|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Klein et al. was to examine the connection among street gangs, "crack" cocaine, and violence during the early years of "crack" distribution and use. The rate of involvement of street gangs in crack distribution, levels of violence associated with crack sales, and comparison of gang and nongang crack sales were issues addressed.
METHODOLOGY:
A quasi-experimental, secondary method was used to analyze data of 384 gang and 357 nongang drug cases collected from the Narcotics Files of three Los Angeles Police Departments and two Los Angeles Sheriffs Departments between 1983 and 1984. The five LAPD and LASD were chosen for having the highest combinations of cocaine sales arrests and reported gang activity. The arrest logs in the five stations were reviewed for cases having at least one arrest for sale of cocaine or possession for sale; simple possession for use was not reviewed. Gang involvement was reviewed for cases that attributed gang status to at least one arrestee in a case. To measure for the possibility of increased gang involvement, the proportion of gang members per case and the proportion of members of the same gang in a case were considered, and for both measure, the enforcement expectation would be an increase over time. To apply these indicators to large numbers, the time dimension was divided into the four half years starting with the first half of 1984. 1983 case numbers were too low to be included. Data were also analyzed for members of the same gang, but the numbers are smaller. The case records that could not be located, and others were dropped and not replaced when case materials indicated no arrests for cocaine sales. Comparative nongang cases were selected randomly in proportion to each stations' contribution to the nongang total for each year. Bivariate analysis, including chi square, and analysis of covariance were used to analyze the data.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Dramatic increases in total cocaine sales arrest cases were found from 1983 (233) to 1985 (1114). Gang involvement in these sales increased but less dramatically then publicly expected (it constituted 8.6% of all cocaine soled in 1983 to 24.9% in 1985). The mean proportion of all arrestees who were identified gang members dropped from .603 in the first half of 1984 to .575 in the second half of 1985. Proportions within the same gang dropped from .78 to .53. There were no appreciable differences between gang and nongang cocaine sales with respect to location or presence of firearms. Cocaine sales with gang involvement had more suspects, and suspects were significantly more likely to be male, black, and younger. One third of all sales occurred in dwellings of some type but only 6% took place in "rock houses" (5% gang, 6% nongang). Special fortifications barred windows or doors, and were found in 16% of gang and 17% of nongang incidents which indicated that the well fortified crack house was not the exception, but the rule. There were no gang/nongang differences in source of information, two thirds of the arrest incidents were responses to prior information regarding drug activity. The mean amount of cocaine seized differed greatly between nongang and gang cases but in the opposite direction from what is generally expected. Nongang seizures were more than twice as high (19.04 vs 8.50 grams), this finding is not statistically significant. Crack cocaine was the most commonly found form of cocaine (92% gang and 81% nongang cases were explicitly mentioned. The amounts of crack did not differ significantly. No major differences were found in other drugs between gang and nongang. The percentage of gang cases with cash seized was significantly higher but the amount of cash was not. Multiple handlers were rare but significantly higher in gang cases. Over time, sales moved more into the streets, proportion of cases with guns present decreased as did mean number of firearms. For each of these, there were no significant gang/nongang differences. There were no appreciable differences in average number of participants arrested, and gangs were significantly higher in the percentage of males. Proportionately blacks were significant in general but not significant between black and non-black involvement. Gang members were significantly younger for all time periods, but age in general did not change. There was no appreciable change in the number of prior offenses, but gangs were significantly higher. The proportion of gang members in the last two years, who had prior arrests for violent charges was significantly higher for the last year. There were no significant trends or gang/nongang differences in prior drug arrests. In chi-square and t-test analysis, it was found that there were significant differences (p<.01) between gang and nongang homicides with respect to the following: dwelling (nongang higher), guns present, and mean number of suspect participants (gangs higher). Additionally, gangs were significantly lower on proportion male and significantly higher on age. None of the variables differed for gangs between drug and non-drug homicides. For nongangs, dwelling and mean age were higher for non-drug homicides. Guns were present significantly more often in drug, nongang homicides. Chi-square analysis showed that there was significantly more drug involvement in nongang homicides but not in gang homicides.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors stated that although the growth in crack sales was accompanied by a major increase in street gang involvement, the increase was primarily at the low volume, street level of sale. The author's stated that more research is needed on this topic, because of the unique situation of gangs in large cities. Assessments of gang involvement must go beyond simplistic, undifferentiated depictions of street gangs to use the considerable knowledge base on street gangs available from the criminological literature of the past three decades.
EVALUATION:
This study provides more indications that the images and the realities of crack distribution are not in sync. The culture of gangs has an affect on the contextual nature of crack sales, but gangs are not the cause of increases in gang sales. The use of LASD and LAPD data from the highest concentrations of drug arrests provides lower generalizability to other cities (though New York results were similar) but provides a rich basis for replication. The use of official records has its usual difficulties here including the designation of gang membership, but there are few alternatives that would provide the same amount and level of data. The close examination of who gangs are and what they do should be a continuing focus of research as a tool for better understanding context of criminal activity. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - 1980s
KW - California
KW - Adult Crime
KW - Adult Gang
KW - Adult Offender
KW - Adult Violence
KW - Juvenile Gang
KW - Juvenile Crime
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Gang Drug Trafficking
KW - Gang Violence
KW - Gang Crime
KW - Crime Causes
KW - Violence Causes
Language: en |