Planning for Implementation
The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model is a data-driven, collaborative approach to reduce and prevent

gang violence that is predicated upon having a thorough understanding of a community’s unique gang

problem, and the factors within families, neighborhoods, and schools that play a role in this problem. In

order to implement the Model, a community must have completed a thorough assessment of the local

gang problem and mobilized key agencies, including law enforcement, criminal justice, schools, social

services, community-based groups, and local units of government, into a Steering Committee. Without

that foundation, the Model cannot be implemented. For more information on the assessment process,

please see the manual titled Assessing Your Community’s Gang Problem.

Once a community has completed an assessment, the data should be presented to the Steering Committee,

either in a single report or during a series of meetings that allow the data to be fully examined and

discussed by all key stakeholders.

At this point, the membership of the Steering Committee should also be examined to ensure that

necessary stakeholders are still involved and to determine whether the membership of the Steering

Committee should be expanded to involve important community influencers and/or programs whose

services might be essential to gang members and their families. New members should be trained on the

Model and the assessment prior to joining the group.

Using the Assessment Data
The Steering Committee’s discussions of the Assessment Report data will set the stage for

development

of the Implementation Plan for the first year of the project. Before the planning process begins, the

committee members should develop a good understanding of the following:

1. Community Demographic Data

What factors in the community are affecting or contributing to local gang problems? The Steering

Committee should consider racial, cultural, and ethnic aspects of the community’s demographics that

play a role in local gang activity, and which should be taken into consideration. In addition, cultural,

economic, employment, educational, and family structure issues should be examined.

2. Law Enforcement Data

The Steering Committee should examine the law enforcement data to determine the level and extent

of gang involvement in local crime problems, including the prevalent types of crimes being

committed by gangs, and to determine the demographic profiles of gang members who are the most

heavily involved in crime (police incident reports). These data will help to determine the target

criteria for the intervention and suppression activities of the Model. The Steering Committee also

needs to examine the aggregate number of gang members in the community by age, race, and gender

to identify the number of clients to be served by the project (gang intelligence data). Additional data

collected from the police incident reports, such as types of crimes being committed by gangs and the

times/places that these crimes are being committed, should be used to plan suppression activities.

3.

School Data

The Steering Committee needs to determine which risk factors are affecting local youth, particularly

young people who are affiliated with gangs (from the student survey). During implementation

planning, these risk factors should be matched to appropriate prevention and intervention activities.

The Steering Committee also needs to examine gang issues in and around local schools, as well as

school and educational factors that should be addressed through the community’s implementation

plan.

3. Planning for Implementation 9

4. Community Perceptions

Public perceptions provide insight into how community members, including gang members, view

gang activity and how gangs affect the community. Planning activities must acknowledge and

address both perceptions and realities about the community’s gang problem. The community’s

perspectives are driven both by direct experience with gang crime and by beliefs about gang crime

drawn from many sources. Although police statistics might document a noticeable decline in

property crime, residents of the neighborhood, if they believe they are still at risk, will think and

behave in accordance with their fears. If community perceptions are not addressed, the likelihood of

sustained support from the community is diminished. Both facts and beliefs must be taken into

account in design of the plan. This will help establish trust and demonstrate concern for the

community.

5. Community Resources

In addition to identifying the target population, target gangs, and target area, the committee should

consider what resources and services are currently available. During implementation planning, the

Steering Committee should be aware of gaps in services that may need to be addressed to effectively

serve gang members.

The Planning Process
The Steering Committee must recognize that the process of developing the implementation plan is

important. There is a tendency for some members, especially those who have been actively concerned

for a long time, to begrudge time spent on planning. The lament that ―all we are doing is talking and

meeting‖ is usually coupled with a plea such as ―let’s just get it done because we know what the

problem

is.‖ But the planning process helps to ensure that all voices are heard and that people and

organizations

have the opportunity to find out new ways to work together. Steering Committee members may not all

know one another well or may come from organizations that do not have a history of working together. A

planning process helps build group identity and unity. Having a process also provides a ready mechanism

for reviewing, revising, and renewing plans periodically. The planning process does not have to be

elaborate, but it does need to be clear and allow for participation.

The process must start with a clean slate; groups must be redirected from casting blame to finding

solutions. Discussion should focus on responding to the problem rather than on why the problem has not

been solved.

A number of key parties must be included in this process so that the targeted community will feel

ownership of the plan. Elected officials and policy makers control budgets and program priorities, help

generate public and media attention for this initiative, and lend additional credibility to the focus on a

comprehensive and strategic approach. Alone, however, they are not a sufficient base upon which to

build an effective planning process. The process must also include the formal and informal leaders of the

community whose social or professional position, personal style, history of commitment to community

activities, or role in neighborhood-based organizations helps shape the attitudes and behaviors of key

segments of the community.

Further, planning and implementation must encourage input from a wide variety of community members

to build commitment to the plan. The Steering Committee should seek participation from those directly

affected by gang crime, including youth and youth organizations, cultural and ethnic minority

communities, and other community members. The process must solicit their participation and provide

opportunities for them to contribute as equal partners with local officials. Obviously, geographic and

demographic representation should reflect the community’s makeup.

3. Planning for Implementation

10

The plan should be feasible, observable, and measurable. Drafting a plan that identifies clear,

concrete results can be one of the toughest challenges the committee faces.

The Steering Committee

should reject lofty, generic language and focus on clear tasks flowing from the group’s identified

problems, goals, and

objectives.

Step 1: Identify the Target Community and Target Population
Research and experience indicate that some gang members are more likely to be involved in crime than

others; that gang activity tends to concentrate in certain geographic areas rather than be evenly dispersed

throughout a community; and that, though several may be active in a community, some gangs are more

active and violent than others.

For these reasons, the first step in this planning process is to identify the target community and target

population. Narrowing and targeting the efforts of the Model ensures the best possible allocation of

resources to achieve the maximum impact in gang violence reduction.

Communities should focus on targeted suppression, intervention, and prevention activities in the area of

the community that is most heavily affected by gang-related violent crime. Appropriate candidates for the

Intervention Team and for prevention activities should fit criteria that are data-derived. Data from the

assessment will describe where the gang problem is most concentrated, the types of youth that should be

the focus of project efforts, and which gangs have been most involved in serious crime.

Communities that have successfully implemented the Model have affirmed the importance of setting clear

criteria for prevention, intervention, and suppression activities early in the process of Model

implementation. Limited resources dictate that effort be invested where it is most likely to be beneficial.

The following questions will help guide the discussions on identification of the target community and

population for implementation planning.

Target Community

1. What area(s) in the assessed community have the highest gang crime rates?

Ideally, the target community should have a population of no more than 100,000 and should be

geographically contiguous. Preferably, this area would also have clear geographic boundaries and a sense

of community identity. Based on assessment data, the boundaries of the target community may be

adjusted to narrow or expand where the Model will be implemented. This process may require some

discussion by the Steering Committee, and consensus should be obtained before moving on to further

planning activities.

Target Population—Intervention

1. What is the demographic profile of gang members who are involved in violent criminal activities in

the community (police incident reports)?

2. Is there a secondary population of gang youth at risk of committing gang crimes (gang member

interviews, student survey)? If yes, what characteristics do they share? These characteristics might

include school attendance/conduct patterns, family gang involvement, delinquent behavior, etc.

The answers to these questions clarify the focus for the primary and secondary targets of the community’s

intervention

activities.

3. Planning for Implementation 11

The criteria for intervention targets should include, at a minimum:

 Age range, gender, ethnicity, and gang affiliation based on the demographic profile of
suspects in gang-related crimes and gang intelligence data.

The Steering Committee may wish to develop additional targeting criteria that narrow the prospective

target population to a manageable number. Consideration must be given to factors that appear to

influence the level of activity (as indicated by the gang member interviews) within the gang, such as:

 School status.

 Criminal histories.

 Family characteristics.

Youth exhibiting characteristics common to gang members who are heavily involved in criminal activity

should be targeted over youth not exhibiting such characteristics. Exhibit 3.1 contains a sample

intervention target population

description.

Exhibit 3.1

Sample Intervention Target Population

Primary Targets: 75 African-American males, aged 16–24, who are known or suspected
gang members affiliated with the Hot Sauce Hustlers, the Tribe, the Valley Lows, and the Avenue
Boys.

Secondary Targets: 25 African-American males, aged 12–15, with family members who
are known or suspected gang members affiliated with the Hot Sauce Hustlers, the Tribe, the
Valley Lows, and the Avenue Boys.

Target Population—Prevention

Criteria for targeting candidates of prevention activities should be drawn from an analysis of student

surveys and gang member interviews that considers:

 The age at which gang members report joining (gang member interviews).

 Social factors that appear to correlate to gang affiliation in the target community (drawn
from gang member interviews and the student survey), such as:

 Family member(s) involved in gangs.

 History of delinquent behavior.

 History of poor academic performance.

 Delinquent or antisocial behavior in school.

The prevention screening criteria should be based on the existence of multiple risk factors, rather than just

a single characteristic.

3. Planning for Implementation 12

Targeting Suppression Activities:

1. Based on police incident reports, what are the most serious crimes that gangs are committing in
the target community? What action can law enforcement and other criminal justice partners take

to address these crimes?

Step 2: Prioritize Problems
In combination with the key findings from the Assessment Report, the Steering Committee should begin

to identify problems that gangs are posing, as well as issues that are contributing to these problems. A

great deal of discussion and negotiation may be required for the group to come to consensus. Once the

problems have been identified, they should be prioritized, using a process such as the triage system used

by hospital emergency rooms, to address most serious concerns first, while simultaneously working on

problems that are going to require more long-term solutions.

Category 1

Serious threats to the physical safety of community members should receive top priority and warrant

immediate action. Prevention and intervention efforts will be compromised as long as these problems

continue unabated.

Category 2

Problems that are perceived as threats to the safety of community members should receive medium

priority and warrant a response that reassures community members that their needs are being listened to

and addressed.

Category 3

Problems that are long-term and systemic in nature, and that deal with large, underlying social conditions

in the targeted community, should be addressed with long-term strategies that will resolve these issues

without creating new problems. These problems play a significant and contributing role in local gang

issues but are not immediately life-threatening.

Category 4

Problems that pose a serious obstacle to an effective response to local gangs should be addressed with

strategies that change the policies and procedures of local agencies so they are more successful in

responding to gangs.

The Steering Committee should identify three to five crucial problems that must be addressed to

deal effectively with the community’s gang problem. While immediate suppression activities may be

required to address immediate threats of harm, the problems identified for further action planning should

also contain both intervention and prevention responses and should be both short- and long-term in the

nature of their responses.

Using supportive data from the Assessment Report, these problems (and their underlying, related, and

causal factors) should be clearly understood and described.

Some sample problem statements are provided below in Exhibit 3.2.

3. Planning for Implementation 13

Exhibit 3.2

Sample Problem Statements

Problem Statement—Category 1
Rates of violent, gang-related crime are high in South Park. In particular, robberies have
increased dramatically, comprising more than half of all gang-related crimes in 2008.
These robberies have led to a significant fear for safety on the part of local residents.
Nearly 40 percent of gang members report that they joined their gang for reasons of
“protection/safety.”

Problem Statement—Category 3
The gang culture is pervasive in South Park. Factors contributing to gang joining include
lack of immigrant assimilation, low educational attainment, lack of economic
opportunity, and cultural barriers that keep young people and their families trapped in a
cycle of poverty and crime.

Problem Statement—Category 4
Data collection problems have led to underreporting of the actual level and number of
gang crimes within Metropolis. As many as 80 percent of gang-involved crimes were not
labeled as such within the existing police incident report system, and officers report a
disturbing lack of familiarity with identifying gang-related incidents when responding on
scene. This has led local residents to lose confidence in the ability of law enforcement
officers to respond effectively to the gang problem.

After identifying the target community and populations and prioritizing the community’s gang problems,

the Steering Committee can move forward to create its action plan.

Step 3: Develop Goals and Objectives
The Steering Committee should develop goals and objectives consistent with the problems that it has

prioritized and that facilitate delivery of necessary prevention, intervention, and suppression activities

within the five core strategies (addressed in Chapter 4). The data from the assessment establishes a

baseline against which progress can be measured, allowing for the development of clear and specific

objectives.

It is necessary to identify current activities and services and/or develop new ones for each objective.

These activities will provide specific tasks necessary to accomplish each objective. For each

activity/service, the agency that will be responsible for delivering or designing the service, the person(s)

responsible, and the time frame should be identified.

Worksheets 1–4 are provided as a framework to guide the discussion and facilitate completion of the plan.

It is recommended that the Steering Committee work through these worksheets in consecutive order.

Development of the implementation plan should be built step by step. Thus, once the problems have been

prioritized and the target population identified, the following actions should be taken:

3. Planning for Implementation 14

1. Develop goals (three to five).

2. Develop measurable objectives for each goal.

3. Develop activities for each objective.

4. Identify target group (youth, family members, community residents, etc.) for activities.

5. Identify the agency (or agencies) responsible for the activities.

6. Identify potential barriers and a plan to overcome the barriers.

7. Identify the contact person(s) responsible for overseeing these activities.

8. Determine start and/or completion dates for these activities, or determine if they will be ongoing.

First, the Steering Committee should develop several (three to five) goal statements, based on the

identified priority issues, to address during implementation of this project. Goals are general statements

of desirable outcomes. In stating the goals, be careful to describe the desired end and not the means to the

end. That is, goals should determine the overall direction of efforts and not the activities that will be

implemented. Remember that goals are general, overarching statements that will guide the project. The

following are a few examples of how to state a goal:

 Reduce gang-related violent crime in the target area.

 Alleviate community residents’ fear of gang activity.

 Reduce targeted youth gang members’ rates of school failure and poor academic performance.

Next, using Worksheet 1 on page 17, the Steering Committee should identify one or more objectives for

each goal. As used here, objectives are a series of specific statements that describe a desired outcome but

do not provide detailed information on the process. Objectives should also state a result that can be

measured at a point in time. Objective statements describe an outcome, are measurable, and set a time

frame during which they will be completed or answered.

The following examples show how an objective might be stated. Note that it is possible to create these

specific and measurable objectives because the assessment has created a baseline measurement of the

current status of the community’s gang problem.

 Reduce gang-related assaults and batteries, as measured by law enforcement crime data, by 15
percent by Month 18 of the project and by 30 percent by Month 36 of the

project.

 As measured by law enforcement crime data and community residents’ perceptions, reduce the
level of gang-related property crime in the target area by 20 percent by the end of Year One of the

project.

 As measured by self reports, reduce the involvement in gangs by gang members served by the
project by 25 percent by the end of the project’s second year.

 Increase the number of project youth finding and keeping jobs for at least 120 days, as measured
by project records, by 25 percent by the end of the second year of the project.

 As measured by standardized math and reading test scores, increase school achievement of
school-aged project youth by two grade levels by the end of Year Two of the project.

3. Planning for Implementation 15

Step 4: Identify Activities and Services
Next, activities and services should be developed for each objective. Worksheet 2 on page 18 provides a

format for organizing information by activities and services related to each objective, one or more of the

five core strategies, the target group for each activity and/or service, the partner agency that will provide

the service, the agency or agencies and contact person(s) responsible for initiating/completing the activity,

and the start/completion dates. The activities and services for each objective indicate the tasks to be

undertaken to achieve that objective and should be an appropriate mix of intervention, suppression, and

prevention activities and/or services. Services provided to gang members must be age and

developmentally appropriate. (Some activities may actually be a mix of two or more of the core

strategies). Exhibit 3.3 provides a few examples of how activities and services might be stated:

Exhibit 3.3

Sample Activities

(with core strategy identified in parentheses)

 Train and place 25 youth in jobs in first year of project (Opportunities Provision)

 Provide anger-management class to project youth (Social Intervention)

 Provide joint police/probation patrols of hot spots during peak hours (Suppression)

 Offer three hours a week of tutoring in math and reading to each school-aged youth in the
project (Opportunities Provision)

 Provide training for employers on working with target population (

Organizational Change

and Development, Opportunities Provision)

 Make participation in job training a condition of probation (Organizational Change and
Development, Opportunities Provision)

 Inform parents of target youth of their children’s gang affiliation (Social Intervention,
Suppression)

 Provide family counseling to target youth and their families (Social Intervention)

 Institute community/parent patrols during school and athletic events and neighborhood
celebrations (Community Mobilization, Suppression)

 Initiate tattoo-removal program (Social Intervention, Opportunities Provision)

 Modify school policies as necessary to promote academic achievement of target population
(Organizational Change and Development, Opportunities Provision)

Step 5: Anticipate Barriers
After Worksheet 2 is complete and the activities are identified, Worksheet 3 on page 19 provides a

format for identification of barriers to implementing those activities/services and a plan to overcome the

barriers. Barriers include anything the committee considers an impediment to achieving the objective.

Examples of barriers may include:

 A lack of staffing for new services.

 Reluctance of businesses to hire gang members.

 Existing agency regulations.

 Public perceptions about gang activity and solutions.

 Transportation issues.

3. Planning for Implementation 16

Step 6: Finalize the Plan
Finally, Worksheet 4 on page 20 links the previous three worksheets: the five core strategies, goals and

objectives, activities to be performed by partner organizations, barriers, target group for activities,

agency/individual initiating each activity, and start/completion dates. In short, Worksheet 4 is the

implementation plan. Separate worksheets (Worksheet 4) should be filled out for each goal. Use as many

worksheets

as necessary.

3. Planning for Implementation 17

W

o
r
k

sh
e
e
t

1
:

I
d

e
n

ti
fy

in
g

O
b

je

c
ti

v

e
s

G
o

a
l:

O
b
je
c
ti

v
e
S

t

a
te

m
e
n

t

O
b
je
c
ti
v
e
S
ta
te
m
e
n
t

O
b
je
c
ti
v
e
S
ta
te
m
e
n
t

=

T
im

e
F

r
a
m

e

T
im
e
F
r
a
m
e

T
im
e
F
r
a
m
e

+

H
o
w

M
e
a
su

r
e
d

H
o
w

M
e
a
su
r
e
d

H
o
w
M
e
a
su
r
e
d

+

D
e
si

r
e
d

O
u

tc

o
m

e

D
e
si
r
e
d
O
u
tc
o
m
e

D
e
si
r
e
d
O
u
tc
o
m
e

O
b
je
c
ti

v
e
1

O
b
je
c
ti

v
e
2

O
b
je
c
ti

v
e
3

3. Planning for Implementation 18

W
o
r
k
sh
e
e
t

2
:

I
d
e
n
ti
fy
in
g

A
c
ti

v
it

ie
s

G
o
a
l:

O
b
je

c
ti

v
e
:

S
ta

r
t/

F
in

is
h

D
a
te

s

C

o
n

ta
c
t

P
e
r
so

n

A
g
e
n

c

y

R
e
sp

o
n

si
b

le

T
a
r
g
e
t

G
r
o
u

p

N
a
m

e
o

f
M

o
d

e
l’

s

S
tr

a
te

g
y

A
c
ti
v
it

y
/

S

e
r
v
ic

e
s

3. Planning for Implementation 19

W
o
r
k
sh
e
e
t

3
:

I
d
e
n
ti
fy
in
g

B

a
r
r
ie

r
s

G
o
a
l:

O
b
je
c
ti
v
e
:

A
c
ti
v
it

ie
s:

H
o
w

t
o
O

v
e
r
c
o

m
e
B

a
r
r
ie
r
s

B
a
r
r
ie

r
s

to
I

m
p

le
m

e
n

ta
ti

o
n

A
c
ti
v
it

y
/S

e
r
v
ic
e
s

3. Planning for Implementation

20

W
o
r
k
sh
e
e
t

4
:

T
h

e
I

m
p
le
m
e
n
ta
ti
o
n

P
la

n

G
o
a
l:

O
b
je
c
ti

v
e
s:

S
ta
r
t/
F
in
is
h

D
a
te

s

*
C

o
m

m

u
n
it

y
m

o
b
il

iz
a
ti

o
n
,
so

c
ia

l
in

te
rv

e
n
ti

o
n
,
su

p
p
re

ss
io

n
,
o

p
p
o
rt

u
n
it
ie
s

p
ro

v
is

io
n
,
o
rg

a
n

iz
a
ti

o
n
a
l

c
h
a
n
g
e
a

n
d
d

e
v
e
lo

p
m

e
n
t.

C
o
n

ta
c
t
P
e
r
so
n

H
o
w

t
o
A

d
d

r
e
ss

B
a
r
r
ie
r
s

B
a
r
r
ie

r
s

T
a
r
g
e
t

P
o
p

u
la

ti
o
n

A
c
ti
v
it
y

S
tr
a
te

g
y
*

4. Five Core Strategies 21

Chapter 4. Five Core Strategies
This section lists the indicators that demonstrate that each of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model’s

five core strategies is being implemented. The Model is a flexible, community-driven process that may

vary in replication from community to community based on the identified needs and problems. At a

minimum, however, the indicators listed below each strategy should be implemented. Complementary

activities for each strategy are listed in the table in Exhibit 4.2 at the end of this chapter. This section

should be reviewed during the process of planning for implementation.

Exhibit 4.1

The Five Core Strategies

Organizational

Change and
Development

Suppression

Opportunities

Provision

Social
Intervention

Community
Mobilization

Gang-
Involved

Youth and
Families

4. Five Core Strategies 22

Community Mobilization

A Steering Committee involves representatives of key organizations and other community leaders within

the local target area. It guides implementation of the Model by responding to barriers to implementation,

developing sound policy, lending support to the project where and when appropriate, and taking general

ownership of the communitywide response.

The Steering Committee creates and maintains interagency and community relationships that facilitate

project development. For example, the Steering Committee might be engaged to work out policies and

procedures for law enforcement/outreach worker interactions and information sharing to meet the needs

of target youth and their families.

Steering Committee members and project staff work with residents in the target area and community

leaders to elicit their ideas and afford them a voice in identifying services and activities in the community.

The committee helps facilitate the development of community groups (e.g., block watches,

neighbors/mothers against gangs, or other community alliances and coalitions).

Insofar as practical, the project is supported and sustained across all levels (policymakers/agency heads,

middle-level managers, and line staff) of the criminal and juvenile justice systems (police,

probation/parole, courts/judges, prosecutors, corrections), schools (superintendents, principals,

counselors, teachers), community-based service and grassroots organizations, and government.

Community residents in the target area(s) are offered programs and training to educate parents, business

owners, and neighborhood groups about gangs.

Opportunities Provision
Special access to economic opportunities in the local and wider community is provided for gang-involved

youth.

Job-related education opportunities such as special educational and vocational skills and readiness

training are structured, to the extent possible, within regular schools, training programs, and mainstream

job opportunities. Care is taken to avoid segregating or alienating gang members from mainstream

institutions unless serious safety concerns warrant it.

Job-related education opportunities are also structured to meet special needs of gang members returning

to the community after being incarcerated or in short-term custody.

Education, training, and job opportunity strategies are integrated with those of social service, particularly

youth outreach work, along with close supervision and social control, as necessary.

Grassroots, faith-based, and community youth agencies are involved by sponsoring training, tutoring,

remedial education, vocational, and job development/placement programs for gang youth.

Social Intervention
Although understanding and sensitivity to gang structure and ―system‖ are essential to influencing

individual gang youth and providing effective intervention, social intervention is directed to the target

youth individually and not to the gang as a unit.

Access to social intervention services is provided to associates of the targeted gang members because

these peers may contribute to a target youth’s gang involvement.

4. Five Core Strategies 23

Care is taken to ensure that services such as substance abuse programming, mental health counseling, and

other services required by gang members are available and accessible, and, preferably, located within the

target community.

All key organizations and associated service providers are provided with training and support to ensure

that their facilities are safe while providing needed services to gang members.

Agency personnel are urged to contact target gang members in prison or detention centers to plan for

provision of wrap-around reentry services for these clients when they are released into the community.

Targeted youth (and their families) are provided with a variety of services that assist them in adopting

nondeviant values and in accessing programs and organizations that will meet their social, educational,

vocational, and sometimes health, housing, and income needs.

Street outreach is established to focus on core gang youth, with special capacity to reach youth, both

nonadjudicated and adjudicated, in the local community setting.

The primary focus of street outreach services is building an ongoing and prosocial relationship with youth

and families while linking them to appropriate services.

The safety of gang-involved clients, their families, Intervention Team members, and the wider community

remains a primary consideration in service delivery, including interactions with street outreach staff.

Outreach activities such as recreation and arts are carefully arranged so as not to become a primary focus,

but rather a means to build relationships with clients and provide access to essential resources or services.

In-school and after-school prevention and education programs such as the Gang Resistance Education and

Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program, anti-bullying, peer mediation, tutoring, and others are being offered

within the target area(s).

Suppression
Gang suppression activities expand the traditional roles of policing to include informal contacts with

target youth, their families, and other members of the community.

Police administration and police officers on the Intervention Team have a key role in the development and

implementation of the project, not only through suppression but by participating in development of

intervention plans, positive social contacts with target gang members, community mobilization efforts,

and gang prevention activities focused on the target area(s).

Gang crime data collection and analysis (i.e., crime analysis) methods are used on an ongoing basis to

track gang-related crimes, measure project effectiveness, and determine law enforcement strategies.

Definitions of gang-related incidents, gangs, and gang members are used consistently by all key partners.

Gang intelligence is routinely collected, analyzed, and shared with other law enforcement and criminal

justice entities.

Police contact with target youth is quantified and discussed with other members of the Intervention Team

for purposes of team planning and collaboration. Contacts should be generally consistent with the

community policing policy.

4. Five Core Strategies 24

Parolees and probationers are closely supervised, and parole conditions and probation terms target gang

behaviors and are shared with the rest of the Intervention Team, whose members consistently support and

enforce these terms and conditions.

Aggregate-level data on the gang problem is regularly shared with all of the key agencies involved in the

project, particularly the

Steering

Committee.

Professional respect and appropriate collaboration between police, street outreach workers, and other

team members are established.

Tactical, patrol, drug/vice, community policing, and youth division units that have contact with targeted

youth and gang members are briefed on the Model, and communication structures are established between

these entities and members of the Intervention Team. These units may modify procedures to meet and

sustain the goals of the Model.

Targeted enforcement operations are consistent with current gang data and Model program goals and are

coordinated to avoid negative impacts on intervention activities.

Organizational Change and Development
The policies and practices of organizations, particularly of agencies providing Intervention Team staff,

accommodate the goals and objectives of the Model.

Each program, agency, or community representative on the Steering Committee ensures that its internal

units are cooperating with one another and supporting the work of the Intervention Team.

The team approach means a maximum sharing of information about target youth such that the role of each

member is expanded outside the normal professional boundaries (e.g., police may become involved in

social intervention, and outreach workers may assist with crime suppression by discouraging criminal acts

by their clients).

Case management and associated data systems are established so that contacts and services by all

members of the Intervention Team are quantified to track youth entry into and exit out of the project, and

measure outcomes and intervention dosage (by contacts and services) at individual and program area

levels.

Staff development and training for the Intervention Team are conducted for the different types of team

participants separately and collectively, especially around data sharing, joint planning, and intervention

activities. Intervention Team and Steering Committee members also receive training on the entire

implementation plan.

Special training, close supervision, and administrative arrangements are established for street outreach

workers and law enforcement to carry out their collaborative roles in a mutually trustworthy fashion.

Organizational policies and practices become inclusive and community-oriented, with awareness of the

interests, needs, and cultural backgrounds of local residents and target youth.

4. Five Core Strategies 25

Exhibit 4.2

Table With Recommended Activities, by Model Strategy

Setting/Agency

Suppression

Social Intervention

Opportunities
Provision

Organizational Change

and Development

Community Mobilization

Neighborhood hot

spots, parks, streets,

roads

Targeted gang surveillance,

monitoring, communication,

warning, setting limits,
dispersal, arrest, sweeps,

incarceration

Outreach, contact with target

youth (gangs) outside

mainstream institutions, brief
counseling, crisis intervention,

mediation, referral for services,

recreational programming

Referral for training, jobs,

paid community service

projects; e.g., graffiti
removal, beautification,

sidewalk/street repair,

painting, cleanup

Staff availability—evenings and

weekends; use of beepers and

field supervision, mobile service
vehicles for crisis intervention

(Networking) multiagency

team patrols, availability of

neighbors or local citizens as
role models and mentors, use

of agency workers and

citizens to facilitate and
supervise street events

Home (parents) Advice and supervision by
schools, community-based youth

agency staff, probation/parole
officers; home visits by grass-

roots groups; e.g., parent groups,

ministers

Counseling, support, advocacy,

parent education regarding

gangs, referral for services,
including drug treatment,

medical services

Referral of targeted youths’

parents for jobs, training,

and educational
development

Case management by a

particular agency to coordinate

service to families of gang

youths

Parent participation in school

and community meetings

about gang problem; citizen
patrols; community action to

deal with crime and

community improvement

Police Investigation, intelligence,
analysis and appropriate

information sharing, gang
problem surveillance with other

police units; enforcement,

education of criminal justice,
community-based agencies and

grassroots groups, as to scope

and seriousness of problem;
close collaboration with

prosecution

Mentoring of at-risk and gang-

involved youths, brief

counseling, referral for social
services, gang conflict

mediation, case conferences

around specific youth, conduct
of anti-gang programs at school

and community (e.g.,

G.R.E.A.T.)

Direct placement and

referral of youth for jobs,

training education, job
development, supervision of

youth in special training and

job projects

Development of specialist gang

officers, gang units, law

enforcement task forces,
computerized information

systems, improved crime

analysis procedures; e.g.,
definitions of gang incidents,

gangs, gang members; internal

agency coordination of policies
and procedures; increasing

emphasis on community

involvement around gang
problem solving

Participation in interagency

community task force,

collaboration with grassroots
patrols and community agency

and business anti-gang as well

as school and job development
programs

Schools In-school monitoring, use of
metal detectors, uniform
discipline code (including gang

offenses), communication and

application of fair rules re: gang
symbols, dress, activities; use of

in-school suspension, no

tolerance of gang behavior (but
inclusion of gang youth) in

school; ―outreach‖ parent

contacts, street patrols,
collaboration with criminal

justice agencies

For students: anti-gang as part

of social/educational
development programs, conflict

resolution instruction, peer

group counseling (re: gang
problems), crisis intervention,

provision of school-based social

and health services, after-school
recreation programs

For parents: outreach, referral
for services, parent education

regarding gangs

Remedial and enriched

educational programs for
gang youths with academic

problems; vocational and

apprentice training; joint
school-work experiences

and related tutorial and

mentoring; field visits to
business/industrial settings

Gang security units; outreach

school-social service,
community agency teams

focused on gang problems;

special systemwide curricula,
social and academic

development coordinating

structures; incentives to teachers
to work with gang youth and

those at high risk; use of

alternative schools to
mainstream gang youth back to

regular school, training, jobs

School-community advisory

groups, participation in anti-
gang community task forces,

development of policies and

procedures for sharing certain
kinds of student information

with other agencies,

development and use of parent
patrols and volunteers to assist

with gang intervention,

control, and prevention

Adapted from: Spergel, I. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1995.

4. Five Core Strategies 26

Setting/Agency

Suppression

Social Intervention

Opportunities
Provision

Organizational Change
and Development

Community Mobilization

Prosecution

Investigation, case selection,
knowledge of gang-applicable

law, and development of

recommendations for new gang
laws, collaboration with police,

development of case strategies

(re: ball, detention, waivers, use
of witnesses, witness protection,

disposition recommendations)

Development of community
service resource manuals for

gang offenders, parents; focus

on sentences directed to
rehabilitation and use of

community-based treatments

Collaboration with business
groups and chambers of

commerce in job

development for gang
youths

Special unit vertical
prosecution; also development

of policy and procedure for

general prosecution re: gang
processing, collaborative

information sharing across law

enforcement agencies and
jurisdictions

Coordination with other
criminal justice and

community organizations,

leading and assisting in the
formation of task forces,

communication with media re:

nature of problem and
potential social solutions that

are community-based

Judges Ensure that gang members
obtain fair hearings, concern
with both protection of

community and youths from

violent gang activities, pretrial
supervision for chronic

offenders, appropriate

sentencing especially to
community-based institutions,

limited use of waivers of

juveniles to adult court

Court orders to facilitate

rehabilitations (e.g., diagnostic
testing, psychiatric treatment,

compulsory school attendance);

recommendation of family
services to gang youths and

parents, pretrial services for

chronic offenders; emphasis on
community-based corrections

Recommendation of special

programs, and pressure on
schools, agencies, and

advising businesses to

provide appropriate
education and

training

opportunities for gang

youths

Regular supervisory meetings

with probation officers;
meetings with groups of

probationers, access to

computerized information on
gang youth history and social

adjustment

Provision of community

leadership on gang problems
and focus on need for more

resources, sitting on

community boards in advisory
capacity and avoiding

conflict-of-interests situations

Probation Use of range of intermediate and
flexible control procedures;

close supervision of gang

youths, enforcing court orders,

appropriate use of detention,

home confinement, collaboration
with police (joint patrols), parole

and prosecution; home and

neighborhood visits

Counseling, referral for

individual, family, mental

health, medical and dental

services, teaching of conflict

resolution skills, mediation, and

crisis intervention, organization
of parent support groups of

probationers; parent education as

to gang problem; development
of special programs for younger

and older offenders, in

collaboration with schools and

youth agencies

Provision to youths of court-

sponsored vocational

assessment, training, and job

opportunities; special

remedial academic

programs; placement and
referrals for jobs

Development of risk/needs

assessments, computer

information systems (re: gangs

and gang members, and

available community resources),

intensive supervision, vertical
case management; outreach to

employers, schools, youth

agencies, neighborhood groups
re: control of and collaborative

services to gang youths

Simulation of community

groups, including parents and

former gang members, to form

community anti-gang patrols;

sponsorship and coordination

of community agency and
grassroots collaborative

programs, including job

development; participation in
interagency community task

forces

Corrections Identification and close
supervision of gang youths;
application of clear policy (re:

participation in gang activity in

institutions), dispersion of gang
members throughout institution,

if feasible; collaboration with

police, prosecution, parole (re:
information sharing and joint

approaches), transfer of selected

hard-core gang youths to other
institutions, as appropriate

Values change programs,

conflict resolution instruction;
drug/alcohol programs, personal

group counseling, use of

volunteer mentors, referral for
services, including

psychological, medical, dental

Remedial and advanced

educational programs,
training and job

opportunities within

institution and outside
facility

Special staffing/team

arrangements for institutions
with serious gang problems,

development of information

systems on gang
members/incidents, and

risk/needs assessments

Community groups involved

in institutional living
programs, participation by

staff in interagency and

community task forces

4. Five Core Strategies 27

Setting/Agency

Suppression

Social Intervention

Opportunities
Provision

Organizational Change
and Development

Community Mobilization

Parole/after-care

Close supervision of gang
youths, enforcement of parole

orders, appropriate use of

detention and revocation of
parole, collaboration with

probation, police, other justice

system officials, home, social
agencies, neighborhood visits

Individual and group
counseling; referral for social,

medical, psychological services;

development of parent support
groups; development of housing

arrangements; family

counseling, crisis intervention,
teaching conflict resolution

skills; close case collaboration

with institution prior to youth
release

Provision of training and
remedial education

opportunities, direct job

referrals, job development;
close collaboration with

schools, employers, to

sustain youth in programs

Developing risk/needs
assessments; use of case

managers, trainers, specialized

gang parole officers; use of
halfway homes, special

residence facilities, sometimes

out-of-area facilities

Collaboration with variety of
agencies and development of

services and job opportunities

for parolees; participation in
community task forces re:

gangs

Employment and

training

Liaison with probation, parole,

awareness of gang culture and

potential problems; clear rules
(re: proscribed behavior) in

training and on job

Career counseling, peer worker

support arrangements,

collaboration with mentors,
referral for services, social

support for parents and family,

crisis management

Intake screening and

assessment, tutoring, work

acclimation training, job
placement and follow-up,

academic and job skills

training and/or referral

Integrated school/job training,

multifunctional staffing, use of

neighborhood mentors,
monetary incentives for youths

to participate in education,

training, and special job
preparation programs

Collaboration with various

agencies (re: recruitment of

gang youth and development
of support services), staff

participation as members of

interagency and community
task forces on job training and

development

Community youth-

based agencies (social

and treatment

agencies)

Setting clear, fair rules and
implementing them; monitoring

and supervising youths in

agency and community hot

spots, appropriate collaboration

with police, probation, parole,

and other justice system officers;
contracting with justice system

to provide services for

adjudicated youth under
prescribed conditions

Outreach efforts to gang youth
on streets; extensive mentoring,

limited use of supervised

recreation and group work

activities; focus on individual,

group, family counseling, parent

education (re: gangs); referral
for service; job support; crisis

intervention, mediation; home

visits; victim assistance

Tutoring, remedial
education, job training, job

development and placement,

provision of small business

opportunities, close

collaboration with schools,

re: involvement of gang
youths and their families in

the educational process

Case management outreach,
decentralized centers; use of

paraprofessional and

professional teams of workers;

joint case management with

police and probation

Sponsor of neighborhood
gang prevention and control

programs, member of

interagency task forces,

advocate for additional

services and resources on

behalf of gang youths,
organizer of parent patrols in

collaboration with schools and

police

Grassroots

organizations

(especially churches)

Collaboration with police,

probation, and other justice
agencies, organizing parent

patrols, advocating improved

law enforcement supervision of
youth activities in the

neighborhood, supporting more

victim involvement at court in
prosecution of gang cases

Counseling, tutoring, referral of

youths for services, parent
education (re: gang problem),

sponsor of youth activities, crisis

intervention and mediation

Sponsoring special training,

educational, and job
development programs for

gang youths; stimulating

local business development
focused on job opportunities

for gang youths

Outreach programs to youths,

including gang youths, use of
specialist gang workers in

conjunction with social agency

outreach workers, use of court
watchers for gang cases

Sponsor local interagency and

community gang task forces,
advocate for improved agency

services, support parent

patrols, especially in school
areas; social action for greater

official attention to, control

of, and better use of resources
directed to gang problems;

organization of block clubs

and parent support groups
both to prevent and intervene

in the problem

4. Five Core Strategies 28

Setting/Agency

Suppression

Social Intervention

Opportunities
Provision

Organizational Change
and Development

Community Mobilization

Emerging gang

problem context

emphasis

Identification and close
supervision of juvenile gang

members, and those at special

risk for gang membership; arrest
and prosecution of older gang

members

Counseling, recreation
programming, family services,

G.R.E.A.T., anti-gang curricula,

parent education programs

Referrals of youth for part-
time jobs and volunteer

services, coordination of

training and better use of
existing job opportunities

for gang youth and their

families

Outreach to newcomer and/or
race/minority ethnic groups in

community, use of local citizens

and volunteers, focus on
generalized or mainstream rather

than specialized approach to

problem

Development of informal as
well as formal links among

agencies and community

groups; special emphasis on
establishing links among

schools, parents, and churches

Chronic gang

problem context
emphasis

Targeting older gang youths and
leaders as well as younger high-

risk, gang-prone youths;

collaboration between justice
system and as many community-

based agencies as possible

Crisis intervention, mediation,
special service support projects

to core gang youths at school

and in neighborhood

Development of major job
programs, alternative

schools related to special

educational mainstream
programs for gang members

to the extent possible

Facilitation of formal,
specialized outreach worker

units and procedures; use of

computer information systems;
development of multiagency

field teams

Development of formal
interagency and community

anti-gang councils, monitoring

of agencies so that they target
hard-core gang youths as well

as high-risk, gang-prone

youths in a variety of social
settings in the community

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 29

Chapter 5. Administrative Structure for Implementation
After the Steering Committee has developed an implementation plan, administrative structures will need

to be created to carry out the planned activities, including hiring staff (if necessary), setting up data

collection protocols, providing an employment structure through a lead agency, establishing memoranda

of understanding and written agreements between key partners, and setting policies and procedures for the

Intervention Team, Project Director, and outreach staff.

Developing and implementing the Model requires hours of planning and management, and dedicated staff

members are needed to carry out the details that will make these things happen. This chapter provides a

description of the key staffing roles in the implementation of the Model. It also discusses communication

among all involved staff.

Comprehensive Gang Model Administrative Structure

The Steering Committee

After the completion of the implementation plan, the Steering Committee will:

 Assign responsibility for specific tasks to specific agencies.

 Identify a lead agency or agencies that will handle the administrative aspects of the
project (employment/hiring, payment of salaries/benefits, contracting for services and

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation

30

equipment, financial administration, and storage and maintenance of information on

clients).

 Revise the job description, if needed, for the Project Director to reflect this individual’s
new responsibilities in implementation. The Director continues to report directly to the

Steering Committee.

 Prepare the scope of work for the Research Partner. This scope of work should include
the types of data that the Steering Committee will continue to collect and analyze during

implementation, such as police incident report data, along with new tasks, such as

collecting, maintaining, and analyzing client data. This partner may also provide

feedback to the Steering Committee on project effectiveness using client data and gang

crime data.

 Select the members of the Intervention Team (discussed later in this chapter,
and in further depth in Chapter 7 on page 49).

 Ensure that a case management information system is designed to track service needs,
services provided, and outcomes for target youth and their families.

 Ensure that gang crime data continues to be collected and analyzed on a timely basis.

 Assist in facilitating agency modifications in programs and policy to support the project.

 Develop community involvement strategies to support the project.

 Provide ongoing review and project modification.

 Identify ways to ensure long-term sustainability.

The Steering Committee should receive frequent reports from the Project Director regarding the number

and general demographics of the youth being served, the services they are receiving and, as time passes,

the progress or lack of progress being made by project youth as a group. Because the needs anticipated

during planning may not accurately reflect real-time intervention efforts, the Steering Committee should

also be briefed about unanticipated barriers or gaps in services that are affecting the target population.

Occasionally, the Steering Committee may need to shift the direction of a planned activity to one more in

line with the actual needs of project clients. To stay focused, the Steering Committee will need regular

updates on gang activities and gang crime trends in the community.

Steering Committee members should be coached to provide information about the project to their

organizations and stress that they, too, are a part of this project and its ultimate success. As part of an

overall strategy of organizational change and development, staff within agencies represented on the

Steering Committee need to know why the project was started, what it hopes to accomplish, who it

serves, how to make referrals, and how they are expected to relate to the Intervention Team and the

Steering Committee.

Public education also is important to the project. Steering Committee members can do their part by

making presentations to community groups (civic and service clubs, neighborhood organizations, etc.)

and by distributing written materials within and outside the target areas.

The members of the Steering Committee should be champions of the project as a vehicle for change

within the community. The chair and/or cochair(s) should be passionate and committed to the project and

should work to ensure that the Steering Committee maintains momentum.

Strategies used to maintain effective Steering Committees have included:

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 31

 Holding meetings consistently at a regular time/date.

 Developing a newsletter for project partners.

 Engaging Steering Committee members in gang awareness education and community
mobilization activities.

 Identifying an active and committed chairperson with positive visibility in the
community.

 Providing a formal orientation process for new members.

 Holding annual retreats to identify future activities and reinvigorate the group.

 Making personal contact with all members periodically (Project Director or chair).

 Acknowledging members’ key contributions.

 Providing members with written materials and reports on project activities in advance of
meetings.

 Using meeting time productively—not to report on activities, but for decision-making.

The Lead Agency
Unlike other initiatives, the lead agency in the Model does not assume control of the initiative but instead

provides an administrative framework to facilitate the work of the Intervention Team and the Steering

Committee. Based on lessons learned with implementation of the Model in a number of communities, it

is recommended that the lead agency be a public, not private, entity. A wide variety of public agencies,

from school districts to mayor’s offices, have served as lead agencies. No matter which agency assumes

administrative responsibility for this initiative, its credibility and influence within the community are

directly correlated to the success of the project’s activities. The lead agency has a number of important

responsibilities:

 Providing a secure location to house client intake information, consent forms, and
intervention plans.

 Tracking the activities of the partnering agencies.

 Providing an administrative framework for hiring and managing staff, as directed by the
Steering Committee.

 Administering funds and grant contracts, as directed by the Steering Committee.

Each type of agency has advantages and disadvantages that will inevitably influence the selection of the

lead agency. Each community has varying needs based on existing community dynamics (e.g., local

politics, existing collaborations, history of agencies within the community, agencies’ management

capacities, and the location of the target area). See Exhibit 5.1.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 32

Exhibit 5.1

Lead Agency, by Type

Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages

Law Enforcement

 Law enforcement agencies involved in planning
and implementation

 Processes in place for crime and gang information
sharing

 Greater access to daily updates regarding criminal
activity

 Access to financial and business management
support

 Outreach staff must be wary of being too closely
associated with law enforcement.

 Community members may have difficulty
understanding the role of project personnel.

 May be perceived as interested only in
arresting/incarcerating gang members.

Prosecutors and
Other Criminal
Justice Entities

 Able to leverage the participation of law
enforcement agencies

 Access to police incident reports and law
enforcement data

 Access to financial and business management
support

 May be perceived as interested only in
prosecuting/incarcerating gang members.

 May not have a strong connection to the target
community.

 There may be historic distrust between criminal
justice entities and service providers.

City Government

 Access to key personnel in city departments and
elected officials

 Access to sensitive data from law enforcement

 Credibility and buy-in from city agencies

 Access to financial and business management
support

 Ability to set policy for key agencies

 Shifts in political leadership can destabilize the
project.

 City policies and/or budget constraints may make it
difficult to hire personnel.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 33

Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages

School Districts

 Buy-in from school administrators to ensure local
school participation in the Intervention Team

 Access to comprehensive student and school-level
data

 Large enough to absorb the project once other
funds are spent

 Access to financial and business management
support

 May be unwilling to provide services to out-of-
school youth.

 District policies may bog down decision-making.

 Hiring policies may make it difficult for school
districts to employ outreach staff.

Local Service
Providers

 Working knowledge of the target area

 Experience with community planning and action

 Private providers may lack the clout with
governmental agencies and law enforcement.

 Gang programming may not be given a priority.

 Often lack the administrative structure to manage
funds/grants.

State Agencies

 Resources and credibility

 Expertise in grant management and administration

 Access to financial and business management
support

 The agency may be located well away from the
actual project activities.

 State agencies may often be perceived as outsiders
without a strong connection to the target
community.

 There is less awareness of local politics and historical
issues.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 34

The lead agency may incur significant costs, including those associated with providing office space,

administration of funds and contracts, management of key personnel, and improving technological

infrastructure to maintain necessary records.

Important questions to consider when determining which agency will be the lead agency for

implementation of the plan are:

1. Is the proposed lead agency the most appropriate one to supervise this effort?

2. Does the proposed agency have a history of respect and support from the target area

residents?

3. Does this agency have the resources and authority to direct the planning effort?

4. Does this agency have the support of the Steering Committee? The support of the

community? The support of the key community leadership?

5. Does the proposed agency have the ability to follow the effort through implementation,

including management of information?

It should not be assumed, however, that a single agency or organization will be responsible for all the

work. Each of the participating agencies may be able to devote a portion of a staff person’s time to this

effort. Additionally, some services, such as street outreach, may be subcontracted from other agencies.

For example, a law enforcement agency serving as the lead agency might wish to subcontract outreach

services from a local community-based agency. This way, some of the possible pitfalls of having

outreach staff work directly for a police agency can be avoided.

The Project Director
The Project Director is responsible for the day-to-day management of the project and reports directly to

the Steering Committee. The Director ensures that key agencies maintain proper representation on the

Intervention Team and that the team meets regularly. The Project Director supervises other project staff,

such as outreach workers. The Project Director maintains the smooth operation of the Intervention Team,

including documentation of services provided to clients and handling of any disputes that may arise

between team members. The Project Director should be in nearly constant contact with the Intervention

Team members.

Other responsibilities are:

 Makes recommendations regarding policies and procedures for the Intervention Team,
any prevention activities undertaken by the project, and community mobilization

activities.

 Coordinates activities and reports regularly to the Steering Committee on the progress of
these activities.

 Coordinates meetings of the Steering Committee and Intervention Team.

 Coordinates and monitors ongoing data collection.

 Develops public awareness documents and publicity materials.

 Provides or coordinates training and education on the project to community and civic
groups, businesses, schools, and others.

 Ensures that all key partners receive appropriate training on serving gang-involved
clients.

 Makes recommendations to the Steering Committee regarding additional activities that
may be undertaken in conjunction with the project.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 35

The Project Director is the key to successful implementation of the Model. The Steering Committee and

lead agency must ensure that a Project Director with high-level skills is selected to lead this initiative.

The position is a demanding one, and the person who fills this role must be extremely capable of a wide

range of skills. Best results have been obtained where the Steering Committee and the lead agency jointly

develop a written job description for this position and, in concert, select the Project Director. This step

may raise some difficulty, especially where funding for that position is being raised through joint

contributions or as a result of a grant. Refer to Exhibit 5.2 at the end of this chapter for a sample Project

Director job description.

The role of the Project Director requires the following skills:

 Ability to understand and work within complex systems such as criminal justice,
education, and social services.

 Understanding of data collection and analysis protocols, as well as how to read, interpret,
synthesize, and clearly explain data orally and in writing to a wide range of audiences.

 Ability to develop short- and long-term plans for implementation.

 Flexibility to move among a variety of complex tasks—from public speaking and writing
grants to managing project funds and effectively supervising personnel.

 Professionalism in dealing with personnel at different levels of responsibility, from
agency heads to grassroots personnel, and from a variety of disciplines: law enforcement,

education, social services, justice systems, and outreach.

 Meeting facilitation, conflict resolution, and consensus-building skills that enable the
Project Director to serve as an intermediary between agencies, resolve differences of

opinion during meetings, and effectively address potentially inflammatory and emotional

topics.

 Ability to learn and explain complex material such as risk factors leading to gang
involvement, local gang activities and gang research, community dynamics and history,

and prevention/intervention/ suppression strategies; and to explain these concepts to

others from a variety of educational and cultural backgrounds.

 Skill in supervising, engaging, and motivating staff from a variety of agencies and
racial/cultural/economic backgrounds, including staff over whom the director may not

have direct supervisory authority. This is especially important when working with

outreach staff who may have prior offending histories, prior gang affiliation, and unstable

work histories.

 Ability to generate passion and enthusiasm to inspire others to achieve solid results.

The importance of the Project Director’s role cannot be overstated.

The Research Partner
The Comprehensive Gang Model relies on continuous problem assessment even during implementation.

The systems set up to collect and analyze data during the assessment should be examined by the Steering

Committee, and measures put into place to maintain collection of law enforcement data and client

performance data. Additional data may also be collected to measure the project’s impact on the

community over time, such as community perceptions surveys and other measures that were discussed in

―Assessing Your Community’s Gang Problem.‖ A Research Partner can help the Steering Committee

identify appropriate data to collect and analyze during the life of the project, and the methods by which

this data will be gathered and analyzed.

The Research Partner can work through processes such as obtaining consent and ensuring and protecting

confidentiality. The Research Partner also can perform more complex data analyses, as required. The

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 36

Research Partner may monitor project performance and progress towards meeting goals and objectives;

prepare special reports about the target population or area; and keep the Intervention Team, Steering

Committee, and others informed about new research and information related to the project. In addition to

routinely collecting and analyzing data, the Research Partner may assist the Intervention Team in the

development of data collection forms to document and track target youths’ services and progress.

As with other service providers, staff should establish a detailed scope of work or a job description for the

Research Partner to ensure that the project’s data collection/analysis needs are met by the partner. The

scope of work varies from project to project but should include a summary of the data reports to be

developed and a timeline for completion. The scope of work also should include a process for addressing

issues that may arise with the Research Partner’s quality of work and timeliness. Refer to Exhibit 5.3 at

the end of this chapter for a sample Research Partner scope of work.

The Intervention Team
The Intervention Team is at the core of the Model’s strategies and is the primary delivery mechanism for

the social intervention and opportunities provision strategies of the model. The Intervention Team also

plays a key role in identifying organizational change and development strategies that should be

undertaken. Staff members should be carefully chosen to serve on this team and must be willing,

interested, and able to perform the functions required by the team. Both the key agencies and the

personnel assigned to the team will be required to demonstrate flexibility and, in some cases, work

outside the traditional boundaries of their professional roles. Further, individuals assigned to this team

should be assigned for a minimum of two years to ensure the continuity of this project.

The Steering Committee should determine the composition of the Intervention Team and assign

representatives to serve on it. At a minimum, the following key agencies that are crucial to an effective

Intervention Team should be represented on the team:

 Law enforcement representatives who are very familiar with local gang activity and the
target community.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 37

 Juvenile and adult probation/parole officers who will have frequent contact with project
clients.

 School officials who can access student educational data for project clients and leverage
educational services.

 Appropriate social service and/or mental health providers who can connect clients to
services and provide outcome information to the team.

 A representative who can assist in preparing project clients for employment and place
them in jobs.

 Outreach workers who can directly connect to project clients on the street, in their homes,
or at school.

Other agencies may be asked to participate on an as-needed basis, including faith-based organizations,

recreational projects, community development organizations, and grassroots organizations.

A more in-depth discussion of the day-to-day functioning of the Intervention Team can be found in

Chapter 7.

Coordination of Effort
The Model centers on the timely sharing of information about the target population, gang activities,

implementation activities, and progress toward reaching the project’s objectives. Quickly disseminating

this information to those who need it is critical to the successful implementation of the Model. There

must also be a nearly constant flow of information between each of the administrative structures involved

in the model (Steering Committee, Intervention Team, and Research Partner). While the Project Director

can facilitate much of this information sharing, each member of the Steering Committee and Intervention

Team also needs to play a role in educating/informing his or her own agency’s personnel about the

Model. Providing the Steering Committee with regular updates on the efforts of the Intervention Team is

as important as the team members communicating among themselves.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 38

Exhibit 5.2

Sample Project Director Job Description

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED:

Receives direction from the Steering Committee; exercises direct supervision over professional and

technical/clerical staff.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES: Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Coordinates meetings and activities of the Steering Committee and the Assessment Work
Group and prepares appropriate materials for meetings.

 Coordinates, monitors, and assists with all data collection by the Assessment Work
Group and assists with compiling information required for Assessment Report.

 Coordinates and/or performs the completion and submission of quarterly and annual
reports.

 Works as a liaison between the Research Partner, Steering Committee, and Assessment
Work Group, updating personnel on progress and challenges and arranging joint meetings

as necessary.

 Confers with participating agencies, including schools, juvenile courts, law enforcement
officials, probation officers, government agencies, local elected officials, grassroots

groups, and others.

 Develops public awareness documents and publicity materials. Provides training on the
assessment process.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Desired Knowledge:

 Familiarity with local agencies (schools, social services, law enforcement,
courts/corrections), local units of government, and grassroots organizations.

 Knowledge of principles and practices of budget preparation.

 Knowledge of principles and practices of strategic planning.

 Knowledge of principles of supervision, training, and performance evaluation.

 Basic understanding of gang intervention, suppression, and prevention strategies.

 Basic knowledge of youth gang involvement and gang-related activities.

 Basic understanding of statistical principles and data analysis.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 39

Ability to:

 Network effectively with a variety of types of organizations, including government
agencies, law enforcement agencies, schools, social service agencies,

courts/probation/corrections, and grassroots organizations.

 Demonstrate organization, administration, and personnel management skills.

 Work effectively with key community leaders and residents, diverse population groups,
and youth.

 Work with high-risk, gang-involved populations.

 Identify community resources to assist in implementation of the project.

 Interpret and apply federal, state, and local policies, procedures, laws, and regulations.

 Analyze problems, identify alternate solutions, project consequences of proposed actions,
and implement recommendations in support of goals of the project.

 Gain cooperation and collaboration through discussion and persuasion.

 Exercise judgment regarding appropriate information sharing, confidentiality
requirements, and human relations.

 Assist in selection of project staff and train, supervise, and evaluate those staff.

 Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.

 Provide training on the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model.

 Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of
work.

 Set priorities and work independently in the absence of supervision.

 Use word processing and spreadsheet software.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 40

Exhibit 5.3

Sample Research Partner Job Description

Overview
The Research Partner works with the Steering Committee and Project Director to support the

implementation of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model through ongoing data collection and analysis.

The Research Partner designs data collection protocols, assists with collecting and auditing project data,

and analyzes raw data into formats that can be used by the Steering Committee for planning and policy

purposes. The Research Partner should be familiar with the Model, the project’s implementation plan,

assessment data, the target population, and the target community.

Core Responsibilities
The Research Partner works with law enforcement to ensure that gang incident data collection and

analysis are standardized and ongoing. In this role, the Research Partner may assist with developing new

data collection protocols, tools, and systems. The Research Partner analyzes law enforcement data to

generate reports that will be useful to the law enforcement agency, Project Director, and Steering

Committee.

The Research Partner assists with developing ways to measure service delivery to clients and tracking

client behavioral changes, including identifying types of data to be collected on clients. The Research

Partner helps develop client-focused data collection protocols and systems for self-evaluative purposes

and audits systems regularly to ensure that data collection and entry are timely and accurate.

The Research Partner works with the Project Director to prepare and deliver reports on the progress of the

project, as measured by data collection. These reports might include gang crime trend analysis,

demographics of clients involved in the project, and client outcome reports. The Research Partner assists

the Steering Committee and Project Director with interpreting project data to define implications for

project strategies.

Additional Responsibilities
The Steering Committee may request that the Research Partner assist with additional data collection and

analysis tasks to determine whether the Model is accomplishing the desired goals. For instance, the

Steering Committee may decide to conduct community resident surveys to determine whether community

members have been affected by the activities of the project. The Steering Committee, Project Director,

and Research Partner should work together to identify cost-effective and scientifically valid ways to

measure the project’s impact.

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 41

Exhibit 5.4

Sample Research Partner Scope of Work

The following information has been developed to serve as a guideline for tasks to be performed by the
local Research Partner.

Product Task Responsible Hours

Community Data

Indicator (e.g., income, employment,
abuse)

Gather

RESEARCH
PARTNER

40

Input/integrate data, analyze,
graphing, writing

RESEARCH
PARTNER
20

Gang Data

Gang identification and crime data Gather Police
Department

na

Interpret data RESEARCH
PARTNER

10

Gang interviews (100) Train interviewers RESEARCH
PARTNER

4

Interview RESEARCH
PARTNER

50
Input/integrate data, analyze,
graphing, writing
RESEARCH
PARTNER
50
School Data

School survey Train teachers/administrators Police

Department
RESEARCH
PARTNER

4

Implement Schools
RESEARCH
PARTNER

10

Gather RESEARCH
PARTNER

4

Integrate data, analyze,
graphing, writing

RESEARCH
PARTNER
20

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 42

Student characteristics Gather RESEARCH
PARTNER

10

Disciplinary reports Gather Schools
Police

Department
RESEARCH
PARTNER

10
Input/integrate data, analyze,
graphing, writing
RESEARCH
PARTNER
20

School staff interviews (24) Train interviewers RESEARCH
PARTNER

4
Gather RESEARCH
PARTNER
30

Input data, analyze, graphing,
writing

RESEARCH
PARTNER
40

Community Perception

Leaders (20) Train interviewers RESEARCH
PARTNER

4
Gather RESEARCH
PARTNER
30

Input data, analyze, graphing,
writing (quantitative and
qualitative)

RESEARCH
PARTNER
40

Parents (8) Focus groups RESEARCH
PARTNER

40
Input data, analyze, graphing,
writing (quantitative and
qualitative)
RESEARCH
PARTNER
40

Community at large Recruit, train, monitor
interviewers

RESEARCH
PARTNER
10

Conduct survey RESEARCH
PARTNER

60

Input data, analyze, graphing,
writing
RESEARCH
PARTNER
40

Current Services

Community Inventory RESEARCH
PARTNER

40

Criminal justice Inventory Mayor’s Office
RESEARCH
PARTNER

10
Input/integrate data, analyze,
graphing, writing
RESEARCH
PARTNER
20

5. Administrative Structure for Implementation 43

Final Tasks

Report Writing RESEARCH
PARTNER

40

Report to various groups Presentation of results RESEARCH
PARTNER (with
Mayor’s Office)

20

TOTAL (includes time for specific
tasks, not all preparation/meeting
attendance time, etc.)

716

6. Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression 44

Chapter 6. Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression
The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model initially focused primarily on intervention and suppression

activities. It was understood that prevention activities were necessary to address community gang

problems, but the model strategies did not include prevention.

However, communities that have implemented the Model have quickly realized that there is a need for

strategies to address the risk factors that affect the community as a whole, as well as targeted prevention

programming that assists local youth who are experiencing multiple risk factors for gang involvement. It

is recommended that the community confront the most serious problems first: alleviating fear and

intimidation within the community and addressing gang crime. As strategies begin to show effects,

prevention programming should be selected and implemented.

Prevention
Two levels of prevention strategies should be considered in conjunction with the Model: primary and

secondary prevention. Primary prevention strategies focus on the entire population of high-crime, high-

risk communities. Programs that effectively reduce community risk factors or provide protective factors

for community members are considered primary prevention. Secondary prevention strategies are

activities and services targeting young people, primarily between the ages of 7–14, who are at high risk of

joining gangs. Selected prevention strategies should have a direct connection to the problems identified

in the assessment process and should be specific to gang issues.

Primary prevention activities might include:

 Conducting workshops and trainings to increase community awareness about gangs.

 Working to change conditions contributing to gang involvement within the targeted
community.

 Creating a one-stop center that facilitates effective distribution of health and support
services.

 Creating procedures for community members to report crimes.

Sample Primary Prevention Strategy—School Safety Zone Partnership
The Pittsburgh Youth Intervention Project created an effective primary prevention strategy called “School
Safety Zone Partnership” in conjunction with its implementation of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model.
In this initiative, assessments of community conditions were conducted within a 1,000-foot radius of each
school in the target area. Problem areas of the community such as high-crime zones, abandoned dwellings,
abandoned vehicles, and overgrown and dangerous vacant lots that served as dumping zones for
construction waste were identified by community members. Key partners such as law enforcement, city
code enforcement, city parks and recreation, the Urban League, and others were enlisted to respond to the
problems identified in the assessment. Pockets of crime were dealt with by law enforcement initiatives to
reduce crime in these areas. Abandoned properties were identified by code enforcement and were razed or
cleaned at owner expense. Almost 6,000 tons of construction waste were removed from vacant lots in areas
adjoining the schools. In some instances, these dangerous properties were replaced with community
gardens where neighbors could grow fresh produce and flowers. Community members were able to see
immediate results from these collaborative responses to local problems.

6. Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression 45

Secondary prevention programming is often focused on the families, siblings, or associates of

intervention targets. The Steering Committee may identify a need to increase access to secondary

prevention programming or to expand the types of services available after project implementation begins

as a result of gaps in services, extended service waiting periods, and changes in community dynamics. To

avoid duplication, a survey of existing resources should be undertaken to identify available prevention

activities and services.

Some examples of secondary prevention activities include:

 Tutoring.

 Mentoring.

 After-school programming.

 Recreational activities that incorporate service provision.

Both primary and secondary prevention service providers should understand the gang culture and possess

experience working with at-risk youth and their families. When selecting prevention strategies, the

Steering Committee should rely on the risk factor data from the assessment, along with knowledge of the

unique cultural, familial, economic, and historical factors affecting the target community. Prevention

programs should target multiple risk factors identified by the community assessment. A Strategic

Planning Tool designed for matching promising and proven programs with specific risk factors can be

found online at http://www.iir.com/nygc/tool/default.htm.

Since resources are limited in every community, the Steering Committee should be careful to define the

most serious risks and respond to them efficiently. Prevention services should always incorporate a skill-

building component that includes social intervention- and/or opportunities-provision elements.

Intervention
Within the framework of the Model, the Intervention Team is the primary mechanism for delivering

intervention services. These intervention strategies are delivered in a comprehensive way to a certain

number of individuals identified based on the data collected during the assessment. Services that the

Intervention Team should plan to provide include:

 Drug and alcohol treatment.

 Mental health and anger-management counseling.

 Job training and placement.

 Transportation assistance.

 Tattoo removal.

 Legal assistance.

 Transitional/reentry services.

Sample Secondary Prevention Strategy—The Story Project
The Los Angeles Gang Reduction Project partnered with the Story Project of Los Angeles. The Story
Project is a multimedia project that focuses on developing reading, writing, and communication skills
among middle school, at-risk youth using professional “Hollywood” storytellers who mentor the
youth to discover self-expression in an artistic, on site, after-school setting. The primary aim is to
increase reading and communication skills and encourage school attendance. The project in the Los
Angeles GRP area is conducted at the GRP One-Stop service center in the targeted community.

6. Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression 46

 Mentoring by outreach staff to develop skills and to provide the target youth with positive
adult relationships and role models.

The intervention plans developed by the team should also focus on ways of attracting target youth to this

project, including access to recreational and art programming, field trips, and other desirable activities in

which youth want to participate. These activities, however, are the means to an end, and not the end in

themselves. They allow outreach and other project staff the opportunity to develop youth social skills,

counsel youths on crucial life decisions, persuade youth to take advantage of programs to deal with

substance abuse or anger-management issues, and so on.

Reentry activities also are handled within the context of the Intervention Team. Because gang members

are frequently in and out of custody for varying periods of time, the Intervention Team continues to serve

these clients during their incarceration, maintaining regular contacts with the clients and then planning for

their release back into the community. The Intervention Team, in conjunction with the Steering

Committee, should develop a policy for serving incarcerated clients. The length and location of the

incarceration may affect the project’s ability to maintain contact. In general, clients serving sentences of

one year or less should receive at least monthly contacts from outreach workers and other agency staff.

Depending on the policies of the facility where a client is incarcerated, these contacts may take place face

to face, by phone, or by letter/postcard.

The Intervention Team may consider putting clients serving long-term sentences on inactive status, but

even a low level of contact with incarcerated clients can create positive change. As an incarcerated

individual nears his or her release date, the Intervention Team should begin planning for that individual’s

return to the community. This planning should begin 1–3 months prior to release to ensure a smooth

Sample Intervention Strategy—On-the-Job Training Program
In response to a lack of jobs in the target area, the Miami Gang-Free Schools Program (Project MPACT)
partnered with an alternative high school and a local builder to create a construction trades training
program. The program served gang-involved clients in the target population who were already receiving
services from the Intervention Team and included the following components:

1. Clients received two hours per day of construction trades education at the local high
school, in conjunction with weekly life skills sessions. The classes were taught by an
experienced tradesman and were incorporated into the normal school day. Clients
were required to attend school regularly, maintain drug- and alcohol-free lifestyles (and
submit to regular drug testing), attend and participate in the construction classes, and
remain free of additional criminal or delinquent charges.

2. After several weeks of participating in classroom work, students were placed on job
sites working as part of a construction crew to obtain on-the-job experience. A portion
of their pay was provided by a local workforce improvement grant.

3. After completing the program, clients were placed in construction trades jobs.

During the OJT program, outreach workers maintained regular contact with clients to support and mentor
them. Clients built strong relationships with the employers and work-site foremen and received other
services from social service providers and the Intervention Team to supplement their job training
experiences.

6. Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression 47

transition back into the community. At this point, face-to-face meetings with the client to involve him/her

in the reentry plan are essential. Preplanning can help clients avoid reoffending and can help them more

successfully follow the conditions of parole. This type of intensive support from several key agencies is

essential to helping gang members transition out of gangs, instead of being reabsorbed back into the gang

lifestyle.

Beyond maintaining intervention clients, it is recommended that project staff be aware of the influence of

incarcerated gang members returning to the community and develop policies to address these individuals.

For instance, the project may want to establish a relationship with probation/parole authorities, and also

with corrections personnel, to identify gang members who are due to be released. Outreach staff can visit

these inmates prior to release to help develop a supportive plan for their return to the community and to

recruit them into the project.

Probation/parole representatives who serve on the Intervention Team can also ensure that clients receive

needed services and supervision. Probation and parole officers are familiar with reentry services within

the community and can educate the team members on available services. Projects may want to augment

existing services in communities where reentry programs are inadequate for the target population or are

scarce.

Refer to Chapters 7–9 for an in-depth discussion of intervention program components.

Suppression
Law enforcement plays a key role in suppression, but within the context of the Model suppression also is

referred to as ―social control.‖ Ideally, all project partners work together to hold the targeted gang

members accountable. Gang crime data should drive gang suppression strategies used in the target

community. These strategies should be viewed as part of a larger whole, rather than as one-time-only

activities. Some examples of successful suppression strategies include:

 Participating in joint police/probation activities, including conducting probation searches
of homes, vehicles, and gang-involved probationers.

 Targeting enforcement to the times, places, and events in which data and historic gang
enforcement patterns indicate that gangs are active.

 Designing investigative strategies to address specific gang-related crimes.

 Executing directed patrols of locations where gang members congregate.

 Conducting community forums to address incidents.

 Establishing community prosecution and/or vertical prosecution strategies to prosecute
gang crime more effectively.

 Making informal contacts with targeted youth and their families.

Project partners should work together with law enforcement to enforce community norms for youth

behavior. These activities may be used in concert with suppression strategies to address less serious

antisocial, gang-related behavior. Examples of ways that other partner agencies can assist with

suppressing gang activity include:

 Use of in- and out-of-school suspensions, when needed.

 Tracking and reporting of attendance/grades to the Intervention Team and
probation/parole.

 Tracking of project participation.

 Being aware of and supporting conditions of probation/parole.

6. Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression 48

 Reinforcing project requirements and supporting other programs’ rules.

In the most successful projects, suppression has been integrated with service providers. Even outreach

workers can play a significant role in addressing negative behaviors with project clients and requiring

accountability.

As communities begin to select programs and activities, they may wish to consider using the online

OJJDP Strategic Planning Tool (www.iir.com/nygc/tool) to assist in planning strategies to deal with their

gang problems. The four components of the tool are described below.

(1) Community Resource Inventory

A community resource inventory is an essential step in assessing a community’s gang problem. This

inventory allows the user to record information about community organizations, programs, services, and

activities that could be incorporated into a collaborative, comprehensive approach to gangs. Templates are

provided to guide the collection and manual recording of this information. The information can

subsequently be entered into a searchable database. Once the database is populated, the user can produce

a matrix that answers the questions, What does our community have in place? and What do we need that

is missing?

(2) Planning and Implementation

After a user has answered the questions above, a second function of the tool permits the user to access a

database containing descriptions of numerous gang prevention, intervention, and suppression programs,

strategies, and activities, as well as juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention programs. Programs

in the database were reviewed using several criteria and designated as effective or promising. The user is

offered options, cross-referenced by age of the intended target population and linked to risk factors in five

domains. These programs, strategies, and practices can be selected to fill gaps in service coverage.

(3) Risk Factors

The tool also contains a description of research-based risk factors for delinquency by age (developmental)

periods, and risk factors that are correlated to gang behavior are annotated. Empirical indicators and data

sources are shown for community-level measurement of risk factor prevalence.

(4) Program Matrix

This matrix allows users to view the age range of clients served by each program in the database. Users

are able to examine a description of each program and to form a continuum of promising and effective

programs by age range of clients served. Each program description contains contact information.

7. The Intervention Team 49

Chapter 7. The Intervention Team
The Intervention Team is at the core of the Comprehensive Gang Model. This team is composed of a

multidisciplinary group of professionals from the fields of law enforcement, probation, outreach,

education, and social services, who work together to case manage the intervention targets of the Model

and to identify additional prevention, intervention, and suppression activities needed in the target

community. Participation on the Intervention Team can increase the effectiveness of each agency’s

efforts, reduce duplication of services, increase access to needed services, and ensure that gang members

are held accountable for their actions.

The work of the Intervention Team is predicated on the following beliefs:

 Each gang member is a unique individual who joined the gang for unique reasons and
who needs an individualized response.

 Each gang member affects (and is affected by) multiple domains such as family,
neighborhood, school, and peers.

 Gang members often experience uncoordinated multiple-agency involvement and are
high-end service users.

 Gang members frequently encounter barriers to needed services.

In general, research suggests that a relatively small number of gang members are responsible for the

majority of gang-related crime and violence in the community. In most cases, this core group of gang

members becomes the focus of the team’s efforts. Because gang members often receive services

simultaneously from multiple agencies, the team facilitates information-sharing and collaboration among

these agencies. In many instances, gang members have had negative experiences dealing with the very

agencies that are designed to offer assistance. The team-based approach helps ensure that all agencies

working with these clients have a common goal and shared strategies for each client.

Short-term goals for the team include:

 Creating individualized case management plans for gang members participating in the
project.

 Engaging gang members in direct services to address their specific needs.

 Working together to dismantle or surmount barriers to accessing services.

 Holding gang members accountable for negative behaviors.

Long-term goals for the team include:

 Assisting gang members in transitioning out of the gang lifestyle.

 Improving the effectiveness of agencies serving gang-involved clients.

 Reducing overall gang-related crime in the community.

The Intervention Team also seeks to achieve a much larger goal. By identifying and providing

concentrated services to those within the gang culture, the team seeks to improve the quality of life for all

residents of the community by reducing gang crime and improving community safety. Ultimately, the

goal is to create systemic and communitywide change that will reduce overall gang involvement and

criminality.

7. The Intervention Team 50

Creating the Team
First, the Steering Committee should identify the agencies that are involved in serving or interacting with

gang members, and whose staff should serve on the Intervention Team. Each of these partners plays a

crucial role in working with gang-involved clients. They should include:

 Law enforcement.

 Education/schools.

 Probation and/or parole officials.

 Court staff (juvenile and adult).

 Social service agencies.

 Youth-serving agencies.

 Grassroots community agencies.

 Outreach staff.

While the Steering Committee remains in control of overall strategies and policy decisions, the

Intervention Team works more directly with gang members. The roles performed by each agency’s

Intervention Team member should be formalized in writing through the use of memoranda of

understanding between the agencies.

Based on data from the Assessment Report, the Steering Committee should develop the criteria that will

be used to screen and target gang members to receive services. Sample screening criteria might include:

 Age/race/ethnicity.

 Gender.

 Social factors (gang members from the same family, history of school problems, etc.).

 Threshold level of criminal history.

 Specific gang affiliation.

 Place of residence.

For instance, the target population for this team-based approach might be:

15- to 24-year-olds, residing in a particular section of town, affiliated with X, Y, or Z

gangs, with a history of weapons possession.

To ensure that the Intervention Team’s efforts have the greatest effect, the team should strictly adhere to

these criteria, and ongoing crime and client data should be collected and analyzed to determine whether

adjustments should be made to the screening criteria.

The Steering Committee should task the key agencies to appoint members to represent them on the team.

It should be understood by all of the key agencies that membership on the team is a commitment to

regular meetings (weekly or biweekly), providing access to appropriate information and services, and

participating in the activities of the team. The agencies should plan for their representatives to serve on

the team for a minimum of two years to cement team relationships, establish momentum, and enable

individual representatives to gain expertise in working together.

7. The Intervention Team 51

Selecting Team Members
Ideally, agencies should select team members who:

 Have experience in working with high-risk and gang-involved youth. This is one of the
most important criteria in selecting team members. The emphasis for the team (as

discussed in this bulletin) is on active gang members. Potential team members who would

prefer to work with youth representing little or no risk are probably not appropriate.

 Are willing, interested, and able to work within a team setting.

 Are well-respected within their own agencies.

 Are open to new ways of collaborating and interacting with different disciplines to
achieve a common mission.

 Are committed to providing intervention options to youth and to holding youth
accountable for negative and/or dangerous behaviors.

Because of the key roles they play, personnel assigned from law enforcement and outreach agencies must

have specific qualifications.

Law enforcement team members should:

 Be familiar with gang dynamics and activities in the target area.

 Have a plan to interact and maintain liaison with other police department units/members
who interact with gang members or their families.

 Be willing to work with other disciplines and respect what each discipline brings to the
team’s activities with clients.

 Be well-respected within their agencies, because this will lend credibility to the team with
other law enforcement divisions.

 Understand and value intervention efforts and their complementary role with suppression.

 Understand the long-term benefits of collaborative teamwork.

Outreach staff should:

 Be familiar with the target population. Ideally, the outreach worker(s) will share a
common ethnicity with clients. If the assessment shows that the majority of clients are

likely to speak a language other than English, the outreach worker(s) should be bilingual.

 Be familiar with the community/neighborhoods targeted for team-based gang
intervention.

 Be comfortable working with gang members and communicating with them in
uncontrolled settings in the community.

 Be willing to serve as role models for clients, modeling prosocial behaviors in their own
lives and being law-abiding and ethical.

 Demonstrate maturity and common sense, since they will be thrust into potentially
dangerous and explosive situations.

 Be willing to work with the team to address and hold clients accountable for negative
behaviors through verbal counseling and by supporting other agency sanctions.

 Always share information when it involves a possible threat of harm.

It is extremely important that reputable individuals and agencies serve in the outreach role. These

individuals must have no current gang ties, current gang involvement, or other types of recent criminal

involvement. A sample job description for outreach workers is found in Exhibit 9.1 on page 70.

7. The Intervention Team 52

Formalize Information-Sharing Protocols
Information is shared within the team for specific reasons. First, safety is paramount. All participating

team members have an obligation to share information when there is a risk of harm to clients, other team

members, or community members. This information should be shared with the knowledge that it will be

acted on by team members to protect public safety. Furthermore, clients in these projects must be briefed

so they understand that team members have an obligation to report certain types of information. For

example, if a team member from a social services agency receives information from a client that members

of that client’s gang plan to shoot at members of a rival gang, the team member needs to share this

information with the team. However, law enforcement team members who receive this information must

protect the other team members and the clients. Because law enforcement team members may receive

information from grassroots agency personnel or outreach workers, they also must avoid jeopardizing the

safety of these workers. Thus, great care should be taken in dealing with such scenarios.

Team members also should understand that information about clients is shared to help clients, not to

penalize them. Potentially damaging or embarrassing information about a client must be closely guarded.

For instance, a school representative at the team meeting who hears information about a client’s family

situation should not reveal this information to others at the school who have no reason to receive this

information. A school should not use information about a client’s gang involvement to justify expelling

or excluding the client from school. The team may wish to create confidentiality agreements that commit

each team member to protecting client information. Team members also need to be trained in mandatory

reporting issues specific to their states or regions.

Prior to accepting clients, the team members must formalize protocols for information sharing at the team

level. Because agency staff may be restricted in the types of information they can share, it is important

that team members know and understand these limits. In some cases, the Steering Committee may

require team members to sign confidentiality waivers detailing the types of information that will be

shared, along with the ways that confidential client information will be safeguarded. These parameters

can also be set through a memorandum of understanding determined at the Steering Committee level.

Developing a Referral/Screening Process
As discussed earlier, the screening criteria are set by the Steering Committee. When the team is getting

started, it is important that team members create a protocol for screening and assessing new clients. The

following questions should be answered:

 Which agencies will be making referrals?

 Will a referral form be created?

 If so, what client information will it include?

 How will referring agencies be made aware of the screening criteria?

 How will the team utilize the screening criteria in selecting appropriate clients?

It is recommended that referring team members present information about prospective clients to the team,

outlining how each client meets the screening criteria. The team members can then come to consensus

about whether a client is suitable for the project. A sample referral form is provided in Exhibit 7.1 on

page 54.

Client Consent Issues
Because the information shared across agencies may be sensitive and potentially damaging to a client, it

is important for team members to ensure that they can legally serve the client. The client himself (if he is

of age), his parent/guardian, and/or a state-appointed legal guardian must consent to the sharing of the

7. The Intervention Team 53

client’s information and to the provision of services by the team. A sample Client Consent Form is found

in Exhibit 7.2 on page 55.

Needs Assessment
Finally, a needs assessment instrument should be developed to ascertain the status of each client when he

is accepted into the project. This should include information on:

 The client’s future goals, abilities, talents, and desires.

 Family situation and structure.

 Gang involvement of family members.

 Other family issues that may affect the client’s gang involvement.

 Criminal history.

 Gang history (and gang affiliation).

 School history, including special issues such as learning disabilities or a history of
behavioral problems.

 Gang climate in the client’s neighborhood.

 Substance abuse or mental health issues.

 History of abuse or neglect.

 Client’s employment history and skill levels.

 Special circumstances, such as a client who is a teen parent.

 Agencies that are currently serving the client.

 Possible safety issues involving the client.

 Current needs assessments from any of the team agencies.

 Court requirements such as community service hours and restitution.

Some of these factors may have played a role in the client’s decision to join a gang and may become an

impetus that can motivate or assist him in transitioning out of the gang. It is important that the team focus

on each of these areas when developing a plan to intervene with the client.

7. The Intervention Team 54

Exhibit 7.1

Sample Referral Form

OJJDP COMPREHENSIVE GANG MODEL

REFERRAL FORM

FIRST NAME: MI: LAST NAME: DATE:

ALSO KNOWN AS: DATE OF BIRTH: / / Age: MALE FEMALE

ADDRESS: Neighborhood:

CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: ( ) –

ETHNICITY:

White/Anglo, not Hispanic Hispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific Islander Specify other:

Black/African American American Indian/Native American Other/Multiracial _____________________

PARENT/GUARDIAN’S NAME: PARENT/GUARDIAN ADDRESS:

THE REFERRED YOUTH:

Admits gang involvement

Is known to associate with

gang members

LEVEL OF GANG INVOLVEMENT:

With 1 being the lowest and 4 being the

highest, how would you rate this

individual’s level of gang involvement?

1 2 3 4

PROBATION STATUS:

On probation Not on probation

Terminated probation Do not know

Name of gang (s): ________________

Location/set: _____________________

SCHOOL STATUS:

Attending school High school graduate Not attending school

SCHOOL NAME:

REASON FOR REFERRAL: Meets criteria: Primary Secondary Other ________________________________

REFERRING PERSON:

REFERRING AGENCY:

PHONE NUMBER:

( ) –

Comments:

7. The Intervention Team 55

Exhibit 7.2

Sample Client Consent Form

PARTICIPANT AND/OR PARENTAL CONSENT FORM
for Participants in

_______________ PROJECT

This consent form may contain words that you do not understand. Please ask the staff to explain any words
or information that you do not clearly understand. You may take home an unsigned copy of this consent
form to think about or discuss with family or friends before making your decision.

The purpose of this project:

A team of individuals and organizations in your community collaborate with ________________ Project.
They include school district personnel, alternative education providers, law enforcement officers,
juvenile and adult probation officers, social service providers, and

outreach workers.

The project includes five types of activities:

 Getting the people in your community to work together to prevent and stop gang violence
(called community mobilization).

 Working with youth who are in gangs and their families to get them whatever kind of help they
need (called social intervention).

 Giving training to youth so they can get good jobs (called opportunities provision).

 Trying to stop gang activities and gang violence by keeping a close watch on gangs and youth
who are in gangs (called suppression).

 Getting the schools, law enforcement, and other organizations to change the way they do things
so they can help prevent and stop gang violence (called organizational change).

Those who participate in this project will be asked to do the following things:

If you agree to participate in ____________________ Project, you will be asked a number of intake
questions about yourself and your family. We will ask you to update this information periodically during
your involvement with the project. Once accepted as a participant in this project, you will develop a
goal plan that will help you outline the things that are important to you. Your active participation in the
project is important for your success! An outreach worker will be assigned to you to help you reach
your goals.

Voluntary participation/withdrawal:

Your participation in this project is voluntary. You do not have to participate. If you agree to
participate, you can stop at any time.

Your participation in this project may be ended at any time by the Project Director or the outreach
worker without your consent.

7. The Intervention Team 56

About your consent:

Do not sign this consent form unless you have had a chance to ask questions and have received
satisfactory answers to all of your questions. If you agree to participate in this project, you will receive a
copy of this signed and dated consent form.

I have read this consent form (or it has been read to me). Anything I did not understand was explained
to me. I had all of my questions answered to my satisfaction.

If 18 or older, please initial: I agree to participate in this project. __________

If under 18, parent or guardian, please initial: I agree to allow my child to participate in this project.
__________

CONSENT SIGNATURE:

__________________________________________
Participant Name (printed)

Signature of Participant Date

Signature of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative (if participant Date
is under 18)

Signature of Person Conducting Informed Consent Discussion Date

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 57

Chapter 8. Team-Based Case Management of

Gang-Involved Clients
Once the Intervention Team has been established and the appropriate administrative structures have been

put into place, the real work can begin.

Creating an Intervention Plan
Referrals have been made to the team, the team members have considered the appropriateness of these

referrals, and the team has begun to select clients. At this point, the team begins to work together to

create an intervention plan for each client.

The client’s case information from the needs assessment is shared with team members during regularly

scheduled meetings. The team members discuss possible methods of addressing the client’s core needs

and then come to consensus on the prioritization of these efforts.

Areas to consider:
 Social Intervention

 Is the family supportive of the youth’s efforts to change, or are they contributing to
the client’s difficulties?

 Are the siblings or parents gang-involved?

 What actions are needed from the family?

 What support services may be required to assist the family in addressing the youth’s
gang involvement and any related issues?

 Does the client have substance abuse or mental health issues?

 Has the client previously experienced abuse or neglect?

 Are there serious family conflicts?

 What services does the client need?

 What methods can be used to motivate the client to participate in programming?

 Opportunities Provision
 Is the client currently attending school?

 Does the client have special educational needs or require remedial services?

 Does the client have a current individualized educational plan at his/her school?

 What type of educational setting is most appropriate for this client?

 What educational services are available in the area?

 What are possible pros and cons of each of these options?

 Which educational activities will the team pursue with this client?

 Does the client wish to seek employment? If so, what type?

 Does the client have any unaddressed issues that will hinder work success?

 What will the team do to address employment prospects for the client?

 Suppression
 Is the client court-involved?

 Does he have pending charges?

 Does he have gang-specific conditions of probation or parole?

 Could some aspects of the intervention plan be court-ordered?

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 58

 What role can probation or parole play in holding the client accountable for following
through with intervention activities?

 How can the team help the client comply with court-ordered requirements?

 Is the client engaged in ongoing criminal activity?

 Does he pose a threat to the community? How will this be addressed?

The intervention plan should address all relevant issues, be documented, and be reviewed and/or updated

on a regular basis (every 30 to 90 days depending on the client’s situation).

Take into account the client’s current capacity
When creating an individualized case management plan, the team should take the client’s current capacity

into consideration and address issues on a prioritized, step-by-step basis that proceeds in a logical fashion.

For instance, if the client has serious substance abuse issues but states that one of his priorities is to gain

employment, the team must work with the client’s drug abuse before placing him in a job. Similarly, if

the youth has behavioral issues that have kept him chronically in trouble at school, the team must address

these issues before mainstreaming the client into a school setting. Safety must be the top priority. If the

client is engaged in ongoing dangerous criminal activity, the focus of the team must shift to suppression,

and the team’s law enforcement members should take the lead in addressing the client’s activities. It is to

no one’s benefit, including the client’s, to leave a client at large in the community if he poses a threat to

himself and others.

Assign responsibility for follow-up to members of the team
One of the key benefits of the team-based approach to intervention is that it can divide the workload of

managing clients who are often heavy consumers of services and involved in the criminal justice system,

with frequent contacts with law enforcement. Each team member plays a specific role in ensuring that the

client is able to access services and that the team is kept apprised of the client’s progress (or lack thereof).

The Project Director should supervise this process, assigning responsibility for follow-up with the

appropriate team members. The Project Director should also ensure that these actions are documented

appropriately in the client’s file and ensure that the agencies are reporting to one another during meetings

on actions they have taken on behalf of clients.

For instance, school representatives might ensure that the client is assessed for learning disabilities if team

members suspect a problem. The school representative is also responsible for reporting to the team on the

client’s progress, attendance, and any behavioral issues. The same holds true for other agencies. Law

enforcement team members should share information on gang activity and trends in the community, as

well as criminal activities of targeted clients. Law enforcement officers also interact with clients in the

community, not only to arrest them for criminal offenses and to enforce criminal statutes but also to

provide positive feedback when possible. The Project Director ensures that each of these activities takes

place and manages the work of the team.

Team Member Roles
Each member of the team brings to the table specific skills, access to information, resources for clients,

and other professional attributes. The following activities reflect the roles team members play and can be

used to develop the memoranda of understanding that quantify these roles.

Education
 Ensure client access to educational services.

 Perform educational evaluations as needed.

 Create individual educational plans as mandated by the district.

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 59

 Provide feedback on intervention plans.

 Make recommendations for appropriate educational placements.

 Leverage services provided by schools, including counseling or mental health.

 Provide the team with information on clients’ performance, attendance, and behavior.

 Hold clients accountable to required standards of behavior in the school setting.

 Facilitate school access by outreach workers.

Law Enforcement
 Report to the team on gang climate and trends affecting the area and/or clients being

served.

 Provide input on issues that may affect intervention with clients (e.g., safety
risk, association with known gang members, suspected drug-trafficking,

witness/victim/perpetrator in a violent crime).

 Provide information on criminal involvement by current clients.

 Brief the team on safety issues.

 Share information with key partners regarding gang incidents that may spawn retaliations
or other safety risks.

 Hold clients accountable in the community, assessing appropriate responses depending
on the level and severity of each client’s behavior.

 Provide clients with positive feedback regarding their positive efforts.

Probation/Parole
 Recommend/enforce conditions of probation that take clients’ gang affiliations into

consideration.

 Access services available through the justice system to address clients’ needs (e.g.,
substance abuse assessment and treatment).

 Provide feedback on intervention plans.

 Work in conjunction with law enforcement to conduct home visits and/or hold clients
accountable to the conditions of probation/parole.

 Share information on each client’s court status with the rest of the team.

 Hold clients accountable for accomplishing educational/employment goals.

Social Services
 Provide a link to services for project clients.

 Conduct assessments (mental health/substance abuse) as needed.

 Provide feedback on intervention plans.

 Access services to address family issues (counseling, crisis management, abuse/neglect
issues, and parental skills training).

 Hold clients accountable for completing services.

 Share information on clients’ progress with the team.

Outreach
Outreach work may be performed by a contracting agency that is already working at the grassroots level

in the community or by outreach personnel working for one of the key agencies. The goal of outreach is

to identify and engage clients who may be difficult for mainstream organizations to reach. Outreach

workers in this type of team-based approach:

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 60

 Work directly with clients in gang-intensive settings to assist them in identifying and
accomplishing goals.

 Provide further information to the team on the gang climate in affected neighborhoods and causal
relationships/factors.

 Recruit gang-involved individuals.

 Encourage prosocial behavior.

 Assist project clients in accessing services.

 Report to the team on each client’s progress, interests, and goals.

 Provide feedback on intervention plans.

A more detailed outreach worker job description is found in Exhibit 9.1 on page 70.

The following forms will assist the Intervention Team in developing client plans and tracking client

progress.

Exhibit 8.1 Client Intervention Plan

Exhibit 8.2 Client Contact Log

Exhibit 8.3

Sample Intervention Plan Checklist Form

Exhibit 8.4 Sample Client Tracking Form

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 61

Exhibit 8.1

Sample Intervention Plan

CLIENT INTERVENTION PLAN

First Name: MI: Last Name:

Date of Birth:

/ /

Date:

/ /

School / Status:

Intervention Goal(s):

Social Intervention:

Person(s) responsible:

Possible Provider(s):

Education:

Person(s) responsible:
Possible Provider(s):

Criminal Justice:

Person(s) responsible:
Possible Provider(s):

Employment:

Person(s) responsible:

Possible Provider(s):

Family:

Person(s) responsible:
Possible Provider(s):

Recreational:

Person(s) responsible:
Possible Provider(s):

Other:

Person(s) responsible:
Possible Provider(s):

Review Date:

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 62

Exhibit 8.2

Sample Contact Log

CLIENT CONTACT LOG

First name: MI: Last name:

DOB:

Who was contacted? Client  Family 

Contact date:

Person making contact:

Type of agency:

 Education
 Law enforcement

 Outreach worker

 Probation

 Parole

 Social service

 Other

Agency:

Contact length:

 5–15 minutes  30–45 minutes  60+ minutes

 15–30 minutes  45–60 minutes

Contact result:

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 63

Exhibit 8.3

Sample Intervention Plan Checklist Form

Youth Intervention Project
Intervention Plan Checklist

Name of Youth Converted to
Intake

Plan
Created

Plan
Review

Due

Plan Areas Personnel Responsible
for Plan

Client
No.

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 64

Exhibit 8.4

Sample Client Tracking Form

Name of Client: ______________________

Current Date: ________________________ Date of Youth Intake: ____________

Number of Months Since Intake: _________

Current Status in the Project (use list): Active _____ Not Active _____

Current Status:

Current Living Situation

Residence
No longer resides in target area: ____

Continues to reside in target area: ____

Please check one of the following living conditions that

best describes the individual’s current family status.

____ Mother and father

____ Mother only

____ Father only

____ Mother and stepfather

____ Father and stepmother

____ Mother and another adult (specify)

____ Father and another adult (specify)

____ Other relatives (specify)

____ Legal guardian (not relative)

(specify)______________

____ In a foster or group home

____ Living by self—independently or with

other person

____ In local or state jail

Current School Status
Was the individual enrolled and regularly attending school this

reporting period?

____ No ____ Yes (If yes, what grade?) _____

Please check the individual’s school status.

____ Attends school regularly
____ Attends school only occasionally
____ Attends an alternative school, or participates in

nontraditional school-sponsored program (name of

school or program): _______________________

Was the youth suspended or placed on some other disciplinary

status? Yes ____ No _____

If yes, describe________________________________

Gang Affiliation Status

List the gang with whom the youth is affiliated.

____________________________________________

Did this affiliation change since the last reporting period?

Yes ____ No ____

Current Employment Status

Was the individual employed at the time of intake?

____ No

____ Yes (if yes, please check following):

____ Employed part-time (no. hrs/wk)____

____ Employed full-time

Job title: _______________________________

Current Substance Abuse Involvement
Alcohol Use
___ Occasional use (use list)

___ Regular but not problematic use (use list)

___ Chronic and problematic use (use list)

Drug Use
___ Occasional use of drugs (use list)

___ Chronic use of drugs (use list)

Selling drugs? Yes ___ No ___

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 65

Activities During Reporting Period

Number of Contacts With Youth in Reporting Period

Number of outreach worker contacts with individual during this reporting period: _______

Number of probation officer contacts in this reporting period: _________

Other official contacts with youth: _______

List the programs in which the youth participated during this reporting period.

Service program (1): ________________________________ No. of service hrs. provided: _______

Service program (2): ________________________________ No. of service hrs. provided: _______

Service program (3):________________________________ No. of service hrs. provided: _______

Participation in School and Community Activities

During the reporting period did the youth:

____ Enroll in any school-based activities?

List: ________________________________

____ Participate in any nonschool, community-based activities?

List: _______________________________

Criminal History Update on Youth During the Reporting Period

New Criminal Offenses

Was the youth arrested for any new offenses during this

reporting period? Yes ____ No ____

(If yes, complete the following)

Date of first new offense: ____/______/______

List offense: __________________________

Gang-related: Yes ____ No ____

Did offense involve violence? Yes ___ No ___

Did offense involve use of a weapon?

Yes ____ No ___

If yes, list type of weapon: ____________

Date of second new offense: ___/______/_____

List offense: __________________________
Gang-related: Yes ____ No ____
Did offense involve violence? Yes ___ No ___
Did offense involve use of a weapon?
Yes ____ No ___
If yes, list type of weapon: ____________

(Repeat for any additional offenses committed.)

Probation Information

If the youth was on probation, did the individual

violate any of the terms of his probation during this

reporting period?

_____ Total number of probation violations

_____ No. of contempt of court violations

_____ No. of missed curfews

_____ No. of failed drug tests

_____ No. of failures to appear at referral

programs or services

_____ No. of school truancy violations

_____ Other violations (list)

__________________________________

Detention/Jail Information
Was the individual sentenced to a jail or other

institution during this reporting period?

____ No ____ Yes

If yes, what facility? _____________

Length of sentence:_______________

8. Team-Based Case Management of Gang-Involved Clients 66

Other Incidents During This Reporting Period (include dates and details)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 67

Chapter 9. The Role of Street Outreach in the

Comprehensive Gang Model
Many different versions of street outreach have been experimented with in the United States, and many

types exist today. Outreach staff within the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model play a critical role that

may differ from those in other types of outreach. This chapter will discuss the role of outreach in the

Model and provide guidance on administrative issues related to outreach personnel.

Role of the Outreach Worker
The role of the worker is to reach out to the target population and link the population to services available

in the community and to mainstream institutions of which youth may be skeptical. The workers’ specific

goals are to reach out to gang-involved youth in the target area and to recruit and retain them in the

project by providing access to resources, prosocial role modeling, and encouragement.

The job requires the ability to walk a fine line between the gangs and the system, specifically law

enforcement. Outreach workers are not snitches, ―narcs,‖ or informants, nor are they gang members or

―wannabes.‖ The worker must understand that sometimes he is an advocate for the youth and other times

a reporter of negative behavior. Outreach workers are referred to as ―street‖ outreach workers for a

reason—they work on the streets. These positions are not intended to be office-based or even institution-

or school-based. While workers may go to these places to accomplish a specific task (e.g., checking up on

clients, visiting, mediating), their role is to reach out to youth in their environment at community events,

on street corners, in parks, in homes of youth, and in other places where youth hang out. For this reason, it

is even more important to have workers who are comfortable with the population and are not

uncomfortable being in these areas without the company of police or probation.

Tasks routinely performed by outreach workers include:

 Identifying youths’ needs and goals to help the team develop a more comprehensive
intervention plan.

 Coaching and providing role models for each youth.

 Coordinating appropriate crisis responses to project clients following episodes of
violence in the community.

 Providing assistance to families in distress, ranging from accessing basic services to
helping resolve family conflicts.

 Visiting clients who are incarcerated and helping to reconnect them to services when they
are released from custody.

 Resolving conflicts and/or mediating between clients, their families, other youth, and/or
agencies.

 Acting as a liaison between project clients and service providers/schools to facilitate
client access to services.

 Working with clients who are seeking employment, from helping these youth develop
résumés, to identifying their skills and qualifications, to helping them apply for jobs or

work with workforce services programs.

 Conducting gang awareness presentations in schools.

As members of the Intervention Team, outreach workers provide information that helps the entire team

gain a better understanding of what is going on with the target population and in the target area so that

team interactions with gang members will be more informed. Outreach workers will fill in blanks for

others on the team who may not be as familiar with the individuals or groups being targeted. Workers

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 68

may describe treatment needs or compounding factors (such as family violence, substance abuse, etc.)

that are affecting a youth’s behavior. Outreach workers also may provide information about specific

crimes that have occurred or are planned. In these cases, police and probation may act appropriately,

although cautiously, so that the workers are not endangered and their reputation is not jeopardized.

Although outreach workers may inform new clients that they do not want information on specific crimes

and activities, some youth may offer this information. In these cases, it is imperative (and may be required

by law) that the workers pass this information to law enforcement. On the other hand, police and

probation should provide outreach workers with information such as identifying dangerous situations,

areas, or individuals; keeping workers away from planned police activity that may be dangerous (without

revealing specific intelligence, addresses, or individuals); and notifying workers of simple things such as

court dates, charges, status of investigations, or information that outreach workers can use to dispel

rumors about incidents and individuals. It is imperative that team members share appropriate information

freely and willingly and trust one another to handle the information appropriately and confidentially.

While case load sizes have varied, it is suggested that workers be in a position to spend time in the

community making contacts with unknown youth, service providers, and families; therefore, a case load

of not more than 25 is recommended. Some of the youth may be incarcerated; some may not need

intensive services at the time; and some may be on the run. Others may need daily in-person contact

and/or phone calls or contact several times a week. The level of service provided by outreach workers is

determined by team consensus for each youth.

Outreach workers interact with other team members during team meetings and each day—in person, by

phone, or through other methods of communication. It is important that the workers utilize both formal

and informal methods of communication and stay in contact between meetings.

While the Model relies on the Intervention Team to accomplish many of its goals, there are times when

outreach workers operate individually. For example, while police and probation can conduct joint patrols

and searches, outreach workers should not accompany police or probation on patrols. The youth must be

able to trust the outreach workers and understand their roles as individuals and as a team. Outreach

workers should be seen as staff willing to help gang-involved youth, including advocating on their behalf,

ensuring they have access to services and opportunities, and acting as their link to community institutions.

While there are times when outreach and law enforcement will need to work together, the youth need to

understand and believe that the outreach workers are not police officers. In addition to helping the

targeted youth, team members should help each other. In some cases, police and probation have covertly

backed up outreach workers who were in dangerous situations, and outreach has provided information to

law enforcement regarding safety issues (advising of threats made, weapons possession, etc.) with youth

in the project and others in the community. Exhibit 9.1 on page 70 provides an outreach worker job

description.

Hiring Outreach Workers
Communities should consider the following issues when hiring outreach staff. First, the outreach worker

must have a thorough understanding of the community that he will serve. The best outreach workers have

strong ties to the local community and existing relationships with community members. Additionally, the

outreach worker must be familiar with the gang culture of the target community and have skills to work

effectively with high-risk teenagers and young adults. Outreach workers need to represent the population

they are trying to reach, especially in terms of ethnicity.

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 69

Second, outreach work is not a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. desk job in a comfortable office. The majority of the

outreach worker’s time will be spent in the community: in homes, schools, and local agencies, and on the

street, working with gang-involved clients. The outreach worker must be comfortable and willing to

work in high-risk community settings at nontraditional hours.

Third, if the outreach candidate has a criminal history, law enforcement and other criminal justice

partners must ensure that this individual is no longer involved in gangs, crime, or other questionable

behaviors. Because of the outreach worker’s role as a mentor and role model to gang-involved youth, it is

important that his behavior be beyond reproach.

Outreach workers should possess the following skills:

 Maturity and good judgment.

 Ability to work independently and manage time effectively.

 Ability to interact with a variety of different agencies, including schools, law
enforcement probation, religious organizations, and grassroots community agencies.

 Ability to write descriptions of client interactions for project record-keeping.

 Mediation and/or problem-solving skills.

Hiring Versus Contracting
In some communities, a local agency is already providing effective outreach services. Additionally,

hiring policies of school districts, police agencies, and other criminal justice agencies may make it

impossible to hire an individual with a criminal background, no matter how long ago these offenses

occurred. In these instances, it may be desirable to contract for outreach services versus having the lead

agency hire outreach workers. Pros and cons of each are found in Table 1 on page 72.

If a community does contract for outreach services, it is important to verify that the type of outreach

service that will be delivered by the contracting agency conforms to the Model. Further, the Steering

Committee should insist on clear deliverables, including the number of clients to be served by each

outreach worker, the number of contacts to occur per week with each client, a clear chain of supervision

for the outreach staff, and policies and procedures that ensure that client safety, community safety, and

appropriate information sharing are paramount. Community agencies that are used to having outreach

workers perform case management services on their own may need training on the OJJDP Model to

ensure that outreach workers are familiar with the role they will play.

The outreach workers also need to be comfortable working with law enforcement and other criminal

justice agencies. If there is no relationship established between these agencies, the Project Director

should be prepared to facilitate these relationships. It should be understood that the interactions between

outreach and criminal justice personnel can be difficult, and it can take time to create trust and respect

between these partners. The Project Director needs to play a proactive role in providing training to both

outreach and criminal justice personnel on the boundaries of information-sharing and safety issues.

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 70

Exhibit 9.1

Outreach Worker Job Description

JOB TITLE: OUTREACH WORKER

BASIC FUNCTIONS

Under the supervision of the Project Director, the successful candidate will be responsible for reaching
out to identified gang members and linking them to services and institutions, providing access to
resources, reducing attachment of project youth to gangs and gang activities, and assisting in
community mobilization in the target area. The incumbent will be a member of and participate in all
Intervention Team meetings.

SUPERVISION:

Supervised by the Project Director (or a lead outreach worker, as applies).

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES:

 Identify appropriate youth to participate in the project based on target characteristics.

 Recruit and retain project youth by providing access to job skills training, information, resources,
prosocial role modeling, and encouragement.

 Provide outreach services, including street, home, and institutional contacts with project youth.

 Manage a caseload of up to XX clients.

 Serve as an advocate for project youth in securing social services, education, and job-related
opportunities; providing information about services; and assessing needs.

 Assess the needs of family members as related to the target youths’ gang involvement, identify
gang-affected siblings of target participants, and make referrals to appropriate services.

 Provide information on available services for participants’ family members.

 Provide appropriate referral and follow up to ensure that target youth are aware and able to
access services.

 Plan and attend social and recreational activities for the target youth.

 Maintain records of contacts with youth and write reports on status of clients.

 Identify community resources to assist in implementation of the project.

 Complete documentation paperwork as required for contacts with and services provided to
target youth on a timely basis.

 Other duties as assigned.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Desired Knowledge

 Familiarity with the community.

 Knowledge of gang culture in general.

 Familiarity with the ethnic culture of the target population.

 Knowledge of local agencies’ programs and services (schools, social services, law enforcement,
courts/corrections), local units of government, and grassroots organizations.

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 71

Abilities

 Possess strong communication and interpersonal skills.

 Work effectively with agency staff and service providers and with gang members and their
family members.

 Work a flexible schedule, including nights and weekends.

 Clearly communicate ideas in both written and verbal form.

 Understand and relate to the needs of project participants of diverse ethnic, cultural,
educational, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

 Work effectively with high-risk, gang-involved populations.

 Operate a computer to enter data, maintain records, and generate reports.

 Network effectively with various types of organizations, including government agencies, law
enforcement agencies, schools, social service agencies, courts/probation/corrections, and
grassroots organizations.

 Work effectively with community residents, diverse population groups, and youth.

 Exercise judgment regarding appropriate information sharing, confidentiality requirements, and
human relations.

 Prioritize tasks and work independently in the absence of supervision.

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Education: High school graduate (minimum)

Experience Preferred: At least one year in performing client-directed services in a field such as social
service, grassroots organizations, community advocacy, or youth intervention.

OTHER REQUIREMENTS:

Valid driver’s license and car insurance by date of hire.

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 72

Supervising Outreach Personnel
Outreach personnel often have varying levels of professional experience. Some outreach workers may

have never held professional employment; others may have a college degree and/or extensive work

history. This professional or educational background is no predictor of an outreach worker’s level of

success in working with clients. However, if a community uses outreach workers with very little work

experience, the Project Director may also wish to designate a lead outreach worker with more experience

to work on professional development and administrative issues with these personnel. The Steering

Committee and Project Director should also plan to do extensive training and development work with the

outreach workers.

Supervision issues with communities that have implemented the Model have ranged from teaching

outreach workers to manage their time wisely, to setting up reporting protocols to ensure that the outreach

workers are seeing enough clients daily to meet their weekly contact goals, to documenting client contacts

appropriately. Beyond these administrative issues, the Project Director, Steering Committee, and

Intervention Team will also need to set policies for:

 Ensuring that both outreach workers and clients are protected during client contacts.

 Providing training on mandatory reporting situations.

 Ensuring that outreach workers know how to handle clients with mental health and
substance abuse issues.

 Helping outreach workers understand the boundaries of their positions when interacting
with clients and families.

 Detailing what types of personal and professional information about clients are shared,
and with whom.

 Setting out safety protocols relating to gang activity in the community.

Table 1
Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages

Outreach Staff
Employed by
Lead Agency

 Greater control and
accountability over the job
performance of outreach
workers

 Opportunities for intensive
professional development

 Many lead agencies may resist
hiring individuals who have a
criminal history.

 Outreach workers must maintain
boundaries to avoid being
considered police informants if the
lead agency is a criminal justice
entity or law enforcement agency.

 Outreach workers may not have a
strong connection to the
community, and it may take time
to develop these connections.

Outreach Staff
Employed by
Contracted Entity

 Often have a long-standing
history working with high-risk
populations in the community

 May have an existing client base
that can be leveraged for this
project

 Steering Committee and/or lead
agency may have less control over
the job performance of outreach
workers.

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 73

 Standards of dress when working in the community and with key partners.

 Documentation of client contacts and services provided.

Two forms are provided to assist outreach workers in managing client contact information:

Exhibit 9.2 Sample Outreach Worker Client Contact Attempt Log

Exhibit 9.3 Weekly Outreach Worker Contact Tracking Form

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 74

Exhibit 9.2

Sample Outreach Worker Client Contact Attempt Log

Client Contact Attempts

Client Name:

Date Time Method
Result

▫ Phone

▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

9. The Role of Street Outreach in the Comprehensive Gang Model 75

Exhibit 9.3

Weekly Outreach Worker Contact Tracking Form

Weekly Contact Log

Outreach worker: Week of: / /

List contacts, by client name, for each day. Check method of contact.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person
Client Name:

▫ Phone
▫ In Person

10. Evaluation and Sustainability 76

Chapter 10. Evaluation and Sustainability
It is a common perception that evaluation occurs after a project ends. In reality, data collection should be

built into the project design and should be ongoing for evaluative purposes so it can shape project design

and sustainability for the life of the project. Securing and maintaining the commitment of the

cooperating agencies to collect essential data is critical to evaluating a project’s success.

During the process of designing an implementation plan, the Steering Committee should consider sources

of data that will be important to measure outcomes from the project’s efforts. The data collected during

the assessment process helps to establish a baseline from the onset of project activities.

At a minimum, communities should plan to collect the following data for the purposes of evaluation and

sustainability:

 Police incident report data, in the same crime categories and fashion as was collected
during the assessment, for the purposes of measuring impact and potentially

adapting/modifying suppression activities.

 Police intelligence data, in the aggregate form, for reporting to the Steering Committee,
key agencies, and Intervention Team on gang trends.

 Individual client data, to determine the types of clients being served, the dosage of
activities, and the impact of project activities. Data should include, but should not be

limited to:

 Individual characteristics (race, age, gender, level of gang affiliation, and other
factors such as family structure, etc.).

 School attendance/activity level, pre- and postinvolvement in the project.

 Criminal history and/or activity subsequent to being involved in the project.

 Employment history, pre- and postinvolvement in the project.

 Probation referrals and/or violations, pre- and postinvolvement in the project.

 Substance use levels, pre- and postinvolvement in the project.

Reporting on individual data should be done in an aggregate, analyzed form to protect client

confidentiality. These data can be used to show project effectiveness and also to ensure that the project is

serving the proper target population.

 Participation of key agencies, including hours of services provided to clients, contacts (by
duration) with clients, and suppression activities by hours and number of personnel involved.

The Steering Committee, the involved agencies, and the community need to know how well the overall

implementation plan is working and how to improve it. The Steering Committee should monitor progress

made during implementation, using data and other information, and make any necessary changes to

ensure that objectives are being met and the committee’s mission is being accomplished. Project staff

also should document the project’s impact and identify barriers to its overall functioning, as well as

methods to overcome those barriers. The following questions may be appropriate for self-evaluation of

the Steering Committee’s progress in the implementation plan:

10. Evaluation and Sustainability 77

 What is being accomplished by each objective?

 How will this work be measured? What is success?

 What are the indicators that the plan is moving in the desired direction?

The Steering Committee can also measure changes in community perceptions about gangs through

surveys of community members, families, clients, and school/agency personnel. These surveys should

measure perceptions of the work that is being done and overall feelings about the gang problem in the

community. (Has it gotten better? Stayed the same? Gotten worse? Are the right things being done?

What else should be done?)

While some of this data analysis and collection can be done by a talented data analyst, quantitative data

on project clients will probably require the assistance of the Research Partner. Other persons with

professional evaluation expertise who are associated with the Steering Committee or involved in the

initiative may be willing to conduct an evaluation.

The benefits of an effective evaluation include:

 Knowing where to focus energy for project improvements.

 Knowing when you are falling behind schedule and when to make mid-course
adjustments.

 Knowledge of and ability to document project success.

 Providing support for grant applications.

 Knowledge that staff are making a difference.

 Ability to report success to Steering Committee, staff, and funders.

Congruent with evaluative and data collection efforts, sustainability planning should begin during the

assessment and planning phase and continue through implementation. One of the key roles of the

Steering Committee is to provide for the sustainability of the project. Ideally, the implementation plan

developed during the initial planning stage will lay a foundation for sustainability by ensuring ongoing

data collection and analysis for self-evaluation.

Several factors were common to projects that were sustained by local communities. These communities:

 Standardized and institutionalized data collection to show project outcomes. Access to
these data was invaluable for leveraging funds and resources.

 Utilized strong and engaged Steering Committees that shared ownership and
responsibility for the programs among the key agencies.

 Formalized the participation of key agencies through the use of MOUs and letters of
commitment that specifically outlined the roles and responsibilities of these agencies and

their personnel, prior to implementation of the Model.

 Did not become reliant on grant funds for the performance of duties that fall within the
normal roles and responsibilities of key agencies.

Other successful sustainability strategies included:

 Participating in statewide efforts to further develop anti-gang strategies backed by federal
and state funds. Projects that can demonstrate positive outcomes and that have a good

reputation in the target community are more likely to be funded as a part of larger efforts.

 Seeking the local business community’s support for specific elements of the project such
as the Intervention Team, outreach staff, or specific prevention programs.

10. Evaluation and Sustainability 78

 Pursuing commitments from key agencies to dedicate staff time to the project prior to
implementation through the use of MOUs or letters of commitment.

 Leveraging funds from other agencies or planning for the project to be absorbed within
an established agency.

 Requiring sustainability planning from contracted agencies. This may enable project
partners to identify resources to sustain specific elements of the project after the original

funding expires.

11. Resources 79

Chapter 11. Resources
Arciaga, Michelle. (2007). Multidisciplinary Gang Intervention Teams: Bulletin No. 3.
(http://www.iir.com/nygc/publications/NYGCbulletin3 ). National Youth Gang Center.
Tallahassee, FL.

Burch, J. and Kane, C. (1999). Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Fact Sheet
No. 112. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/fs99112 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Cahill, M., Coggeshall, M., Hayeslip, D., Wolff, A., Lagerson, E., Scott, M., Davies, E., Roland, K.,
and Decker, S. (2008). Community Collaboratives Addressing Youth Gangs: Interim Findings from

the Gang Reduction Program. http://www.urban.org/publications/411692.html. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Esbensen, F. (2000). Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/182210 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Howell, J. C. (2000). Youth Gang Programs and Strategies.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/171154 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J. C. and Curry, G. David. (2009). Mobilizing Communities to Address Gangs.

http://www.iir.com/nygc/publications/NYGC-bulletin-4 . National Youth Gang Center.
Tallahassee, FL.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Best Practices to Address Community
Gang Problems. (2008). http://www.ojjdp.gov/publications/PubAbstract.asp?pubi=253257.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Spergel, I. A. (2007). Reducing Youth Gang Violence: The Little Village Gang Project in Chicago.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Appendix A, p. 51.

Spergel, I. A. (1995). The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. Oxford University
Press: New York, NY.

Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., and Sosa, R. V. (2006). The comprehensive, community-wide, gang
program model: Success and failure. In J. F. Short and L. A. Hughes (eds.), Studying Youth Gangs
(pp. 203–224). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Wyrick, P. (2006). Gang prevention: How to make the “front end” of your anti-gang effort work.

United States Attorney’s Bulletin, 54, 52–60.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). Gang Issues.
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/documents/usab5604 . United States Attorneys
Bulletin. 56:4. Executive Office for United States Attorneys: Washington, DC.

11. Resources 80

Program Contacts

Errika Fearbry Jones, Director, Pittsburgh Youth Intervention Project, Pittsburgh Public Schools,
Room 424, 341 South Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15214, (412) 622-3932.

Victor Gonzalez, Director of Intervention Programs, Houston Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office,
900 Bagby, Houston, TX 77002, (713) 437-6296.

Laura Kallus, Project Coordinator, North Miami Beach Gang Reduction Project, Island Place
Apartments, 1541 Northeast 167 Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162, (305) 956-2524,
Extension 2243.

Esther Welch Anderson, Project Director, Richmond Gang Reduction Project, Office of the
Attorney General of Virginia, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-0004.

Miguel Leon, Project Coordinator, Los Angeles Gang Reduction Project, Office of Gang Reduction and
Youth Development, 200 North Spring Street, Room 303, Los Angeles, CA 90012, (213) 473-9768.

Renee Parker, Project Coordinator, Project MPACT, Miami-Dade County School District Police
Department, 10650 Northwest 42nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33054, (305) 621-4598.

Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd12

Introduction

The presence of gangs in incarcerated facilities
presents a host of issues for policymakers and
correctional staff, managers and administrators.
Estimates from the US indicate that gang
members comprise as much as 13% of jail
populations (Ruddell et al, 2006), 12% to 17%
of state prison populations (Griffin & Hepburn,
2006; Kreinert and Fleisher, 2001), and nine per
cent of the federal prison population (Gaes et al,
2002). These figures take on added significance
when considering the violence associated with
gangs, inside and outside of prison walls. In large
US cities, for example, Decker and Pyrooz (2010)
reported that gang members have homicide rates
100 times higher than the national average.

Gang members are disproportionately
represented in prisons, but our knowledge
of prison gangs does not match their level
of prison involvement. We attribute this
discrepancy to two main sources. First, there
are administrative challenges to gathering
such information. Correctional agencies
screen research proposals and may consider
appropriate only those projects with relevance
to programmes and operations of correctional
institutions. Researchers must also receive
approval from university and correctional
agencies’ human subjects committee. Second,
there are methodological limitations. There
are no field studies on prison gangs, and
information about prison gang activity must be

From the street to the prison,

from the prison to the street:

understanding and responding

to prison gangs

David C Pyrooz
Doctoral Student, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, USA

Scott H Decker
Foundation Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, USA

Mark Fleisher
Kent State University, USA

Invited paper

ABSTRACT
This article examines a range of issues associated with gangs in incarcerated settings. We

begin by examining the similarities and differences between street and prison gangs, and

differentiating them from other types of criminal groups. Next, we focus on the emergence

and growth of gangs in prison, including patterns and theoretical explanations. Importantly,

we draw theoretical linkages between differing perspectives on gang emergence and gang

violence. We also present administrative and official responses to gangs in prison. Finally,

we discuss the movement from prison to the street, examining the difficulties that former

prisoners face when re-entering communities.

KEY WORDS
Gangs; prison; programming; re-entry.

10.5042/jacpr.2011.0018

13 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

While similarities such as durability and
identity distinguish street and prison gangs
from other types of criminal groups, there are
differences between the two (see Table 1).
According to Klein and Maxson (2006, p4),
street gangs are: ‘durable, street-oriented youth
group[s] whose involvement in illegal activity
is part of its group identity’. The prison gang,
on the other hand, is defined by Lyman (1989,
p48) as: ‘an organization which operates
within the prison system as a self-perpetuating

criminally oriented entity, consisting of a

select group of inmates who have established

an organized chain of command and are

governed by an established code of conduct’.
It is important to point out that definitions of
gangs in prison have not been met with the
same degree of criticism as definitions of street
gangs. Only after many decades of debate has
some semblance of consensus been reached
on the definitional criteria of street gangs. The
lack of research attention to gangs in prison,
as mentioned previously, could be partially
attributed for this divergence.

In Table 1, we display a series of variables
comparing street and prison gangs. While there
are a number of similarities, it could be argued
that prison gangs are more controlled, organised
versions of street gangs. Prison gangs exhibit
higher levels of racial and ethnic homogeneity,
instrumental violence, entrepreneurial offending,
covert behaviours and actions, collective drug
dealing, and unqualified loyalty to the gang.
These are characteristics that are found only in
rare cases in the street context. In street gangs,
membership tends to be fluid, leadership is
situational, violence is less co-ordinated and
more symbolic, and drug dealing tends to be
individualistic rather than collective (Curry &
Decker, 2002; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996;
Klein & Maxson, 2006).

From street to prison

Emergence and growth of prison
gangs
The Gypsy Jokers, formed in the 1950s in
Washington state prisons, were the first
identified American prison gang (Orlando-
Morningstar, 1997, pp1–13; Stastny & Tyrnauer,
1983). In 1957, the Mexican Mafia (La Eme)
was first documented in California. Le Eme was
the first prison gang with alleged nationwide

garnered through interviews with inmates,
prison staff or prison records (see Gaes et
al, 2002). Researchers remain sceptical about
the validity of prison record data, which is
confounded by definitional variability and
variation in disciplinary policies (Fleisher &
Decker, 2001).

This article delves into a range of issues
associated with gangs in incarcerated settings.
We begin by examining the similarities and
differences between street and prison gangs,
and what differentiates them from other types
of criminal groups. Next, we focus on the
emergence and growth of gangs in prison,
reviewing the literature on patterns of gang
behaviour and theoretical explanations for that
behaviour. Importantly, we draw theoretical
linkages between differing perspectives on
the formation of gangs and gang violence.
We next review official responses to gangs in
prison. Finally, we discuss the movement from
prison to the street, examining the difficulties
former prisoners face when re-entering
communities, and recidivism patterns. For all
intents and purposes, we use ‘prison gangs’ as
the term to encompass gangs in incarcerated
facilities, which also includes jails and other
settings. Further, while prison administrators
commonly refer to gangs as ‘security threat
groups’ or ‘inmate disruptive groups’, we refer
to these groups simply as ‘gangs’ for ease of
discussion of the movement from the street to
the prison and back.

Street and prison gang
similarities and differences

Street and prison gangs are groups that
engage in criminal activity. In this regard they
are similar to graffiti or tagging groups, or
groups engaging in human, firearms or drug
trafficking. There are, however, distinctive
characteristics that distinguish street and
prison gangs from these groups, as well as
from one another. Street and prison gangs
differ from the aforementioned groups in
that they are more durable (in terms of
persistence across time) and they maintain
a collective identity (typically in terms of
a name or set of insignia). The durability
of prison gangs reflects their age structure,
higher level of organisation, and role in
illicit activity.

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

14 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

membership nearly quadrupled between 1985 and
1992, from 12,624 to 46,190 (Baugh, 1993).

Prison gangs expanded as prisons did.
Useem and Piehl (2008) assessed the rate of
imprisonment from 1930 to 2005, finding four
distinct periods of imprisonment:

1. The 1930–1960 period is described as a
‘trendless trend’.

2. The 1961–1972 period is described as a
‘large to modest decline’ trend.

3. The 1973–1988 period is described as ‘the
buildup begins’ trend.

4. The 1989–2005 period is described as
‘accelerated growth’.

ties. In 1980, America’s state prisons housed
294,000 inmates and federal prisons housed
21,974. Camp and Camp’s 1985 national prison
survey identified approximately 114 gangs with
a membership of approximately 13,000 inmates.
Of the 49 correctional agencies surveyed, 33
reported gangs. Of those 33 gangs, 26 had street
gang counterparts. For example, Illinois had 14
gangs and 5,300 gang members; Pennsylvania
had 15 gangs and 2,400 gang members; California
had 2,050 gang members; Texas had nine prison
gangs with 2,407 gang members (Ralph &
Marquart, 1991); and Fong (1990) reported eight
Texas gangs with 1,174 members. The American
Correctional Association reported that prison gang

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

Table 1: A comparison of prison and street gangs

Variable Prison gang Street gang

Race Single race or ethnicity Mostly single race or ethnicity

Age Concentrated in mid-20s, Average age in upper teens

with members into 30s-40s

Organisational structure* Hierarchical Situational/hierarchical

Sources of violence Symbolic and instrumental; Symbolic; core activity

core activity

Offending style** Entrepreneurial Cafeteria style

Visibility of behaviour Covert Overt

Drug trafficking Major activity; organised, Varies; mostly individualistic

collective

Loyalty to gang Absolute Weak bonds

Key to membership Unqualified fidelity, abide Real or perceived fidelity; hanging out;

by gang rules; willingness abide by street rules

to engage in violence

Key psychological attribute*** Oppositional, intimidation, Oppositional, intimidation, camaraderie

control, manipulation

Notes:

* Situational refers to structural flexibility from loose to more rigid.

** Entrepreneurial activity refers to specific types of profit-generating activity. Cafeteria-style activity

refers to a range of profit-generating and non-profit activities.

*** Oppositional refers to attitudes toward correctional supervision in the case of prison gangs. For

street gangs, it reflects a generalised opposition to authority.

15 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

(Fishman, 1934; Clemmer, 1958) and importation
(Irwin & Cressey, 1962).1 These perspectives
focus mostly on the development of prison
culture. Implicit in the description of prison
culture is the emergence of gangs. The seeds
of what later became known as adaptation/
deprivation are found in Fishman (1934).
Fishman’s concept of deprivation applied to
imprisonment as a type of punishment but also
connoted the loss of freedom (‘loss of liberty
constitutes the real punishment’, p165). Clemmer
(1958) expanded the discussion of deprivation
in The Prison Community, arguing that structural
constraints (such as isolation and the lack of
privacy) strip inmates of their identity. Cultures
endogenous to the institution arise as an
adaptive response to prison conditions – gangs
being one of them. Incoming inmates are
then socialised gradually into various prison
subcultures (see also Jacobs, 1974), including
gangs. This socialisation accounts for gang
members who shed their street gang identity
upon admission to the prison, where they
assume membership in a prison gang.

The importation model, alternatively,
advocates that pre-institutional characteristics
shape prison culture. This perspective is
argued most prominently by Irwin and
Cressey (1962). Inmate composition,
including demographic characteristics, cultural
background and personality characteristics,
are responsible for the prison culture. In other
words, prison gangs do not emerge due to
indigenous conditions within the prison; rather,
they emerge due to pre-institutional conditions
that inmates bring with them. Schwartz (1971)
termed this ‘cultural drift’, as compositional
factors do not observe the boundaries and
walls of the prison. In this way, gang members
bring their individual and cultural histories with
them when they go to prison.

Parallel arguments can be found in the
street gang literature. It has been argued that
the emergence of gangs is consistent with
the principles of homophily, where similarly-
situated and like-minded individuals come
together because of personality deficiencies
and geographical proximity (Gottfredson
& Hirschi, 1990). Further, elevated criminal
propensity (eg. poor self-control) is the key
characteristic drawing the gang together. This

The context for prison gang growth is the
expansion of America’s prison systems as a
consequence of national crime control policy
(Garland, 2001; Travis, 2005). Over the past
30 years, as state and federal prisons were
constructed in the US, hundreds of thousands
of prisoners poured into state prisons from 1980
to 2007. Over the years, the prison population
grew from 315,974 in 1980, to 739,980 in 1990,
to 1,331,278 in 2000 and to 1,532,800 inmates
in 2007 – approximately a five-fold increase. In
2000, there were 84 federal and 1,023 general
confinement facilities equalling 1,107 state and
federal prisons. By year-end 2005, there were
1,821 state and federal correctional facilities
(United States Department of Justice, 2003).

While the number of prisons and inmate
population expanded, there are no national
(or state) longitudinal data tracking street gang
expansion in state and federal prisons, and
prison gang growth over the three decades
of prison expansion. We do, however, have
data that infer street gang expansion into state
prisons. If one assumes that some percentage
of the street gang members per 1,000 state
residents are arrested and imprisoned, then
it can be inferred that those states with the
highest per capita rate of gang members should
also have the highest number of imprisoned
gangs and gang members. The 2009 National
Gang Threat Assessment (National Gang
Intelligence Center, 2009) provided data on
gang members per capita. The state of Illinois
has the highest rate per capita (eight to eleven
per 1,000 residents); California, Colorado, New
Mexico and Nevada have the second highest
rates at five to seven per 1,000; and Idaho and
Florida are third highest with four per 1,000.
Most prison gang members are 20 to 30 years
old. We recognise the difficulty of collecting
accurate estimates of the number of prison
gangs and gang membership, particularly today
when prisons house an enormous imprisoned
population. In mid-year 2009, state and federal
prisons housed more than 1.6 million prisoners
(West, 2010).

Explaining gang emergence and gang
violence in prison
Two perspectives have guided the explanation
of gangs in prison: adaptation/deprivation

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

1 Modern terminology notwithstanding, the seminal germination of the concepts of importation and deprivation were conceived in ancient Greece

(Morris & Rothman, 1995). That offenders ‘import’ characteristics, personality traits, beliefs, values and norms into prison was the basis of debate over

the effects of prison conditions on inmates in late 13th century Italian prisons and onwards throughout the history of prisons (Geltner, 2008).

16 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

periods of gang membership, but remained
minimal before and after gang membership
(consistent with process or deprivation views).
Enhancement was any combination of the two.
A considerable amount of attention has been
devoted to testing these models empirically.
In a recent review of the literature, Krohn and
Thornberry (2008) concluded that findings in
favour of the facilitation effect exceed that of
the selection effect in terms of the prevalence of
the studies and the frequency of effects.

In the prison context, a modest body of
literature has explored the effect of gang
membership on prison misconduct (see Table
2). Similar to the street gang literature, gang
membership appears to exhibit a robust effect
on prison misconduct (see DeLisi et al (2004)
for the lone exception). It should be noted that
the methodological rigour of the prison gang
literature is not comparable to the street gang
literature, where researchers have modelled the
relationship using elaborate analytic techniques
and with longitudinal data capable of capturing
the entire life course of gang membership. That
said, the findings displayed in Table 2 portend

perspective is consistent with the importation
model; that is, conditions of deprivation unique
to the prison don’t draw inmates together –
propensity and other characteristics external
to the prison environment are the driving
force in this process. The counterpart to the
homophily perspective can be found in the
works of Cloward and Ohlin (1960), Cohen
(1955), Miller (1958) and Thrasher (1927), where
socioeconomic conditions, limited opportunity
structures and neighborhood subculture are the
driving force behind gang emergence.

At the individual level, the conceptual
arguments about gang emergence have
translated into a set of theoretical models on
the relationship between gang membership
and criminal offending. Thornberry et al (1993)
advanced three models – selection, facilitation,
and enhancement – to account for this
relationship. Selection effects were supported
if offending remained elevated before and
after gang membership, but did not increase
during periods of gang membership (consistent
with propensity views). Facilitation effects
were supported if offending increased during

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

Table 2: Studies examining the effect of gang membership on criminogenic outcomes in

prison settings

Study Data Key finding

DeLisi et al (2004) Southwestern US state, N=1,005 Prison gang: Violent misconduct (+)

Street gang: Violent misconduct (+)

Street & prison gang: Violence (ns)

Gaes et al (2002) Bureau of Prisons, 1997-98, Gang to non-gang: Violence (+)

N=82,504 Core to periphery gang: Violence (+)

Griffin & Hepburn Arizona DOC, new admissions Assault (+), Threats (+),

(2006) 1996, N=2,158 Fights (ns), Weapons (ns)

Huebner (2003) 185 state correctional facilities, Assault correctional staff (+)

N=4,168

Kreinert & Fleisher Nebraska prison system admissions, Engage in assault (+), Drug use (+)

(2001) N=704

MacDonald (1999) California Youth Authority, Various acts of violence (+)

two samples, FYs 82 and 87,

N=3,995

Note: a positive effect of gang membership on criminogenic outcomes is symbolised by (+), negative

effect (-) and no effect (ns).

17 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

evaluated for their effectiveness in the
prevention and intervention of gang activity.
This is consistent with our generally low state of
knowledge about prison gangs.

Correctional agencies have developed policies
guiding initiatives that control gang-affiliated
inmates’ misconduct. Carlson and Garrett’s
2006 collection of essays illustrates the diverse
approaches that major correctional agencies have
implemented to manage prison gangs.

Since Clemmer’s (1958) The Prison
Community, prison scholars have debated
the effects of prison administration and
management on the formation of inmate groups
and individual behaviour. Do prison policies
and procedures intended to create safe prisons
have iatrogenic effects on inmates, which then
result in the formation of disruptive groups? In
spite of prison managers’ best efforts to create a
positive environment, inmates continue to form
disruptive groups as a prison extension of their
street behaviour (Jacobs 1977; Hunt et al, 1993).

Prisons have tried a variety of overt and
covert strategies, including the use of inmate
informants, the use of segregation units
for prison gang members, the isolation of
prison gang leaders, the lockdown of entire
institutions, vigorous prosecution of criminal
acts committed by prison gang members, the
interruption of prison gang members’ internal
and external communications, and the case-by-
case examination of prison gang offences. There
are, however, no published evaluations testing
the efficacy of these suppression strategies
on curbing prison gang violence and/or other
criminal conduct inside correctional institutions.
These substantial gaps in our knowledge hinder
the safety of other inmates, staff and ultimately
the public (see also Trulson et al, 2006).

The Texas state legislature passed a bill
in September 1985 that made it a ‘felony for
any inmate to possess a weapon’ (Ralph &
Marquart, 1991, p45). The bill also limited the
discretionary authority of sentencing judges:
inmates convicted of weapon possession
must serve that sentence subsequent to other
sentences. Officials believe that laws such
as this one help to keep inmates, especially
those in prison gangs, under control (Ralph &
Marquart, 1991).

A common inmate control procedure is
administrative segregation, often referred to as
‘secured housing units’ (SHU). This isolation
strategy is commonly applied to gang members.

what future research may find, suggesting that
gangs do indeed exert an effect on offending
behaviour in incarcerated settings.

The UK experience
Gangs have been documented in European
cities and countries for at least two decades
(Klein et al, 2001; Decker et al, 2009). The
presence of gangs in Europe suggests that
studies in prison facilities should find gangs and
gang activity. The problem, however, is that,
outside of England, so little is known on gangs
in jails and prisons that there is little to discuss.

Adult male gang members’ behaviour was
linked to higher levels of offending in the UK,
similar to the US. In a study of recent arrestees,
Bennett and Holloway (2004) found that current
gang members were more involved in robbery,
drug-related offences and weapons offences
than former and non-gang members. Further,
gang members (current and former) comprised
15% of the sample, yet accounted for 31% of all
of the offences reported, including 89% of all
the robberies. The above results, as a whole, are
consistent with studies in the US.

Jane Wood and colleagues have conducted
a series of studies on gang activity in English
prisons (Wood, 2006; Wood and Adler, 2001;
Wood, Moir, and James, 2009; Wood, Williams,
and James, 2010). Based on information and
approaches from American studies of gangs,
they examined the views of staff members in
English prisons. Staff members across 16 prisons
were asked questions regarding their knowledge
of gangs, gang members and gang behaviours.
Gang activity was highest in male institutions
that maintained medium security. Gangs formed
around race, and there were high levels of drug
possession among prison gangs. This study was
a groundbreaking approach to understanding
the issue of prison gangs in England although,
as the authors noted, it is an indirect measure
of prison activity. Regional affiliations were a
key part of gang groups, as noted above in
American prisons, as individuals from the same
regions tended to associate together.

Institutional gang intervention
strategies

In this section, we summarise prison and
jail gang intervention strategies. Note that
the interventions we discuss have not been

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

18 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

were left in the general population, violence
would erupt between rival gangs. Two key
federal court rulings have addressed this issue:
Toussaint v. McCarthy (1984) and Madrid
v. Gomez (1995). In the Toussaint case, the
courts held that segregating inmates based on
gang affiliation was permissible, based on the
opinion that segregation is administrative as
opposed to punitive or disciplinary. Because
of the administrative designation, the ruling
held that inmates that are labelled as gang
affiliated should not be afforded more rigorous
standards of due process (eg. notice of charges,
representation, witnesses). The court recognised,
however, that special considerations were
necessary for determining gang membership
and that minimal due process rights should
be provided to inmates. In other words, the
implications for policies on gang members in
general were that prison officials would need to
develop more systematic methods for classifying
inmates as gang members. This ruling was
ultimately upheld in the Madrid case (for a
more detailed discussion, see Tachiki, 1995).

Orlando-Morningstar (1997) cites the need
for better information gathering and sharing
between law enforcement and corrections. Law
enforcement can provide corrections officials
with background information on street conflicts
among inmates entering facilities. Corrections
can provide similar information for offenders
returning to the community. Correctional
agencies now use databases to track prison
gang members and gang activities. This allows
for more effective communication between
a correctional and a state police agency, and
improves data accuracy because data can be
entered as soon as they are gathered (Gaston,
1996). The New York City Department of
Correction uses a system that allows for
digitised photos that document gang members’
marks and/or tattoos. Database searches can be
done by tattoo, scars or other identifying marks.
The speed and capacity to update intelligence
information makes the use of a shared database
an effective tool in prison gang management.

Providing alternative programming could
become part of prison gang management
strategies; however, prison gang members
have not embraced such programming. The
Hampden County Correctional Center in Ludlow,
Massachusetts, developed a graduated programme
for prison gang members who wanted to leave
segregation. Two years into the programme, 190

Segregation keeps inmates alone in a cell,
23 hours a day, with one hour assigned to
recreation and/or other activities. Texas used
administrative segregation and, in 1985, put all
known prison gang members into segregation
in the hope of limiting their influence on
mainline inmate populations. Violence in the
general population decreased, resulting in nine
prison gang-motivated homicides from 1985 to
1990; fewer armed assaults were reported as
well. By 1991, segregation housed more than
1,500 gang members (Ralph & Marquart, 1991).
Knox (2000) reported that a majority of 133
prison officials interviewed in a national survey
believed segregation policy did not accomplish
its anti-gang crime objective. Nevertheless,
isolating gang members, and especially gang
leaders, is a popular control strategy. With
prison gang leaders locked down, officials
hoped vertical communication within the gang
would be weakened, resulting in an erosion of
group solidarity.

Another form of isolation transfers prison
gang leaders among institutions (United States
Department of Justice, 1992). To reduce gang
membership, an official notice of suspected
gang activity is kept in an inmate’s file, a
procedure known as ‘jacketing’. This note
follows the inmate and allows authorities to
transfer him to a high-security facility. Hunt
et al (1993) describe a ‘debriefing’ technique.
This requires prison gang inmates to report
information about their gangs as a precondition
of release from a high-security facility. Staff
might use a threat of a transfer to high-security
facility unless the inmate divulges information.
The legality of this procedure remains
questionable and may threaten the life of an
inmate who has been, or is thought to have
been, debriefed.

The constitutionality of these policies has
been challenged in federal courts. The argument
behind these challenges is that secure housing
facilities are reserved for inmates responsible
for disciplinary infractions ranging from
minor malfeasance to major acts of violence.
Based on this logic, if a gang member has
not violated prison rules then they should
not be confined in a SHU; however, prison
policies systematically segregate and transfer
gang members to more secured settings (see
Toch, 2007). Prison officials contend that gang
members maintain an elevated propensity
for violence and that if all gang members

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

19 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

From the prison to the street

Re-entry
The prison boom over the last two decades has
forced policymakers and researchers alike to
turn their attention to prisoner re-entry. Lynch
and Sabol (2001, p6) reported that, from 1985
to 1995, the number of prisoners released into
society increased from 260,000 to 566,000.
These figures beg the question: what happens
to people once they are released from prison?
Once paroled or released, the institutional
controls over behaviour are removed, and
material benefits of imprisonment (housing,
food, activity, supervision, medication etc)
disappear. Forty years ago, Irwin (1970, p107)
observed that the ‘impact of release is dramatic
… The problems of the first weeks are usually

staggering and sometimes insurmountable

… and for many impossible’. The burden is
lessened for only a select few, but especially
among those with strong familial support
systems (Martinez, 2007). These challenges
remain today.

Given the prevalence of gang membership
in prison, it is logical to conclude that many
of those released from prisoners are gang
members. Should they return to their place
of last residence or to areas where they grew
up, it is likely that they will associate or
reconnect with their gang (see eg. Petersilia,
2003; Pyrooz et al, in press). While these
street gang members were in prison, their
gang allegiances may have changed and
the hierarchies, processes and behaviour of
their street gang will certainly have changed.
They return to a very different gang scene
than before they went to prison. A body of
risk factor research indicates that street and
prison gang members possess an array of
risk factors, ranging from poor education
to poor mental health to poor job skills to
poor social support in the community. In the
modern economy, where will former inmates,
with inadequate skills, personal problems,
grade school reading levels, and a history
of felony convictions and imprisonment, fit
in the marketplace? While opportunities for
legitimate employment appear slim (see eg.
Pager, 2003; Huebner, 2005), opportunities
for illegitimate money-generating activities
appear ubiquitous. For these reasons, it is not
surprising that former prisoners end up back
in prison, especially gang members.

inmates had been enrolled and 17 had been
returned to segregation for gang activities (Toller
& Tsagaris, 1996), although no details of the
programme’s evaluation were available.

Out-of-state transfers are a control strategy
that sends key prison gang members out of
state, in the hope of stopping or slowing a
prison gang’s activities. If a gang exists, officials
hope a transfer will disrupt its leadership and
activity and cause its elimination; however,
there has not been an evaluation of this
strategy to control gang activity. The United
States Department of Justice (1992) reported
that transfers may export gang activity to other
prisons. Correctional agencies have tried to
weaken prison gangs by assigning members
of different prison gangs to the same work
assignment and living quarters, in anticipation
of limiting the number – and thus the power
of one prison gang over another – at a specific
place. Illinois tried this approach to no avail,
because the inmate prison gang population
was too large to control effectively within a
few locations (United States Department of
Justice, 1992). Camp and Camp (1985) surveyed
facilities and asked officials which strategies
they were most likely to employ against prison
gangs. Transfer was cited by 27 of the 33
agencies; the use of informers was cited 21
times; prison gang member segregation was
cited 20 times; prison gang leader segregation
was cited 20 times; facility lockdown down
was cited 18 times; and vigorous prosecution
and interception of prison gang members’
communications was cited 16 times.

Knox (2000) shows that training for
correctional officers has improved, and that
over two-thirds of the 133 facilities surveyed
provided some gang training in 1999. Despite
this, only 20% of prison administrators surveyed
by Knox (2005) indicated that they had
programming for gang members who wanted
to leave the gang. Correctional administrators
(Knox, 2005) identified six potential solutions to
make their institutions safer:

1. increased sanctions against gang members

2. special housing for gang members

3. new restrictions on benefits for prison
misconduct

4. new services for prison gang members

5. new policies to deal with prison gang
members

6. increased staffing and resources.

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

20 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

were not only more likely to recidivate, but also
recidivate more quickly, than drug-dependents.
Huebner et al (2007, p208) concluded that gang
membership proves to be a ‘difficult barrier
to overcome and [has] important effects on the
timing of post release convictions’. The obstacles
faced by those who are released from prison
are substantial; such obstacles are significantly
greater for gang members.

In an experimental study, Di Placido et
al (2006) examined the effectiveness of high
intensity cognitive behavioural programmes on
gang member recidivism. Using data on 1,824
male adult offenders drawn from the Regional
Psychiatric Centre, a mental health hospital in
Canada, the researchers matched treated and
untreated gang and non-gang members on
age, race, criminal history and conviction type
(ie. a 2X2 design; N=160). Treated subjects
experienced programming that targeted
criminogenic attitudes and beliefs, aggression
and substance use, as well as educational and
life skills when appropriate. The follow-up
period for the subjects was two years. Twenty-
five per cent of the treated gang members
recidivated, compared to 40% of the untreated
gang members and 35% of the non-gang treated
and untreated subjects. Further, among those
recidivating, the untreated gang members
received the longest sentences (33 months),
whereas treated gang members (12 months),
treated non-gang members (seven months)
and untreated non-gang members (11 months)
received around one-third of the sentence. At
a cost of $100,000 for an eight-month stay,
the authors maintained that treatment would
outweigh the social and economic costs of
doing nothing.

Conclusion

This review has documented the substantial
magnitude of the problem posed by
incarcerated gang members. Gang members
enter prison with very high levels of crime in
their background. They are more prone to be
involved in violence, have weak community
ties, have low integration into conventional
society and possess deficits that impede their
progress in the employment market. Once in
prison, opportunities for involvement in crime
abound. Whether by affiliating with members of
their own gang, neighborhood or new prison

Recidivism
State and federal prisons have the responsibility
to ‘correct’ the behavioural problems prisoners
import into prison. Because prisons stand
outside the mainstream of American cultural and
behavioural patterns, it is important that they
do not further isolate already marginal men and
women. It is also argued that communities have
little concern for prisoners’ families and the
well-being of prisoners once they are released
to the community. Some (DuPont-Morales and
Harris 1994) call such disregard ‘lackadaisical’
and a ‘damaging mistake’ (see also Tonry,
2004). Logan and Gaes (1993) contend that
prison’s primary role focuses on the fair
governance of prison institutions but does not
extend to the rehabilitation and reintegration
of former prisoners into the community. Others
contend that prison system performance can
be best measured by the lawful behaviour
of released prisoners (eg. Harding, 2001).
Correctional funding data precisely define
the prisons’ legislatively prescribed role: state
governments pay for security officers but not
for teachers, psychologists, treatment specialists,
mental health care or even basic constitutional
requirements for medical care systems (see, for
example, Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al,
2006). Prison staff cannot control, influence or
moderate the behaviour of released prisoners
any more than physicians can control the calorie
intake of obese patients outside of hospitals
and treatment centres. Despite this, recidivism
among former inmates remains a large issue.

Two studies have examined the effect of
gang membership on recidivism. Olson and
Dooley (2006) used data gathered from 3,364
probationers discharged from supervision and
2,534 prison releases/parolees in Illinois. Six
per cent of the probation sample and 24% of
the prison sample were reportedly gang active.
They found that within two years, 64% of gang
probationers (compared to 30% of non-gang
probationers) and 75% of gang prison releases/
parolees (compared to 65% of non-gang
releases/parolees) were rearrested for a new
crime. Huebner et al (2007) examined a sample
of 322 young male subjects released from prison
in a Midwestern state, using more sophisticated
analyses. Gang members comprised 37% of the
sample. Contrary to Olson and Dooley’s (2006)
findings, gang members were twice as likely
to be convicted; however, a five-year window
was allotted for reconviction. Gang members

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

21 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

on the street before entering prison. Fourth,
when leaving prison, gang members find a
changed landscape in their communities and
the gangs that they once belonged to. Finally,
as a consequence of this, gang members have
among the highest risks for return to prison.
While considerable effort is expended on
prevention of gang membership, promoting
gang desistance on the part of gang members
leaving prison needs careful scrutiny.

The existing knowledge base does offer the
basis to reflect on several theoretical issues of
importance to understanding the relationship
between prison gangs and the street. First, the
contrast between importation versus adaptation
remains salient. Clearly, the individuals who end
up in prison bring a large amount of ‘baggage’
with them. This baggage includes educational
and employment deficits, a history of substance
abuse, negative family relationships, and
friendships with peers who violate the law on
a regular basis, among other things. For a new
inmate, the presence of prior gang membership
also means that they have a ready source of
enemies and allies as they navigate their way
through prison life. The deficits imported
to prison by gang members are likely to be
greater than those of non-gang members,
largely because of the increased involvement
in crime – especially violent crime – that gang
membership brings with it. Prison socialisation
can be contrasted to importation. Clearly prisons
have their own cultures and subcultures, and
these can be powerful forces in shaping the
behaviour of inmates, choking off legitimate
opportunities for change, and opening doors to
misconduct within prison (Griffin & Hepburn,
2006). The street alliances and history that gang
members bring with them to prison makes their
socialisation into prison more difficult as they
bring a set of ready-made enemies through the
door of the prison. Yet, in prison, their street
gang alliance may neither protect them from
rivals nor provide easy alliances. But clearly,
street gang members are more likely to be
socialised into prison gang culture, owing to
their familiarity with ‘the life’ and commitment
generally to the norms of oppositional culture.
We believe that the life course conceptual
framework offered by Thornberry et al (2003)
can be integrated into an understanding of
prison gangs (see DeLisi et al, in press).
Importation clearly is related to the importation
model of prison culture described by Clemmer

gangs, gang members engage in higher levels
of institutional misconduct. This misconduct can
take a variety of forms, including but not limited
to violence, extortion and the sale of drugs
and other contraband. The presence of white
hate groups in prison exacerbates institutional
tensions and conflicts in prison, multiplying the
opportunities for misconduct and the longer
prison sentences and isolation that accompany
such behaviour. Such patterns of conduct further
insulate gang members from opportunities to
learn skills and to have experiences that will
help them transition to legitimate society. As
a consequence of prison misconduct, there
are few programming opportunities directed
specifically at gang members. They are more
often the target of segregation, jacketing or
isolation, activities that may (or may not,
as our review documents) make it easier to
manage prisons, but are not likely to improve
the chances of gang members successfully
transitioning from the prison to the street. When
gang members are released back into their
communities, they find a different environment
in many ways. The labour market is certainly
dynamic and demands new skills, skills many
gang members lack entering prison and fail
to accumulate while in prison. The criminal
landscape, along with the power relationships
among and within gangs, also changes. A gang
‘leader’ who is incarcerated for several years
may return to their community only to find that
their gang has been absorbed into a new gang
with new leaders and new activities. Worse
yet, gang members returning from prison may
not be known by a new ‘generation’ of gang
members, as ‘generations’ of gang members turn
over with great frequency.

We know far more about how gang
members get from ‘the street to the prison’ and
far less about how they get from ‘the prison
to the street’. The evidence that does exist is
only suggestive, but several conclusions can be
drawn. First, gang members are ‘hard cases’;
that is, they are likely to become the targets
of institutional control through misconduct,
disciplinary hearings, segregation and
‘jacketing’. Second, and as a consequence of
such behaviour, they are isolated from routine
programming, educational and employment
opportunities available to the general prison
population. Third, while in prison gang
members are likely to form new alliances with
prison gangs that differ than the ones they had

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

22 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

Curry GD & Decker SH (2003) Confronting Gangs: Crime
and community (2nd edition). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Decker SH, van Gemert F & Pyrooz DC (2009) Gangs,
migration, and crime: the changing landscape in Europe
and the USA. Journal of International Migration and
Integration 10 393–408. doi:10.1007/s12134-009-0109-9

Decker SH & Pyrooz DC (2010) Gang violence
worldwide: context, culture and country. In: Small Arms
Survey (Geneva) Small Arms Survey 2010: Gangs, group,
and guns pp128–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Decker SH & Van Winkle B (1996) Life in the Gang:
Family, friends, and violence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

DeLisi M, Berg MT & Hochstetler A (2004) Gang
members, career criminals and prison violence: further
specification of the importation model of inmate
behavior. Criminal Justice Studies 17 369–383.

DeLisi M, Trulson CR, Marquart JW, Drury AJ &
Kosloski AE (in press) Inside the prison black
box: toward a life course importation model of
inmate behavior. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology. doi:
10.1177/0306624X10383956

Di Placido C, Simon TL, Witte TD, Gu D & Wong
SC (2006) Treatment of gang members can reduce
recidivism and institutional misconduct. Law and Human
Behavior 30 93–114. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9003-6;
PMid:16729210

DuPont-Morales MA & Harris JE (1994) Strengthening
accountability: incorporating strategic planning and
performance measurement into budgeting. Public
Productivity and Management Review 17 231–239.
doi:10.2307/3380655

Fishman JF (1934) Sex in Prison: Revealing sex conditions
in American prisons. New York: National Liberty Press.

Fleisher MS (2006) Gang management in corrections.
In: P Carlson and JS Garrett (Eds) Prison and Jail
Administration: Practice and theory (2nd edition)
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishing.

Fleisher MS & Decker SH (2001) An overview of the
challenge of prison gangs. Corrections Management
Quarterly 5 1–9.

Fong RS (1990) The organizational structure of prison
gangs: a Texas case study. Federal Probation 59 36–43.

Gaes GG, Wallace S, Gilman E, Klein-Saffron J & Suppa
S (2002) The influence of prison gang affiliation on
violence and other prison misconduct. The Prison Journal
82 359–385. doi:10.1177/003288550208200304

Garland D (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and
social order in contemporary society. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Gaston A (1996) Controlling gangs through teamwork
and technology. Large Jail Network Bulletin (Annual
Issue) 7–10.

Geltner G (2008) The Medieval Prison: A social history.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

(1958). Selection and facilitation are related
to the powerful prison socialisation process
– adaptation – as inmates attempt to ‘fit in’ to
their new institutional setting. While there have
been no tests of these concepts in the prison
setting, they offer robust opportunities for future
examinations of the prison process for street
gang members.

Implications for practice

• Gang members are disproportionately involved in

crime on the street and in prison.

• There is a small body of research on prison gangs in

Europe and the US to guide practice.

• Prison gang members import values, behaviour and

affiliation from the street into prison.

• Prison socialisation alters existing gang affiliations

and behaviour.

• Re-entry prospects for gang members appear worse

than those of the general inmate population.

Address for correspondence
Scott Decker
Foundation Professor
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Arizona State University
411 Central Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85004
USA
Email: Scott.Decker@asu.edu

References
Baugh DG (1993) Gangs in Correctional Facilities: A
national assessment. Laurel, MD: American Correctional
Association.

Bennett T & Holloway K (2004) Gang membership,
drugs, and crime in the UK. British Journal of
Criminology 44 305–323. doi:10.1093/bjc/azh025

Camp GM & Camp CG (1985) Prison Gangs: Their
extent, nature, and impact on prisons. Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office.

Carlson P & Garrett JS (2006) Prison and Jail
Administration: Practice and theory (2nd edition).
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishing.

Clemmer D (1958) The Prison Community. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cloward RA & LE Ohlin (1960) Delinquency and
Opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York:
Free Press.

Cohen S (1955) Delinquent Boys: The culture of the gang.
New York: Free Press.

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

23 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

Lyman MD (1989) Gangland. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.

Lynch JP & Sabol WJ (2001) Prisoner Reentry in
Perspective (Crime Policy Report). Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.

MacDonald JM (1999) Violence and drug use in juvenile
institutions. Journal of Criminal Justice 27 33–44.
doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00033-6

Madrid v. Gomez 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

Martinez DJ (2007) Informal helping mechanisms:
conceptual issues in family support of reentry of former
prisoners. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 44 23–37.
doi:10.1300/J076v44n01_02

Miller WB (1958) Lower class culture as a generating
milieu of gang behavior. Journal of Social Issues 14 (1)
5–19.

Morris N & Rothman DJ (1995) The Oxford History of the
Prison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

National Gang Intelligence Center (2009) National Gang
Threat Assessment 2009 (M0335-001). Washington, DC:
National Gang Intelligence Center. Available at: www.
justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/32146p (accessed
December 2010).

Olson D & Dooley BD (2006) Gang membership and
community corrections populations: characteristics and
recidivism rates relative to other offenders. In: JF Short
and LA Hughes (Eds) Studying Youth Gangs. Lanham,
MD: AltaMira.

Orlando-Morningstar D (1997) Prison gangs. Special
Needs Offender Bulletin 2 1–13.

Pager D (2003) The mark of a criminal record. American
Journal of Sociology 108 937–975. doi:10.1086/374403

Peterson J (2003) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole
and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.

Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al (2006) Receiver’s First
Bi-Monthly Report. No. CO1-1351-T.E.H.

Pyrooz DC, Decker SH & Webb VJ (In press) The
ties that bind: desistance from gangs. Crime and
Delinquency.

Ralph PH & Marquart JW (1991) Gang violence in Texas
prisons. The Prison Journal 71 38–49.

Ruddell R, Decker SH & Egley Jr A (2006) Gang
interventions in jails: a national analysis. Criminal Justice
Review 31 1–14. doi:10.1177/0734016806288263

Schwartz B (1971) Pre-institutional vs. situational influence
in a correctional community. The Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science 62 (4) 532–542.

Stastny C & Tyrnauer G (1983) Who Rules the Joint? The
changing political culture of maximum security prisons
in America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Tachiki SN (1995) Indeterminate sentences in supermax
prisons based upon alleged gang affiliations: a
reexamination of procedural protection and a proposal
for greater procedural requirements. California Law
Review 83 1115–1149. doi:10.2307/3480899

Gottfredson M & Hirschi T (1990) A General Theory of
Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Griffin ML & Hepburn JR (2006) The effect of gang
affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during
the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice Review
33 419–448.

Harding R (2001) Private prisons. Crime and Justice: A
review of research 28 265–346.

Huebner BM (2003) Administrative determinants of
inmate violence: a multilevel analysis. Journal of
Criminal Justice 31 (2) 107–117.

Huebner BM (2005) The effect of incarceration on
marriage and work over the life course. Justice Quarterly
22 281–303. doi:10.1080/07418820500089141

Huebner BM, Varano S & Bynum TS (2007) Gangs,
guns and drugs: recidivism among serious, young
offenders. Criminology and Public Policy 6 (2) 183–222.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00429.x

Hunt G, Riegel S, Morales T & Waldorf D (1993) Changes
in prison culture: prison gangs and the case of the ‘Pepsi
generation’. Social Problems 40 398–409.

Irwin J (1970) The Felon. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

Irwin J & Cressey DR (1962) Thieves, convicts, and the
inmate culture. Social Problems 10 (2) 142–155.

Jacobs JB (1974) Street gangs behind bars. Social
Problems 21 395–409. doi:10.1525/sp.1974.21.3.03a00080

Jacobs JB (1977) Stateville: The penitentiary in mass
society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Klein ML, Kerner HJ, Maxson CL & Weitekamp EGN
(2001) The Eurogang Paradox. Dordrecht: Springer.

Klein ML & Maxson CL (2006) Street Gang Programs and
Policies. New York: Oxford.

Knox GW (2000) A national assessment of gangs and
security threat groups (STGs) in adult correctional
institutions: results of the 1999 Adult Corrections Survey.
Journal of Gang Research 7 1–45.

Knox GW (2005) The Problem of Gangs and Security
Threat Groups (STGs) in American Prisons Today: Recent

research findings from the 2004 Prison Gang Survey.
Peotone, IL: National Gang Crime Research Center.
Available at: www.ngcrc.com/corr2006.html (accessed
December 2010).

Krienert JL & Fleisher MS (2001) Gang membership
as a proxy for social deficiencies: a study of Nebraska
inmates. Corrections Management Quarterly 3 (1) 47–58.

Krohn MD & Thornberry TP (2008) Longitudinal
perspectives on adolescent street gangs. In: AM Liberman
(Ed) The Long View of Crime: A synthesis of longitudinal
research. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-
71165-2_4

Logan C & Gaes G (1993) Meta-analysis and the
rehabilitation of punishment. Justice Quarterly 10 (2)
245–263. doi:10.1080/07418829300091811

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

24 Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research • Volume 3 Issue 1 • January 2011 © Pier Professional Ltd

Understanding and responding to prison gangs

United States Department of Justice (2003) Census of
State and Federal Correctional Facilities, NCJ 198272.
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, p95.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
Available at: www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1103
(accessed December 2010).

Useem B & Piehl A (2008) Prison State: The challenge
of mass incarceration. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

West HC (2010) Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009 –
Statistical tables. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Available at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.
cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200 (accessed December 2010).

Wood J (2006) Gang activity in English prisons: the
prisoners’ perspective. Psychology, Crime and Law 12
605–617. doi:10.1080/10683160500337667

Wood J & Adler J (2001) Gang activity in English prisons:
the staff perspective. Psychology, Crime and Law 7 167–
192. doi:10.1080/10683160108401793

Wood J, Moir A & James M (2009) Prisoners’ gang-
related activity: the importance of bullying and moral
disengagement. Psychology, Crime and Law 15 569–581.
doi:10.1080/10683160802427786

Wood J, Williams G & James M (2010) Incapacitation
and imprisonment: prisoners’ involvement in community-
based crime. Psychology Crime and Law 16 601–614.

Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ & Chard-Wierschem
D (1993) The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating
delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 30 55–87.

Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA & Tobin
K (2003) Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental
Perspective. New York: Cambridge.

Thrasher FM (1927) The Gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in
Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Toch H (2007) Sequestering gang members, burning
witches, and subverting due process. Criminal Justice
and Behavior 34 274–288. doi:10.1177/0093854806296663

Toller W & Tsagaris B (1996) Managing institutional
gangs: a practical approach combining security and
human services. Corrections Today 58 100–111.

Tonry MH (2004) Thinking about Crime: Sense and
sensibility in American penal culture. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Toussaint v. McCarthy 597 F. Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984).

Travis J (2005) But They All Come Home: Facing the
challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington DC: Urban
Institute Press.

Trulson CR, Marquart JW & Kawucha SK (2006) Gang
suppression and institutional control. Corrections Today
Magazine 68 (2) 26–31.

United States Department of Justice (1992) Management
Strategies in Disturbances and with Gangs/Disruptive

Groups. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Safer Communities

Subscription and pricing options are available from our website:

www.pierprofessional.com/scflyer or call Pier Professional on +44 (0)1273 783720

Aims and scope

Safer Communities reflects the broad range of topics that now constitute community safety.

Peer-reviewed, this practice-based Journal offers vital access to information on how to tackle

and reduce crime, and acts as a forum for the dissemination of best practice, opinion, latest

research and policy updates. The contents also feature service evaluations, international

developments,training, events and book reviews.

In each issue, Nacro contribute their Safer Society supplement,

which includes the latest updates and developments in policy and practice in community safety

and crime reduction.

Readership

Safer Communities is vital for everyone working in community

safety, youth justice and community justice. It is a hugely valuable

source of information and intelligence for academics, universities

and colleges, commissioners, practitioners, policy-makers, managers,

community safety officers, social workers, the police, probation officers,

neighbourhood watch programmes, magistrates, community groups,

health boards, local authorities, local government and students.

“ “Safer Communities reflects the broad range of topics
that now constitute
community safety.

ALL
SUBSCRIPTIONS INCLUDE FREE ONLINE ACCESS TO ALL ISSUES OF THE JOURNAL

A journal of practice, opinion, policy and research

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Australia’s national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice

Trends
& issues
in crime and criminal justice

Foreword | A multifaceted strategy is

required to effectively combat organised

crime. A key element of preventing and

responding to organised criminal

activity is to target how individuals

become involved in illicit activities and

to develop effective methods of

preventing their recruitment.

Using prior research into the methods

used by organised crime groups to

identify potential targets or confederates,

and individuals’ motivations to seek or

agree to participate in criminal activity, a

framework is presented that identified key

recruitment pathways together with some

strategies that would make recruitment

and engagement less effective.

Adam Tomison Director

Responding to organised crime
through intervention in recruitment
pathways
Russell G Smith

The essential components of an organised crime group are defined in article 2 of the United

Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime as a structured group of three

or more persons, existing for a period of time, acting in concert with the aim of committing

serious criminal offences in order to obtain some financial or material benefit (United Nations

2004). As such, organised crime requires three or more persons to come together for

the execution of their common purpose. This paper examines the processes involved in

recruitment and the opportunities and incentives that

make participation in organised crime

attractive for suitably motivated individuals. Armed with a sophisticated understanding of

how recruitment takes place, it is possible to develop appropriate intervention strategies

that would seek to disrupt recruitment pathways and to make it difficult for organised crime

groups to secure the services of potential collaborators.

Considerable research has been undertaken into the daily activities of organised crime

groups, including how they fund their operations, maintain control over communities and

launder the proceeds of their criminal enterprises. Organised crime groups in Australia

include outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMCGs; Holmes 2007; Lozusic 2002), ethnic-based

crime groups, family-based crime groups and groups formed on the basis of place of

origin such as prisons (CCC WA 2005). The Australian Crime Commission has noted that:

although most organised crime activities in Australia are focused on illicit drug markets,

organised crime is increasingly diversifying its activities, with convergences being observed

between legitimate or licit markets and illicit markets (ACC 2013: 7).

Organised crime exists on a continuum of seriousness and complexity of activity as shown

in Figure 1. At the lower end of seriousness are instances of small-scale street crime

committed by small groups of individuals, often young people or family members who

become involved in low-level property or violent crime. Small groups of individuals

can also commit economic crimes such as small business-related revenue fraud. Other

No. 473 October 2014

2 | Australian Institute of Criminology

criminal networks are involved in organised

cybercrime and online consumer scams

that are coordinated entirely online (Choo &

Smith 2008). Organised criminal activities

are also linked to environmental crime,

intellectual property infringement, maritime

piracy and financial crime, which require

the presence of multiple players in order for

offences to be planned and perpetrated.

Arguably, at the most serious level are

large-scale, organised criminal activities

related to child exploitation, human

trafficking, corporate fraud and illicit

drug production and supply. Large-scale

terrorist activity can also entail extensive

organisation and planning.

The extent of co-offending

At the outset, it is important to understand

the extent to which serious crime is carried

out collaboratively, as the pathways of

recruitment will differ depending on the

number of individuals involved and the

complexity of their relationships. Recruiting

two individuals to carry out a major fraud

within a bank is substantively different from

the recruitment of 50 skilled participants

to conduct a major drug production and

distribution network.

Research carried out by the Australian Institute

of Criminology and PricewaterhouseCoopers

(Smith 2003) found that out of 155 case files

involving serious fraud in Australia and New

Zealand, 84 percent had only one accused

person involved, and in only 11 case files (7%)

were more than two persons involved (Smith

2003). This finding contradicts the view that

a high proportion of serious economic crime

is perpetrated by criminal organisations. The

study in question, however, examined only

successfully detected serious fraud and it

could be the case that organised crime is

involved in other matters that do not come to

the attention of the authorities.

More recently, KPMG (2013) reported an

increase in the proportion of serious fraud

cases involving more than two offenders

acting together between its 2010 and

2012 fraud surveys. In 2010, 23 percent

of internal fraud involved collusion (KPMG

2010), while in 2012 this increased to 29

percent (KPMG 2013). The percentage of

cases of internal fraud involving four or more

persons increased from two percent in 2010

to six percent in 2012 (KPMG 2013, 2010).

The vast majority of serious fraud reported

in the surveys was, however, perpetrated

by individuals acting alone.

Figure 1 Ranked seriousness of organised criminal activities

High

Medium

Low

• Terrorist activity

• Serious financial crime

• Small-scale business fraud and tax evasion
• Family-based local crime

• Small-scale street crime

Seriousness

• Organised cybercrime and scams
• Organised environmental crime

• Organised maritime piracy

• Child exploitation
• Human trafficking

• Corporate fraud
• Drug cartels

Australian Institute of Criminology | 3

Theoretical approaches

Criminological theory provides a number

of insights into the processes through

which crime is commissioned. Edwin

Sutherland’s (1939) theory of differential

association, for example, that was

developed in the late 1930s in the United

States to explain juvenile gang behaviour,

proposed that criminal behaviour is learned

through a process of social interaction

between individuals in which they learn

how to commit crimes and to justify their

illegal conduct (Sutherland 1939). He

argued that if the conditions favourable

to acting illegally outweigh the frequency

and intensity of conditions unfavourable

to violating the law, then an individual is

more likely to decide to break the law

(Sutherland & Cressey 1974). Sutherland

(1937) developed the theory drawing on

his classic study, The Professional Thief,

in which he analysed and described

ethnographically the life and daily routines

of professional thieves in the United States.

More recently, Derek Cornish (1994)

developed the notion of ‘crime scripts’

to understand the processes by which

criminals conduct their activities. Research

of this kind has been applied in relation to

the resale of stolen vehicles (Tremblay, Talon

& Hurley 2001), cheque forgery (Lacoste

& Tremblay 2003) and organised crime

(Hancock & Laycock 2010).

Crime scripts, according to Cornish (1994:

161) are a sequence of ‘script functions’ and

accompanying ‘script actions’ that organise

our knowledge and understanding of routine

behavioural processes. In the present

context, these relate to the identification and

engagement of co-offenders who can be

encouraged to join in the illegal activity.

The recruitment of a third party to commit

a crime can be broken down into a number

of routine processes. These include

preconditions, initiation, actualisation,

doing and post-conditions, and these

script functions have corresponding script

actions (Cornish 1994). By developing

an understanding of how organised

crime groups may seek to recruit new

members, a script analysis can then be

used to identify the script functions and

corresponding actions.

This paper explores the processes by which

recruitment for organised crime takes place

from the perspectives of:

• existing members of organised crime

groups seeking out new members to

facilitate proposed criminal activities

(recruiter pathways); and

• environmental opportunities, which

make participation in organised crime

attractive for previously law abiding

citizens (recruitee pathways).

Research evidence and anecdotal

illustrations of identified pathways are

drawn from a number of ethnographic

studies of organised crime published in

the academic literature. These include

Dick Hobbs’s Lush Life (2013), which

explored organised crime in ‘Dogtown’,

a composite of various East London

communities that he examined and Jan

Goldstraw-White’s (2012) work for which

she interviewed 41 incarcerated white-

collar offenders in the United Kingdom.

Organised financial crime has also been

studied extensively by Mike Levi (2008) in

his interview-based research into long-

firm fraud (planned bankruptcies); while

in 2007 the consultancy firm, Matrix

Knowledge Group (2007), carried out a

study of 222 convicted drug traffickers

for the Home Office in the report The Illicit

Drug Trade in the United Kingdom.

Research has also been conducted at the

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime

and Law Enforcement at the Research and

Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry

of Security and Justice in particular, research

supporting the Organized Crime Monitor that

examined 1,092 organised crime offenders

including in-depth interviews with inmates

convicted of participation in organised

crime and incarcerated in Dutch prisons

(Kleemans & De Poot 2008; Van Koppen

2012; Van Koppen & De Poot 2013).

In the United States, Adler and Adler

(1983) spent six years observing and

interviewing 65 upper-level marijuana and

cocaine traffickers and their associates in

south-western California, and examining

their typical career paths. They noted how

‘potential recruits are lured into the drug

business by materialism, hedonism, glamor,

and excitement’ (Adler & Adler 1983: 206).

Diego Gambetta’s Codes of the Underworld

(2009) also provides an extensive analysis

of how organised criminals communicate

with each other, and use signals and

intimidation to support their activities, while

Carlo Morselli’s Contacts, Opportunities

and Criminal Enterprise (2005) provides

a social network analysis of a number of

case studies of criminal organisations taken

from Canadian police operations (see also

Morselli 2009).

In Australia, Arthur Veno, in his book The
Brotherhoods (2012) presents the results

of his ethnographic study of bikie gangs in

Australia over 27 years; while in the United

States, Robert Mazur in The Infiltrator (2009)

gives an account of his five years’ undercover

work for the FBI infiltrating the criminal

hierarchy of Colombia’s drug cartels.

These are clearly only a small selection of

the published literature on organised crime,

but they provide firsthand, ethnographic

accounts of recruitment practices in various

organised crime contexts, which are relevant

illustrations of the processes identified in

this paper. Generally, there has been little

specific research on recruitment processes,

apart from one doctoral dissertation that

presented an economic model of how

government policies can affect membership

patterns among organised crime groups

(Long 2013).

Some caution, however, needs to be

exercised when trying to fit the results

of prior ethnographic research into a set

of predetermined categories. In many

respects, organised criminal activity is far

from organised and as Dick Hobbs (2013: 5)

rightly observes:

criminal collaborations generate chaotic

sets of personal and commercial

affiliations featuring fluid and often

unpredictable interchanges that are

ill suited to the sociometric analysis

favoured by police and police science.

4 | Australian Institute of Criminology

Recruitment pathways

With this admonition in mind, certain

pathways in which organised crime

recruitment occurs can begin to be

identified. Pathways can be examined

from the points of view of those who

are seeking to recruit new members to

become involved in criminal enterprises

(recruiter pathways) and those who may

be the targets of recruitment initiatives

(recruitee pathways). Often, recruitees

are individuals without prior criminal

connections who are seeking to raise

funds in order to maintain their lifestyle or

to consort with established crime figures

for various reasons, as explained below.

The pathways to recruitment also vary

according to the organisational structure

displayed by the group in question—be it

hierarchically based, network-based, or

via more diffuse, loose arrangements (see

UNODC 2002). Having centralised control

can often make recruitment activities more

targeted and efficient, while unstructured

groups, such as those that exist online,

often recruit in an ad hoc manner.

Recruiter pathways

Established members of organised crime

groups seek out new members for a variety

of reasons including the skillsets they offer,

which might facilitate criminal activities such

as the manufacture of illicit drugs or the

counterfeiting of payment cards; their ability

to use violence and intimidation, which

crime bosses might not wish to undertake

themselves; skills they possess in facilitating

the laundering of the proceeds of crime;

and their willingness to engage in high-risk

activities involving weapons or explosives

or other activities likely to lead to arrest.

In addition, organised crime groups can

seek to establish relationships with those

in influential government positions who can

assist in facilitating the flow of information

or decisions relevant to proposed criminal

activities. The case of ‘Ron’, a drug courier

manager, is an example of how organised

crime can seek to recruit otherwise law-

abiding individuals (see Box 1).

Box 1 Recruitment of drug couriers

Ron was in his mid-50s and had been retired from
his job in law enforcement for a decade when he
first became involved in the drug trade. Ron
managed an operation based on couriers importing
cocaine into the United Kingdom from Granada and
his role was to recruit and manage the couriers. He
frequented a local casino where he spotted potential
couriers from among the casino’s clientele, tending
to target white, middle-aged men, low on money
and ‘who needed a holiday’. Ron made all the travel
arrangements, purchased the airline tickets,
provided the suitcase and handed over the spending
money…The couriers would have their holiday and
return with an identical suitcase containing cocaine.
On the successful arrival of a consignment into the
United Kingdom, Ron would collect the case from
the courier at the airport and hand the drugs over to
his bosses, who would be waiting in a nearby
carpark. The boss would pay Ron £12,000 in cash,
which was £7,000 for the courier (who had also had
a 2 week holiday) and £5,000 for Ron. Matrix
Knowledge Group in Hobbs (2013: 242).

Recruitee pathways

Pathways can also be understood from the

perspective of those who are the subject of

recruitment. Otherwise law-abiding citizens

may seek to become involved in criminal

enterprises for a variety of reasons. They

might need funds to satisfy debts or lifestyle

expenditure, they may have a desire to

enhance their financial or social standing

or they might demonstrate an interest in

risk-taking activities, or possess motivations

based in pathological psychological

processes (Hobbs 2013; Kleemans & De

Poot 2008; KPMG 2013). Rather than

commence criminal activities in isolation,

they might seek out known criminals who

could be seen to assist in their proposed

course of action. The case of ‘Billy’, a used

car dealer, is illustrative of such a person

(see Box 2).

Crime scripts of recruitment

Hancock and Laycock (2010) have applied

Cornish’s (1994) approach to analysing

criminal behaviour through the use of crime

scripts to the disruption of organised crime

and identified recruitment as one area

where disruption might have potential. The

present discussion identifies three main

stages in the recruitment process as—

target identification, establishing trust and

engaging in compliance, and enforcement

script actions.

Target identification

One of the initial tasks that both recruiters

and the targets of their recruitment have to

undertake is the identification of willing and

cooperative collaborators. This activity is

fraught with risk as identifying participants

for criminal activity can, itself, be criminal

and can also lead to threats of, or actual

violence, being inflicted.

Identification by recruiters

Potential criminals are able to be sourced

from many occupational and other groups

in society, largely based on their interests

and the skills they possess. This can include

those with experience in telemarketing who

can participate in boiler-room investment

fraud (ACC 2012), ex-military personnel who

have experience in the use of weapons and

explosives, and members of the public willing

to act as drug or money mules. On other

occasions, organised crime groups may

seek out those working in the professions

such as lawyers and accountants who can

assist in laundering the proceeds of crime or

in establishing corporate entities and other

vehicles for use in tax evasion (see Choo et

al. 2012).

Box 2 Recruitment of a used car dealer

Billy was a successful car dealer and nightclub
owner, and had also made money from an
expanding property portfolio before he was
introduced to a group of drug importers who were
contemplating how to invest their profits. Attracted
by the prospect of easy money, Billy fed these profits
through his car dealership and progressed to
become a ‘middle man’, seeking out buyers for the
drug importers. Eventually, he ran the enterprise,
becoming embroiled with the day-to-day workings of
a large operation consisting of storers, mixers,
testers and legitimate professionals, many of whom
were paid a salary. Billy also courted the friendship
of police officers who, in exchange for free drinks,
would provide him with information and carry out
background checks on business associates and
employees. Matrix Knowledge Group in Hobbs
(2013: 241).

Those working in the information technology

and security industries also have attractive

skills that organised crime can use. The

other productive location for recruitment is

the public sector, particularly those working

in law enforcement, border control, intelligence

and corrections. Rowe et al. (2013) provide

examples of recent instances in which public

servants in Australia have been recruited by

Australian Institute of Criminology | 5

organised crime to provide access to law

enforcement intelligence through a range of

corrupt practices.

Prisons, in particular, provide many

opportunities for inmates to establish

ties with other offenders, sometimes

individuals with low-level convictions who

can be recruited into more serious criminal

enterprises both while incarcerated, as

well as after their release (see Box 3).

Prison recruitment also carries the benefit

that everyone involved can be assured

that those whom they approach have

criminal records sufficient to warrant a

term of imprisonment.

Identification by recruitees

Arguably, a more difficult task exists for

those in the law-abiding community who

wish to become involved in organised

crime. One cannot simply approach

people who appear to be criminal and

seek membership of an illegal organisation.

Some traditional organised crime

groups are clearly recognisable, such

as the Yakuza with their tattooed bodies

(Adelstein 2010), or OMCGs with their club

colours and patches (Veno 2012). Even

if individuals are recognisably members

of a criminal enterprise, there may still be

many procedures that they are required to

undertake in order to establish trust and to

secure membership.

Diego Gambetta (2009) has explored

in detail the use of non-verbal cues to

facilitate identification of those involved

in criminal enterprises and notes how the

use of language and behavioural cues can

facilitate covert introductions in ways that

do not attract attention from authorities

or others who may be disposed to report

what transpires to the police. Subtle

conventions in the use of language, dialect,

dress and behaviour are used to ensure

that trust and legitimacy in the criminal

enterprise are guaranteed.

Serendipitous identification

Finally, identification of potential criminal

collaborators may take place accidentally

or inadvertently through contact that

occurs in common meeting places such

as pubs, casinos, gyms, brothels and

internet sites. Often, these are places at

which individuals with either law-abiding or

criminal orientations meet, establish social

relationships and begin the process of

criminal collaboration. Similarly, unplanned

recruitment can also arise within extended

families such as has been documented

in the case of Mafia families (Tyler 1971),

while more recently, social media have

provided abundant ways in which people

with common interests can establish

relationships—both for legitimate and

illegal purposes (Choo & Smith 2008).

On occasions, organised crime groups

have simply advertised online for new

recruits such as the following (unedited)

online invitation for people to undertake

credit card skimming operations:

We are private organisation for your

special developing requests. We are

focused at Electronic and Computer

Engineering. If you need special

hardwares (especially hi-tech) nor

software that can not be done or even

discuss in your Country because of

any reason such as laws etc. then

u are at the very right place. We are

offering absolutely anonymous &

offshore developing for your projects.

We don’t care what you want to do

with hardwares and softwares you

requested to be done by us. Needless

to say, your privacy is very important for

us and we don’t share with anyone else

because of any reason. We don’t need

your Name, Adress etc. because of any

reason. We only need your email. You

will have a certificate and account for

secure login to our private forum for

tracking your development, you even

may ask question to engineers who

engineering your project. If you reach

this Web Site then you already know us.

We are not cheap developers and we

cant make partnership with you. If you

wish your dreams to come true then u

have to have enough money to invest

for your dreams. You even have to pay

for request for quote from us for your

project (Glenny 2011: 203–204).

Such online advertising for willing recruits

is also prevalent in connection with online

consumer scams such as work-from-home

scams and online romance and dating

fraud. Although increasing in sophistication,

many such invitations are barely credible

and yet continue to trick unsuspecting

individuals into participation (Jorna &

Hutchings 2013).

Box 3 Recruitment in correctional settings

Karl was a former accountant who was serving a
term of imprisonment for tax fraud in Western
Australia. While in prison, he was approached by
another prisoner who needed his assistance in order
to obtain funds from the Tax Office. The accountant
assisted him, but later found out that the claim was
not legitimate. He was then approached by other
prisoners who asked him to prepare false income
tax returns with false business details and other
fabricated evidence. Over a period of a year he filed
210 fraudulent tax returns on behalf of 125 fellow
prisoners in which fraudulent tax refunds, amounting
to almost $1.3m were claimed. A total of half a
million dollars was refunded by the Tax Office to the
prisoners. Karl administered the scheme using a
computer for online banking and mobile phone and
received $61,000 in commissions and fees over the
12 month period. He argued that he was forced to
carry out the scheme under duress, but was
sentenced to an additional two years with a
non-parole period of 12 months. [2002] WASC 265
(CCA, 20 September 2002).

A further example of serendipitous

recruitment in the Netherlands concerned a

former truck driver who had set up a café to

be able to spend more time with his family

and who was recruited into transporting

heroin for an organised crime group through

contacts he had with a group of customers

at his café. This provides a clear example

of how routine activities can facilitate the

recruitment process (Felson & Clarke 1998).

The café owner was eventually sentenced to

12 years’ imprisonment for heroin trafficking

(Van Koppen & De Poot 2013). He explained

how he became involved as follows:

You start talking and ask each other:

‘What did you do before and where do

you come from?’ That’s the first thing

you do. And when I mentioned I’d been

a truck driver for years, that triggered

something of course. He should know

people, maybe he wants to. But I never

wanted to [. . .] I wasn’t interested at

all. I did not need the money and did

not bite, it did not fascinate me. After

some months, however…After all,

they are your frequent customers and

you talk to them all the time. There

comes a time it goes through your mind

that some others you know have the

ability to and probably want to do it. At

6 | Australian Institute of Criminology

first I thought: I’ll do them both a favour

and I can earn some additional money,

you know. I really did not see the danger in

doing it (Van Koppen & De Poot 2013: 82).

Adler and Adler (1983) also found instances

of serendipitous recruitment in which law-

abiding individuals gradually became involved

in drug trafficking in order to make use of

their skills or to enhance their income (see

Box 4).

Box 4 Recruitment into money laundering

I used to be into real estate making good money. I
was the only person at my firm renting to longhairs
and dealing with their money. I slowly started getting
friendly with them, although I didn’t realize how
heavy they were. I knew ways of buying real estate
and putting it under fictitious names, laundering
money so that it went in as hot cash and came out
as spendable income. I slowly got more and more
involved with this one guy until I was neglecting my
real estate business and just partying with him all
the time. My spending went up but my income went
down and suddenly I had to look around for another
way to make money fast. I took the money I was
laundering for him, bought some bricks from another
dealer friend of his and sold them out of state before
I gave him back the cash. Within six months I was
turning [selling] 100 bricks at a time (Adler & Adler
1983: 198).

Establishing trust

Establishing trust and confidence that the

person with whom one is dealing is not

an undercover police officer, or someone

likely to blow the whistle, is often a lengthy

and invasive operation both for organised

criminals and those whom they are seeking

to recruit. In many cases, this can entail

initiation tasks such as demonstrating

criminal skills, providing samples of actual

criminal conduct (particularly the use of

violence) and showing a willingness to

share confidential information with other

group members.

In the case of online organised crime

groups engaged in sharing child exploitation

material, it is often the case that recruits

need to supply extensive libraries of illegal

exploitation images in order to establish

their bona fides and to gain access to group

libraries of similar material (Choo & Smith

2008; Wolak, Finkelhor & Mitchell 2011).

Establishing trust in the online criminal

world can also require the use of various

anonymising and security technologies.

In particular, it is important to ensure that

one’s true identity is not revealed and so

aliases and false identities are invariably

used when logging on to illicit websites.

Security of data is also required and

organised crime groups now make use

of encryption, steganography, biometrics

and Tor software that reduces the risk

of online activities being monitored by

law enforcement. Some organised crime

groups also require identity verification both

during enrolment and when undergoing

regular checks designed to confirm trust

and security of group members. An

example exists in the case of OMCGs

(Lozusic 2002).

Trust also needs to be maintained during

the early stages of group membership and

tests are often used to demonstrate an

absence of risk, proof of veracity and loyalty

to the organisation. Occasionally this can

entail involvement in successful criminal

operations to demonstrate skills and in the

case of unsuccessful activities, willingness

to be convicted and serve prison time.

Compliance and reinforcement

Further proof of commitment to the cause

may require financial investment in the

organisation and successful recruitment of

new members of the organisation—such as

occurs in connection with online networks

that share child exploitation material.

Failed recruitment

On occasions, recruitment may be

unsuccessful and fail. This can occur

where criminal activity is detected by

law enforcement and new recruits are

suspected of whistleblowing or of being

undercover operatives (Mazur 2009).

In the case of hierarchically organised

networks, sanctions of escalating severity

may be imposed leading to expulsion

from membership, or threats of, or actual,

violence and murder.

Intervening in recruitment
pathways

Having explored the various pathways for

the recruitment of individuals to engage

in organised crime and identified the

crime scripts associated with methods

of recruitment, it is possible to identify

strategies that could be considered to

intervene in such pathways so as to make

recruitment difficult and likely to lead to

detection by law enforcement.

Not all of the available opportunities for

intervention may be possible, having regard

to privacy, human rights and legislative

limitations on taking action. At a minimum,

however, the ways in which recruitment

takes place can be identified and made

obvious and available for official scrutiny.

Table 1 summarises a number of possible

intervention points in recruitment pathways

that could be explored by policymakers

seeking to control organised criminal

activities. Although some may be difficult

to implement, discussion of each could

be examined as possible ways in which to

control recruitment activities. It develops

Hancock and Laycock’s (2010) comparable

presentation of prevention strategies arising

from crime script analysis that are applicable

to organised criminal activities generally. The

principal areas to address in connection with

recruitment relate to the use by organised

crime of anonymity, reliance on professional

advisers, convenient meeting locations

and the availability of motivated recruitees.

There is also a need to publicise the risks

associated with involvement in organised

crime from the perspective of likelihood of

arrest, confiscation of assets and physical

harms that may be inflicted both personally

and on friends and relatives of recruitees

who participate in organised crime.

Addressing anonymity

First, as Hancock and Laycock (2010) rightly

emphasised, there is a need to address the

use of anonymity among organised crime

groups, especially those that operate online.

In particular, removing the ability of organised

crime to access pre-paid information and

communication technologies (ICT) services

and regulating the use of anonymising

software and encryption for illegal purposes

would be beneficial. Further, making effective

use of existing lawful databases of persons

convicted organised crime could assist law

enforcement with identification of recruitment

activities, while enhanced data analysis of

financial and cyber intelligence including

associated tracking of funds transfer

locations might be possible.

Australian Institute of Criminology | 7

Table 1 Potential interventions in recruitment pathways relevant to identified crime scripts

Script action Intervention category Intervention

Act anonymously under law enforcement radar Anonymity Remove anonymity afforded by access to pre-paid ICT services (mobile phones, Internet services,
payment cards)

Regulating the use of anonymising software and encryption for illegal activities

Using intelligence databases of convicted organised criminals

Enhanced analysis of financial intelligence collected by Financial Intelligence Units

Enhanced data-matching and e-authentication procedures

Obtain professional advice on commission of
crime and laundering of proceeds

Use of professionals Enhanced regulation of accountants and financial advisers

Enhanced regulation of ICT professionals and transport sector workers

Full compliance with FATF anti-money laundering recommendations for professional advisers

Tighter controls and identity checks on company formation

Enhanced checks on convicted organised criminals seeking to form companies

Coordination of anti-corruption measures

Improved protection of whistleblowers who report organised crime and improvement of reporting
mechanisms

Identify places to meet Meeting locations Monitoring high-risk meeting locations

Anti-fortification laws directed at fortified organised crime club premises

Mandatory membership records for high-risk meeting locations such as gyms, fitness clubs,
gambling venues and for sex industry proprietors

Improving the collection and sharing of prison intelligence among law enforcement and correctional
agencies

Locate motivated recruitees Motivated recruitees Address the red flags of fraud and rationalisations for the commission of financial crime (eg
problem gambling, excessive lifestyle expenditure with inadequate assets, small business failures)

Publicise high-risk lifestyle and fun associated
with organised crime

Risk awareness Enact and publicise uniform unexplained wealth and assets confiscation laws

Publicise the harms associated with organised crime lifestyles (eg violence, intimidation, family
loss, asset loss, addictions)

Publicise the cost–benefit balance associated with organised crime lifestyles

Publicise the probability of detection of serious crime and sanctions applicable to organised
criminal activity

Enhance opportunities for lawful avenues of risk-taking activities

Regulating professional advisers

Enhanced efforts could also be made

to ensure that financial advisers and

accountants, in particular, are adequately

regulated to ensure that their services

cannot be used, overtly or unwittingly, by

organised crime groups.

Additional controls may need to be

developed for other occupational groups,

such as those in the transportation and ICT

industries. Having procedures that could

identify high-risk individuals within these

sectors could assist in locating red flags

for corruption before they are acted upon.

For example, enhanced reference checking

for those seeking employment in trusted

positions in the transport industry and those

working in ICT may help to identify individuals

who may be subject to corruption. Similarly,

having national standards and disciplinary

controls for those working in ICT may help to

identify high-risk individuals.

Prohibitions could also be enforced against

those convicted of serious crimes from

forming companies and enhanced identity

checks undertaken when businesses are

being established that could be used in

connection with organised crime. In addition,

the use of Australia’s anti-corruption regime

could be used to identify potential infiltration

of government by organised crime groups

(Rowe et al. 2013). Allied to this is the need

to encourage reporting of serious crime and

the protection of those who make reports in

the public interest.

Controlling meeting places

There is compelling evidence that

recruitment takes place in a limited

number of high-risk locations, particularly

prisons, pubs, fitness clubs and brothels.

Ensuring that fit-and-proper persons’

tests applicable to those in charge of such

venues are enforced might help to deter

organised crime involvement. Similarly,

ensuring that such businesses maintain

accurate and verifiable records of members

and regular users could also make some

premises unattractive to organised crime.

Recent anti-organised crime legislative

measures such as anti-fortification laws and

anti-association laws could also be useful in

ensuring that meeting places frequented by

8 | Australian Institute of Criminology

organised criminals are made less desirable

places to congregate.

Finally, when police task forces are

targeting organised crime groups, it would

be beneficial to focus some activity on

increasing the probability of detection of

organised crime groups when attempting

to recruit new members. Improving

prison security and further development

of corrections agency intelligence could

assist in disrupting recruitment activities

that take place within prisons, while

allowing online data monitoring—with

judicial authorisation—would assist

law enforcement in identifying high-risk

recruitment environments.

Attacking recruitee motivations

Attacking the motivations for involvement

in organised crime by otherwise law-

abiding individuals is an essential element

in breaking pathways to recruitment.

For example, there is now an established

awareness of the red flags of individuals

becoming susceptible to involvement in

serious financial crime (eg KPMG 2013),

such as the presence of lifestyle pressures,

gambling addiction and business failure.

An illustration of how personal financial

difficulties led a senior public servant

to be recruited by organised crime to

obtain confidential intelligence for the

group is the case of the former Assistant

Director Investigations at the NSW Crime

Commission who became involved with

a drug trafficking organisation and the

importation of 300kg of pseudoephedrine.

His motivations for becoming involved in the

criminal organisation were clearly financial

gain, to clear himself of debts and to provide

for his family. To this end, he entered into

an agreement with an informant and a

legitimate businessman to import a large

quantity of pseudoephedrine concealed in

a container of rice ([2011] NSW Supreme

Court 1422, 8 December 2011). Had the

NSW Crime Commission been aware of

his financial position, his vulnerability to

corruption could have been identified and

perhaps prevented. Any such monitoring

of personnel would need to comply with

privacy and human rights protections.

There is also evidence that neutralising

the rationalisations or justifications for

involvement in serious crime can be an

effective deterrent to individuals acting

illegally (Duffield & Grabosky 2001).

Publicising risks

Making organised crime unattractive and

unprofitable through the confiscation of

assets and use of unexplained wealth laws

has been identified as a key strategy in

preventing and responding to organised

crime (Parliamentary Joint Committee

on Law Enforcement 2012). Recent

legislation that has sought to proscribe

membership of organised crime groups

could also have the indirect beneficial

effect of deterring individuals from seeking

to become new members of such groups

through fear of prosecution as a member of

a proscribed gang.

Broadhurst, Lauchs and Lohrisch (2014)

argue, for example, that many OMCG

members are simply motivated by a desire

to have ‘fun’ and to engage in risk-taking.

Publicising the negative consequences of

criminality including the potential physical and

mental harms, risk of imprisonment, loss of

livelihood and involvement in addictions could

all help to make organised crime appear to

be an unattractive lifestyle choice.

Organised crime is a multifaceted, complex

phenomenon and as such, requires a

multifaceted response strategy. Initiatives

need to be flexible and dynamic and able

to meet changes in the nature of organised

crime as they become apparent. A key

element of preventing and responding to

organised criminal activity is to interdict

or prevent individuals being recruited into

criminal organisations. This paper has

identified some potential ways in which this

may be achieved that reinforce a multifaceted

approach to combat organised crime.

Acknowledgements

Preliminary research for this paper was

carried out by Cienan Muir during an

Internship at the AIC in 2013. The author is

grateful to the anonymous reviewers who

provided comments on an earlier draft.

References
All URLs are correct at March 2014

Adelstein J 2010. The last Yakuza. World Policy
Journal Summer: 63–71

Adler PA & Adler P 1983. Shifts and oscillations
in deviant careers: The case of upper-level drug
dealers and smugglers. Social Problems 31:
195–207

Australian Crime Commission (ACC) 2012.
Serious and organised investment fraud in
Australia. Canberra: ACC

Australian Crime Commission (ACC) 2013.
Organised crime in Australia, 2013. Canberra:
ACC. https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/
default/files/ACC%20OCA%202013-1

Broadhurst R, Lauchs MA & Lohrisch S 2014.
Organized crime in Oceania, in Reichel P &
Albanese J (eds), Handbook of transnational
crime and justice, 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage: 501–514

Choo K-KR & Smith RG 2008. Criminal
exploitation of online systems by organised crime
groups. Asian Criminology 3: 37–59

Choo K-KR, Smith RG, Walters J & Bricknell
S. 2012. Perceptions of money laundering and
financing of terrorism in a sample of the Australian
legal profession. Research and Public Policy
series unpublished. Canberra: Australian Institute
of Criminology

Cornish DB 1994. The procedural analysis
of offending and its relevance for situational
prevention, in Clarke RV (ed), Crime prevention
studies, vol 3. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice
Press: 151–196

Corruption and Crime Commission of Western
Australia (CCC WA) 2005. Report to the joint
standing committee on the Corruption and Crime
Commission with regard to the Commission’s
organised crime function and contempt powers.
Perth: CCC WA. http://www.ccc.wa.gov.au/
Publications/Reports/Documents/Published%20
Reports/2005/organised-crime

Duffield G & Grabosky P 2001. The psychology
of fraud. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal
Justice no. 199. Canberra: Australian Institute
of Criminology. http://aic.gov.au/publications/
current%20series/tandi/181-200/tandi199.html

Felson M & Clarke RV 1998. Opportunity makes a
thief: Practical theory for crime prevention, Police
Research Series Paper 98. London: Home Office

www.aic.gov.au

General editor, Trends & issues
in crime and criminal justice series:
Dr Adam M Tomison, Director,
Australian Institute of Criminology

Note: Trends & issues in crime and
criminal justice papers are peer reviewed

For a complete list and the full text of the
papers in the Trends & issues in crime and
criminal justice series, visit the AIC website
at: aic.gov.au

ISSN 0817-8542 (Print)
1836-2206 (Online)

© Australian Institute of Criminology 2014

GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Tel: 02 6260 9200
Fax: 02 6260 9299

Disclaimer: This research paper does
not necessarily reflect the policy position
of the Australian Government

Dr Russell G Smith is Principal
Criminologist at the AIC.

Gambetta D 2009. Codes of the underworld.
Princeton: Princeton University Press

Glenny M 2011. Dark market: Cyberthieves,
cybercops and you. London: Bodley Head

Goldstraw-White J 2012. White-collar crime:
Accounts of offending behaviour. London:
Palgrave Macmillan

Hancock G & Laycock G 2010. Organised crime
and crime scripts: Prospects for disruption, in
Bullock K, Clarke RV & Tilley N (eds), Situational
prevention of organised crimes. Cullompton:
Willan: 172–192

Hobbs D 2013. Lush life: Constructing organized
crime in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Holmes L 2007. Introduction, in Holmes L (ed),
Terrorism, organised crime and corruption.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing: 1–28

Jorna P & Hutchings A 2013. Australasian
Consumer Fraud Taskforce: Results of the 2012
online consumer fraud survey. Technical and
Background Paper no. 56. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology. http://aic.gov.au/
publications/current%20series/tbp/41-60/tbp056.
html

Kleemans ER & De Poot CJ 2008. Criminal
careers in organized crime and social opportunity
structure. European Journal of Criminology 5:
69–98

KPMG 2013. A survey of fraud, bribery and
corruption in Australia and New Zealand 2012.
Sydney: KPMG

KPMG 2010. Fraud and misconduct survey
2010. Sydney: KPMG

Lacoste J & Tremblay P 2003. Crime and
innovation: A script analysis of patterns in check
forgery, in Smith M & Cornish D (eds), Theory for
practice in situational crime prevention. Crime
Prevention Studies 16. Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press

Levi M 2008.The phantom capitalists: The
organisation and control of long-firm fraud, 2nd
ed. Aldershot: Ashgate

Long IW 2013. Recruitment to organised crime.
Cardiff Economics Working Paper E2013/10.
Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School,
Economics Section. http://patrickminford.net/wp/
E2013_10

Lozusic R 2002. Gangs in NSW. Briefing Paper
No 16/02. Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Library
Research Service

Matrix Knowledge Group 2007. The illicit drug
trade in the United Kingdom. Home Office Online
Report 20.07. London: Home Office

Mazur R 2009. The infiltrator: My secret life inside
the dirty banks behind Pablo Escobar’s medellín
cartel. New York: Little Brown

Morselli C 2005. Contacts, opportunities, and
criminal enterprise. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press

Morselli C 2009. Inside criminal networks. New
York: Springer

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law
Enforcement 2012. Final report on the inquiry into
Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation
and arrangements. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_
Business/Committees/Joint/Law_Enforcement/
Completed_inquiries/2010-13/unexplained_
wealth/report/~/media/wopapub/senate/
committee/le_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010_13/
unexplained_wealth/report/report_pdf.ashx

Rowe E, Akman T, Smith RG & Tomison AM
2013. Organised crime and public sector
corruption: A crime scripts analysis of tactical
displacement risk. Trends & Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice no. 444. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology. http://aic.gov.au/
publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/
tandi444.html

Smith RG 2003. Serious fraud in Australia and
New Zealand. Research and Public Policy
series no. 48. Canberra: Australian Institute
of Criminology. http://aic.gov.au/publications/
current%20series/rpp/41-60/rpp48.html

Sutherland EH 1939. Principles of criminology,
3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Sutherland EH 1937. The professional thief.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Sutherland EH & Cressey D 1974. Criminology,
9th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott

Tremblay P, Talon B & Hurley D 2001. Body
switching and related adaptations in the resale
of stolen vehicles: Script elaborations and
aggregate crime learning curves. British Journal
of Criminology 41: 561–579

Tyler G 1971. Sociodynamics of organised crime.
Journal of Public Law 20(1): 41–58

United Nations 2004. United Nations Convention
Against Transitional Organized Crime and the
protocols thereto. New York: United Nations.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/
UNTOC/Publications/TOC%20Convention/
TOCebook-e

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) 2002. Results of a pilot survey of forty
selected organized criminal groups in sixteen
countries. Vienna: UNODC. http://www.unodc.
org/pdf/crime/publications/Pilot_survey

Van Koppen MV 2012. Involvement mechanisms
for organized crime. Crime, Law and Social
Change 59: 1–20

Van Koppen MV & De Poot CJ 2013. The truck
driver who bought a café: Offenders on their
involvement mechanisms for organized crime.
European Journal of Criminology 10: 74–88

Veno A 2012. The Brotherhoods, 3rd ed. Sydney:
Allen & Unwin

Wolak J, Finkelhor D & Mitchell K 2011. Child
pornography possessors: Trends in offender and
case characteristics. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research & Treatment 23(1): 22–42

Copyright of Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice is the property of Australian
Institute of Criminology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.