2015

History of Gangs in America Course Lectures

for the
Webster University, Thailand Campus

Dr. Rachael M. Rudolph

Lecturer and Researcher
School of Arts and Sciences
Department of International Relations
Introduction to the Course

Over the course of the next 8 weeks gangs in America are examined. In particular, the focus is
on street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs and youth gangs. Students may be pondering
why youth gangs are not focused on first, particularly since the adult criminal gangs evolved
there from. Youth gangs are introduced but not examined extensively until the end because, in
order to examine and ponder the methods and means of intervention to reduce violence and to
find alternatives mechanisms to street politics, the cycle must be identified, dissected and
analyzed.

Today’s class, therefore, provides only an overview of what will be covered; a review of the
course syllabus; and, a visual narrative for what will be covered over the course of the semester.
The selected clips for the latter are:

 Urban Street Gangs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU0IvSBXafM

 Girl Gangs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsAOFvD8c9w
 Biker Wars--Hells Angels https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDo13vQEuw
 America's Deadliest Prison Gang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsV26-yLtOo

The first lecture for the summer session begins on Friday. It provides students with an overview
of gang studies, the theories and methodologies used for analysis, and a conceptual framework
for analysis of the selected gangs. Students should keep in mind that, in addition to the selected
gangs covered in the course, they are responsible for research on selected street and prison gangs
outside of the United States. Assignments must incorporate both those covered in class and
those the student selects. Finally, students are to read the PDFs titled “Introduction” and
“Introduction 2” before Friday. Friday’s lecture will not cover the readings in-depth. Lecture is
to be a supplement to the assigned reading. Students may also want to have a look at the FBI’s
Gang Intelligence Unit at the following link: http://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs/ngic.
History of Gangs Lecture 1: Defining, Mapping and Studying the Complex Web of Gangs
in America

Many of today’s more advanced American street gangs were once youth gangs. The stories of
those who joined vary. Students will be exposed to the variety of those stories over the next
eight weeks. In particularly, they will learn the stories of the dominant gangs within each of the
selected categories—street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, and youth gangs. At the end
of the eight weeks, there will be greater understanding of the complexity of network, or web, of
gangs operating in America.

Today’s lecture begins our barefoot exploration into the world of American gangs. It begins by
providing students with a working definition of gangs. As with any complex phenomenon, the
definition is contested. The definition adopted, therefore, is derived from the U.S. Department of
Justice. After defining what a gang is an overview of the gang network is provided. The data
used for the overview is derived from the National Gang Intelligence Center’s (NGIC) 2013
National Gang Report. Added thereto are relevant data derived from the existing gang literature.
The lecture concludes with an overview of the literature and the frameworks therein used for
analysis.1

Defining Gangs: From Being Conceptually Contested to Adopting the U.S. Department of
Justice’s Definition

Hagedorn (2008) writes that gangs are as ancient has the hills; and, those today are as American
as the spoils system or, as popular American parlance goes, “as American as American apple
pie”.2 American gangs have their roots in the industrial revolution.3 Some would even argue
their roots are even deeper; perhaps dating it back to the American War for Independence. We
shall not debate the exact date or century of the emergence of gangs in America. What is
important here is that they are very much part and parcel of America and her many historical
narratives. Despite them being part and parcel of American history their narratives and that of
the streets tends to be neglected. This course’s goal is to bring those narratives to light.

Given the goal, the question begging and which has not yet been answered is: what is a gang?
The definition of a gang is, of course, contested.4 Barker (2012) argues that, since it is contested
and because of the consequences of one being charged as a member, a legalistic definition is to
be adopted. The definition he adopts is a criminal gang comprised of three or more persons who
engage in criminal activity for profit on a continuing basis (Barker: 6). Gangs are therein further
broken down according to whether they are single purpose or organized criminal gangs.

1
The latter is relevant for student research assignments on street and prison gangs. Students are expected to do
additional research on the framework(s) to be used for the assignments. The framework(s) selected will depend on
the focus of analysis and research question. We will revisit this after covering street gangs but before the first
assignment is due.
2
Hagedorn, J. (2008). A World of Gangs: Armed Young Men and Gangsta Culture. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota
University Press.
3
Kontos, L, D. Brotherton, and L. Barrios (2003). Gangs and Society: Alternative Perspectives. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
4
Barker, T. (2012). North American Criminal Gangs: Street, Prison, Outlaw Motorcycle and Drug Trafficking
Organizations. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
A single purpose gang is defined as “…gangs that come together for single criminal activities
short of durations, such as gangs of robbers, burglars, car thieves, gambling/cheating schemes,
corrupt police gangs or otherwise legitimate actors that engage in illegal schemes that are
occupationally related” (Ibid.: 6). Such groups also typically have limited supporting networks
and are constrained by opportunity and inclination. This type of gang conforms to the concept of
opportunists; that is, individuals who are brought together because of an opportunity, an
opening, and who have a common interest in engaging in collective action at a given point in
time for a particular purpose. An organized criminal gang differs there from because it has an
extensive supporting network, a long history of criminal activity, a defined membership, and
employs violence in the furtherance of both the organization’s operation and accumulating
power. Power, as will be discussed over the course of the next few weeks, is dependent in part
on the geographical distribution of a network’s or an organization’s operational reach and
influence. Examples of organized criminal gangs are adult street gangs, prison gangs, outlaw
motorcycle gangs, and drug trafficking organizations (DTOs).

Barker’s definition is broad. He is, after all, attempting to not just capture the various competing
legalistic definitions used by the North American countries and the legal communities living
therein, but also the competing definitions found within the academic literature. The competing
definitions will not be herein articulated. This course is primarily focused on America; thus, the
definition adopted is that of U.S. Department of Justice.5 The U.S. Department of Justice defines
a gang as follows:

“(1) an association of three or more individuals; (2) whose members collectively identify
themselves by adopting a group identity which they use to create an atmosphere of fear or
intimidation frequently by employing one or more of the following: a common name,
slogan, identifying sign, symbol, tattoo or other physical marking, style or color of
clothing, hairstyle, hand or sign graffiti; (3) the association’s purpose, in part, is to
engage in criminal activity and the association uses violence or intimidation to further its
criminal objectives; (4) its members engage in criminal activity, or acts of juvenile
delinquency that if committed by an adult would be crimes; (5) with the intent to enhance
or preserve the association’s power, reputation, or economic resources; (6) the
association may also possess some of the following characteristics: (a) the members
employ rules for joining and operating within the association; (b) the members meet on a
recurring basis; (c) the association seeks to exercise control over a particular location or
region, or it may simply defend its perceived interests against rivals; or (e) the association
has an identifiable structure.”

The definitions used in the class for street gangs, motorcycle gangs and prison gangs are also
derived from the U.S. Department of Justice.

1. Street gangs (neighborhood and national street gangs)— refer to those located
throughout the U.S. The membership of said gangs varies in number, racial and ethnic
composition, and structure. National street gangs used by the NGIC parallel what the

5
“2013 National Gang Report,” The National Gang Intelligence Center, Washington, D.C.
 selected text defines as “super gangs.” The local street gangs or neighborhood street
gangs model the national gangs but to varying degrees.

2. Motorcycle gangs (a.k.a. outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs)—refer to organizations

whose members use their motorcycle clubs for criminal activities. Motorcycle gangs
exist across the U.S. They vary in size and structure. It is estimated that there are
about 300 active OMGs.

3. Prison gangs—refer to criminal organizations that originated within the penal

system. A prison gang typically consists of “a select group of inmates who have an
organized hierarchy and who are governed by an established code of conduct.” There
are usually a smaller number of members in said gangs than in street or motorcycle
gangs. They also serve as a link between DTOs, street gangs, and motorcycle gangs.
We should be wary of over-generalization in the assumed linkages, as not all prison
gangs play such a role in the overall, complex web of gangs in America. Finally, it
should be noted that prison gangs tend to be stronger in state correctional facilities
rather than the federal penal system.6

6
The following is taken from a lecture I delivered on the American Criminal Justice System in the Comparative
Politics course last semester. It is only part of the lecture. Students can access the lecture from the Comparative
Politics Facebook Page through the following link:
https://www.facebook.com/836838846368159/photos/pb.836838846368159.-
2207520000.1432214156./908541679197875/?type=3&theater. The citations used are also therein listed.

The American criminal justice system consists of three components. They are the police, the courts and corrections.
Law enforcement is the first component; it is considered the initial stage of the criminal justice process. The courts
are second component and serve as the second stage in the criminal justice process. They determine whether charges
are to be applied and determine the sentence if the perpetrator is convicted. Corrections comprise the third
component and serve to house the individuals sentenced by the courts.

The growth of American law enforcement corresponded to the rise of urbanization and industrialization two
centuries past. There are approximately 17,000 public law enforcement agencies today. Public law enforcement
agencies consist of local police departments, sheriff departments and the state police. There are approximately 50
different federal law enforcement agencies. The function of law enforcement varies across the United States, with
the literature categorizing the styles adopted by watchman, legalistic and service. The watchman style focuses on
maintenance of order; it is a preventative approach. The legalist style focuses on violations of the law; it is a reactive
approach. The service style adopts the police as problem-solvers approach; herein community policing is central.

The American court system is comprised of federal and state courts. Each state has its own independent court
system. There are approximately a total of 17,000 state and local courts, 94 federal district courts, 13 courts of
appeal, and one Supreme Court. Most states have three levels of courts—trial courts of limited jurisdiction, trial
courts of general jurisdiction, and appellate courts. The courts function as an arm of the state in asserting law and
order and as guardians of the constitution.

The correction system encompasses probation, parole, jails and prisons. Jails and prisons were first termed houses of
corrections; they were established in 1682. Today, individuals are house in either detention or correctional facilities.
Detention facilities are temporary housing facilities for those awaiting trial or transfer. Correctional facilities include
jails and prisons (state and federal). County jails typically hold individuals convicted of misdemeanors or those
serving sentences of less than one year. Prisons are for individuals who were convicted of a felony and/or serving
time of more than one year.
The definition of a gang and each of the types of gangs will be reexamined toward the end of the
eight week course. The actual and perceived definitions matter, particularly when we are
attempting to understand the boundaries of policy and programmatic possibilities for reducing
violence and getting the youth off the streets.

Mapping the Complexity of Gangs in America

Gangs are categorized by street gangs, motorcycle gangs and prison gangs. A majority of the
gangs are street gangs. Street gangs, as will be recalled, are broken into two categories—
national-level street gangs and neighborhood street gangs. They are the most violent. The
percentages for most violent/problematic gang by gang types are as follows: 54 percent are
neighborhood street gangs, 26 percent are national-level street grans, 11 percent are motorcycle
gangs, and 9 percent are prison gangs. Street gangs are considered the most dangerous, as they
are the most violent. We will examine street gangs in more detail next week.

The type of violent activities gangs are engaged in include alien (illegal immigrants) smuggling,
assault, burglary, child prostitution, counterfeiting, credit card fraud, drug trafficking, extortion,
fencing stolen goods, hate crimes, homicide, human trafficking, identity theft, larceny/theft,
money laundering, mortgage fraud, motor vehicle theft, prostitution, robbery,
threats/intimidation, vandalism, and weapons trafficking. The percentage for each of the types of
gangs and their involvement in said reported crimes varies. A list of the reported crimes can be
found in the 2013 NGIC report. While not done so in the NGIC report, it is possible to
categorize the crimes according to those pertaining to inter-and-intra gang rivalries and those
pertaining to operations. The former category can refer, but should not be limited, to crimes
such as threats/intimidation, homicide, hate crimes, assault, and weapons trafficking. Crimes
such as drug and human trafficking, prostitution, robbery, theft, counterfeiting, and money
laundering are examples of the latter category. The categorical distinctions can be useful when
attempting to highlight and manage the complex nature of the criminal activities and their
relation to different aspects of gang operations.

The types of crimes, their relation to gang operations and the role played by the different types of
gangs matter when attempting to map the network of gangs across America. Gangs are linked to
one another through varying degrees of connection. Geography, race and ethnicity, symbolism,
the nature of gang activity, family, culture and other arbitrary-set social hierarchies help to
identify and estimate the degrees of connection. An interesting note here is that prison gangs,
though small in terms of percentage, serve as a link between the street gangs, motorcycle cycle
and the DTOs. We will return to the mapping of the network toward the end of the eight weeks,
particularly after covering the main gangs within each of the different types.

Individuals join gangs for various reasons. According to Barker (2012), a majority of the
individuals involved in gangs are between the age of 11 and 25. The data would, of course, vary
when breaking the gangs down by type. Motorcycle gangs, as we will learn in two weeks, are
comprised mostly of individuals over the age of 25. The gender composition of gangs is not
known. What is known and agreed upon by both academics and government/law enforcement
officials is that girls and women are playing a more significant role in gangs in the 21st century
than in the past. Girl/women gangs and their roles therein are under-researched. It is to the
study of gangs we shall now turn.

Conclusion: Breaking Down the Complexity through the Study of Gangs

The existing literature on gangs extends to the 1950s (Hagedorn, 2008). In the 1950s, many of
the studies explained the emergence of gangs as product of teenage rebellion. An extension of
this original body of literature was studies focusing on the role of juvenile delinquency and gang
recruitment. In the 1960s, studies focused on gangs as a product of a deviant subculture. This
was an extension of the rebellion and juvenile delinquency argument. Emphasis, however, was
more on the roles played by culture, social polarization, fragmentation and alienation within
societies and on what leads individuals to deviate from the perceived social norm. There would
also be studies on the different types of gangs. Much of the gang literature and the analytical
approaches applied thereto were enriched by studies on collective action, mobilization, and
social organization.

By the 1980s, the literature continued to emphasize socially deviant behavior of specific
communities but centered more specifically on the role of and proclivity toward violence. As
will be recalled from the documentaries introduced last class, drugs influenced the nature of gang
activity and impacted the law enforcement response. Consequently, the role of drugs and its
impact on changes within gang recruitment, membership, structure and operational activities
were emphasized in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Overwhelmingly neglected in the studies
was the emphasis on gangs and their culture from the perspective of the gang. The late 1990s
and the 2000s saw the rise of studies on and about gangs from the perspective of the street.
Studies within this period gave rise to a body of literature called critical gangs studies.

Highlighted in the general overview of the literature are two main paradigmatic approaches to
the study of gangs. The first referred to as the traditional or criminological approach. The second
is referred to as the critical gang studies approach. It was in the second approach that the role of
institutional racism and warfare over neighborhood boundaries were examined. These two
trends continue to persist today.

A majority of the studies utilize social theories to analyze and explain different aspects of gangs
(Hagedorn, 2008). The dominant theoretical approaches tend to be rooted in the ecological
perspective. Emphasis is, thus, placed on the disenfranchisement of individuals, the poor
organization of communities or their breakdown, and the isolation or segmentation of certain
segments within the communities. Another approach focuses on the creation of social identity
through symbolic systems of communication. A third approach focuses on the cultural
dimension. Therein included is the concern of how culture shapes and is shaped by gangs.
Finally, the last dominant theoretical approach is the emphasis on the socio-political approach.
Some studies use one or more of the said dominant analytical approaches. The approached
adopted depends in large part on the question the research is seeking to answer and what
particular aspect of the complex phenomena of gangs he or she seeks to explain. Students should
begin to ponder a particular research question and a phenomenon they seek to answer and
explain in regard to street gangs, which is where we turn to next week.
Lecture 2: An Introduction to American Street Gangs—Geographical Demarcations,
Organizational Structure, Gang Activities, the Development of Political Consciousness, and
Gang Activism

The previous lecture introduced students to gangs in America and the approaches to their study.7
They were asked to visualize gangs from the perspective of a web, with each of the gang
typologies (street gangs, motorcycle gangs and prison gangs) representing specific nodal points.
Linking those nodal points were the social, political and organizational attributes, as well as the
varying degrees of connection and linkages. It was also stated that each typology should be
viewed as its own web. The web concepts will be revisited following an examination of each
nodal point. Today’s lecture begins our examination of one nodal point, namely American street
gangs. An overview of American street gangs herein is provided, with particular emphasis being
placed on geographical distribution, organizational structure, gang activities and activism, and
the development of political consciousness. It concludes with an important temporal
demarcation of gangs in America. Students should take into consideration that lecture is in
addition to the assigned readings. They are responsible for the material covered in the reading
irrespective of whether it is covered in lecture. The research assignments will require students to
illustrate they have drawn from and used the selected material.

An Overview of American Street Gangs: Geographical Demarcations, Organizational

Structure, Gang Activities, the Development of Political Consciousness, and Gang Activism

Street level gangs can be characterized as either neighborhood-based (NBGs) or national-level

gangs (NLGs). 8 As will be recalled from the previous lecture, NGBs are typically smaller,
model NLGs, and more violent. NLGs are sometimes referred to in the literature as “super
gangs”.9 They tend to co-opt the NBGs.10 Although NGBs are part and parcel of their network,
the main focus for this summer session is the NLGs.11 In particular, the All Latin Kings and
Queen Nation (ALKQN), Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), 18th Street, the Bloods, and the Crips are
covered. The NGBs associated there with have been cited by Barker (2012).

Barker (2012) provides a general overview of American street gangs. The gangs are therein
divided into the Chicago-based/influenced and the LA-based/influenced gangs. This division is
common among the existing literature (Hagedorn, 2008; and, Kontos, et. al., 2003).12 The LA-
based/influenced gangs are further demarcated by the Surenos (Southerners) and the Nortenos
(Northerners). Said demarcations are based on the gangs’ allegiance to either the Mexican Mafia

7
Please see the lecture titled, “History of Gangs Lecture 1: Defining Mapping and Studying the Complex Web of
Gangs in America.”
8
“2013 National Gang Report,” The National Gang Intelligence Center, Washington, D.C.
9
Barker, T. (2012). North American Criminal Gangs: Street, Prison, Outlaw Motorcycle and Drug Trafficking
Organizations. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
10
There are some NBGs that do remain independent, however. What is most fascinating is the variance in their
independence and the pre-and-post prison experience. There seems to be a loss of independence among NBGs
following leaders’ and members’ time in prison.
11
Please note that the associated NBGs with the NLGs are provided in the selected readings for this section.
12
Hagedorn, J. (2008). A World of Gangs: Armed Young Men and Gangsta Culture. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota
University Press; and, Kontos, L, D. Brotherton, and L. Barrios (2003). Gangs and Society: Alternative
Perspectives. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
or the Nuestra Familia prison gangs. The Mexican Mafia and the Neustra Familia prison gangs
will be discussed in a few weeks when we cover prison gangs. The Chicago-based/influenced
gangs are demarcated by the People and Folk alliances. It should be noted that said divisions are
not per se relevant today.13 They are still important, however. This is because the Folk alliance
gangs tend to be organized differently than the peoples’ alliance gangs.

Organizational structure varies among and within gangs (Barker, 2012; Hagedorn, 2008; and,
Kontos, et. al., 2003). Some gangs’ organizational structure is centralized, while others are more
akin to loosely knit networks. The existing literature highlights three typologies of gang
organization (Hagedorn, 2008). They are community-based, corporate- based, and military-
command based. The first style is decentralized and network-oriented; the second style is quasi-
decentralized or quasi-centralized; and, the last style is centralized. Styles are also dependent on
whether they are a, as well as the type of, NGB or NLG. NLGs tend to be more networked-
oriented, while NGBs tend to adopt the second and third styles. It should be noted that not all
NLGs adopt a network organization style. Kontos, Brotherton and Barrios (2003) posit that the
type of organizational structure adopted is dependent on local forces; that is, it is dependent on
context. Thus, as context changes, so too is the organizational structure. An examination of
gangs highlights that many of them go through organizational changes overtime. In spite of the
prevalence of this pattern there tends to be a neglect of research on change and how this impact
not just the gang and its organizational structure, but also how it correspond to power. Power
has not per se be defined or focused on in the literature, but after an extensive review of the
studies conducted, the following criteria define aspects of gang power—number of states and
cities where cliques have established themselves and are operating; the number of members,
associates and alliances; the nature, role and reach of gang and community-based activities; and,
the degree of legitimacy among the people in the communities, cities and states of operation.

Similar to organizational structure, gang activities vary (Barker, 2012; Hagedorn, 2008; and,
Kontos, et. al., 2003). As will be recalled from the 2013 NGIC Report, the references made
thereto in the existing gang literature and the gang documentaries, there is a tendency to focus on
and highlight the criminal activities of the gangs. Neglected are the other non-criminal related
activities. It should be noted that studies done on the non-criminal aspect or those that tend to
highlight the gang narrative are dismissed by others as biased or apologetic.

Students will recall that a majority of the literature and most policymakers approach gangs from
the dominant, traditional criminological perspective. Hagedorn (2008) and others approaching
gangs from the critical gang studies paradigm question the emphasis on the criminological
approach and advocate for a more humanistic approach to balance the narrative. A humanistic
approach is one that examines gangs’ organizational aspect, the politics of culture, and the
institutional transformation of gangs (Kontos, et. al., 2003). An examination of gangs from such
an approach is necessary due to the prejudices, myths and stereotypes that exist in society,
among academics and policymakers, and within and across gangs, which are perpetuated through
oral and written historical narratives. Understanding of a history of the streets requires the
learning and not the rejection of the competing and varying narratives.

13
Hagedorn, J. (2008). A World of Gangs: Armed Young Men and Gangsta Culture. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota
University Press.
The Street Organization Project started at John Jay College brought to light the competing and
varying narratives from gangs and gang members (Kontos, et. al., 2003). Therein researchers
were able to capture the generational variance among gang members within the same gang. They
also brought attention to the discrepancy in the dominant historical narrative, which continues to
be perpetuated in the mainstream media and documentaries and by policymakers who want to be
perceived as being “tough on crime.” Students should critically ponder all the narratives and
question from which approach or perspective they and the underlying biases present. Every
individual has his or her own biases. We must reflect upon them in order to understand not just
our own perspective but also the phenomenon under study and the narrators narrating the gang
narratives.

Through the competing narratives we are able to capture a range of activities in which gangs are
involved. There are some gangs that engage only in criminal activities, while there are others
who also engage in activities such a toy drives, charitable projects, voter registrations drives,
community clean-ups, and cultural awareness initiatives. Some even engaged in more
transformative social, political and educational projects. Los Solidos is cited in the literature as
an example (Kontos, et. al., 2003). It should be noted that Los Solidos and some others who are
referred to and known as “gangs” prefer not to be referred to as such. They prefer to be thought
of and see themselves as a family. Some even describe themselves as street and/or community-
based organizations. We are not herein debating the appellation of gangs; rather it was raised to
capture the competing images and discourse that exist among and within the historical narratives.

Ethnographic research on Los Solidos conducted by the researchers who took part in the Street
Organization Project in the 1990s captures the view of the gang/family from its perspective. It
very much viewed itself as a political organization. The Los Solidos members pursued a public
persona; they engaged the community, law enforcement and state authorities. Their criminal
activities were described as short-term economic opportunities that enabled it and its family
members to survive and engage in other sorts of projects. The other projects were long-term
oriented. They were classified as family, business and civic projects. Family projects were
concerned with development of the family and the provision of a “home” for many who had
none. Here the idea of a home extends beyond a dwelling; it means having someone to turn to
for emotional and psychological support. Material support was merely superficial. It was not
what held the members of the family together. Business projects were concerned with the
development of sustainable economic opportunities for family members that would enable its
transition to mainstream society. Many members were excluded from legitimate activities
because of institutional racism and also past criminal activities. Civic projects included the
development of social, cultural and educational initiatives. Here again Los Solidos was
operating from a view bent on transition. A lack of community, political and government
support, as well as the growing drug epidemic and arrest of its members, would force it and
many other gangs who were engaged in similar initiatives underground. Students will read and
research on and future lectures will cover the narratives of different types of gangs. We will
revisit the types and nature of activities of gangs and the hindrances to the transition process
toward the end of the semester.

Highlighted in the story was something that tends to be neglected in the gang narratives; that is,
the political consciousness and the nature of gang activism. There are three levels of political
consciousness and three types of gang activists identified in the sparse literature on the
phenomena (Kontos, et. al., 2003). The three levels of political consciousness are parochial,
national, and international. A parochial level reflects a gang and its members who are
concerned with local community issues. A national level reflects a gang and its members who
make linkages across communities and reach out to others, including other racial and ethnic
groups. Finally, the international level reflects a gang and its members who situate the local
and/or national struggle within a global framework.

The three types of gang activists are recorded gang members, old gangsters (OGs), and gang
members. Recorded gang members acknowledge their former gang activity but separate
themselves from the gang and its present activities. These types of activists are concerned with
getting gang members off the streets. They use an assimilation strategy and focus on
empowerment of the individual. Their goal is building bridges between the gang and the
community. Recall the aforementioned discussed on Los Solidos. Many attempted transitions of
gang members to community leaders fail due to the lack of support. Support becomes possible
and more realistic through the building of bridges between the gang and the community. The
second type of activist is the OG Street Activist. This type of activist is an older gang member
who has maintained membership or links to the gang. A distinction here needs to be made, as
there is an analytical difference between an OG who has membership and one who maintained
linkages. The latter tends to refer to one who has per se retired. OG activists tend to use the
strategy of co-option. They also refrain from working with government and law enforcement.
These activists have been pivotal in re-educating the younger gangsters on the gang’s origin.
Many of the OGs argue that the prevalence of fear within the community toward the gang’s
presence and the high levels of inter-gang violence are a product of the younger gangsters not
being properly educated in the gang’s origins and, thus, their failure to remember why it was
formed in the first placed. It should be noted that most of the street gangs we talk of today were
formed or have their roots in those hailing from the 1960s. Consequently, many of them were
formed for political or social purposes. Finally, the last type of activist is the gang member
activist. These types of activists are current members of gangs. They used the strategy of
reconstruction or transformation in order to facilitate the transition of a gang to a community or
street-based organization that is not engaged in criminal activity and viewed as a legitimate actor
within the community wherein it is operating. Key to the success of gang activists and their
goals of either reducing violence, getting the youth off the streets and into school, providing
alternative choices and/or opportunities to criminal activities, or making the transition of the
gang to a non-criminal entity is the support of the community, law enforcement and government
authorities for the strategies adopted, the initiatives developed and the transition process. In the
absence of support and the room for the employment of alternative methods for cleaning-up the
streets, the cycle of hatred, fear, prejudice and violence will continue to perpetuate itself with all
actors being equally to blame.

Conclusion: The Role of Time in Separation the Past from the Present

Today’s lecture was concerned with providing students with an overview of American street
gangs. The geographical demarcations, organization structure, gang activities, development of
political consciousness, and gang activism were discussed. Highlighted therein were variance
and the changes within and across American street gangs. Explanations found within the
literature for both the variance and change are contextually, spatially and temporally rooted.
While the geographical demarcations were highlighted, the roles of context and space discussed,
the role of time was intentionally neglected. The remainder of today’s lecture will concentrate
on this important element.

Time is a crucial element for both explaining and understanding the variance and changes that
occurred within and across American street gangs. A majority of the contemporary street gangs
formed in the 1960s. The 1960s were a period of intense social movement activism. Thus,
social movements and the political consciousness, as well as ideas and ideologies, influenced
many of the original gangsters (OGs). Many of the gangs’ origins, therefore, were political and
social, and not criminally driven. The dominant, mainstream narrative tends to neglect this
point. Awareness of the roots and non-criminal activities of gangs is necessary for understanding
the transformation and transitional processes needed to build bridges and facilitate peace on the
streets.

The 1970s saw the fragmentation of many social movements, including American street gangs.
Their fragmentation was, in part, due to the harsh crackdown on social activism and activists in
the late-1960s and early 1970s. The crackdown led to many middleclass, intellectuals who had
organized and led the social movement of the 1960s to leave the urban centers. It should be
noted that not all left, however. The resultant was a power vacuum on the streets. That power
vacuum was filled by neighborhood street gangs and gang activists. Their rise to power did not
per se result in an increase in crime and violence on the streets. It would be the changing local
conditions of the streets in the 1980s and 1990s that contributed to the rise of crime and violence
in the urban cities across the U.S.

The flight of capital enterprises and, thus, employment opportunities and a reduction in social
welfare programs in the 1980s contributed to the rise in crime. A rise in crime led to higher
incarceration rates. Then, the drug epidemic and the subsequent addiction problem exacerbated
the deterioration of the urban communities. Drug addiction was truly the turning point and what
separates the gangs in the past from the present. Even the rise in burglaries, theft, and petty
crimes correspond to this period. The early 1990s saw the flooding of the street with black
market arms. It was a volatile situation on the streets. What would push it over the edge were
changes that occurred in the mid-1990s.

The mid-1990s saw changes in the way state authorities, both the courts and law enforcement,
dealt with gangs. There is a no-tolerance policy employed. This resulted in an increase in
violence on the streets and the number of youth who were sentenced to long-term prison
sentence. They were charged under many of the new states’ gang crime laws. The changes
contributed to the rise of prison gangs in the complex web of gangs. The mid-1990s is also the
key turning point in the global expansion of gangs. Congress passed the “get-tough”
immigration legislation, which resulted in immigrants being deported following time served and
citizenship being revoked for some. Individuals who either immigrated illegally as children or
who were born in the U.S. were returned to a country that was never home to them in the first
place. When they returned home, the only thing that they had in common and those who were
family were the fellow mates who were deported. The gangs that originated in the U.S. now
formed and found a home in new places. Their homes now transcended boundaries and existed
in the ties and connections that bound all the members, from inside the prisons and the streets of
American to the mountains of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and places beyond. In the next
class, we will examine some of the NLGs that transcend the boundaries. In particular, we will
examine Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and 18th Street gangs.

For homework students should do the readings on Street Gangs—Reading 1 and Street Gangs—
Reading 2, as well as point a potential area for research. The following are potential areas for
research on street gangs. Those listed are mere suggestions. They are raised for the purpose of
getting the students to think of specific things to examine for their research assignment. Students
are free to mix and match or to focus on something different.

1. Typology of Gangs—membership, areas of operation, nature of activities, culture and

sub-culture, symbolism, and political consciousness.
2. Emergence of Gangs
3. Patterns of Change—organizational structure, activities, membership, culture, and
identity.
4. Tactics and Targets—weapons, targets of gang operations, and types of violence (can
include inter-gang and/or intra-gang violence)
5. Culture and Sub-Culture of the Gangs
6. Political Consciousness and How it is Manifested
7. Type and Nature of Gang Activism
8. Role and Nature of Symbolism
9. System and Maintenance of Legitimacy (status within the gang, on the streets, and among
the community wherein which it is operating)
10. Emphasis on the Individual
11. Gang Narratives and the Telling of their History
Lecture 3: A Detour to Drug Cartels and Drug Trafficking Organizations—from Central
America to the Streets of America

In the previous lecture it was stated that today’s class would cover the ALKQN, MS-13 and
Barrio 18 (18th Street) gangs. However, as I was typing the notes and also pondering our
discussion in previous classes with regard to the role of drugs and the drug trade industry, it
became obvious that we need to take a short detour. The drug trade, drug cartels, and drug trade
organizations are central to understanding a part of the complexity of the network of gangs on
America’s streets. They are central to placing in context the relationship between, and the
rivalries among, gangs and also between the police and the gangs. Finally, we are not going to
be able to evolve from the dominant criminological perspective in the absence of exploring the
relationship between the DC, the DTOs, and all of the types of gangs—street, prison, motorcycle
and youth gangs. We will return the street gangs, namely the ALKQN, MS-13, Barrio 18, the
Crips and the Bloods, on Tuesday.

Drug Trafficking Organizations and Cartels: Defining the Difference and the Relationship

There is a distinction between drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and drug cartels (DCs), as
well a complex, interdependent relationship.14 This section provides students with a definition of
DTOs and DCs. Definitions, as will be recalled from lecture one, are important because they
help to provide conceptual clarity to the complex phenomenon under study. They do so by
helping to demarcate the boundaries of perceived possibilities. We will conclude this section on
the dominant organizations and cartels operating in the United States. Class today will end with
two documentaries—one that covers the drug trade in Mexico and one that covers Los Zetos.
The Gulf Coast Cartels are important for understanding a part of the complex relationship
between drugs, the drug trade and the actors operating on the streets in America. The actors here
refer to not just the street gangs but also law enforcement, policymakers and state bureaucrats.

The U.S. Department of Justice defines drug trade organizations as, “…complex organizations
with highly defined command-and-control structures that produce, transport, and/or distribute
large quantities of one or more illicit drugs” (Barker, 2012: 227). Drug cartels are “large, highly
sophisticated organizations composed of multiple DTOs and cells with specific assignments such
as drug transportation, security/enforcement, or money laundering.”15 The command-and-
control structures of DCs are located outside of the U.S. The U.S. is just one area of operation for
them. They also utilize the DTOs to produce, transport and distribute drugs within the U.S. The
DTOs that are used are those who are aligned with specific cartels.

As we have learned thus far, neighborhood gangs are aligned with specific national-state level
gangs. National-state level gangs are aligned with certain prison gangs. Each of them too are
aligned with certain DTOs, who are aligned with certain DCs. They degree of the connection
varies, depending on the nature of the aligned gangs’ operations, area of operation, types of
activities engaged in, and the larger power distribution of the networks operating on the streets.
What I want students to walk away with is an understanding of the complexity of the networks

14
Barker, T. (2012). North American Criminal Gangs: Street, Prison, Outlaw Motorcycle and Drug Trafficking
Organizations. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
15
Ibid.
and the relationships. Understanding the complexity helps to shed light on why the
criminological perspective is not alone sufficient and can actually exacerbate the conditions on
the streets and those who are thereon operating. If we truly want the youth and others seeking to
make the transition from gang to community leaders and from engaging in criminal, violent-
based activity to non-criminal, non-violent-based activism to have a choice, then public
awareness and understanding of the complexity of the problems-at-hand are vital. A multi-
dimensional understanding is also necessary. It is necessary for there to be dialogue with actors
from all perspectives—from those on the street to those typically confined by the walls of
political power. Peace on the streets requires justice, while the latter is not possible without
dissecting the barriers to understanding. Our inability to see and listen to the point of view from
the other and the rejection of dialogue are the main barriers to understanding.

Conclusion: Mapping the DTO/DC Web to Link the Street from Central America to the
United States of America

The network of DTOs and the relationship between them and the DCs and street gangs is
complex. American-based DTOs produce, transport and distribute drugs in and within the U.S.
Many of them are also ethnic-based. There are Mexican, Asian, Columbian, Dominican, Cuban,
and several Italian-based organizations. Mexican cartels have supplanted the other DTOs in
operations within the U.S.

Canadian-based Asian DTOs operate in approximately 100 cities in the U.S. They are comprised
mainly of Vietnamese and Chinese. Ecstasy and marijuana are their main products. Columbian
DTOs were once the largest supplier in the U.S. The Mexican cartels have surpassed them,
which is in large part because of the latter’s control over the trade routes. The main products of
the Columbian DTOs are cocaine and heroin. They supply to approximately 40 cities.
Dominican DTOs operate in 54 cities in 18 states. Their main products are cocaine and heroin.
Cuban DTOs distribute marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine in 25 cities in 11 states and
also the District of Columbia. They are connected to traffickers in Cuba, Peru, Venezuela and
Columbia. America’s traditional DTO, the La Costa Nostra, operates in 19 cities in 13 states.
They are connected with the Mexican DTOs. Italian-based organizations such as the Sicilian
Mafia, ‘Ndrangheta, Camorra, and Sacra Corona United operate in 19 states. Their products are
mainly heroin and MDMA. The Mexican DTOs are perceived by the U.S. authorities to be the
greatest threat. They dominate the smuggling routes and have an advanced communications
network.16

Those operating in the U.S. are dominated by and/or aligned with the seven major Mexican
cartels, namely the Sinaloa Cartel, Los Zetas, Gulf Cartel, Juarez Cartel, BLO, LFM, and the
Tiajuana cartel. Central to these cartels operations are not just the DTOs but also street, prison
and motorcycle gangs. The cartel of particular interest to us for our focus on and understanding
of Mara Salavatrucha and Barrio 18 is Los Zetos. We cannot explore the transition process or
discuss alternative means of intervention and prevention if there is not an understanding of the
complex relations between the DTOs, the cartels and the gangs and the various and competing
roles played on not just the streets of America but also within Central America. All of the
actors—the DTOs, DCs, gangs, state authorities, civil society and the people—must be involved
16
Ibid.
in the process if we are to find peace on the streets. The paths to peace on the streets in El
Salvador, Mexico and the United States are intertwined. We conclude today with two
documentaries—one on the drug trade in Mexico and one on Los Zetos.
Lecture 4: The All Mighty Latin Kings and Queens Nation: From King Blood to King
Tone

The ALKQN is covered because of the transformation it underwent from gang to community
organization. Antonio Fernandez (a.k.a King Tone) once said that he sought to transform the
ALKQN into a lighthouse. He sought to transform it so that it served as a guiding light for its
members and others. It is herein argued that the transition of the ALKQN is an example for
others who seek to make the transformation. After all, as another King highlighted more than 10
years ago, the issues of the past are similar to those plaguing the communities and its inhabitants
in the present. Yet division and fragmentation among and within the gangs contribute to and
exacerbate those conditions.

There has not been unity among the gangs and its members since the 1971 Attica Rebellion. A
greater degree of unity was attained during the Pelican Bay Hunger Strike a few years ago but it
was limited to one issue rather than for the purpose of transformation. There are examples from
the past and the present of what can be achieved when individuals from all walks of life set aside
their rivalries, hatred and fear to work on the issues that plague each and every individual who
has walked or lived in the street at any point their life. In addition, there are examples where
community and social justice activists, from all walks of life—from the military to the church
and from ordinary stay-at-home mum’s to professors in college—who disagreed with those who
said gang members living and fighting on the streets cannot change. Sometimes just believing in
someone is enough for them to start believing in themselves. As the Latin Kings teach, being a
member requires one to believe. There is and will always be hope, so long as there is belief that
every little step taken toward something new matters.

This section, therefore, provides students with the story of the Latin Kings. The story of its
development is based on the seminal work of David C. Brotherton and Luis Barrios.17 The latter
is a professor of Criminal Psychology at John Jay College in New York. He was also a pivotal
figure during the transformation process. His story is special and should be shared, particularly
for those who are struggling for social justice and working with the youth for attaining that end.

Barrios was like a father to many who had no father; he provided an ear when they needed
someone to listen to; and, he never turned his back on them. Too many turn their backs—from
family to friends. Barrios, however, held out hope and therein gave hope to many of those young
men and women. He is an inspiration, just as the many others who are like him. What I hope
students take away from his story is that anything is possible so long as one does not fear to
extend a hand to help another, even if it is not asked for.

As mentioned there were also others who helped in the ALKQN transition process. Social
activists and community leaders walked side-by-side with them when they made the decision to
change. They were not left alone. This was important. Students will recall our discussion of Los
Solidos and the failure of its transition. Its transition failed, in part, because of a lack of
community, social and political support for the process. Let us learn, then, from others so that
17
Brotherton, D.C. and L. Barrios (2004). The Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation: Street Politics and the
Transformation of a New York City Gang. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
we can find the paths to peace. Peace on the streets from El Salvador to the United States of
America is possible, if we learn from the successes and failures, the trials and tribulation, and the
stories of others, from all walks of life. Turning our back or hanging our heads in shame because
off what has come before will not lead us to something new.

I. From Chicago to New York: The Influence of the Mother Chapter of the Latin
Kings in Chicago and Rise of the All Mighty Kings and Queens Nations of New
York

The ALKQN was founded by Luis Felipe (hereinafter referred to as “King Blood”) in Collins
Correctional Facility in 1986. It is influenced by and connected to the Mother Chapter of the
Latin Kings in Chicago through the first 10 lessons of the King Bible or Manifesto. It adds
thereto another 26 for the King Nation Manifesto and 22 for the Queen Nation Manifesto. The
Queen’s Manifesto was written in 1993. Both manifestos were penned by King Blood.

King Blood founded New York’s first Latin Kings as a result of the conditions within the
correctional facility where he was placed. His reign will be discussed in more detail in the next
sub-section of the lecture. Herein it is essential for students to have an understanding of the
philosophical and normative underpinning of the Kings. This is particularly important for
understanding the King’s transformation under King Tone. The basic principles, the senses, the
keys, the stages of Kingism, and the systems of communication and sanction are briefly touched
on in the remainder of this section.

There are five basic principles, which form the crown. They are respect, loyalty, love, wisdom
and obedience for the Chicago Kings. For the New York Kings, they are respect, honesty, unity,
knowledge and love. There are also five senses or diamonds of the crown. They are seeing the
other; hearing the cry for help and the willingness to listen to the message and purpose; touching
or, rather, extending your hand to help; smelling or detecting danger and threats; and, tasting
victory over the oppressive forces. The keys for adhering to and implementing the principles and
sense are patience, family (not turning your back), and love (acting benevolently and showing
your love for one another).

Kingism entails three stages of development, namely the primitive stage, the mummy stage, and
the new King stage. In the primitive stage, the individual is impulsive, selfish, and acts without
thought of others. He or she is rebelling against the realities of life or acting contrary to them.
The mummy stage is where maturity is developed but not yet attained. This is where the
individual comes to accept the reality of life. Acceptance does not per se imply maturity rather it
signifies readiness for the final stage. The final stage of development is where the individual
experiences the revolution of the mind. It is through the knowledge revolution that maturity is
attained.

Finally, the keys to maintaining order within the Kings are the systems of communication and
sanction. Communication via meetings and correspondence are important for facilitating
dialogue, clearing misunderstanding, and resolving disputes. Behavior of members is regulated
through the system of sanction. The system is designed to maintain cohesion and protect against
outside interference.
They are three types of sanctions that can be imposed, namely punishments, social exclusion,
and group shaming. Implementation is guided by three principles. First, the sanction imposed
cannot undermine the moral authority of the collective leadership and its belief system. Second,
the sanction must hold the individual accountable. Finally, the sanction imposed cannot lead to
uncontrollable acts of aggression. The internal Kings’ system has experienced ebbs and flows as
it evolved over the years. We will capture some of those ebbs and flows in our overview of the
periods of King Blood’s and King Tone’s leadership.

II. The Period of King Blood (1986-1996): Growth of the ALKQN from New York
to Florida

Brotherton and Barrios (2004) divide the story of King Blood’s life into two parts—the first
period is prior to his incarceration and the second period is following his incarceration. They are
both essential to understanding ALKQN’s foundation and development. King Blood is the author
of the ALKQN manifestos. Leadership of ALKQN was turned over to King Tone in 1996.
Thus, the period of King Blood covers the years of 1986 to 1996. He was also the original link
between the Chicago and New York Kings.

The first period of King Blood’s life begins prior to the formation of the ALKQN; that is, when
he was still known as Luis Felipe. Felipe is originally from Cuba. He and many other youth at
the time were struggling with the conditions of the country, the lack of opportunities, and the
violence on the streets. It was the violence on the streets that would land him in one of Cuba’s
prison.

Felipe was walking home one night when someone approached him from behind. The individual
placed a cold, loaded barrel at this neck. There was a struggle and the individual was shot in the
arm. The police arrested Felipe. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Felipe was part of the undesirables released from Cuba’s prisons who made their way to the
United States. He traveled from Florida to Puerto Rico prior to making his way to Chicago. It
was in Chicago where he joined a renegade faction of the Chicago King’s, the Pee Wee Kings.
Felipe worked his way up in the Kings. In 1981, he moved to the South Bronx of New York.
The conditions on the streets were unimaginable.

In 1982, Felipe would enter the U.S. correctional facility for the first time. He was sentenced to
9 years for accidentally shooting his girlfriend in a drunken rage. While he was at first moved
from correction facility to facility, he would land for the duration of sentence in Collins
Correctional Facility. The facility had a reputation for brutality. It was also dominated by white
and black gangs, who both targeted the Latino community. Felipe would form New York’s first
branch of the Kings in order to provide protection to the community inside the prison. The
official date of its establishment was January 20, 1986.

Felipe, or King Blood as he was referred to by then, was paroled in 1989. He was rearrested
within a year and, thus, returned to prison to serve out his time. It should be noted that he spent
most of his time in solitary confinement. Let us take a short detour to watch a clip on solitary
confinement. This is important because not only are many leaders or gang members spending
quite a bit of time in solitary confinement, but also because in 1997 a U.S. court would sentence
King Blood to 250 years in prison with the first 45 to be spent in solitary confinement. It was the
harshest prison sentence handed down since WWII. The sentencing of someone to solitary
confinement for that many years is inhumane and tantamount to torture. We should also watch a
short clip on recidivism rates in the United States given the role played by prisons and prisoners
and their connection to the street gangs.

The more time King Blood spent in prison, the more it consumed his life. According to him, one
must focus on what is going on inside because the mind will go crazy focusing on the outside.
The mind must live in the present; it cannot live in the past. It must let go. Life inside the
prison, given the conditions therein, is about survival. The Kings, therefore, became everything
for him. The organization and its members were what kept in sane and gave him hope.

The Kings would expand through both the prison policies employed, the federal and state
government’s attempt to dismantle the organization, and through the release of its members. The
harsh treatment employed in the prisons and the prison conditions required the formation of
collectivities by inmates. They cleaved to one another in order to survive. We will talk more
about prison gangs in two weeks.

The federal and state governments attempted to dismantle the organization not just through the
harsh prison policies, but also through transferring members to other prisons across the United
States. This resulted in the spread rather than the dismantlement of the Kings. The explanations
for expansion given by Brotherton and Barrios (2004) primarily pertain to the prison laws. In
particular, three of the five explanations pertain thereto while the other two deal with the
interlinking social conditions. Their explanations are as follows: mass incarceration as a result
of the Rockefeller Drug Laws; the Federal 3-Strike legislation; Truth-in-sentencing laws; the
persistent impoverishment and underachievement of the lowest social order; and, a reaction to
the growth within the post-crack epidemic years.

Finally, the release of the members would bring the Kings to the streets. As we will learn under
the period of King Tone, the street organization is very different than the prison organization.
The latter takes on the characteristics of a gang while the former oscillated during certain periods
of its development between a gang in the traditional sense to a community-based organization.
The transition does not occur until the leadership of King Tone. The remainder of this section,
therefore, provides an overview of the period nearing the end of King Blood’s leadership.

In the early to mid-1990s, adults and youth joined the Kings on the streets. The deterioration in
the socioeconomic conditions, a lack of opportunities, increased violence on the streets, and
social exclusion are the factors cited as contributing to both adults and youth joining. The adults
were mainly those who had been released from prison. An overwhelming majority of the street
population, however, was comprised of the youth. This posed many problems and also places in
context the growing internal fragmentation within the second period. Students should recall in
their mind the stages of Kingism when pondering the growing internal fragmentation and also
contemplating the oscillation between gang and community-based organization.
The power struggle on the streets within the Kings as a result of the generational and ideological
cleavages increased intra-gang violence. There was also a breakdown in the sanction system,
with certain cliques or tribes using it for personal disputes and power rivalries. Employing the
sanction system for such reasons violates the guiding principles and, thus, contributes to a
breakdown in moral authority of the leadership. In fact, the unseating of the appointed leadership
on the streets toward the end of King Blood’s reign serves as case in point. The leadership on the
streets also played more of the role of functionaries rather than visionary leaders.

By the mid-1990s, a culture of fear rather than one that embraced respect, honesty, unity,
knowledge and love dominated. The in-fighting and increased violence on the streets led to a
deterioration in relations between the Kings and the communities wherein they were living. It
also brought more attention to them by law enforcement. More Kings were returning to and
those who never been were going to prison. The power vacuum on the streets contributed to the
rise of new blood, a new type of Kings on streets. King Blood recognized the streets and the
Kings need something new. He would anoint Antonio Fernandez or King Tone in 1996.

III. The Period of King Tone—The Reformation Period

Antonio Fernandez is a fascinating character with an amazing story. He not only hit bottom
several times but each time he picked himself back up and emerged even stronger. The Kings’
transformation was possible, in part, because of the strong will, determination and vision of this
passionate, charismatic and intelligent individual. To understand the respect afforded to him by
the youth and the members and the reason why King Blood selected him as being capable of
leading the Kings and taking it beyond what others would conceive as even possible, let us begin
from the period prior to him becoming a King.

Fernandez grew up in a home with a mother, father and four sisters. His father worked for an
Italian bread factory, while his mum stayed at home to raise the children. He was the only son;
thus, he was given a great deal of freedom. His mum focused most of her attention on the girls.
She helped them with their homework and they were responsible for household chores. They
were also a religious family.

While knowing he was loved, Fernandez felt a bit out of place in the home. His mum never
asked if he needed help with his homework nor did he tell her it was needed. He struggled with
his studies, particularly his spelling. The discrimination in the school system too did not help.
Recounted to Barrios was a story of when he was in primary school. Every Friday there was a
spelling test at school. Fernandez usually skipped school on Fridays to avoid the test. He had to
go one day. The problem was he did not know how to write. His girlfriend sat next to him. She
whispered to him to just try his best. The teachers caught the exchange and assumed he was
cheating. He called him a stupid Spic and placed the blank sheet on the board. After this
humiliating experience he gave up trying. In spite of not knowing how to write, Fernandez made
it to the eleventh grade. Interestingly enough he was also preselected for a criminal justice
program. Fernandez, however, believed school was not realistic for him and so, like many others
in that period, he dropped out rather than finishing. During that time period one could still be
someone without a high school degree.
The degree of religiosity of his parents and home life made it hard for him to relate to his family.
Their vision and discourse and the idea of God itself contradicted what he saw daily on the
streets. On the streets there were rapes, murders, drive-by shootings, beatings, drug use and
prostitution. The idealized world of faith seemed unrealistic for a young man living on the
streets.

Fernandez went through his own trials and tribulations. He sold drugs and, like most dealers,
ended up becoming addicted. His addiction corresponded to the drugs he sold. It was not until
he became addicted to crack that he really hit bottom. Family and friends tried to help him
recover many times. In fact, it was his mum who saved him at one point when he was in the
hospital on a heart machine. He had a pill in his pocket. She caught him in time.

Even that near death experience did not wake him up. He would have one more near death
experience. This time a friend would save him. It would not be until he was sent to prison that
there was a real change. In prison, he would be exposed to the Kings and the King manifesto.
The manifesto led to him turning inward and reflecting within, which would lead him to revisit
faith. Fernandez found himself, God and the Kings. He would return to the streets upon his
release with beads in his hand and wearing the black and gold colors of the Kings. Antonio
Fernandez became King Tone and vowed to strive to be the best. It was his second chance.

King Tone was anointed leader of all the Kings in 1996. Having been on the streets prior to
being a King, becoming a King in prison, and returning to the streets as a King, he had a
different grasp of the inter-organizational aspects of the Kings. As was highlighted in the
previous discussion under King Blood’s leadership, there was a growing disconnect between the
prison and the street organization and leadership, with there not only being political cleavages
but also generational and ideological variance that were contributing to fragmentation and
preventing growth. King Tone had to find a way to bridge the gaps in order for there to be
growth. This is where the development and importance of communication network or system
and respect of the origins of the King leadership became vital.

King Tone set out to transform the Kings. He sought to rekindle the period where street gangs
and community-based organizations were one. Students should recall our discussion of the
origins of many gangs in the early 1960s and how the civil rights and other social movements
impact their origins and activities. During that time period the gangs were more akin to
community-based politically-oriented organizations that sought protection for its people and the
betterment of the communities where they were living.

When the Kings embraced transition and sought transformation, social activists from the past
held out their hands to help guide them on the path they chose. At the same time, as the Kings
moved forward, law enforcement increased its harassment of the members. According to
Brotherton and Barrios, their philosophy to rebuild the community by regenerating,
reconstructing and empowering the individual was far more dangerous than the criminal
activities of its past. In spite of the harassment and with the aid of the activists and members of
the different faith communities, the Kings were able to continue meeting to push forward the
transition and transformational agenda. They developed programs and self-help models
members and held classes for its members. As all faith traditions from the monotheistic to the
polytheistic posit, change comes first and foremost from within. It begins inward and with the
individual. The path of the Kings was set and they were bound for the transition. King Tone
once said he wished to see the Latin Kings serve as an example for the others operating on and
living in the streets. It is herein argued that the Kings are an example for all those operating on
and living in the streets across the globe. They are an example of what can be for those who seek
to make the transition or for those who wish to give the gift of peace. Next Tuesday we will
cover Mara Salvatrucha and ponder whether they can make the transition and to realize the goal
of peace on the streets. Please do not forget student presentations are Friday.
Lecture 5: From Tradition to Transnational Street Gang Wars—Crips, Bloods, Mara
Salvatrucha, and Barrio 18

Today’s lecture concludes our coverage of street gangs. Through lecture and student research,
street gangs from America to across the globe were covered. Therein students were able to
capture an understanding of the variance and importance of geographical demarcations,
organizational structure, gang member and activities, and the role played by politics, society and
economics. Similarities and differences exist across and within gangs, which makes
generalizations difficult. Broad sweeping generalizations help to perpetuate myths and overlook
the complexity of the problem. Peace on the streets in the Americas is only possible by
recognizing, accepting and dissecting the complexity. War on Gangs is equivalent to war on the
children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. It is not the answer to dealing with the growing
violence on the streets. As is concluded in today’s lecture, it is youth violence and not gangs that
threatens peace.

Crips and the Bloods: Traditional American Street Gangs

The Crips and the Bloods are examples of traditional American street gangs. They are also
rivals. Their rivalry and the impact it has on the streets of the U.S. are similar to the rivalry
between Barrio 18 and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). Barrio 18 and the Crips were the first to
form, while their rivals formed later and, in part, in response to them and their activities. Yet
Barrio 18 and MS-13 have evolved into transnational gangs and the Crips and the Bloods remain
traditional street gangs. The lessons learned there from are valuable for our understanding of the
similarities and differences in the gang wars.

The Crips was founded by Raymond Lee Washington in the 1970s. He was inspired by the
Black Power Movement and sought to not only provide protection to the people but also to clean
up the community. To attain said objectives he sought to build the Crips from the bottom-up. The
Crips were originally called the Baby Cribs. Its name would change to Crips. Researchers and
investigators say that there are at least eight different stories on the name change. The two
dominant stories are that the name is because of Washington’s crippled brother; and, that the
name is because of the members’ use of a cane when walking. As one member explained, the
cane provided a source of protection. The streets back in the early days of the Crips were won
by the hand rather than the gun. The founding father of Crips said, “real men used their fists”
not their gun.

The Bloods formed in response to the Crips. The Crips expanded and consumed many of the
smaller gangs. It used coercion and violence in order to increase the territory under its control.
While some joined, others sought to maintain independence. Those who sought independence
formed an alliance. It was an anti-Crip alliance that comprised the foundation of the Bloods. It
was the founder of the Black T Stones, T. Rogers, who led the mobilization for the formation of
the anti-Crip alliance.

In spite of the mobilization and the formation of an anti-Crip alliance, the Crips outnumbered the
Bloods. The latter sought to defend its turf and to protect its members through the use of
violence. Violence by the Crips, as will be recalled, was primarily carried out by the hand. The
Bloods, however, preferred the gun. It should be highlighted here that, as the Crips increased its
base and incorporated other, smaller gangs, the tactics also changed. They became more brutal.

The end result was that violence on the streets increased, and so too did fear and hatred among
the gangs, the communities, and law enforcement. There is a saying that violence begets more
violence. That truism becomes even more evident when we look at inter-and-intra gang rivalries
and rivalries among law enforcement, the gangs, and the communities. Key underlying factors
driving the cycle are fear, hatred, stereotypes, discrimination and prejudice.

Violence, fear, hatred, stereotypes, discrimination and prejudice among and within the
communities and gangs increased in the 1980s with the introduction of cocaine on the streets.
The initial introduction of it increased competition among and within gangs. Old rivalries
reemerged and alliances of those who formed with the larger Crips and Bloods began breaking
down. Crips and Bloods were not only fighting one another, but Crips and Crips and Bloods and
Bloods were also battling for personal control over certain areas.

The streets further deteriorated in the mid-1980s when a cheaper drug was introduced. The drug
introduced was crack. While the money was alluring, the drug addiction thereto took its toll. A
fix for many became more important than tending to babies and providing for the family. The
communities imploded in many states.

With the implosion of the communities in many states, law enforcement would lean toward a
“Zero Tolerance” approach. The approach is similar to Central America’s Mano Dura. The
approach and also changes in the drug and prisons laws contributed to mass incarceration.
Correctional facilities were already overcrowded. The conditions in many of them were also
extremely poor. We will talk more about the prisons in our discussion on the prison gangs. The
point here is that prison and the “Zero Tolerance” approach only exacerbated the problems on
the streets. Policing of gangs will also be covered toward the end of the course.

While the prisons and the “Zero Tolerance” approach exacerbated the conditions on the streets,
there were some gang members who returned and others who were still on the streets who said
enough-is-enough. They sought to change the condition of the streets and to steer the youth
away from gang-banging. Let us take a short detour to watch two clips—the first is an interview
with a Toronto Ex-street gang member; and, the second is Scared Straight. Scared Straight was
recommended by a teen member of the Bloods. He recalled watching it and said that even though
it never deterred him from joining it was successful in deterring others. The Crips and the
Bloods are an interesting study for the role played by former and current gang activists in
intervention and prevention initiatives and programs. The lessons learned there from can help
individuals within MS-13 and Barrio 18 who are seeking something similar in their quest for
peace. We will return to intervention and prevention initiatives following the discussion on
policing of gangs in three weeks.

Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Barrio 18 (18th Street): An Overview of Transnational

Street Gangs
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Barrio 18 (18th Street) are different than other U.S. street gangs
such as the Blood and the Crips.[1]18 They are transnational in nature. The literature varies on
what constitutes a transnational gang. According to the CRS Report for Members and
Committees of Congress, a transnational gang is considered to have one or more of the following
characteristics: “(1) such gangs are criminally active and operational in more than one country;
(2) criminal activities committed by gang members in one country are planned, directed and
controlled by gang leaders in another country; (3) such gangs tend to be mobile and adapt to new
areas; and, (4) the criminal activities of such gangs tend to be sophisticated and transcend
borders” (CRS: 4). Neither MS-13 nor Barrio 18 meet the second characteristic. In fact, most
networked-entities fail to meet that characteristic. The nature of the command and control
structure of the cliques make it impossible for centralized control of operations and/or the
dominance of one clique or set of members over another. This section provides a brief overview
of the two street gangs.

Mara Salvatrucha is a transnational network comprised of cliques that span the United States and
Central America.[2]19 It originally emerged in the U.S. in the 1980s. The existing literature and
government reports vary on the number of states in the United States where MS-13 cliques are
operating. Some place the number at 33, while others claim there is activity in 42 states. The
particular states where there is a significant amount of activity are California, Maryland, North
Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Virginia and Washington. There are also members in
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah.
Highlighted by the list are two things, namely the significance of the East Coast and the fact that
MS-13 spans from East to West and North to South.

MS-13 activities in the U.S. vary across the states and also among and within the cliques. There
is no centralized or hierarchal structure in its U.S. operations. Yet within some of the cliques,
there is a degree of centralization within the structure. This is an important distinction but also
consistent with networked operations. Network operations are necessary when individuals and
operations are spread over a large geographical area.

In contrast to its U.S. operations, there is a greater degree of centralization in operations within
Central America, particularly in El Salvador. The areas of operation in Central America are
primarily El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua. In terms of numbers in the areas of
operation, the ranking of Central American states from largest to smallest is Honduras, El
Salvador, and Mexico. There is also a very small contingent in Guatemala. In Guatemala and
Mexico, MS-13 is strategically located near the migration, smuggling and trafficking routes. It
should be noted that MS-13 is most stable in Honduras and many of its members are reported to
be more financially well-off. They are also engaged in more legitimate business enterprises than

[1]18 “The MS-13 and 18th Street Gangs: Emerging Transnational Gang Threats,” A Report Prepared for Members
and Committees of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (n.d): 1-20.

[2]19 Criminal Investigation Division—MS-13 National Gang Task Force (2005). Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13): An
International Perspective. VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation Intelligence Assessment.
those living in the other countries. This helps to account for the relative stability in Honduras in
contrast to El Salvador and Mexico.

Operations within each of the geographical areas are independent from and not commanded by a
regional or transnational command and control structure. Membership and the communication
infrastructure are what facilitate the linkages between the different MS-13 cliques in the varying
areas of operation. Membership within MS-13 is overwhelmingly Salvadoran, but also includes
individuals from many countries in Central America and those who are U.S. citizens. It is wrong
to assume that all of the MS-13 members living in the United States are illegal. The degrees of
connection across the transnational network vary, thereby making it far more difficult to reduce
violence in the areas of operation.

MS-13’s Central American operations are connected to the Salvadoran cartels Los Caballos, Los
Broncos, and Los Pelones and the Mexican cartels Los Zetos and the Sinaloa Federation. The
connections to Los Zetas and the reports of former members of Guatemalan Kaibiles (Special
Forces) joining MS-13 are interesting when pondering the paramilitary tactics employed in
certain areas of operations, particularly in Central America. It should also be noted that many of
the first generation members of MS-13 and Barrio 18 have their roots in El Salvador’s civil war.
Gang membership and activities should be examined through the generational lens; that is,
whether they are first, second or third generation gangs. First generation gangs are characterized
as traditional street gangs. The Bloods and the Crips are examples. Second generation gangs are
characterized as having an organized structure. Finally, third generation gangs are highly
sophisticated in terms of operation and activities. The types of activities vary by generation,
with those falling within the second and third generation tending to be less about gang banging.
Recall the discussion on the Bloods and Crips in regard to gang banging.

Barrio 18 (18th Street) is an older gang and a rival to MS-13. The literature dates its origins to the
1960s. A majority of its membership is Mexican and Chicano, while the minority is comprised
of Blacks, Caucasians, Salvadorans, Arabs and Asian. Salvadoran members also trace their roots
to the El Salvadoran civil war. It is considered to be Los Angeles’ first multiethnic, multiracial
gang. Mass incarceration contributed to its ethnic, racial and geographical expansion. Actually,
mass incarceration had a similar impact on all of the types of gangs. We will talk more about
this when we cover prison gangs.

The Barrio 18 network spans the United States and Central America. It activities are similar to
MS-13. Both MS-13 and Barrio 18 are associated with the Mexican Mafia prison gang. We will
cover the Mexican Mafia prison gang following our coverage of motorcycle gangs. Barrio 18 is
also believed to be connected to the Mexican and Columbian drug cartels.

MS-13 and Barrio 18 are the largest gangs in El Salvador. They are also bitter rivals. Their
rivalry spans the streets of United States to El Salvador. Peace on the streets, therefore,
necessitates a strategy that crosses boundaries and communities. MS-13 and other gangs
expressed an interest in giving the gift of peace to honor Oscar Romero.

Peace, in the words of Monsignor Colindares, is a process. It is something that will require
commitment and hard work, particularly given the reluctance of many to support anything other
than Mano Dura or a hard- handed security approach. After all governments from the United
States and in Europe have contributed more than $500 million financially to violence reduction
initiatives over the years yet violence continues.[3]20 Some point to corruption while others
suggest the programs are poorly managed. The absence of public support for alternative methods
for dealing with the gangs is also lacking.

Gang activity and the nature of targets do not help when contemplating how to address the
underlying issues. Many former and current gang members in El Salvador and on the streets of
the U.S. cannot find alternative types of employment; do not have opportunities for schooling;
and, are not accepted in the larger community. They also remain targets of rival gangs. All of
these factors must be contemplated when pondering peace and the alternative mechanisms for
peace-building in the streets and communities across the states and countries spanning the
Americas. Peace is not attainable if we continue to limit our eyes to only our backyard. We are
all human; thus, a comprehensive, strategically humane approach that includes all actors and
excludes no one is needed.

Conclusion: Gangs Wars on the Streets of the Americas

In order for us to ponder peace-building on the streets of the Americas, there are misconceptions
that must be cleared. The conclusion to our section on Street Gangs will provide a summary of
findings on gang members and their activity. In particular, the size and make-up of the gang
population, the reasons for joining and leaving gangs, the typology of youth violence, and the
myths associated with gang crime. The findings are derived from an extensive study conducted
by the Justice Policy Institute.[4]21

Gangs are often romanticized in the movies and through music. They are also cast the greatest
criminal threat to society by law enforcement and policy makers. Crime and the underlying
conditions leading to individuals engaging in the activity rather than per se gangs are threats to
society. A review of the existing studies and government reports finds there are fewer gang
members on the streets in America today than a decade ago. It was also found that there are not
consistent correlations between law enforcement measures and intervention and prevention
initiatives and the reduction of gang crime, activity, and membership. Gang members actually
account for a relatively small share of the crime in most jurisdictions across the U.S. Gangs also
do not dominate the drug trade. Gang members involvement in drug sales is described as poorly
organized, episodic, non-monopolistic and not a rationale for the gangs’ existence. Moreover,
the public face of gangs is typically black or brown; but in terms of actual numbers of those who
actually report being involved in gangs in the Gang Youth Survey, the Caucasian community is
higher in numbers. The discrepancy in the data between law enforcement and the Youth Gang
Surveys, according to the Justice Policy Institute, accounts for a lot of the misunderstanding,
misperception, and myth perpetuation in the understanding of gangs.

[3]20 Dudley, S. (2013). “The El Salvador Gang Truce and the Church: What was the role of the Catholic Church?”
Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, American University, No. 1: 1-28.
21
[4] Greene, J. and K. Pranis (2007). Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective
Public Safety Strategies. Washington, D.C.: The Justice Policy Institute.
Youth violence is a problem and not per se gangs. In fact, most youth do not join gangs. Gang
involvement among the youth is higher among high-risk youth and in communities where gang
activity is prevalent. Some common factors for joining include negative life events, positive
views on drugs, and association with delinquent peers. Factors that serve as an insulator for gang
involvement include education, commitment to school, attachment to teachers, and parents’
expectation. Leaving a gang is also not as difficult as is perpetuated by both the media and some
gang members. It is commonly believed and perpetuated that only death or jail will lead to
someone being able to leave a gang. In reality and when examining the statistics, this is not the
case. Many choose to leave one to three years after joining. Typically, it is nearing adulthood
when the decision for most is made to leave. There are, of course, others who cite near death
experiences, loss of loved ones, or jail as the reason but they are a minority. The most common
factors cited for leaving include awakening, maturation, safety concerns, and moving out of the
city or away from the area where gang activity is prevalent.
In conclusion, peace on the streets is not possible by waging war on gangs. Gangs are not the
enemy. Gangs are simply comprised of young men and women from different ethnic
backgrounds, race and religion. By waging war on gangs, we are choosing to wage war on our
children. Waging war on children is not humane. A more humane approach is one that seems
each one as an individual and looks to the underlying factors that led to not only joining but also
to violence being adopted in the first place. As the Justice Policy Institute highlighted youth
violence and not gangs is what is threatening peace on the streets in the Americas. We will
return to this once more in a few weeks. Our attention now turns to motorcycle gangs.
Lecture 6: Introduction to Motorcycle Gangs

Today’s class begins the first part of our coverage on motorcycle gangs. Motorcycle gangs are
different from motorcycle clubs. Motorcycle clubs, according to Barker (2007; 2012), are
divided into two categories, namely conventional and deviant clubs. Conventional clubs are
comprised of all races and sexes. Holding members together are their interest in motorcycling
and enjoyment of the ride. Riding is for companionship and pleasure. Deviant motorcycle clubs
are comprised of non-conformist, rule-violating individuals. Many of the members engage in
criminal activity. Such clubs are small in number but they are who dominant the media and,
thus, public attention.

The bikers and the deviant clubs are referred to as the One-Percenters. One-Percenters are “the
one percent of [individuals] who have given up on society and the politician’s one-way law”
(Barker, 2012). While they are rejectionists of the social status-quo, they do not actively seek
to change society, politics or culture or to actively recruit others into their way of life or thinking.
Others will gravitate toward them and their culture because of having a similar view on the
status-quo. Their views vary by clubs, region and members. We will attempt to capture said
variance next Friday.

Next Friday each student will be responsible for informally sharing with the class the story of
one of the deviant biker clubs. The following list will be covered next Friday by the assigned
students:
 Hells Angels—Utkrista
 Bandidos—PG
 Outlaws—Natalie
 Pagans—Anjalika
 Sons of Silence—Benji
 Nomads or Red Devils—Daniel
 Black Pistons or Forsaken Few—Qingqing
 Tribe, Last Rebels or Shore Dogs—Koko
 Mongols—Anish
 Vagos—John
 Eastbay Dragons—Muksin
 Wheels of Soul—Virak
 Ching-a-Lings—Thu

Students should be aware of and being able to informally share with the class the history and
story of the assigned biker club. No formal presentation or power-point is needed and there will
be no paper required. This exercise is counted purely as in-class participation.

The selected deviant clubs to be covered will follow Barker’s classification schema. Barker
(2012) organizes the deviant biker clubs into the main four, the puppet/support clubs, the
independent clubs, and the black or interracial one-percent clubs. The big four are the Hells
Angels, Bandidos, Outlaws and Pagans. Hells Angels, Bandidos and Outlaws are transnational
deviant biker clubs. The Pagans are, thus far, only in operation in the U.S. There has been talk of
expansion to Canada. Puppet/support clubs are associated with the dominant deviant clubs. The
Nomads and Red Devils are two known puppet/support clubs associated with the Hells Angels.
The Black Pistons and the Forsaken Few are associated with the Outlaws. Some support clubs
associated with the Pagans include the Tribe, Last Rebels, and the Shore Dogs. Independent
deviant clubs are those not associated with either the main four or one of the support clubs. They
either operate in an area not under the control of the others or in an area through tacit acceptance
of the dominant club. The Mongols and Vagos are examples. All-black or interracial clubs
include the Oakland, California Eastbay Dragons (all-black), the Wheels of Soul (interracial),
and the Ching-a-Lings (interracial).

In conclusion, on Tuesday’s class we will talk in more detail about the organizational structure,
activities and culture of motorcycle gangs, as well the relationship between them and street and
prison gangs. Students will recall that the complexity of street gangs could not be understood
without knowledge of and discussion on the role of DTOs. Similarly, an understanding of the
complexity of motorcycle gangs (deviant biker clubs) is not possible without knowledge of and
discussion on organized crime. The remainder of class today will be, therefore, spent on the
history of organized crime in America.
Lecture 7: Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs), the American Military and Transnational
Organized Crime

The existing literature on biker clubs and outlaw motorcycle gangs highlighted the existence of a
relationship between them and the American military. The situation in Waco, Texas has led to
discussion in the media and by policymakers of the relationship between the OMGs and U.S. law
enforcement. Highlighted in both the existing literature and also in Department of Justice
Reports is the relationship between the OMGs and transnational organized crime. This lecture
examines the nature of crime, the relationship between the OMGs and the American military,
and the role of transnational organized crime.

OMGs, deviant biker clubs and one-percenters are used interchangeably. As will be recalled
from the previous lecture, they refer to the minority of bikers and biker clubs rather than the
conventional biker clubs. Students should also keep in mind that while generalizations are made
based on the government reports, law enforcement data, and the existing studies conducted on
OMGs, there has not been a significant amount of academic research done on these gangs in
contrast to street and prison gangs. This is in large part because of the lack of access to and
willingness on the part of OMGs to open their doors to clear the air and to detail their operations.
Past presidents and notable, charismatic leaders of some of the OMGs have written books on
their life. Such material is valuable but at the same time it is not sufficient when we compare it
to the ethnographic work done by researchers in John Jay’s Street Organization Project. Perhaps
the situation in Texas will lead to some of the OMGs to opening their lives, and organizations, to
ethnographic study.

I. The Nature of OMG Crime

This section provides an overview of OMG crime based on the studies conducted by Barker and
Human (2009), Quinn and Forsyth (2012), and Barker (2012).22 Barker and Human (2009)
highlight the lack of existing research on OMGs and the types of crimes. Studies tend to make
generalized assumptions based on the law enforcement or the Department of Justice reports. A
lack of access to and willingness by OMGs to participate in ethnographic studies hinders an
alternative narrative to, or questioning of, the bounded images constructed by the media and law
enforcement data.

Recognizing the issue and need for research in this area, Barker and Human (2009) conducted a
study on OMG crime utilizing content analysis. In particular, they sought to empirically
examine “their criminal activity and the utility of the Quinn and Koch (2003) typology of biker
criminality to classify the criminal behavior of selected OMGs” (Barker 2012: 175). The
selected OMGs included the big four that were introduced in the previous class, namely the Hells
Angels, the Bandidos, the Outlaws and the Pagans. Students should recall the previous lecture
and discussion regarding the relationship between the Big Four and the puppet/support clubs.

22
See Barker, T. (2012). North American Criminal Gangs: Street, Prison, Outlaw Motorcycle and Drug Trafficking
Organizations. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
The criminal typology proposed by Quinn and Koch (2003) to classify biker criminality are
spontaneous expressive acts, planned aggressive acts, short-term instrumental acts, and on-going
instrumental enterprises. Spontaneous expressive acts are concerned with violent acts committed
by one or a few members against rival or other actors within the social milieu of biker clubs.
Planned aggressive acts are violent acts committed against rival bikers and/or clubs. There are
the elements of premeditation (planning and intent) to commit the crime by specific sets or
chapter/regional/national officers. Short-term instrumental acts are acts committed because the
opportunity presented itself or as a response to the particular needs of one of the involved
members. Key here is the element of opportunism.

Ongoing instrumental enterprises are acts or endeavors undertaken to provide long-term financial
assistance to members of the club and those therein involved in the act. Some types of crimes in
this category include drug production/distribution. They are crimes most typically associated
with organized crime. An overview of transnational organized crime is discussed in Part III of
this lecture.

The type of criminality engaged in by individuals and specific cliques within OMGs varies. In
the study conducted by Barker and Human (2009) it was found that the most common acts were
ongoing instrumental acts such as drug trafficking, racketeering, brawling, various weapons
charges, and murder. The second most common acts were planned aggressive acts. These acts
are typically directed at rivals and sanctioned by provincial, regional or national leadership. The
least common acts were short instrumental acts. Spontaneous aggressive acts were also least
common.

Quinn and Forsyth (2012) find that biker crimes range over time and space from opportunistic
and spontaneous to instrumental acts. Variance was explained, in part, in evolution or growth of
the OMGs. Opportunistic crimes brought too much negative attention from law enforcement and
political actors. They also were not conducive to the expansion of the club.

As the clubs grew in size (membership and areas of operation), larger business endeavors and the
acquisition of individual wealth took priority. Most clubs sustain themselves on funds derived in
the form of membership fees. Wealth of the members was, thus, in the OMG’s interest. Prison
time also hindered growth. It was harder to find jobs or to attain loans for legitimate business
ventures. Thus, over time, it was in the OMG’s interest to move away from and to limit their
engagement in opportunistic acts. Spontaneous acts were more retaliatory in nature.

Highlighted over time and space were that actions are taken when necessary and the preferred
means used are those which bring little attention to the club. It should also be noted that many
bikers study crime and police methods (Barker: 191). They also have military experience. We
will talk more on the relationship between the OMGs and the military in Part II.

II. The Relationship between OMGs and the American Military

The existing literature, media reports and political actors have highlighted the connection
between OMGs and the American military. Students will recall that many of the founding
members of both conventional and deviant biker clubs were former military personnel. The
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. Office of Strategic
Intelligence and Information (OSII) and the Field Intelligence Support Branch (2014) detail the
relationship between OMGs and active military and law enforcement personnel.23 The OSII
noted “that particular OMGs and their support clubs continue to court active-duty military
personnel and government workers, both civilians and contractors, for their knowledge, reliable
income, tactical skills and dedication to a cause” (ATF Report: 2). An overview of the 2014
ATF Report on OMGs and the Military is herein provided.24

Investigations into the roles of Federal employees and contractors, active-duty military, reservist
and National Guardsmen in OMGs have been on-going since 2007. Most of the information
obtained on individuals and their activities came from undercover ATF investigations. Some
notable ATF investigations include Operation 22 Green, Operation Black Diamonds, and
Operation Black Rain. Those investigations revealed that numerous OMG members were
employed in state and local government agencies, law enforcement, fire departments, the parking
authority, water and sewage departments, 911 call centers, the Department of Homeland
Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, other intelligence agencies within the U.S.
government, and all the branches of the U.S. Armed forces—Air Force, Army, Marines and
Navy. The specific referenced positions held by those who were investigated and found to be
involved in or associated with a known OMG include chief petty officer within the U.S. Navy;
contractors for the FBI and the DOD; crewman on an assault amphibious vehicle; Department of
Homeland Security personnel; Federal employee in a position to observe all the witnesses and
defendants entering and departing from the courthouse; an individual employed with a highly-
secretive DOD agency; Federal police officer at Quantico Marine Corps Base; GS-13 working at
an “unknown” U.S. Government agency; public safety dispatcher; radiological technicians with
security clearance working at a nuclear power plant; reservist with the U.S. Navy; Special
Forces; transport maintenance chief; and, a U.S. Federal Reserve Officer with the Air Force.

Not all of the individuals investigated were found to be members of OMGs. Rather some of
them were only there with associated through social gatherings, parties, charitable events, and
biker runs. It should be noted that the military and law enforcement have legitimate,
conventional biker clubs. ATF investigations have highlighted, however, that some non-OMG
military-based biker clubs exhibit some of the traits and mannerisms of OMGs. This could be
due to the nature and level of interaction between said conventional military and law
enforcement biker clubs and the OMGs.

Many bikers from both conventional and deviant biker clubs converge on large biker gatherings.
Thus, we should be wary of generalizations and deeming someone guilty by association. The
lessons following 911 serve as reminders of the danger of such generalizations. Those identified
and listed in the ATF reports, however, were investigated and the relationships established. The
relationships vary, with some having OMG colors, wearing supporting patches, and other having
full patches. According to an ATF analyst, there are some “active-duty military personnel [who]
received long sentences. Even though only a small percentage of active-duty personnel, DOD

23
The OSII is responsible for the collection, analysis and dissemination of information within ATF. The ATF is a
law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice.
24
“OMGs and the Military 2014,” Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information, U.S. Department of Justice—
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: 1-40.
employees and contractors have been involved in the shootings or violent acts against
adversaries, they belong to and/or associated with OMGs and motorcycle clubs that pulled the
triggers” (ATF Analyst: 8). Students should recall from the readings and discussions that much
of the violence committed is actually internecine violence.

Law enforcement and political leaders raise the seriousness of the criminality of the OMGs and
argue they pose a potential threat to national security (Barker and Human, 2009; Quinn and
Forsythe, 2012; and, Barker, 2012). Their bases for the latter are the transnational aspect of the
clubs and the nature of their activities. It should be noted here that much of the existing
literature highlights the nature of the criminal activities to support the assumption that they are a
threat to national security. Highlighted by the ATF investigation is a different threat. It is a
threat that goes beyond simply the nature of the criminal activities and is based on the level of
training and the position held by many OMG members.

Many of the OMG members have held or currently still hold clearances ranging from top level to
basic security clearance. For example, more than 50 percent of the Road Reapers, who are
associated with HAMC, have secret security clearance. In a raid in Fort Lauderdale, the FBI
found a sensitive “OMG and the Military Report” not cleared for public release. It had also been
electronically disseminated via the Hells Angels. The ATF believes that past and present
military, security and government personnel and contractors are being recruited because of their
steady paycheck, military training, camaraderie and the sense of bonding they received while
fighting alongside each other in Afghanistan and Iraq (ATF Report: 29).

While the government, media and academics write on and highlight the threat posed by OMGs,
the narrative of the latter continues to be neglected more so than that of the street gangs. It is in
large part because of the secretive nature of the OMGs and a lack of ethnographic studies
comparable to what has been conducted by John Jay’s Street Organization Project. Additional
research is needed, particularly since there are clear linkages between OMGs, street gangs, and
prison gangs, drug cartels, and personnel in the military, law enforcement and various local, state
and federal government agencies. Of even more concern to unraveling the complex web of
relations is the transnational nature of activities and actors in today’s world.

III. OMGs and Transnational Crime

Barker (2012) provides a table of American-based OMGs outside the U.S. (Barker: 210). The
top ten countries in order from the most to least OMGs present are as follows: Germany (116),
England/Wales (40), Canada (37), France (36), Australia (30), Sweden (25), Norway (24),
Denmark (23), Belgium (20), and Russia (13). The nature of the clubs in these countries varies,
as too do their activities. We should be wary of making broad, sweeping generalizations. All
bikers are not criminals and all clubs are not involved in criminal activity. Rather some clubs and
some of their members are engaged in criminal activities ranging from spontaneous to
instrumental acts. Some are also engaged in transnational crime.
Transnational crime is a contested term. According to the Congressional Research Service
Report for Congress, there is no accepted definition of transnational organized crime (CRS: 2).25
The salient definition across the globe today is the one adopted by the United Nations in the
Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime is groups consisting of “three or more
persons, existing for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or
more serious crime or offenses…in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other
material benefit (CRS: 2). In spite of the salience of the U.N. definition, the complexity of the
nature of transnational organized crime leads to there being variance in not only interpretation
but also on the means for targeting the actors therein involved and their activities.

According to the UNDOC, “transnational organized crime encompasses virtually all serious
profit-motivated criminal actions of an international nature where more than one country is
involved.”26 Criminal actions consist of smuggling, drug trafficking, trafficking in persons,
intellectual property crime, and money laundering (CRS: 4). Drug trafficking is the most
lucrative. Illicit trading in firearms also brings a substantial amount of business to actors
involved in transnational crime. Transnational organized crime is differentiated from
contemporary transnational criminal networks (CRS, 2006; RAND, 2001). The former is more
organized and typically has a hierarchical structure that operates for a period of time, while the
latter is decentralized and has a cellular operational structure. Thus, what is different is the
structure and nature of the command and control mechanism. Students should recall our
discussion regarding the command and control structure of transnational networked street gangs
like MS-13 and Barrio in contrast to the more traditional street gangs such as the Bloods and the
Crips. They should also recall discussions regarding DTOs, the cartels and the Mafia families.

According to the U.S. National Intelligence Council, “criminal organizations and networks based
in North America, Western Europe, China, Columbia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia
will expand the scale and scope of their activities. They will form loose alliances with one
another, with smaller criminal entrepreneurs, and with insurgent movements for specific
operations. They will corrupt leaders of unstable, economically fragile, or failing states, insinuate
themselves into troubled banks and businesses, and cooperate with insurgent political
movements to control substantial geographic areas.”27 Furthermore, as highlighted by the
Congressional Research Service, transnational organized crime will develop where law
enforcement institutions are weak and citizens have limited economic alternatives (CRS: 1). An
understanding of the structure of interaction, relations and degrees of connection are therefore
important for assessing the potential threat of various actors involved in transnational organized
crime and the nature of their activities. The threats of today and not those of yesterday; thus, the
failed policies employed in the past are not likely to work in the present. We will talk more of
policing and policy toward gangs in two weeks.

25
Wagley, J.R. (2006). “Transnational Organized Crime: Principal Threats and U.S. Responses,” CRS Report for
Congress: 1-20.
26
“Transnational Organized Crime—The Globalized Illegal Economy,” The United Nationals Office on Drugs and
Crime: 1-7.
27
Williams, P. (2001). “Chapter Three: Transnational Criminal Networks,” in Arquilla, J. and D. Ronfeldt (2001).
Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Lectures 8-10: Extralegal Governance of the Underworld Prior to and through the
Formation of Prison Gangs

Today’s lecture provides students with an introduction to prison gangs and an overview of the
social order of the underworld. The latter is based on a seminal piece of scholarship produced by
David Skarbek, titled The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the
American Penal System.28 Skarbek (2014) examines the extralegal governance institutions prior
to and after the formation of prison gangs. An examination thereof highlights how order is
maintained by inmates within the U.S. correctional system. It also brings to light the central
importance of jails in both the conditioning and transitioning processes; and, in fostering and
facilitating the linkages between prison gangs, street gangs and outlaw motorcycle gangs. Our
discussion on prison gangs will be revisited following students’ completion of and presentation
on their research. Presentations on prison gangs and the research paper will be due on July 6,
2015.

I. Extralegal Governance Prior to the Formation of Prison Gangs

Deprivation, importation and governance theories have been used to explain social order in U.S.
prisons. Deprivation theory posits that “prison social order is a direct result of the pains of
imprisonment experienced during confinement” (Skarbek 2014: 7). It is, thus, the conditions of
confinement that shape social order and inmate-inmate and inmate-correctional authorities’
interactions. Importation theory posits that inmate experiences and beliefs prior to incarceration
shape inmate behavior and, thus, social order. The theory of governance posits that social order
requires an understanding of the social norms within the prison and their limitations; and, the
need for organization to fill the vacuum left by the correctional authorities’ inability to provide
complete order.

Order is popularly assumed to be provided by officials within the U.S. correctional institutions.
They, however, are not the only actors involved in the provision and maintenance of order.
Inmates also play a significant role. According to Skarbek (2014), correctional officers are
unable to have full sovereignty over the prison environment because of their limited resources;
the nature of inmate-correctional relations; and, the lack of understanding by both sides of the
perception and position of the other.

Correctional officers do not have full access to or complete knowledge of what takes place in
general population, the cells, or between inmates. Inmate-correctional officer relations also
hinder the correctional authorities’ full ability to maintain control over the prison. They both
tend to see the other as the enemy and, thus, fail to understand the diverging perspectives.
Despite these three factors order is maintained. It is maintained because inmates create
alternative forms of governance. Governance provides a way to assert, define and defend the
social order.

28
Skarbek, D. (2014). The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System.
NY: Oxford University Press. YouTube Clip of the Author talking about the book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLYMngQV9w.
According to Skarbek (2014), social order within the prisons can be demarcated by the periods
prior to and after the formation of prison gangs. This section focuses on the period prior to the
formation of gangs. Inmate order is provided through the development and reinforcement of
norms and organizations. “Norms identify the permitted, obliged, and forbidden behaviors of
people with particular attributes” (Skarbek 2014: 24). Organizations delineate the permissible
behaviors; set the boundaries within which activity is to occur; and, provide a system of
punishment for the violation of the norms.

The structure of organization in the first period was informal and the norms governing its
internal workings were codified in what was referred to as the “Convict Code.” The Convict
Code refers to a subcultural system that provides norms for inmate behavior and interaction with
one another and with correctional authorities. “The Code approves any kind of abuse against the
prison administrators, who represent the society that rejected and imprisoned them; [and] …does
not tolerate abuses of one member of the culture by another” (Skarbek 2014: 27). Please watch
Parts I-IV of the following documentary on the Convict Code. The following link is for Part I:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLYMngQV9w.

Support of and adherence to the Code determines inmate social hierarchy. It is not the only
determinate, however. The type of crime committed also helps to determine an inmate’s
position. An inmate can move up or down depending upon his or her behavior. Behavior
contrary to the Code is punished through gossip/shaming, ostracism, and/or violence. Violence
ranges from minimal to maximum; that is, from beatings to killings. A killing is the ultimate
check on bad behavior but used sparingly. Extreme forms of violence such as killings negatively
impact other inmates and the larger prison environment. For this reason inmates’ mechanisms
for dispute resolution are designed to reduce the level of violence and, thus, minimize the cost to
the larger community (prison population) wherein they are living. The type of punishment
meted out against another member or another inmate is typically authorized by the leader or the
governance committee of the clique.29 A clique us a loose organizational affiliation of
individuals who attempt to resolve disputes, reduce violence, and provide order.

An informal organizational structure of inmates was possible prior to mass incarceration and the
overcrowding of U.S. prisons. As the U.S. prison population increased, adherence to and
governance by the Convict Code decreased. The Convict Code began to decline in the 1950s
and by the 1970s “there was no single, overarching convict culture” (Skarbek 2014: 32). The
factors cited contributing to its breakdown are an increase in the prison population and
overcrowding; a more violent offender population; a younger inmate demographic and a
resulting generational cleavage; and, finally, a radical shift in an ethnic and racial background of
the inmates. With the breakdown and, thus, the weakening of the decentralized, extralegal
governance system, the path was paved for a new order. It was an order that developed through
but not because of the formation of prison gangs. Between the start of the breakdown of the
Convict Code in the 1950s and the late 20th century the second period of extralegal governance
emerged.30

29
Leaders are typically appointed or designated by the governance.
30
A more detailed study of inmate governance is needed, particularly given the variation among the states’ prison
and sentencing policies.
 II. Extralegal Governance through the Formation of Prison Gangs

Racial, ethnic, inter-racial and inter-ethnic violence plagued the prisons between the 1950s and
the 1970s. It was, thus, in those years that the prisons witnessed the rise of prison gangs.31
Skarbek (2014: 63) provides a list of states and the year when prison gangs were formed in U.S.
correctional institutions. The list is as follows:
 1950 Washington
 1957 California
 1969 Illinois
 1970 Utah
 1971 Pennsylvania
 1973 Iowa
 1973 Nevada
 1974 Arkansas
 1974 North Carolina
 1974 Virginia
 1975 Arizona
 1977 Federal System
 1978 Wisconsin
 1980 West Virginia
 1981 Missouri
 1982 Kentucky
 1983 Indiana

Today, prison gangs are present in almost all U.S. correctional facilities.32

A prison gang is “an inmate organization that operates within a prison system, that has a
corporate identity, exists in perpetuity, and whose membership is restrictive, mutually exclusive,
and often requires a lifetime commitment” (Skarbek 2014: 9). There are several theories or
arguments on prison gang formation within the literature. Students should be aware of the many
different arguments and use them to assess the formation of the prison gangs selected for their
research.

First, prison gangs arise when street gangs import their operations behind bars. The problem
with this argument is that many members of prisons gangs had no previous gang exposure at
their initial formation.33 Previous gang experience among members increased over time,
particularly as the younger inmate population increased. Second, prison gangs form in states
with a substantial street gang presence. When looking across the states, this also does not hold
up at the initial formation of prison gangs. There are a few exceptions such as California and
Texas, however. Third, prison gangs are a product of judicial interventions. That is, the courts

31
It is important here to note that violence contributed to the formation of gangs. It is popularly perceived that
violence is a product of the gang and, thus, reduction thereof requires the dismantlement of gangs. The latter will
not lead to a reduction of violence.
32
There are exceptions of course such as in women’s and transgender correctional facilities.
33
Some members, however, did have previous street or motorcycle gang experience.
granting rights to and hearing grievances of inmates contributed to the collective action
movement among inmates. The collective action movements for prisoner rights preceded
judicial intervention. Gangs played a role in those movement but they were not formed as a
result thereof. Fourth, prison gangs are a product of government policy at the state-level. As
students will recall from the previous lectures and cited within the literature include mass
incarceration, sentencing, and drug laws. Government policies contributed to but were not the
only factor contributing to the formation of gangs. Fifth, inmates form prison gangs to provide
protection, camaraderie or other demand-side factors. The problem with this argument is that not
all prisons have prison gangs. Sixth, prison gangs form to promote hateful, racist ideologies.
Racial and ethnic segregation within the prisons occurred over time. Prison gangs formed prior
to and not because of racial segregation.34 Moreover, only some of the prison gangs espouse
hateful, racist ideology. Finally, many factors contributed to the formation of gangs. The
formation of gangs was a product of the need for extralegal governance within the prison as a
result of the breakdown of the Convict Code. This is the argument adopted by Skarbek (2014).

Irrespective of the arguments for and the factors attributed to the formation of prison gangs, they
contributed to the development of the extralegal form of governance in the U.S. correctional
facilities. The extralegal form of governance is defined by the community responsibility system,
which in the 21st century is defined by race and ethnicity and the development of procedures for
monitoring behavior. Each gang has its own procedures for maintaining order and monitoring
behavior. While they will vary by gang, there are some common characteristics. They include
clearly defined mechanisms for information acquisition and transmission; rules governing
recruitment and membership; and, a system to regulate behavior.

Prison gangs have rules and procedures for acquiring and distributing information about inmates.
They can inquire and distribute information within and across prisons, as well as within the jails.
The information networks are not confined to one but transcend the entire correctional system.
There are also rules and regulations governing interactions. Although these rules and regulations
vary by prison gangs some of those they have in common are as follows:
 Rules and regulations to govern interactions with non-members, which include other
inmates and correction personnel;
 Rules and regulations to govern interactions with other members and rival gang
members;
 Rules and regulations for resolving disputes between rival gangs and also within the
gang; and,
 Rules and regulations for engaging in underground economic activities (the prison
drug trade).
These rules and regulations are typically codified in a constitution. The shot caller is responsible
for informing new recruits and members of the rules and regulations. Also included in the
34
The move toward segregation followed the race riots in the late 1950s and the 1960s. Thereafter inmates
gravitated toward their own gangs. In the present and within some prisons, correctional officers warn inmates
before they are transferred to state prisons of the segregation. Many who have been previously incarcerated are
already aware of the segregation. What students should keep in mind is that this segregation was not a top-down
policy. To further understand its evolution additional research is required on cell-block policies and the procedures
for requesting change. Placement within the prison is very important, particularly for maintaining order and
reducing the potential for violence. Please see the following clip on race wars in U.S. prisons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZmLSKM70CU.
Constitution are the rules and regulations for exit. Violations of any of rules and regulations are
meted out by the internal arbitration body. The composition of the body and even of the
governance body varies by gang. There are some prison gangs who are decentralized and others
who are centralized in their organization structure and operations. Goals of prison gangs vary;
they range from providing protection to participating and controlling a position of the prison
economy. Reinforcing this system and connecting the prison gangs to the street and motorcycle
gangs are the county jails. County jails typically hold individuals who have been charged but not
convicted of a crime; individuals who are serving less than a year; and, individuals who are
convicted but who are awaiting transfer to state prisons. Students should recall that the U.S. has
one of the highest recidivism rates in the world.

The U.S. correctional system and the criminal justice system as whole contribute to and
simultaneously support the need for prison gangs to maintain order. Correctional officers alone
cannot provide order nor maintain security because they lack access to, control of, and
understanding of inmate behavior. The inmate tends to be dehumanized by not only personnel
but also society. Until there is humanization of inmates and recognition of the role everyone
plays in the revolving doors of the penal system, prison gangs and/or other collective formations
by inmates will continue to rise. It is not all about the drug trade, although it does play a
significant role in the prison underground economy. We will return to prison gangs following
presentations on the research findings of the selected prison gangs within and outside of the
United States.
Lecture 11: 20th Century Policing of Gangs in America

Today’s lecture is based on the seminal work of Charles M. Katz and Vincent J. Webb, titled
Policing Gangs in America.35 Katz and Webb (2006) examine selected Gang Units in Arizona,
California, New Mexico and Nevada from the perspective of the gang unit officer and both the
internal and external stakeholders.36 A gang unit is defined as “a secondary or tertiary functional
division within a police organization, with at least one sworn officer whose sole function is to
engage in gang control efforts” (Katz & Webb 2006: 10). It, according to the authors, was the
typical suppression strategy employed by law enforcement. The type of approach adopted by the
police department, the specialized unit, and the police officers matters. It matters not only for
overall effectiveness in reducing crime but also for developing community-based alternative
approaches for intervention and prevention. The final lecture will cover both intervention and
prevention.

I. Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid Approaches to Combating Crime in the 20th

Century

According to the U.S Department of Justice, there are three dominant approaches employed by
law enforcement agencies across the United States.37 They are reactive, proactive and hybrid
approaches. The latter developed in the latter part of the 20th century. An overview of each
approach is herein provided. What students should keep in mind, however, is that there is
variance in both the perception and adoption of one or more of these approaches among the
departments, the specialized units, and the officers. The variance is most evident when
examining actual and perceived “best” approaches to combating gangs and gang crime.

A reactive approach to combating crime is one that is employed in response to a serious crime.
The seriousness of a crime depends on three main characteristics, namely the physical violence
or violation; the nature of the actual loss and the perceived seriousness of the crime; and, the
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Deterrence and disruption are the
overarching operational goals. The tactics commonly employed include motorized patrol, rapid
response to calls for service, and retrospective investigation of crimes. Advocates of this
approach posit that impartiality is enhanced and biased is reduced.

The reactive approach was the dominant approach prior to the 1970s. By the 1970s, “confidence
in the reactive approach was eroded by the accumulation of empirical evidence suggesting that
[the] tactics [employed] were of limited effectiveness” (DOJ: 6). The data demonstrated the
reactive approach fails to control crime. It was also not conducive in environments where there is
deterioration in relations between law enforcement and the community. Consequently, there was
a trend among agencies in the adoption of a proactive approach.

35
Katz, C.M. and V.J. Webb (2006). Policing Gangs in America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36
Stakeholders are those who have a vested interest in the control of gangs.
37
Moore, M. H. R.C. Trojanowicz and G.L. Kelling (1988). “Crime and Policing,” Perspectives on Policing: The
U.S. Department of Justice, 2: 1-12.
A proactive approach to combating crime was introduced in the 1970s. It attempted to prevent
crime from occurring in the first place. Directed patrols, quality investigative programs through
the development of specialized units, and integrated seminal comprehension programs were
tactics introduced in the attempt to prevent crimes from occurring and to increase the quality of
arrests made. The quality of arrests made is important for ensuring conviction. Prevention and
prosecution were the overarching goals.

Crime continued to rise in spite of the change in the approach. It, thus, gave way to the
introduction of an aggressive-proactive approach in some agencies. An aggressive-proactive
approach was not per se conducive in areas where there was already deterioration in relations
between the community and law enforcement. Deterioration in relations, the actual and
perceived continuing rise in crime, and a lack of belief in the proactive approach among some
departments, specialized units, and officers paved the path for the adoption of hybrid approaches.

A hybrid approach to combating crime entails the employment of a combination of reactive and
proactive strategies and tactics and problem-solving and community-based capacity building
initiatives. The combination thereof seeks to target the precipitating causes of crimes; to build
close relations with the community; and, to enhance the self-defense capacities of the
communities. Enhanced police presence, better surveillance and deterrence techniques, increased
access to formation, early intervention to prevent de-escalation of disorder, crime prevention,
shoring-up community institutions, and problem-solving are examples of the initiatives,
strategies, and tactics employed in the hybrid approach.

The key behind the hybrid approach is a strategic view of crime fighting. That is, approaches,
strategies and tactics are to be employed strategically to meet the goals. They must also be
conducive to the environment and its inhabitants and take into consideration the organization of
units, the creation of the taskforce for inter-and-intra departmental communication, and the
selection of personnel for the creation of specialized units. Students should note here that the
bureaucratic-institutional factors were neglected in both the reactive and proactive approaches
and are given equal weight in the hybrid approach.

The rise of the strategic, hybrid approach in the late 20th century is a product of the limited
effectiveness of enforcement and investigation (DOJ: 11). Contributing to the limiting
effectiveness and highlighted by the incorporation of the institutional factors into the approach to
combating crime is recognition of the competing perceptions and actual approaches employed
among departments, specialized units, and officers. Competing views on combating crime leads
to a breakdown in strategies and tactics. Thus, it is not per se the failure of the strategies and
tactics in either the reactive or proactive approaches but rather a clash of views on how to
combat crime and a lack of communication among the key actors. Perhaps, then, the missing
ingredient is strategic communication. Given that everyone in the course this summer comes
from a different country and/or has lived in multiple countries let us ponder and discuss the
approaches to policing. Is there one approach or model that is more conducive to combating
crime; or, do environmental conditions in the communities really drive the strategies and tactics
needed?
Specialized Units: The Formation of Gang Units to Combat the Actual and Perceived
Gang Problem

Specialized gang units proliferated across the U.S. in the 1980s as the typical gang suppression
strategy employed by law enforcement agencies.38 Prior thereto the responsibility for gangs was
allocated to patrol units, juvenile bureaus, community relations, investigations, and crime
prevention. Though the creation of the unit itself was a reactive response by policymakers, the
strategy employed by law enforcement departments was proactive while the strategies employed
by officers within the unit oscillated from reactive to aggressive-proactive. Very few gang units
and its officers employed a hybrid approach in the 1990s. In fact, the study conducted by Katz
and Webb demonstrated a trend toward a reactive approach in the 1990s.39 They also highlighted
the role and power of perceptions for combating crime and the impact they have on the
institutional dynamics of the law enforcement agencies; and, that strategies and tactics are not
alone sufficient to reduce and/or prevent crime. The institutional dynamics matter; thus so too
do the dynamics of the gang unit and its relationship with other departments and the community.

According to Katz and Webb (2006), there are several factors shaping law enforcement’s
response to gang. First, local gangs preceded the national gang problem. Prior to the 1970s,
gang activity was limited to the communities where gang members were living. They lived
primarily in low-income housing units. At this time gang activity was minimal and not per se
overly violent. Violence also remained primarily within and among rival gangs. Policy activity
was, therefore, minimal and limited primarily to intelligence collection.

Second, gang emigration from California between the 1970s and the 1980s changed the
dynamics of gangs and gang activity on the streets in many states. It should be noted here that
migration patterns increased as California adopted hard criminal justice legislation to combat
both gang and drug problems. The 3-Strike law was particularly significant when examining the
relationship between laws, gangs and migratory flows.

California’s laws were not the only reason for flight, however. For example, some gang members
migrated to capitalize on the drug trade in some states. Others were forced to migrate because
some policymakers insisted on closing down low-income housing projects. Regardless of the
reasons for migration, increased migration of gangs led law enforcement agencies to consolidate
their efforts. The creation of gang units was thus, in part, a product of law enforcement’s
consolidation efforts to combat the rise of gangs and gang crime.

Third, a continuing rise in gang violence and public protests led state policymakers to investigate
the extent of the actual gang problem. Studies were conducted and methods to combat gangs
were proposed. Simultaneously, law enforcement intensified their efforts to combat gangs. This
is where we witnessed a transition from an emphasis on intelligence to enforcement/investigation
tactics in some units. The transition depended, of course, on the mission of the unit; the
resources allocated; the authority granted; and, the relationship of its officers with those in other
departments. Departments also increased their personnel.

38
Katz, et. al. supra note 1.
39
The trend corresponded with the migration of gang members from California to surrounding states, a rise in crime,
and mass mobilization of resources for gang control strategies.
Fourth, an increase in personnel led to changes in the organizational strategy employed and
greater emphasis on enforcement and suppression strategies. Many of the gang suppression
strategies adopted were based on deterrence theory, which is premised on the assumption that
gangs will respond rationally to weighing the costs and benefits, redress the balance, and
withdraw from gang activity.40 As aggressive tactics were adopted, complaints of officers’
heavy-handedness, harassment and discrimination increased. Relations between the community
and law enforcement further deteriorated. Yet at the same time the public continued to call for
policymakers to do more to address the gang problem.

Fifth, the continued rise in violence, the breakdown in community-police relations, and the cries
from the public for policymakers to do more led many law enforcement agencies to adopt a zero
tolerance approach. The approach encompassed gang sweeps, saturation of gang neighborhoods
with police, ordinances and laws that made arrests easier and sentencing longer, and curfews
mandatory. The institutional environment of many law enforcement agencies dictated the
approaches, strategies and tactics employed. Rarely considered were alternative or traditional
social intervention and prevention approaches, strategies and tactics. In fact, as Katz and Webb
highlight, many of the older gang unit officers philosophically opposed such approaches. They
argued it was the in the purview of law enforcement to carry out such initiatives. The initiatives
were more akin to social work and not policing.

Highlighted is a problem many U.S. law enforcement agencies faced in the 20th century and
continue to face in the 21st century. The late 1990s saw a push toward community policing in
some states and communities across the United States. Community policing emphasizes
organized environmental interaction for the purpose of facilitating coordination and cooperation
between the public and the police. It is concerned with the development of relationships to
increase knowledge and awareness of neighborhood problems. Baltimore, Maryland was one of
the few who adopted the community policing model. It should be noted that there are several
community policing models.

Community policing is not popular among gang units and their officers.41 Many within the gang
units reject the community policing model, particularly the ideas of de-specialization and de-
formalization. Gang units are specialized units. De-formalization thereof could negatively
impact operations, particularly given the dependence on collecting gang intelligence. They are
reliant on the public, informants, and investigations for the collection of intelligence. Finally,
gang units are typically located in secret locations and away from regular law enforcement
departments. Interaction between gang units and other departments typically depends on the
nature of the task force (if there is one—this depends on the view of the Chief of Police) and
knowledge and awareness of the gang unit.

Katz and Webb examine perception of the gang unit by other stakeholders such as officers within
other departments. Those who worked with and were knowledgeable of the gang unit had
favorable perceptions, whereas those who had no experience or knowledge thereof held negative
perceptions of both the gang unit and its officers. Awareness and knowledge of and dialogue

40
The strategy emerged out of rejection of the social intervention strategy employed in the 1960s and 1970s.
41
Katz, et. al. supra note 1.
about the actual and perceived gang problem and the role and function of the gang unit and its
officers are important. They are important because of the role and power of perceptions.
Perceptions “can lead to erroneous assessments of problems and misinform policy agendas”
(Katz and Webb: 123). Furthermore, they can exacerbate the conditions on the ground where
officers and the public must interact with and work together to combat gang crime. Organization
is, therefore, critical for effectiveness of gang units and the ability of officers to carryout out the
functions they are therewith tasked by their respective law enforcement agencies.

Conclusion: Organization, Functions and Personnel Matter for the Effectiveness of Gang
Units

Organization matters and specialized units allow law enforcement to assign personnel and
resources to focus on one goal or purpose (Katz and Webb: 126). They are, however, not all
organized similarly. “Their administrative locations, organizational configurations, functions,
and management structures var[y] considerably from one department to the next” (Ibid: 127).
The physical location, as was highlighted in the previous discussion, plays a significant role in
the organization of the unit’s gang-control efforts, particularly in the implementation of the unit’s
functions.

A gang unit typically engages in four functions, but not all are weighted equally. The four
functions are intelligence, enforcement, prevention and education. Intelligence and enforcement
are weighted more heavily than prevention and education. The latter two were briefly
highlighted in the previous discussion and it was noted that many of the older officer believed
such initiatives were not in the purview of a law enforcement agency. Not all feel the same; the
generational gap and the training of personnel within agency shed light on the variance. Perhaps
in another class we could discuss in more detail the nature of law enforcement training and the
curricula used throughout U.S. police academies. Students, however, should ponder our
discussion on training of correctional officers.

Variation exists among gang units across the United States. There is variation in the approaches,
strategies and tactics employed; in the organizational configuration, the number of personnel,
and resources allocated; in the written policies and procedures governing gang units; in the rules
and regulations for collection and dissemination of intelligence; in the formal goals, objectives
and outcomes; and, in how to measure performance. The institutional environment dictates in
many ways the approaches, strategies and tactics employed. Thus, a change in the approaches,
strategies and tactics are not per se going to lead to more effective policing of gangs. What the
study of gangs across the U.S. had illustrated is that individuals will cleave toward groups when
there is a breakdown in the system or the social order. It is the breakdown of the social order
and the underlying causes that need to be addressed. Otherwise all efforts will continue to remain
superficial and short-term oriented. We will resume discussion of this next week in the final
lecture on societal and community-based intervention and prevention initiatives and programs.
Final Lecture: Finding a Comprehensive National and Regional Gang Strategy to Build
Peace on the Streets across the Americas

We have spent the last eight weeks exploring street, motorcycle and prison gangs in the U.S.,
across the Americas and around the globe through a combination of lecture, readings, research
and documentaries. Both youth and adult gang members were therein covered. There were
various reasons for and explanations of why individuals first formed and some later joined
gangs. Variance in the reasons for individuals joining gangs and explanations of why they
formed are explained by a combination of factors. Thus, it can be said that the theories
articulated and used in the existing literature on gangs are merely lenses in which to see a
complex phenomenon, with each one capturing a glimpse within a given period and at a certain
time.

All complex phenomena must be viewed with a multidimensional understanding. Viewing them
in any other way could potentially increase misunderstanding and perpetuate misperceptions.
Perceptions are powerful and, thus, potentially dangerous if they are not studied, recognized and
understood. As we have learned from study of gangs, many of the laws passed at pivotal points
and the law enforcement gang strategies adopted were built on myth or perceptions of reality,
which ran contrary to the actual data on the phenomenon. Yet neither policymakers nor law
enforcement could do anything because they were beholden to a combination of the emotive
reactions of the public; sensationalism of the “gang problem” by the media; the need to be seen
as “being tough on crime” to win reelection; and, winning the inter-bureaucratic budget battle
over the resources allotted to combat crime.

The final lecture focuses generally on a comprehensive national and regional strategy; and, more
specifically, on intervention and prevention strategies. The final assignment for the summer
session is for students to design an intervention and prevention strategy. It is due by 11:59PM on
July 12, 2015. Students should use what was researched, learned and discussed over the course
of the semester. No additional research is required for this assignment. Be creative and realistic,
while simultaneously having fun. Good luck!! 

Searching for a Comprehensive National and Regional Gang Strategy

A comprehensive gang strategy is one that includes the participation of policymakers, law
enforcement (local, state and federal), and the public (media and members of the communities
and neighborhoods wherein which gangs are operating, members are living, or who are direct or
indirect targets of criminal activity).42 It is also one that includes criminal justice, intervention
and prevention strategies and tactics. Criminal justice strategies are typically undertaken by
law enforcement, the courts and the legislature. The previous lecture focused on law
enforcement but it did not cover the courts or the legislature. We will briefly touch on them and
then move to intervention and prevention, which is the main focus of the last class. Intervention
and prevention strategies are typically undertaken by all the actors who have an interest in and/or
42
Shelden, R.G., S.K. Tracy and W.B. Brown. (2013, 2004). Youth Gangs in American Society. Belmont, CA:
Wadswoth, Cengage Learning.
are affected by gangs and crime in their communities. Students should note here that we are
intentionally using crime generally rather than placing an emphasis on gang crime. As we
learned from the U.S. government reports and the existing gang literature, gang crime is
relatively small in comparison to statistics on youth crime. Thus, it is a reduction in crime and
not per se of gang crime that should be the overarching goal of intervention and prevention
programs. Both intervention and prevention are dependent on the criminal justice strategies.
That is, they are interdependent and contain, as a whole, the building blocks for peace on the
streets of the Americas.

The criminal justice apparatus includes law enforcement, the courts and the legislature. Law
enforcement was previously examined but the courts and the legislature were not. The courts
have three components—the juvenile courts, the adult courts, and the Supreme Court. There are
also three principle types of disputes—private disputes, public-defendant disputes, and pubic-
initiated disputes. Private disputes refer to civil matters. Public defendant disputes hold
government officials and agencies accountable. Public initiated disputes are where the state
holds norm violators accountable. The prosecutor brings these disputes to court and the judge
determines the legitimacy of the government and its social-control apparatus—the criminal
justice system (Sheldon, et. al. 2013: 270-73). The courts, therefore, play an important role.
The courts are in many ways the link between the legislature, law enforcement and the public.

The legislatures across the U.S have enacted a variety of laws and ordinances, as well as revised
old ones in their attempt to combat gangs and to appease the public outcry to do more to combat
gangs over the years (Sheldon, et. al. 2013: 255). Areas for which the legislation includes are as
follows: enhanced penalties (sentencing); expert testimony; gang related clothing, dress and
school uniforms; gang participation and forfeiture; gang prevention; gang prosecution; gang-
related definitions; gang-related civil causes of action; gang graffiti; juvenile gang members;
public nuisance/premises used by gangs; and, law enforcement training. Enhanced penalties
cover legislation increasing sentencing. There are 29 states that have said legislation. Expert
testimony covers legislation setting rules and procedures to determine the level of expertise of a
witness. Gang-related clothing, dress code and school uniforms cover legislation restricting
and/or penalizing the wearing of gang-related clothing. Ten states have passed such legislation.
Gang participation and forfeiture cover legislation enabling states to seize the property of the
gang or its members. There are 23 states with such legislation. Gang prevention covers a wide
array of legislation from education and training to law enforcement and intelligence. There are
24 states that have said legislation. Gang prosecution covers legislation enhancing prosecution
provisions. Fourteen states have passed such legislation. Gang-related definitions cover
legislation addressing the definition of both a gang and its members. There are 44 states with
said legislation. Gang-related civil causes of action refer to legislation passed to enable the filing
of civil action cases for relief from gang members. Ten states have said legislation. More than
30 states have passed gang graffiti laws. Laws pertaining to juvenile gang members deal with
prosecution. There are 18 states with said legislation. Laws pertaining to public
nuisance/premises enable fines and other noncriminal penalties to be imposed. Twenty-four
states have said legislation. Finally, law enforcement training refers to legislation passed
mandating or directing training of law enforcement personnel or departments. There are only
five states with said legislation.
The public has played and must play a pivotal role in any national and regional strategy. It is the
predominant actor in implementation of community and national intervention and prevention
strategies. Public actors often have access to and the trust of those who are targeted by law
enforcement and policymakers. They are the neutral actors and, thus, the most capable of
leading the initiatives designed to intervene and prevent violence at the grassroots level. The
remainder of the lecture provides an overview of the intervention and prevention typologies
(Sheldon, et. al. 2013: 286-90).

Spergel and Curry (1990) examined intervention strategies used by chronic and emerging gang
cities and placed them into four categories, namely community organization, social intervention,
opportunities provision, and suppression or law-enforcement efforts. A community
organization strategy includes efforts to enhance, modify or change relationships among the
actors to better cope with the various and underlying problems. Efforts typically include
cooperation, including the schools and parents in community programs, mobilizing the
community, building trust among the actors, and educating the public. A social intervention
strategy is one that intentionally intervenes to help an identified group of at-risk individuals.
Common efforts include outreach, street work counseling, crisis intervention, providing role
models for youth, inter-gang mediation, referrals for service, counseling of gang members, drug-
use prevention and treatment, helping members leave the gang, and diversion activities. An
opportunities provision strategy is one that attempts to provide jobs, job training, and education
for the most at-risk individuals. Efforts include helping individuals to enter the job market by
teaching interviewing skills and/or resume assistance, job training, placement into housing or
specific jobs, and assisting with school problems. Finally, the suppression or law enforcement
strategy is one that uses deterrence to prevent future gang crimes and to reduce recruitment.
Efforts include special (directed) patrols, special prosecution efforts, legislation targeting gang
activity, and developing and maintaining information systems.

Dryfoos (1990) also examined intervention and prevention programs. Her research, however,
was more broadly focused than that of Spergel and Curry. She did not limit it to specifically
gang-related efforts. Instead the focus was on delinquency, drug abuse, school failure, and teen
pregnancy, which are issues that contribute to and also concern those who are involved in gang
life. The prevention programs targeting those issues fall into three broad categories—early
childhood and family interventions, school-based interventions, and community-based and/or
multicomponent interventions.

Sheldon, Tracy and Crown (2013/2004) posit that all intervention programs must begin with
some general assumptions or basic principles; and, that any comprehensive strategy must
following five guidelines:
 Strengthen the role of and include the family;
 Support core institutions such as schools, churches, and community
organizations;
 Promote delinquency prevention in general;
 Intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs; and,
 Identify and control the small group of serious, violent and chronic offenders.
Based on the guidelines the five major risk factors include individual characteristics, family
influences, school experiences, group influences, and neighborhood and community influences.
A risk-based rational seeks to prevent a problem from occurring in the first place and a risk-
based approach helps to identify the best methods to reduce the risks. Its application makes the
strategic view of the hybrid approach discussed in the previous class more realistic for
implementation.

Hawkins (1993) adds the social development strategy. The social development strategy posits
that opportunities, skills and recognition are needed for transforming individuals. Opportunities
must be provided because failure can lead the individual back to the same routine; that is, the
world known to him or her. It is in that world where he or she is accepted and respected without
rejection and exclusion. Skills are necessary because they will open even more opportunities.
They are also important because they reinforce recognition. Recognition is necessary for the
developing the feeling of belonging. The feeling of belonging must be reciprocal; that is, it must
achieved by the individual making the transformation and the community wherein the individual
is living. Students should ponder the saying “it takes two to tango.” The logic behind the saying
is similar when we think of the social process required for transformation. The key tactic for the
social development strategy is community mobilization. The mobilization process involves four
specific steps:
 Involving key community leaders;
 Forming a community board or task force;
 Conducting a community risk and resource assessment; and,
 Planning the program and deciding on the evaluation methods.

Finally, an examination of successful components of existing intervention and prevention

programs suggests the need for three additional elements for a national and regional
comprehensive gang strategy (Sheldon, et. al. 2013: 294-95). First, communities must avoid
denying there is a problem. They must also avoid placing blame on another. Recall the tango
concept. Playing the blame game will only exacerbate existing problem and reinforce denial.
Second, programs need to employ varying strategies to target the short, medium and long term
goals. The underlying problems did not emerge overnight. Just as it took time for them to
develop it will potentially take an even longer amount of time to see some results. Finally,
programs must provide alternatives to gang involvement. There needs to be alternative
mechanisms provided for individuals to channel their energies. The mechanisms adopted for
channeling of their energies must constructive and oriented to the individual. Understanding
recruitment and the variety of reasons as to why individuals join gangs matter. As we learned in
our study of gangs across America, not all individuals join for the same reason. Moreover, each
individual had a specific set of contributing factor that led them to make the decision. We must
contemplate that when attempting to design an intervention and prevention strategy.

Conclusion: Designing an Intervention and Prevention Strategy

The final assignment for this intense eight week course is for students to design an intervention
and prevention strategy. Students need not do additional research. Rather, they should use the
research conducted over the course of the semester, the material learned and the literature
covered on street, motorcycle and prison gangs. The intervention and prevention strategy must
draw on, be rooted in, and target the gang typologies. It must also take into consideration the
geographical, organizational, political, social, and economic variations. Finally, students should
keep in mind that broad sweeping generalizations help to perpetuate myths and overlook the
complexity of the phenomena. Incorporate the complexity rather than denying it to strive for
simplicity. It is recognition of the complexity that will help to overcome both the problem of
and to mediate the power of perception.