22
Current and Past Current and Past Research on Research on Civil Gang Civil Gang Injunctions Injunctions Karen Hennigan University of Southern California [email protected]

Current and Past Research on Civil Gang Injunctions Karen Hennigan University of Southern California [email protected]

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Current and Past Current and Past Research on Research on

Civil Gang InjunctionsCivil Gang Injunctions

Karen HenniganUniversity of Southern California

[email protected]

What is a Civil Gang Injunction? (CGI)What is a Civil Gang Injunction? (CGI) A gang can be sued in civil court when members

have persistently engaged in a pattern of criminal and nuisance activities.

The lawsuit results in orders which prohibit gang members from engaging in specified activities that contribute to harm.

This typically includes associating with other gang members in public, trespassing on private property, possessing or being in the presence of weapons, and marking with graffiti in the safety zone.

After receiving notice, members who violate one of the provisions can be arrested and charged with violating a court order.

How widespread is this practice?How widespread is this practice? Very prevalent in Southern CaliforniaVery prevalent in Southern California

– Over 30 gang injunctions in LA, San Over 30 gang injunctions in LA, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Ventura Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Ventura counties between 1993 and 2000 (Maxson et counties between 1993 and 2000 (Maxson et al, 2002). More recently Orange County.al, 2002). More recently Orange County.

– In last five years, LA City Attorney has In last five years, LA City Attorney has implemented 25 new civil gang injunctions. implemented 25 new civil gang injunctions. Right now over 49 gangs in LA are under Right now over 49 gangs in LA are under injunction orders (LA City Attorney’s Anti-Gang injunction orders (LA City Attorney’s Anti-Gang Plan, Jan 2007).Plan, Jan 2007).

Spreading in other parts of USSpreading in other parts of US– Long history in northern California Long history in northern California

(Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, more)(Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, more)– Arizona, Texas, other states (e.g., North Arizona, Texas, other states (e.g., North

Carolina)Carolina)

What do we know about the What do we know about the impact of CGI’simpact of CGI’s

Talk about three local studiesTalk about three local studies– Jeffrey Grogger (2002)Jeffrey Grogger (2002)

Funded by Haynes FoundationFunded by Haynes Foundation

– Maxson, Hennigan & Sloane (2005)Maxson, Hennigan & Sloane (2005) Funded by National Institute of JusticeFunded by National Institute of Justice

– Hennigan & Sloane (on going)Hennigan & Sloane (on going) Funded by National Science FoundationFunded by National Science Foundation

Impact of CGIs: On Crime?Impact of CGIs: On Crime?

Grogger’s (2002) study eGrogger’s (2002) study examined Part 1 Violent Offenses in and around areas with a CGI in Los Angeles County– Included in 14 injunction safety zones (1993-Included in 14 injunction safety zones (1993-

1998)1998)

– Defined three comparison areas: Defined three comparison areas: a) safety zonea) safety zone

b) adjacent RDs b) adjacent RDs

c) neighboring RDsc) neighboring RDs

– Compared counts of violent offenses over five Compared counts of violent offenses over five quarters before and five quarters after a CGI.quarters before and five quarters after a CGI.

Impact of CGIs: On Crime?Impact of CGIs: On Crime?

Grogger’s FindingsGrogger’s Findings– Number of violent crimes reported in safety Number of violent crimes reported in safety

zones was reduced by 1.5 to 3 offenses per zones was reduced by 1.5 to 3 offenses per quarter over the first year after the CGI (7% quarter over the first year after the CGI (7% decrease)decrease)

– No increase in violent crimes in adjacent or No increase in violent crimes in adjacent or neighboring RDs.neighboring RDs.

– These findings hold after controlling for These findings hold after controlling for possible regression to the mean and excluding possible regression to the mean and excluding the Rampart Division injunctions (due to the Rampart Division injunctions (due to irregularities there).irregularities there).

Impact of CGIs: On Crime?Impact of CGIs: On Crime?

Unanswered QuestionsUnanswered Questions– Would results be replicated using data Would results be replicated using data

on gang crime? In other jurisdictions?on gang crime? In other jurisdictions?

– Displacement away from original gang Displacement away from original gang areas was not tested.areas was not tested.

– Don’t know if the effects of the CGI Don’t know if the effects of the CGI persist beyond the 1persist beyond the 1stst year? year?

– Did the CGIs bring “relief” to the Did the CGIs bring “relief” to the communities?communities?

Impact of CGIs: On Community?Impact of CGIs: On Community? Maxson, Hennigan, Sloane (2005) Maxson, Hennigan, Sloane (2005) Examined change in

community reactions to crime in and around a new CGI area in San Bernardino– Two door-to-door surveys – two years apart in five Two door-to-door surveys – two years apart in five

neighborhoodsneighborhoods- - PrimaryPrimary: Safety zone for CGI implemented between : Safety zone for CGI implemented between

two waves of the surveytwo waves of the survey - - Control1Control1: Similar to primary, no CGI: Similar to primary, no CGI - - SecondSecond: Area unexpectedly included in safety : Area unexpectedly included in safety

zone zone - - Control2Control2: Similar to second, no CGI: Similar to second, no CGI

- - Prior:Prior: Safety zone of CGI implemented 5 yrs prior Safety zone of CGI implemented 5 yrs prior

- Key measures included visibility of gang members, gang - Key measures included visibility of gang members, gang intimidation, fear of crime, victimization, neighborhood intimidation, fear of crime, victimization, neighborhood efficacy, collective efficacyefficacy, collective efficacy

Impact of CGIs: On Community?Impact of CGIs: On Community? Maxson, et al. Study FindingsMaxson, et al. Study Findings

– Residents in the Primary CGI Area reported Residents in the Primary CGI Area reported relatively less gang visibility, intimidation, fear of relatively less gang visibility, intimidation, fear of confrontation with gang members and less fear of confrontation with gang members and less fear of crime in general than residents in control area.crime in general than residents in control area.

– Differences were Differences were modestmodest and not apparent on and not apparent on victimization or any long term community-level victimization or any long term community-level outcomes.outcomes.

– Residents of the Second CGI Area reported higher Residents of the Second CGI Area reported higher gang visibility, more victimization, less faith in gang visibility, more victimization, less faith in community’s ability to solve problems relative to community’s ability to solve problems relative to its control area.its control area.

Impact of CGIs: On Community?Impact of CGIs: On Community? Unanswered QuestionsUnanswered Questions

– Were any apparent gains in primary CGI Were any apparent gains in primary CGI area offset by losses in smaller CGI area? area offset by losses in smaller CGI area?

– Do any positive impacts on communities Do any positive impacts on communities persist? persist?

– Does a CGI strengthen the community in Does a CGI strengthen the community in the long run?the long run?

– Does a CGI weaken the gangs involved in Does a CGI weaken the gangs involved in any way?any way?

Impact of CGIs: On Gangs?Impact of CGIs: On Gangs? Hennigan & Sloane (ongoing) are interviewing Hennigan & Sloane (ongoing) are interviewing

male youth ages 14 to 21 in areas claimed by male youth ages 14 to 21 in areas claimed by gangs that do or do not have a recent gang gangs that do or do not have a recent gang injunction. injunction. – Goal is to interview youth who are and are not Goal is to interview youth who are and are not

gang-affiliated in three areas in East LA:gang-affiliated in three areas in East LA:Neigh 1Neigh 1 – Gang injunction plus gang – Gang injunction plus gang

interventionintervention Neigh 2Neigh 2 – Gang intervention (no CGI) – Gang intervention (no CGI)

Neigh 3Neigh 3 – Gang injunction ( weak gang – Gang injunction ( weak gang intervention)intervention)

– Respondents are recruited:Respondents are recruited:Going door-to-doorGoing door-to-doorEngaging youth hanging out in the target areasEngaging youth hanging out in the target areas

Offering a $20 incentive to participateOffering a $20 incentive to participate

Impact of CGIs: On Gangs?Impact of CGIs: On Gangs?

Interviews are focused on social identity, Interviews are focused on social identity, perceptual deterrence, level of involvement perceptual deterrence, level of involvement with gang activitieswith gang activities

Emerging Findings on Social IdentitiesEmerging Findings on Social Identities– Goal was to identify two social identities for all Goal was to identify two social identities for all

respondents including one clearly or respondents including one clearly or ambiguously antisocial and one conventional ambiguously antisocial and one conventional or prosocial (Achieved for 97%)or prosocial (Achieved for 97%)

– Respondent’s antisocial identities could be Respondent’s antisocial identities could be categorized as gang-affiliated, other antisocial categorized as gang-affiliated, other antisocial affiliation (tagger, skater, party posse or crew) affiliation (tagger, skater, party posse or crew) or ambiguous (friends who hang out) or ambiguous (friends who hang out)

Impact of CGIs: On Gangs?Impact of CGIs: On Gangs? Emerging Findings Emerging Findings (based on 100 of 200 interviews)(based on 100 of 200 interviews)

– Compare characteristics of social identities Compare characteristics of social identities

– – Within individuals: Within individuals:

Gang identity is Gang identity is weakerweaker than conventional than conventional identity.identity.

- Between individuals: Between individuals:

Gang-affiliates report Gang-affiliates report weakerweaker group identity group identity and less trust of ingroup than affiliates of and less trust of ingroup than affiliates of other antisocial groups.other antisocial groups.

- Across Neighborhoods: ???? Across Neighborhoods: ????

Summary: What do we know Summary: What do we know about the impact of CGIsabout the impact of CGIs

On crimeOn crime– In LA County violent crime decreased by 7% during the In LA County violent crime decreased by 7% during the

first year after obtaining gang injunctions. first year after obtaining gang injunctions.

On communitiesOn communities– In San Bernardino residents’ fear of gang intimidation and In San Bernardino residents’ fear of gang intimidation and

crime in general decreased during the first six months of crime in general decreased during the first six months of a CGI. However, victimization increased and community a CGI. However, victimization increased and community efficacy decreased in a small portion of safety zone. efficacy decreased in a small portion of safety zone.

On gangs (working to answer)On gangs (working to answer)– How do characteristics of gang identities vary in places How do characteristics of gang identities vary in places

with and without a CGI during the first year? with and without a CGI during the first year? – What are the implications for weakening or strengthening What are the implications for weakening or strengthening

gang affiliation in CGI areas?gang affiliation in CGI areas?

What do we need to do next? What do we need to do next?

We are just beginning to understand the impact We are just beginning to understand the impact of GCIs on these three dimensions.of GCIs on these three dimensions.

– The findings above need to be replicated and extended.The findings above need to be replicated and extended.

– Long–term impacts and possible “side-effects” of Long–term impacts and possible “side-effects” of injunctions need to be explored.injunctions need to be explored.

– Based on what we know so far: Based on what we know so far: In the end, injunctions may be most useful in terms of In the end, injunctions may be most useful in terms of the role they may play in more comprehensive the role they may play in more comprehensive approaches to reducing gang crime, intimidation of approaches to reducing gang crime, intimidation of community residents and the hold gangs have on our community residents and the hold gangs have on our youth.youth.

Categories of Antisocial AffiliationsCategories of Antisocial AffiliationsCriminal and Delinquent Activities by CategoryCriminal and Delinquent Activities by Category

Variety Index Variety Index (Ever)(Ever)

Frequency Frequency Index (Last 6 Index (Last 6

mo)mo)Night in Night in CustodyCustody

Type of GroupType of Group: : nn MnMn MdMd MnMn MdMd %%

GangGang 1919 1515aa 1414 159159aa 6969 42%42%

Tagger or Tagger or Skater Skater 2424 1010bb 99 116116aa 4747 17%17%

Party Posse Party Posse 1414 88cc 88 6666abab 3939 0%0%

Ambiguous Ambiguous 6060 66cc 44 2828bb 99 7%7%     

****** ******    ******

Strength of Social Identity Strength of Social Identity Subscale of CSES (Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992)Subscale of CSES (Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992)

Antisocial Conventional

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Mea

n s

ub

scale

sco

re f

rom

lo

w (

1)

to h

igh

(6)

Type of Antisocial Identity

Gang

Tag, Skate, Party

Ambiguous

Strength of Social Identity

Core or Peripheral Involvement: Core or Peripheral Involvement: Target measure, adapted from Esbensen et al., 2001Target measure, adapted from Esbensen et al., 2001

Antisocial Gp Conventional Gp

2

3

4

5

Mean

sco

re f

rom

no

t acti

ve (

2)

to le

ad

er

(6) Type of

Antisocial Gp

Gang

Tag, Skate, Party

Ambiguous

How close or far from the center of this group's activities are you now?

Trust of Others: Ingroup MembersTrust of Others: Ingroup Members From social capital scale, Putman, et al. 2002From social capital scale, Putman, et al. 2002

Antisocial Gp Conventional Gp

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Mea

n t

rus

t fr

om

no

t at

all (

1)

to a

lo

t (4

)

Type of Antisocial Gp

Gang

Tag, Skate, Party

Ambiguous

Trust of Others Reported (Antisocial vs Conventional Ingroup)

Core or Peripheral Involvement:Core or Peripheral Involvement: Controlling for Controlling for familyfamily reported for conventional layer reported for conventional layer

Antisocial Conventional

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Mea

ns

Sco

res

on

Tar

get

Type of Antisocial Gp

NON GANGGANG

Where Conventional Group is Not Family

Core or Peripheral Membership

Antisocial Conventional

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Mea

n S

core

s o

n T

arg

et

Type of Antisocial Gp

NON GANGGANG

Where Conventional Group is Family

Core or Peripheral Membership