What have we learned about prison gangs? Findings from the … · 2020-02-20 · Understanding prison gangs 1. The problem of prison gangs 2. The LoneStar Project 3. Characteristics

The LoneStar Project

This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-MU-CX-0111 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,and was made possible with the assistance of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

What have we learned about prison gangs?Findings from the LoneStar Project

David C. Pyrooz, Ph.D.Department of Sociology

Institute of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of Colorado Boulder

A Presentation to the UTEP Center for Law & Human Behavior

Email: [email protected]: (303) 492-3241

Twitter: @dpyrooz

mailto:[email protected]


SCHEDULEUnderstanding prison gangs

1. The problem of prison gangs

2. The LoneStar Project

3. Characteristics of prison gangs/gang members

4. Power and control on the inside

5. Q & A

Responding to gangs

1. Joining/leaving in prison

2. Criminal and gang recidivism

3. Renouncement and disassociation

4. Policy/program implications

5. Q & A

The problem of prison gangs

Camp & Camp

(1985)

3% N=23

Wells et al.

(2002)

10% N=39

Hill

(2009)

12%, N=38

Winterdyk & Ruddell

(2010)

19% N=37

NGIC

(2011)

15% N=N/A

Pyrooz & Mitchell

(2018)

15% N=38

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1984 2002 2008 2009 2011 2016

% o

f P

riso

n P

op

ula

tion

, G

an

g A

ffil

iate

d


SOME INCONCLUSIVE “FACTS”

• Misconduct, particularly violence

• Orchestration of riots and uprisings

• The control and distribution of contraband

• At the core of the prison social order

• Symbiosis between prison and street gangs

• Consequences for inmate recidivism


Individuals, Groups, and Inference

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1900 1923 1930 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Nu

mb

er o

f P

ub

lica

tio

ns

Years

Total

Yearly

Research on Gangs (through 2014)

Source: Pyrooz and Mitchell (2015)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305358009_Little_Gang_Research_Big_Gang_Research


CHALLENGES OF PRISON GANG RESEARCH

Robert Fong and Salvador Buentello (1991)

• Official documentation on gangs is underdeveloped

• Prison administration is reluctant to grant access to researchers

• Gangs are secretive and prohibit the sharing of information



WHAT IS THE LONESTAR PROJECT?

• National Institute of Justice • Research on Gangs and Gang Violence FY14

• “Gangs on the Street, Gangs in Prison: Their Nature, Interrelationship, Control and Reentry”

Texas Study of Trajectories, Associations, and Reentry



Texas, Prisons, and Gangs


Baseline Wave 2 Wave 3

• Start: 4/18/2016

• End: 12/10/2016

• Retention: ---

• Constructs: 62

• Items: 1,190

• Start: 5/30/2016

• End: 5/9/2017

• Retention: 66.3%

• Constructs: 51

• Items: 1,126/1,508

• Start: 2/7/2017

• End: 2/26/2018

• Retention: 64.2%

• Constructs: 52

• Items: 1,180/1,552

THE LONESTAR PROJECT

16

Population:

Huntsville Unit

N=15,644

Sample:

Huntsville & Estelle Units

n=802

Disproportionate random sampling

Population:

Gang: 1,596 (10.2%);

Non-Gang: 14,048 (89.8%)

Response rate: 61%

Participation rate: 94%

Sample:

Gang: 368 (45.9%);

Non-Gang: 434 (54.1%)

Legend

Number of Respondents

Houston (n = 91)

Dallas (n = 171) San Antonio (n = 71)

82.5%

N=660

17.5%

N=140

35.8%

N=286

46.8%

N=374

10.0%

N=807.5%

N=60

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Concordance Discordance Admin (yes),

Survey (yes)

Admin (no),

Survey (no)

Admin (yes),

Survey (no)

Admin (no),

Survey (yes)

The Characteristics of Prison Gangs and Gang

Members


Gang Members and Gangs in the LoneStar Project

20

Persons (N=441) Person-Gangs (N*G=477)

1. Tangos – all (5 sets) members:

2. Crips – all (4 sets):

3. Bloods – all (4 sets):

4. Aryan Brotherhood:

5. Mexican Mafia:

6. Aryan Circle:

7. Texas Syndicate:

8. Gangster Disciples:

9. Peckerwood:

10. Barrio Azteca:

11. Texas Chicano Brotherhood:

12. La Raza Unida:

13. Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos:

14. Surenos – all (2 sets):

15. Black Disciples:

16. - 8 gangs>1 N-G

G=34 gangs, N*G (>1 NG) =

+ 36 gangs = 1 N-G

109

66

57

34

25

16

18

11

10

9

8

7

5

5

3

36

405

441

1. Tangos – all (5 sets) members:

2. Crips – all (4 sets):

3. Bloods – all (4 sets):

4. Aryan Brotherhood:

5. Mexican Mafia:

6. Aryan Circle:

7. Texas Syndicate:

8. Gangster Disciples:

9. Peckerwood:

10. Barrio Azteca:

11. Texas Chicano Brotherhood:

12. La Raza Unida:

13. Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos:

14. Surenos – all (2 sets):

15. Black Disciples:

16. - 13 gangs>1 N-G

G=39 gangs, N*G (>1 NG) =

+ 33 gangs = 1 N-G

111

70

59

34

25

17

18

12

10

9

8

7

5

10

3

36

434

477

DIFFERENCES SIMILARITIESNon-Gang, (N=454)

Mean/% (SD)Gang, (N=346)Mean/% (SD)

Non-Gang, (N=454)Mean/% (SD)

Gang, (N=346)Mean/% (SD)

Demographic/IndividualAge in years 41.64 (10.40) 34.55 (13.67) * Black 28.7% 21.3%Latino 27.8% 41.3% * Married 13.9% 14.8%White 35.7% 22.4% * In a relationship 15.6% 19.0%Education 11.74 (1.65) 10.95 (2.27) * Single 70.6% 66.2%

Low self-control 1.33 (0.63) 1.56 (1.11) * Father 67.6% 72.1%Military veteran 10.9% 5.5%IQ 93.33 (10.88) 91.96 17.71)

EnvironmentalInformal social control 2.90 (0.79) 2.55 (1.45) * Prison social control 1.79 (0.78) 1.71 (1.26)Good place to live 74.8% 63.2% * Unstructured routines 2.24 (3.40) 2.36 (5.17)Gangs in neighborhood 44.8% 73.4% *Disorder in the prison 7.32 (1.87) 8.66 (2.57) *

HealthStress 0.80 (0.49) 0.96 (0.84) * BMI 27.69 (4.40) 27.66 (8.01)Self-rated health 2.01 (0.70) 2.23 (1.16) * Self-esteem 2.13 (0.44) 2.09 (0.80)Exposure to violence 1.60 (0.87) 2.26 (1.39) * Projected age of death 86.21 (15.85) 87.52 (32.03)

Social ConnectionsEmbeddedness in gangs -0.44 (0.54) 0.73 (1.59) * Social distance 1.03 (0.42) 1.09 (0.72)

Family social support 2.36 (0.65) 2.50 (1.02) * Friend social support 1.86 (0.79) 1.87 (1.34)Criminal peers 0.65 (0.59) 0.97 (1.17) *

Attitudes and BeliefsCode of the street 1.88 (0.70) 2.42 (1.14) * Ethnic ID—cultural 3.07 (0.49) 3.20 (0.86)Convict code 2.47 (0.48) 2.80 (0.78) * Spirituality/religiosity 3.07 (0.78) 2.93 (1.27)Legitimacy 1.59 (0.43) 1.37 (0.74) *Procedural justice 1.14 (0.50) 0.99 (0.77) *Ethnic ID—social 3.18 (0.53) 3.01 (1.13) *

Criminal Justice SystemAge at first arrest 21.05 (6.87) 18.09 (8.73) * Number of arrests 8.47 (5.04) 9.08 (8.53)

Prison stints 1.87 (1.08) 1.73 (1.43)Years incarcerated 4.33 (4.63) 4.78 (7.31)Violent offender 38.4% 43.7%

2%

6%

9%

21%

25%26%

35%

54%

48%

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Group 1:

2-8 RFs

(N=97)

Group 2:

9-10 RFs

(N=87)

Group 3:

11-12 RFs

(N=124)

Group 4:

13 RFs

(N=79)

Group 5:

14 RFs

(N=87)

Group 6:

15 RFs

(N=71)

Group 7:

16 RFs

(N=74)

Group 8:

17 RFs

(N=54)

Group 9:

18 RFs

(N=49)

Group 10:

19-23 RFs

(N=80)

% G

an

g-I

nv

olv

ed i

n P

riso

n

RFs=Number of Risk Factors

The LoneStar Project 23

Prison Gang Street Gang

Race/ethnicity Single race or ethnicity Mostly single race or ethnicity

Age Concentrated in mid-20s, with members 30s-40s Average age in upper teens

Organizational Structure Hierarchical Situational/Hierarchical

Sources of violence Symbolic and instrumental; Core activitySymbolic;

Core activity

Offending style Entrepreneurial Cafeteria style

Visibility of Behavior Covert Overt

Drug traffickingMajor activity;

Organized, collective

Varies;

Mostly individualistic

Loyalty to gang Absolute Weak bonds

Key to membershipUnqualified fidelity; Abide by gang rules;

Willingness to engage in violence

Real or perceived fidelity; Abide by street rules;

Hanging out

Key psychological attributes Oppositional to Correctional Authorities;

Intimidation; Control; Manipulation

Oppositional to authority; Intimidation;

Camaraderie

The LoneStar Project 24

Street

only

Prison

only

Street/

PrisonTotal

Any

Street

Any

Prison

f f f f % %

STG: admin. segregated

Aryan Brotherhood 0 0 34 34 100% 100%

Aryan Circle 0 0 17 17 100% 100%

Barrio Azteca 0 0 9 9 100% 100%

Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos 0 0 5 5 100% 100%

Mexican Mafia 0 0 25 25 100% 100%

Raza Unida 0 0 7 7 100% 100%

Texas Syndicate 0 2 16 18 89% 100%

Gang Type Total 0 2 113 115 98% 100%

STG: no admin. segregated

Bloods (all) 7 0 52 59 100% 88%

Crips (all) 6 0 64 70 100% 91%

Partido Revolucionario Mex. 0 1 3 4 75% 100%

Texas Chicano Brotherhood 0 0 8 8 100% 100%

Texas Mafia 0 1 3 4 75% 100%

Gang Type Total 13 2 130 145 99% 91%

Street

only

Prison

only

Street/

PrisonTotal

Any

Street

Any

Prison

f f f f % %

Prison-oriented

Mandingo Warriors 0 2 0 2 0% 100%

Mexicles 0 2 2 4 50% 100%

Peckerwood 0 6 4 10 40% 100%

Tangos 1 63 47 111 43% 99%

Single-rep. gangs 0 2 0 2 0% 100%

Gang Type Total 1 75 53 129 42% 99%

Street-oriented

18th street – other 4 0 1 5 100% 20%

Aryan Nation 0 0 2 2 100% 100%

Bad Boys 2 0 0 2 100% 0%

Black Disciples 0 0 3 3 100% 100%

Black Widows 2 0 0 2 100% 0%

Gangster Disciples 2 0 10 12 100% 83%

Latin Kings 2 0 2 4 100% 50%

Northsiders 4 0 0 4 100% 0%

Surenos – all 9 0 4 13 100% 31%

Vice Lords 0 0 3 3 100% 100%

Single-rep. gangs 32 0 6 38 100% 16%

Gang Type Total 57 0 31 88 100% 35%

Dichotomy of Street and Prison Gangs?


Group-Level Characteristics

25

Instrumental Expressive Profit-Generation Communication


THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GANGS: COMPOSITION

0 1 2 3 4

Vice LordsSurenos - GeneralSurenos - Eastside

Party of Mexican RevolutionNorthsidersLatin Kings

Gangster DisciplesBlack Widows

Black DisciplesBad Boys

Aryan NationAmbrose Folk Nation

18th Street - Vagos18th Street

Tango - West TexasTango - VallucoTango - Orejon

Tango - HoustoneTango - General

PeckerwoodMexicles

Mandingo Warriors

Texas MafiaTexas Chicano Brotherhood

Crips - Rollin 60sCrips - General

Crips - GangsterCrips - 52 Hoover

Bloods - Tree Top PiruBloods - General

Bloods - Bounty Hunter

Texas SyndicateMexican MafiaLa Raza Unida

Hermanos Pistoleros LatinosBarrio AztecaAryan Circle

Aryan Brotherhood

Str

eet-

ori

ente

dP

riso

n-o

rien

ted

ST

G—

not

segre

gat

edS

TG

—se

gre

gat

edInstrumental

0 1 2 3 4

Expressive

0 1 2 3 4

Profit-Generation

0 1 2 3 4

Communication



0 1 2 3 4









PeckerwoodMexicles

Mandingo Warriors








Aryan Brotherhood

Str

eet-

ori

ente

dP

riso

n-o

rien

ted

ST

G—

not

segre

gat

edS

TG

—se

gre

gat

edInstrumental

0 1 2 3 4

Expressive

0 1 2 3 4

Profit-Generation

0 1 2 3 4

Communication



0 1 2 3 4









PeckerwoodMexicles

Mandingo Warriors








Aryan Brotherhood

Str

eet-

ori

ente

dP

riso

n-o

rien

ted

ST

G—

not

segre

gat

edS

TG

—se

gre

gat

edInstrumental

0 1 2 3 4

Expressive

0 1 2 3 4

Profit-Generation

0 1 2 3 4

Communication



0 1 2 3 4









PeckerwoodMexicles

Mandingo Warriors








Aryan Brotherhood

Str

eet-

ori

ente

dP

riso

n-o

rien

ted

ST

G—

not

segre

gat

edS

TG

—se

gre

gat

edInstrumental

0 1 2 3 4

Expressive

0 1 2 3 4

Profit-Generation

0 1 2 3 4

Communication

Power and Control


Who “Runs” Prisons?

32

Non-Gang Members(N=454)

Gang Members(N=346) Diff.

Rules% Agree % Agree

It is more important to follow the rules:

. . . gangs set than prisoners set 15.7% 44.5% Large

. . . gangs set than the prison staff 17.7% 40.8% Large

. . . prisoners set than the prison staff 30.4% 47.7% Medium

How fearful of punishment for violating:

% Very or Somewhat

Fearful

% Very or Somewhat

Fearful

. . . the rules that prisoners set 6.8% 12.7% Small

. . . the rules that gangs set 16.2% 23.5% Medium

. . . the rules that prison staff set 13.4% 9.0% Medium

Non-Gang Members(N=454)

Gang Members(N=346) Diff.

Order % Agree % Agree

Prisons would be more violent w/o gangs 18.5% 34.1% Medium

Gangs help maintain order in prisons 34.2% 65.6% Large

Gangs fix problems better than COs 28.1% 60.7% Large

Prison suffers when gangs have problems 81.9% 80.9% None

COs must talk to gangs to make changes 36.4% 48.3% Medium

Gangs make you feel safer in prison 6.2% 14.8% Medium

Non-gang inmates have hard time 25.9% 29.5% Small

I trust gangs to fix my problems, not COs 15.0% 38.7% Large

Control % Agree % Agree

Approval of gangs is required for selling:. . . drugs 28.8% 46.4% Medium. . . cell phones 24.2% 41.8% Medium. . . other contraband 20.7% 37.1% Medium

Gangs get a cut of contraband profits 20.8% 31.7% Medium

33

Nuances of Gangs and Power

• Changes in prison gangs

“Everything has gotten watered

down, calmed down. It is not as

violent as it used to be. It’s a new

generation, younger, that doesn’t

necessarily have the same morals as

what the older generation does.”

“Less violence now. More inner strife

within the family itself. You don’t

really see opposite gangs go at each

other.”

“Prison is washed up. It is not what it

used to be. It used to be more

disciplined and gangs meant

something. Now the gangs don’t

mean anything”

• Rules and social order“you can find a way to do both [inmate

code and gang rules] but it is most

important to follow the gang”

• Control of contraband

“If you’re not in the gang, you’re not

going to sell nothing.”

“Only if you are affiliated with them

[prison gangs] – they have guidelines.

If they want to get something dropped

out they get a “basketball” (literally)

which is full of cellphones, drugs, etc.

Once the people [gang members] get it

they are supposed to split it between

the person and their family [gang].

That is why you get so much at one

time.

• Street/prison symbiosis

“If they was having trouble with

someone in the street or somebody

snitched on them, then that person

comes to prison, then they send word to

prison we take care of it here.”

“If there’s a war going on in the world,

in the penitentiary, the same rival gang,

there’s a war, whatever goes on the

outside goes on inside, it works outside-

in.”

“The inside pretty much controls the

outside. So they didn’t really do much

on the outside if the inside didn’t let

them.”

Joining and Leaving Gangs in Prison

Sample Street Prison

N=799

Pre-prison:

- 18% Gang

- 82% Non-gang

N=231

Street Importation

N=151

Street Only

N=80

N=5

N=3

Street Importation

N=151

N=36

Prison Origination

N=209

N=3

(8%)

(12%)

N=359

(70%)

Never

Gang

Street

Only

Prison

Origination

(10%) Street

Importation

WHY DO THEY JOIN?

Pushes (external to the gang) and Pulls (internal to the gang)

Joining on the street

• Normative influence (50%)

• Belonging (29%)

• Economic (12%)

• Status (11%)

• Ideology (8%)

• Adjustment/guidance (5%)

• Protection (4%)

Joining in prison

• Normative influence (30%)

• Belonging (25%)

• Ideology (25%)

• Protection (21%)

• Status (13%)

• Adjustment/guidance (8%)

• Economic (7%)

HOW DO THEY JOIN?

Passive and Active

Joining on the street

• Jumped in (59%)

• Prospected (12%)

• Other violence (12%)

• Nothing (10%)

• Attacked rivals/exes (9%)

• Other non-violence (7%)

• Gang ties (5%)

Joining in prison

• Jumped in (48%)

• Prospected (20%)

• Other violence (18%)

• Nothing (15%)

• Attacked rivals/exes (7%)

• Other non-violence (6%)

• Gang ties (2%)

WHY DO THEY LEAVE?

Pushes (internal to the gang) and Pulls (external to the gang)

Left on the street

• Disillusionment (76%)

• Family (38%)

• Triggering events (29%)

• Positive influences (13%)

• CJ involvement (10%)

• Gang structure (2%)

• Work (2%)

• Religion (2%)

Left in prison

• Disillusionment (79%)

• Family (36%)

• CJ involvement (26%)

• Triggering events (12%)

• Religion (10%)

• Positive influences (6%)

• Gang structure (5%)

• Work (1%)

HOW DO THEY LEAVE?

Passive and Active

Left on the street

• Nothing (40%)

• Stopped associating (24%)

• Giving notice (18%)

• Jumped out (16%)

• Moved (8%)

• Permission/meeting (3%)

• Intervention (2%)

Left in prison

• Giving notice (34%)

• Nothing (27%)

• Jumped out (14%)

• Intervention (12%)

• Stopped associating (12%)

• Permission/meeting (7%)

• Moved (4%)

Criminal Justice

Rival Gangs

Family

Gang

POST-EXIT VALIDATION

Self

Criminal and Gang Recidivism

REARREST

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Perc

en

t A

rrest

ed

Months Post-Release

Everyone Non-Gang Active Gang Former Gang

RECONVICTION

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24P

erc

en

t R

eco

nvi

cte

dMonths Post-Release


REINCARCERATION

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16P

erc

en

t R

ein

carc

era

ted

Months Post-Release


GANG CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

Gang Renouncement and Disassociation

WHAT IS GRAD?Stage

Disassociation Investigation

Phase I: Normalization

Phase II: Socialization

Phase III: Reintegration

Unit Administrative segregation

Ramsey or Ellis “GRAD wing”Red wristbands

Ramsey or Ellis "GRAD wing" Orange wristbands

Ramsey or Ellis “gen pop”Blue wristbands

Time 12 months 2 months 4 months 3 months

Contact None Limited contact Single-celled; First month, solo rec time; Second month, double rec

Expanded contact Double-cell with inmate from

historical rival (race, gang); Group-based programming

Standard contact General population

interaction

Privileges None Limited privileges

More in-and-out of cell privileges;

One visit per weekend

Phase I, plus: Different clothing (2-piece

rather than white jumper); More programming and

movement

Phase II, plus: Regular visitation; Phone calls; Commissary; Work assignments; GRAD completion ceremony

Programming NoneSTG office investigates sincerity/commitment, conflicts, and eligibility* Informants and state's witnesses can bypass this phase

Stabilizing programming

In-cell videotaped lessons Substance abuse Domestic violence "Thinking errors“

Counselor meetings

Classroom programming

Cognitive intervention (180 hours), journaling

68 hours of substance abuse, anger management, and criminal addictive behaviors

Role playing, group activities

Vocational opportunities

When educational classes are not in session, comparable to GP inmates

WHO PARTICIPATES IN GRAD?All (N=117) Non-GRAD (N=64) GRAD (N=53)

Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Mean/% (SD) Different?

Age (in years) 43.61 (8.77) 42.00 (9.24) 45.56 (7.83) YesLatino 49.6% 48.4% 50.9% NoWhite 40.2% 39.1% 41.5% No

Multi-racial 10.3% 12.5% 7.5% No

Skin color (0-10) 1.83 (1.00) 1.97 (0.99) 1.66 (0.99) No

Married 14.5% 14.1% 15.1% No

In a relationship 10.3% 6.3% 15.1% No

Single 75.2% 79.7% 69.8% No

Father 69.2% 68.8% 69.8% No

TDCJ stints 3.09 (1.68) 3.00 (1.55) 3.19 (1.84) No

Prior arrests count 11.50 (6.56) 11.11 (6.93) 11.96 (6.12) No

Violent offender 37.6% 40.6% 34.0% No

Eligible gangs N N NAryan Brotherhood 31 18 13Aryan Circle 15 5 10Barrio Azteca 8 4 4Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos 6 3 3Mexican Mafia 23 13 10Raza Unida 8 3 5Texas Mafia 4 3 1Texas Syndicate 22 15 7

GANG MEMBERSHIP

21%

73%

56%

44%

3%

95%

9%

91%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Survey:

Current gang

Survey:

Former gang

Official:

Current gang

Official:

Former gang

Non-GRAD GRAD

GANG EMBEDDEDNESS

0.28 0.28

0.21

0.02

0.15

0.33

0.15

-0.34 -0.33

-0.25

-0.03

-0.18

-0.40

-0.18

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Gang embedded Position

in gang

Importance

of gang

Gang

fights

Influence

on gang

Contact

w/ gang

Friends in

gang

zsc

ore

Non-GRAD GRAD

MISCONDUCT AND VICTIMIZATION

44%

20%

39%

25%

18%

40%

14%

34%

24%20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Survey:

Any

Misconduct

Survey:

Violent

Misconduct

Official:

Any

Misconduct

Survey:

Any

Victimization

Survey:

Violent

Victimization

Non-GRAD GRAD

Implications for Policy and Practice

1. Mass incarceration and gangs

2. Gang-oriented programming

3. Group intervention in prison

4. The grip of the gang

5. Prison as a turning point

6. Gang variation

7. Housing gang members

8. Multiple methods for understanding gangs

9. Preparing gang members for reentry






6. Gang variation









6. Gang variation









6. Gang variation









6. Gang variation









6. Gang variation









6. Gang variation









6. Gang variation









6. Gang variation




Thank you

[email protected]

@dpyrooz

Department of Sociology

Institute of Behavioral Science

483 UCB

Boulder, CO 80309

303-492-3241

This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-MU-CX-0111 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The research contained in this document was coordinated in part by the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice (723-AR15). The contents of this article, including its opinions, findings, and conclusions, are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

What have we learned about prison gangs? Findings from the … · 2020-02-20 · Understanding prison gangs 1. The problem of prison gangs 2. The LoneStar Project 3. Characteristics