Factors Influencing Rural Ruffian Gangster Activities in Rural Thailand : A Case Study in Social Development

Thesis Committee : Dr. Soparth Pongquan (Chairperson) Prof. Jayant Kumar Routray Dr. Kyoko Kusakabe

Presented by : Pichapon Robru

Regional and Rural Development PlanningSchool of Environment, Resources and Development

Asian Institute of Technology

Objectives of the Research2

Conceptual Framework of the Research3

Research Design4

Statement of the Problem1

Profile of Respondents6

Findings of Objective 17

Findings of Objective 28

Data Source and Data Collection Method5

Findings of Objective 410

Conclusion and Recommendations11

Findings of Objective 39

Contents

Definitions

Youth Gang refers to a self-formed peer group that has more than three members and usually aged 12 -24 years old. They share an identity , often have symbols, view themselves and are recognized by other as a gang. The group has some permanence and degree of organization and sometimes involved in an elevated level of criminal activity (Howell and Egley, 2009).

Rural Ruffian Gangster or RRG in this research defines as a group of rural youth who are delinquent or anti-social doers and formed themselves as a gang and involved in anti-social behaviors or actions causing impacts to individuals and local community (Suwannasri,2007).

Many rural children were raised with lack of parent supervision.

Anti-social youth formed a group of rural ruffian gang (RRG).

They perform both violent and non-violent behaviors.

RRG members involved in several serious crimes.

Members of RRG are rising as well as degree of their violent behaviors.

Serious fighting of RRG affected peace and harmony of rural community

4

1. Statement of the Problem

Gangster fights ruin local concert event(Source: Kom Chat Luek, Feb, 4, 2009)

Police arrested rival gangsters in Buriram province(source: Kom Chat Luek, Mar, 18,2008)

The general objective of the research is :

To analyze influencing factors of rural ruffian gangster’s violent activities in order to provide remedies and youth development strategies for rural Thailand.

The specific objectives are:

• To describe structure , formation and networking of RRG;

• To study motivation and behaviors of RRG;• To analyze influencing factors of

participation in RRG;• To assess the impacts of the RRG on

individual, family and community; and• To suggest remedies and development

strategies for rural youth development.

5

2. Objectives of the Research

6

3. Conceptual Framework of the Research

4. Research Design

4.1 Type of Research Exploratory

4.2 Research Design Survey and Case Study

4.3 Criteria for Selection : •Area with existence of active ruffian gangster.•Area with occurrence of active rural ruffian gangs at least for three years.

4.4 Study Area : •Ban Noi Pattana, village no.16• Ban Mai Ampaw, village no.17

Tamainchai Sub-district

Buriram Province

Lamplaimat District

Noi Pattana Village

(15)

Mai Ampawan Village

(6)

All Members of Rural Ruffian

Gangster(31)

Purposive Sampling

Snowball Sampling

8Location Map

Lamplaimat District Tamainchai Sub-district

Ban Mai Ampawan Ban Noi Pattana

9

5.1 Data Collection Source and Method

Source : Secondary and Primary

5.1.1 Secondary Data Source Local Level: Village profile, TAO youth plan and policy,

annual reports of youth activities, data base of youth in the village.

Regional Level : Reports from Provincial Office of Juvenile Observation and Protection, Provincial Office of Social Development and Human Security, and Police Reports.

National Level: Annual Report from Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, National Children and Youth Development Plan .

Others: Thesis, Textbook, Dissertations, journal articles, newspapers and online database.

5.1.2 Primary Data Source

Reconnaissance survey Standardized Questionnaire Key informants interview In-depth interview Focus group discussion Observation

5. Data Source and Data Collection Method

5.2 Data Analysis and Technique

5.2.1 Social Scale and Weighted Average (WAI)

A five-social-scale Likert was applied to rate the degree of influential factors on the behavior of RRG.

Assigned values were :

5.2.2 Quantitative AnalysisDescriptive analysis is employed such as frequency, percentage, average, means, and graphic illustrations.

5.2.3 Qualitative AnalysisQualitative statement analysis was applied to analyze the qualitative data that gained from the interviews, and group discussion.5.2.4 Case Study AnalysisCase study analysis was applied to analyze the data gain from in-depth interview of rural ruffian gang members who

involved in serious violent behavior.

Very low

Low Moderate

High Very high

0.01 - 0.20

0.21 -0.40

0.41 – 0.60

0.61 – 0.80

0.81 – 1.00

10

Characteristics of Respondents

Description

Gender M = 100%

Age Average = 19.9, Youngest = 14, Oldest = 27

Respondent Marital Status

Single = 87.1%, Married 3.2%, Divorce = 6.5%, Separated 3.2%

Education In schooling 38.7%, Grade 6 = 19.4%, Grade 9 = 29.0%, Grade 12 = 12.9%

Occupation of Respondents

Student = 38.7%, Unemployed 6.5%, Farming = 19.3%, Wage labor = 29.0%, other= 6.5%

Monthly income of Respondents

≤ 1,500 = 64.5%, 1,501 to 3,000 = 16.2%, ≥3,001 = 19.3%

Household Characteristics

Description

Type of family Nuclear Family = 45.2%, Extended Family = 54.8%

Father and Mother

Average Age of Father = 45.5 , Average Age of Mother = 43.7

Parents Marital Status

Married = 51.6%, Divorced = 32.3%, Separate 9.7%, other = 6.5%

Father & Mother Education

No Education = 1.6%, Grade 4 =43.5, Grade 6 = 41.9%, Grade9 = 3.3%, Grade 12 = 1.6%, Others = 8.1 %

Occupation of Father

State enterprise 6.5%, Farming = 41.9%, Wage labor = 35.5%, other 16.1%

Occupation of Mother

State Enterprise 3.2 %, Farming = 41.9%, Wage labor 41.9%, Others 12.9 %

Annual Household Income

13,000 - 20,000 = 3.2%, 20,001 - 70,000 = 25.8%, 70,001 - 120,000 = 45.2%, 120,001 -170,000 = 19.4%, 170,001 and above = 6.5%

10

6. Profile of Respondents

11

7. Findings of Objective 1: To describe a formation of RRG

1995 and Earlier 1996- 2005 2006 to Present

Informally established in 1995 by a group of young men.

Recognized by community as “Village Teenage Group”.

Main activities were drinking.

Rarely performed violent behaviors.

•Extended network to other villages.

•Increasing members and degree of violent activities

•Community started to be aware of the impacts from RRG.

•RRG leader was recognized by the community.

•Posses violent weapons (gun and self-invented bomb).

•Involved in illegal activities like drug and murder.

•The impacts of RRGs are widen to community.

•Local Authorities are more concerned of their activities.

Historical Background and Establishment of Rural Ruffian Gangster (RRG))

Place/ Meeting Point

Approximately members

Activities Time/week

1. Senior House / Group Leader House

5-10 persons Watching movies, drinking, cockfighting,

5 -6 times

2. Evening Market

15 - 25 persons

Chatting, looking for female, motorbike racing

3 times

3. T-Junction of village 16 &17

30 – 50 persons

Drinking, normal gathering

3-4 times

4. Open space near sugarcane plantation

10 – 20 persons

Drinking, probably using drug and sexual activities

2 – 3 times

Ban Noi Pattana

Ban Mai Ampawan

Regular Gathering of RRG

14

8. Findings of Objective 2: To study motivation and behavior of RRG

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.090.3

38.7

22.6

3.2

Motivated person to encourage for partic-

ipation in RRG

Percen

tage

Main reasons of participation was self-motivation to enjoy free time with friends and to had some opportunity to find some new friends.

15

Priority Reasons Weighted Average Index1 Enjoy free time 0.732 Meeting new friend 0.293 Seeking new connection 0.204 Earning respect 0.185 Earning money 0.04

Motivation of Participation

16

Behavior of RRG Duration of Involvement

Activities

f(N=31) %≤ 5 years(N =17)

%

6 to 10 years(N = 9)

%

≥ 11 years (N=5)

%A. Creative ActivitiesVillage development activities 22 71.0 64.7 66.7 100.0

Community service 10 32.3 11.8 44.4 80.0

B. Non-Violent Behavior

School absenting 31 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Motorbike racing 16 51.6 47.1 55.6 60.0

Drinking alcohol 30 96.8 94.1 100.0 100.0

Smoking 28 90.3 88.2 88.9 100.0

C. Violent Activities

Destroy public property 5 16.1 11.8 22.2 20.0

Fighting with other gangs 28 90.3 82.4 100.0 100.0

Using drugs 7 22.6 17.6 22.2 40.0

Sexual harassment 11 35.5 47.1 22.2 20.0

Robbery 9 29.0 29.4 22.2 40.0

Behaviors of RRG

Relationship between Types of Behaviors and Socio-economic Characteristics

Type of Behavior Socio-economic Characteristics

A. Creative Activities• Village development• Community service

- Above 18 years old-Completed compulsory school -High family income (over 170,000 Baht annually)

B. Non-violent Behavior• School absenting

• Motorbike racing

• Drinking alcohol

• Smoking

-Combination of social economic characteristics

-Above 18 years old, broken family, high family income

- Combination of social economic characteristics

-Combination of social economic characteristics

C. Violent Behavior• Destroy public property

• Fighting with other gangs

• Using drug

• Sexual harassment

• Robbery

- Low education level, Low income family, broken family

-Broken family, lived with grandparents, low income family

-Age over 18 years old, live with grandparents, high income family

-Younger than 18 years old, in schooling, lived with only mother, low income family- Age over 18 years old, lived with only mother, low income family (13,000 – 20,000 annually)

18

9. Findings of Objective 3: To analyze factors of participation in RRG

19

Degree of Influential Factors of Participation in RRG

• Parents addicted to alcohol(0.19%)

• Family conflict(0.15)

• Accessibility to drug (0.15)

• Domestic violence (0.14)

• Low learning inspiration (0.39)

• Quit from school • ( 0.37)

• Low academic performance (0.30)

• Broken family ( 0.30)

• Parent addicted to gambling (0.24)

• Lack of behavioral follow-up (0.54)

• Low income family (0.47)

• Mobilized by relatives (0.46)

• Feeling abandon (0.41)

• Easily accessible to alcohol (0.80)

• Invited by friends (0.71)

• Associated with other RRG members (0.82)

0 0.21 0.41 0.61 0.81

Low HighVery low

Low Moderate

High Very high

0.01 - 0.20

0.21 -0.40

0.41 – 0.60

0.61 – 0.80

0.81 – 1.00

(Weighted Average Index)

Personal FactorsLow learning inspiration (71.0%)Feeling abandon (58.1%)

Peer FactorsAssociated with RRG members (96.8%)Invited by friends (87.1%)

Community FactorsEasily accessible to alcohol (96.8%)

Family FactorsLack of behavioral follow-up (77.4%)Low income family (71.0%)

Factors of Participation

Factors of Participation in RRG

Relationship between Factors of Participation and Socio-economic Characteristics

Factor Socio-economic Characteristics

A. Personal factors• Low academic performance• Low learning inspiration• Feeling abandon

-Parents were divorce, low income family (13,000 – 20,000 annually)- Below 18 years old, lived with grandparents- Broken family, parents were divorced, stayed with grandparents

B. Family Factors• Low income family

• Lack of behavioral follow-up

-Below 18 years old, attending school, lived with single parent or grand parents- Above 18 years old, broken family, low income family

C. Peer Factors• Invited by friends

• Associated with RRG friends

- Below 18 years old, attending school, lived with parents

- combination of socio-economic characteristics

D. Community Factors• Availability of drug

• Easily accessible to alcohol

- Members of above 18 years old, completed school, high income family

-Combination of socio-economic characteristics

22

10. Findings of Objective 4: To assess the impacts of RRG

23

Individual Impacts of RRG Members

Anti-Social Behaviors

1. Non-violent BehaviorsoSchool absentingoMotorbike racingoDrinking alcohol

2.Violent BehaviorsoDestroy public propertyoFighting with other gangsoUsing drugsoSexual harassmentoRobbery

Tota

l

Ever

be

Puni

shed

Neve

r be

Puni

shed

Tota

l

Ever

be

Arre

sted

Neve

r be

Arre

sted

Tota

l

Ever

Fig

hting

Neve

r Fig

hting

Tota

l

Ever

be

Arre

sted

Neve

r be

Arre

sted

School Trancy Motorbike Racing Drinking Alcohol Drinking Alcohol

0

20

40

60

80

100100

61.3

38.7

51.6

0

51.6

96.8

45.251.6

96.8

19.4

77.4

Percen

tage

•Repeated class absent caused low academic performance and school dropped out.• Drinking alcohol was main cause of fighting and injury.•At risk of revenge and participate in illegal activities.• Lost chance of education and career opportunity.

FightingSchool Absenting

Impacts of RRG on Family

24

Priority Impact Weighted Average Index

1 Feeling of insecurity 0.54

2 Financial problem 0.46

3 Shortage of farm Labor 0.27

4 Feeling shamed 0.26

5 Family conflict 0.14

• Major concerns of RRG’ families were insecurity of their RRG’s children and financial problems.

• Feeling of insecurity of parent related to RRG member who smoke, destroy public property, using drug and robbery.

•Feeling ashamed of parents related to RRG members who destroy public property and robbery.

•Financial problem of family related to RRG member who performed violent behavior like destroy public property , fighting, sexual harassment, and robbery.

Impacts of RRG on Community

•The community facing violent crime, drug crime and property crime.

• The anti-social behavior affected peace and security of local community.

•Anti-social behaviors like group gathering, drinking, motorbike racing annoyed people in community.

•Existing of RRGs caused negative impacts on local administration.

•Violent activities like fighting with other RRGs affected tradition night festivals.

•Active RRG discredit image of local community.

•RRG created local conflicts

Opinions from Community

•There was no direct authority at locality was responsible to problems of RRG.

• There was no remedies to reduce violent behavior of RRG.

• The police was only concern authority that dealing with violent youth.

• Lack of social cohesion and unity.

• Most of parents of RRG members(80.6%) suggested that development organization should provide occupational training to RRG members.

•Majority of RRG members (73.1%) requested for occupation training.

26

11. Conclusion and Recommendations

27

•RRG has been active as a collective action of rural youth for more than ten years with clear organizational set-up.

•Motivation to join in the gang was mainly from their peers and self-interest in deviant behavior.

• RRG members joined in several creative (village development activities), violent and non-violent behaviors. Main violent behaviors were fighting with other gangs, drug and property crimes.

•Influential factors of participation were from persuasion of peers of RRG members through group dynamics and as a result of drinking alcohol and lack of behavioral follow-up from family and local authority.

•Risk factors leading to their violent behaviors were from their peers, socio-economic characteristics low income and broken family.

•No effective legal control of drug and alcohol drinks in local community causing violent of them.

•RRG violent behaviors had significant impacts to individual, family and local community in various aspects.

• Except for police authorities , it lacks of social controlling mechanism both from central and local level for controlling and monitoring violent behaviors of RRG.

Conclusion

Recommendations • Suggest remedies to minimize RRG violent behaviors.•Enhance preventive measures of RRG at individual, family, and community level.

Recommendations for RRG to Reduce Violent Behaviors

Recommendationsfor Social Development of RRG

•Establishing local database for behavioral follow-up of RRG.

•Providing counseling service to RRG to adapt behavior and changing attitude in living together in a community.

•Creating new peers group and networking for watching and monitoring possible violent behaviors and to enhance creative and development activities.

•Providing occupational development to RRG to secure their livelihood.

•Strengthening law enforcement on alcohol and drug control of adolescence.

•Enhancing institutional collaboration for social rehabilitation of RRG particularly among local government (TAO), MOSDHS, and local police authority.

•Promoting cultural, recreational, sport and creative and development activities inside and with neighboring villages for youth to reduce local conflict.

Thank You!