PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS/ CITY OF PITTSBURGH GANG-FREE SCHOOLS & COMMUNITIES PROJECT
ASSESSMENT REPORT 2001-2002
An Assessment of Gang Activity in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Written by: A. Odell Richardson, Project Coordinator Joyce A. D’Antonio, Ph.D., Research Partner Amanda Cook, M.S., Research Partner In Collaboration with the Steering Committee of the Pittsburgh Gang-Free Schools and Communities Project
Data Analysis by: Joyce A. D’Antonio, Ph.D., Research Partner Amanda Cook, M.S., Research Partner Center for Violence and Injury Control Allegheny-Singer Research Institute Allegheny General Hospital
Submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
December 2002
ii
Acknowledgements This Assessment initiative and report would not have been possible without the assistance and efforts of the following agencies: • • • • • • •
Pittsburgh Public School District City of Pittsburgh Mayor’s Office City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Allegheny County School Based Probation Office Allegheny County Shuman Juvenile Detention Center Allegheny General Hospital Community Outreach Team Members
iii
Steering Committee Member
Organization
Title
George A. Simmons, Chair*
PA Human Relations Commission
Regional Director
Raymond Bauer* Eugene C. Beard, Jr.* Lavonni Bickerstaff Dr. Alfred Blumstein John Brewer Dr. Margaret Brown* T. Rashad Byrdsong* Richard Carrington* Thomas N. Carter Dr. Jeffrey Coben*
Allegheny County Juvenile Probation PA State Attorney’s Office Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Carnegie Mellon University Anwar Corporation Pittsburgh Public Schools Community Empowerment Association Voices Against Violence FBI – Pittsburgh Office Allegheny General Hospital Allegheny-Singer Research Inst. (ASRI) Allegheny General Hospital, ASRI Allegheny General Hospital, ASRI Pittsburgh Public Schools Pressley Ridge Pittsburgh Public Schools Police Allegheny County Health Department Youth Works Pittsburgh Public Schools Allegheny Co. District Attorney’s Office Grace Presbyterian Church Urban League of Pittsburgh, Inc. Mayor’s Youth Policy Office Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Mayor’s Youth Policy Office YMCA-Homewood/Brushton Pittsburgh Public Schools Pittsburgh Bureau of Police University of Pittsburgh-WPIC Communities In Schools Pittsburgh Housing Authority Police Nat’l Council Urban Peace & Justice Gang Free Schools & Communities Allegheny County Coroner’s Office Pittsburgh Bureau of Police University of Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh-WPIC Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Shuman Detention Center Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Pittsburgh Public Schools
Supervisor Asst. Deputy Chief Sergeant Professor-Heinz School Community Leader Director-Safe Schools/Healthy Students Executive Director Director Special Agent Director Center for Violence & Injury Control (CVIC) Sr. Research Assistant, CVIC Research Associate Professor, CVIC Coordinator Deputy State Director Chief-School Safety Planner Executive Director Office of Technology Deputy District Attorney Pastor Vice President & COO Youth Program Specialist/Consultant Sergeant Manager Executive Director Exec. Dir. Student Services Police Officer Professor of Psychiatry Program Manager Chief President & CEO Project Coordinator Deputy Coroner Sergeant Officer-Community Relations/Crime Prevent. Sr. Research Principal Detective Executive Director Detective Assistant Chief-Administration Branch Administrator– Student Assistance Program
Amanda Cook* Dr. Joyce D’Antonio* Westlynn Davis* Jim Doncaster R.S. Fadzen* Dr. Fred Fowler Richard Garland* Dr. Jack Garrow* Richard Goldberg Rev. Cox Harwell Lee Hipps* Jerome Jackson Mildred Johnson* Errika F. Jones* Olivia Jones* Dr. Andrew King Kurt A. Kondrich Dr. Edward Mulvey Jean Olivis* Chief Greg Patterson Khalid Raheem A. Odell Richardson* Ed Strimlan Amanda Thomas Deborah Walker* Dr. Evelyn Wei Damian Wiles Alex Wilson* Don Wilson Earl D. Woodyard, Jr.* Janet Yuhas * Assessment Team Members Research Partners: Joyce D’Antonio, Ph.D. Amanda Cook, M.S. Jeffrey Coben, M.D.
iv
Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. III STEERING COMMITTEE .............................................................................................. III I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 3 II. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 3 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE TARGET AREAS OF PITTSBURGH’S EAST REGION .... 3 IV. KEY FINDINGS – EAST REGION TARGET AREAS................................................ 3 V. SUMMARY OF RESOURCES.................................................................................... 3 APPENDIX A: ANSWERS TO KEY QUESTIONS.......................................................... 3 Domain 1: General Descriptive Data .......................................................................................... 3 Domain 2: Gang Data ................................................................................................................... 3 Domain 3: Student and School Data ........................................................................................... 3 Domain 4: Community Perceptions ............................................................................................ 3 Domain 5: Current Resources ..................................................................................................... 3 APPENDIX B: STEERING COMMITTEE ....................................................................... 3 APPENDIX C: ASSESSMENT TEAM ............................................................................ 3 APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY RESOURCES .................................................................. 3 APPENDIX E: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 3
v
I. Executive Summary It has been widely acknowledged that Pittsburgh has experienced serious gang problems since early 1992. This activity was marked by an escalation in violence that peaked in the mid 90’s when the homicide rate tripled in 1994. At that time, a series of events occurred that resulted in a marked de-escalation of violent gang activity and a resultant lull in overt gang violence. The most significant of these events was a federally initiated strike to target the most violent of the evolving gangs and their leaders with direct interdiction. The actual effect was to remove from the city streets 56 individuals in leadership positions with the gangs. By the end of 1997, there was relatively little overt gang-involved activity that could be directly attributed to the highly visible gangs of recent years. With the relative success of various intervention strategies, youth violence and gang activity, as a whole, followed the national trend toward reduction as the millennium closed. Since that time, however, community residents, school personnel, social service workers and some law enforcement officers have continued to note that while the overt gang violence of the mid-90’s had diminished substantially, there was still smaller pockets of activity that was apparent in various communities across the Greater Pittsburgh region. The rise in drug trafficking offenses and its subsequent violence turned the reflection of violent activity from actual gang activity to criminal enterprise pursuits and apparent “turf” or territorial disputes. It is with this emerging realization that gang’s and gang-involved activity had not really been eliminated, just reduced to a more manageable level of control that prompted the school district administration and city leadership to join forces and avail Pittsburgh of the opportunity to assess the depths of its “perceived” gang problem and define the realities of what may exist in this region. In 2001, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, as part of a longstanding, nationwide gang intervention initiative, selected Pittsburgh as one of four cities across the country to receive assessment and planning funding to do an in-depth analysis of violent youth gang activity in the region of the city the Steering Committee elected to chose. In agreeing to accept the OJJDP grant, Pittsburgh acknowledged the possibility that gangs and gang activity were present in Pittsburgh. To what extent and degree was yet to be determined and was the basis for beginning that review with a two-fold process. First and foremost was the creation of the Steering Committee, which was to act as the official Pittsburgh leadership to guide this assessment process and provide the necessary official impetus to move the project along. The second process that occurred simultaneously with creation of the Steering Committee was a regional scan of the City of Pittsburgh, census tract by census tract to evaluate serious criminal activity. It was apparent that a monumental task had been undertaken given that the first of the assessment processes was to be a retrospective review of police crime data to determine what activities over the previous three years represented gang-involved activity. That evaluation entailed a hand review of more than 1600 hundred police reports. Also, since gang-involved activity had not
2 been collected on a systematic basis for the past three years, a criterion for determining gang members, gang-involved behavior and gang incidents had to be established and utilized to conduct this retrospective review. Through a process of discussion that included police, community members, the district attorney’s office, school officials, and the FBI, a definition was established that allowed for the review of hundreds of police records. With a more manageable number of census tracts from which to target and extract data, the GFSC project proceeded in earnest, establishing several domains for data collection that included general descriptive data, gang data, gang crime data, student and school data, community perceptions data, and community resources data. After six months of data collection, the Steering Committee selected the East Region of Pittsburgh as the target location for the Implementation Plan and the in depth evaluation of the data domains. It was through this process of evaluation that six primary key findings were determined to begin the basis for creating an Implementation strategy for direct intervention with violent gang offending in this area of the city. The primary key findings include: ·
Gangs play a significant role in violent crime in the East Region Target Area of Pittsburgh.
·
Violent gang activity is having an increasingly negative impact on the learning environment in the East Region Target Area.
·
The East Region Target Area is disproportionately impacted by poverty and social disorganization that puts young people at greater risk for gang involvement and results in ongoing criminal activity.
·
Although some resources/programs are available to address gangs in the East Region Target Area, there is a lack of coordinated resources that target and enroll violent, gang-involved youth.
·
Family problems are significantly affecting youth on the East Region Target Area and playing a role in gang membership.
·
Gang-involved youth in the East Region Target Area are impacted by poverty, unemployment, limited educational achievement, and lack of positive activities. These factors keep young African American males trapped in the gang lifestyle well into their early 20s.
This Assessment Report represents a compilation of the collected data from the four geographic regions of Pittsburgh and an in-depth analysis of the East Region of Pittsburgh that reflects the highest incidences of criminal behavior and specifically, violent gang activity.
3 II. Introduction It has been widely acknowledged that Pittsburgh has experienced serious gang problems since early 1992. This activity was marked by an escalation in violence that peaked in the mid 90’s when the homicide rate tripled in 1994. At that time, a series of events occurred that resulted in a marked de-escalation of violent gang activity and a resultant lull in overt gang violence. The most significant of these events was a federally initiated strike using the RICO statutes to target the most violent of the evolving gangs, the LAW (Larimer Avenue/Wilkinsburg), and their leaders with direct interdiction. The actual effect was to remove from the city streets 56 individuals in leadership positions with the gangs. By the end of 1997, there was relatively little overt gang-involved activity that could be directly attributed to the highly visible gangs of recent years. With the relative success of various intervention strategies, youth violence and gang activity, as a whole, followed the national trend toward reduction as the millennium closed. Using the recently formed (1996) Youth Crime Prevention Council (a collaborative effort led by the Mayor and involving 17 law-enforcement agencies, dozens of private and social service agencies, community groups, the Pittsburgh School District, grass roots organizations, and individual citizens), various strategies were developed and implemented to address the issues of youth gang violence and youth violence in general that plagued Pittsburgh and the surrounding county. Hundreds of youth were targeted with various and in some cases intensive interventions, and peace was brokered between warring factions in the communities hit hardest by ganginvolved activity. Gang activity was not eliminated, however -- just reduced to a level that could be managed with juvenile and adult law enforcement initiatives, social service programs that targeted specific, often violent populations, and the opportunity for grass roots organizations to intervene with their own community residents, with access to resources not historically available to such groups. It was during that time that agencies like YouthWorks, National Council for Urban Peace and Justice, Community Empowerment Association, and the East-End Youth Outreach under the YMCA, were evolved to provide direct outreach and intervention in the various communities and schools where violence and conflict were igniting. Since that time, however, community residents, school personnel, social service workers and some law enforcement officers have continued to note that while the overt gang-banging of the mid-90’s had diminished substantially, there were still smaller pockets of activity that apparently existed in various communities across the Greater Pittsburgh region. The rise in drug trafficking offenses and its subsequent violence turned the reflection of violent activity from actual gangbanging to criminal enterprise pursuits and apparent “turf” or territorial disputes. To further this perceptive distinction in violent criminal activity, there was no official process adopted to record specific intelligence around gang-involved activity and as a consequence, since about 1997, it was very difficult to ascertain the specifics of gang-involved behavior and its
4 presence or absence. The suggestion of gang-involved activity was met with skepticism in some quarters, acknowledged in others and generally, placed on the back burner of importance to more significant issues relevant to the Pittsburgh region’s ongoing progressive development. In actuality, the phenomena that was occurring across the country, was also happening in Pittsburgh. The gangs had learned valuable lessons (to them) about “declaring” easily and readily identifiable signs and symbols to mark their presence, making it easier for law enforcement to target them with interdiction and suppression efforts. While the numbers of gang members may have been reduced, it is readily apparent, and this document will highlight, that the ganginvolved behavior that marked Pittsburgh’s recent history, is present today and it is violent and growing more so. It is with this emerging realization that gang’s and gang-involved activity had not really been eliminated, just reduced to a more manageable level of control that prompted the school district administration and city leadership to join forces and avail Pittsburgh of the opportunity to assess the depths of its “perceived” gang problem and define the realities of what may exist in this region. In 2001, the OJJDP, as part of a longstanding nationwide gang intervention initiative, selected Pittsburgh as one of four cities around the country to receive assessment and planning funding to do an in-depth analysis of violent youth gang activity in the region of the city it chose to select. The Pittsburgh Scan In agreeing to accept the OJJDP grant, Pittsburgh acknowledged that the possibility existed that gangs and gang activity were present in Pittsburgh. To what extent and degree was yet to be determined and the basis for beginning that review began with a two-fold process. First and foremost was the creation of the Steering Committee, which was to act as the official Pittsburgh leadership to guide this assessment process and provide the necessary official impetus to move the project along. While overt gang violence was not the impetus that brought the community leadership to the table, a rash of violent shootings in June/July of 2001 was sufficient to underscore the need to know what was happening across the city and why. The second process that went on simultaneously with creating the Steering Committee was a regional scan of the City of Pittsburgh, census tract by census tract to evaluate serious criminal activity, namely Part 1 offenses, drug offenses, and weapon violations. The primary purpose of this scan was to get a snapshot of potential “hotspots” in Pittsburgh and pinpoint the location to do an in-depth assessment. The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police also initiated a gang intelligence survey that was prepared by a lieutenant from each precinct of the city. This survey was representative of information provided by field officers upon their return from daily duty and provided a current view of gangs. At the first meeting of the Steering Committee, on July 23, 2001, this information was presented for evaluation and discussion to the group, at large. After a lengthy discourse, it was determined that since the current escalation in violence appeared to be happening in different areas of the city and didn’t appear to be influenced from any one particular area, it would be prudent to
5 assess the entire city or at least the most “hot” of the city’s hotspots. 23 census tracts were selected that represented each of the four regions of the City of Pittsburgh, North, South, East, and Central. It was apparent early on that a monumental task had been undertaken. Given that the first of the assessment processes was to be a retrospective review of police data to determine what activities over the previous three years represented gang-involved activity. That evaluation entailed a hand review of 1,631 police reports. Also, since gang-involved activity had not been collected on a systematic basis for the past three years, a criterion for determining gang members, ganginvolved behavior and gang incidents had to be established and utilized to conduct this retrospective review. This criterion had to be consistent with the current understanding of gangs and the sensitivity to placing that label on individuals and actions that had no readily identifiable affiliation with gang-involved activity as it was previously understood to exist. Through a process of discussion that included police, community members, the district attorney’s office, school officials, and the FBI, a definition was established that allowed for the review of the police records. The following represent the efforts of the Steering Committee to provide standard definitions of the terms “gang”, “gang member”, and “gang incidents” and subsequent behavior that mark the threshold of proof that indeed gang activity is prevalent in certain quarters of the city. GANG FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES PROJECT TERMINOLOGY GANGS Definition: Three (3) or more identified (Self, Police, Community, School, Behavior, etc.) individuals, who associate, in kind, to commit criminal acts together, a minimum of two (2) times, for the benefit of the group association. CRIMINAL ACTS Definition: Consists of primary and secondary offenses. (Note: The primary offenses were believed to be more likely associated with gangs than the secondary offenses.) Primary Offenses • Homicide • Robbery • Aggravated Assault • Motor Vehicle Theft • Simple Assault • Criminal Mischief (vandalism, graffiti, etc.) • Weapons Offenses/Trafficking • Drug Offenses
Secondary Offenses • Rape (forcible, intimidation, etc.) • Burglary • Larceny/Theft • Arson • Loitering • Stolen Property (receiving, trafficking, etc.) • Prostitution • Extortion • Witness Intimidation/Payment
6 GANG MEMBER Definition: An individual is identified as a gang member by confirmation of, at least, two (2) identifying criteria, as follows. IDENTIFYING CRITERIA An individual is identified as a gang member if he or she: • • • • •
self declares membership and/or participation in a known gang. has been identified by police and/or other law enforcement authorities as a gang member. has been identified by community members as a gang member. has been identified by school officials, teachers, etc. as a gang member. Has established gang involvement by exhibiting behavior consistent with gang involvement including, but not limited to: regular associations with known gang members; use of hand signs, symbols, and/or tattoos; communicating with known gang members; possessing and/or disseminating gang related documentation; and possesses a past criminal record for gang involved activity.
GANG INVOLVED INCIDENT Definition: Any criminal act(s) (committed/participated in) by identified gang member(s).
Assessment Area Reduction In December of 2001, OJJDP and the National Youth Gang Center visited the Pittsburgh site to lend support and consultation on the evolution of the assessment and planning process. The input and information gained with that visit enabled the Pittsburgh site to look realistically at the enormous task of collecting data in 23 census tracts across Pittsburgh and subsequently, to develop a strategy that reduced the assessment areas to the 10 most active census tracts in the four regions of Pittsburgh. (See the attached scan map next page.) With a more manageable number of target census tracts from which to extract data, the Pittsburgh GFSC project proceeded in earnest, establishing several domains for data collection that included general descriptive data, gang data, gang crime data, student and school data, community perceptions data, and community resources data.
7
Target Area Selection – East Region Target Areas While the data collection process became more manageable with the assessment of a reduced number of census tracts, the collected data were still extensive and voluminous. It became the responsibility of the Steering Committee to select a target area that would serve as the initial location for the next phase of the project, implementation of the OJJDP gang model. In order to facilitate implementation, all of the data collected in the East Region would have to be reviewed and specific violent offending gang(s) would have to be evaluated and targeted for direct intervention. After a series of meetings designed to understand the collected data and how best to present it, the East Region of the city was selected by the Steering Committee as the target area on which to focus the in-depth assessment and for identifying the gang(s) and related violence. This assessment took into account a combination of issues that included the level of violence, number of potential gang members, the existence or absence of resources, and the probability of success based on direct intervention with this project.
8 This Assessment Report represents a compilation of the data collected in four geographic regions of Pittsburgh and an in-depth assessment of the East Region Target Area of Pittsburgh that reflects among other things, a majority of incidents of criminal behavior and specifically, violent gang activity, with the inherent condition of this region’s communities as the backdrop.
III. Description of the Target Areas of Pittsburgh’s East Region Socio-demographics – East Region Target Areas The East Region Target Areas of Pittsburgh can be characterized as an area that is made up of approximately 15 different neighborhoods, with two large high schools, two primary middle schools, and three elementary schools, predominantly single family home tracts, with numerous pockets of empty and abandoned properties, empty lots, and no basic economy to sustain itself. At one time, a thriving mix of working class neighborhoods, small businesses, and close knit family units, these small communities now exist at the extreme ranges of the urban life cycle, from blight to economic promise, sporadic violence to quiet resignation and at its heart, a pervasive sense of fear. By far the poorest of the Pittsburgh’s communities, the East Region Target Areas languish on the precipice, a victim of benign municipal neglect and an intrinsic history of violence that contributes to the existence of some of the very issues addressed in this report, namely violent gang-involved behavior. Saddled with a dwindling population, more than two times as many single parent female head-of-households as the city as a whole and a median income that is 59% of the city as well, the East Region Target Area’s unemployment rate is more than 50% higher than the average across the entire city and nearly three times the national average. The change in public assistance regulations with Welfare to Work, over the past few years, has seen a precipitous drop in the welfare rolls, but not necessarily an increase in employment or real job opportunities. More than 28% of the families in the East Region Target Areas live below the poverty level. One in three people are between the ages of 35 and 64 and the teen birth rate; down from the 1990 census, currently at just below 10%, is still three times higher than that of the entire city. The East Region Target Areas is disproportionately impacted by poverty and social disorganization that puts young people at greater risk for gang involvement and results in ongoing criminal activity. Conversely, the East Region Target Areas have been the recipient of the largest portion of benevolent largesse in the city as is evidenced by the more than 150 social service, school and community programs that have evolved to address such issues as teen birth, drugs, juvenile delinquency, mental health, conflict resolution, and job skills development and a host of other social ills plaguing this region. Consistent with the operative mentality of the disparate communities around Pittsburgh, services only addressed issues proximate to their location and a narrowly defined target group. Until very recently, services were not coordinated to maximize
9 their effective potential across static boundaries of geography, restricted service delivery systems, and individual multi systemic needs. Aside from law enforcement interdiction, there are very few programs that address the issue of gangs and the growing escalation of violence, which has permeated this region for more than a decade. Although some resources/programs are available to address gangs in the East Region Target Areas, there is a lack of coordinated resources that target and enroll violent, ganginvolved youth. A very clear picture has emerged as to the main progenitors of this violent activity and while not enlightening, provides a clear indication of the targets for much needed intervention. Gangs – East Region Target Areas In the East Region Target Areas, 88% of the population is African American, less than half are male, one in three are between the ages 35 and 64, and nearly 20% are between the ages of 10 and 25. As determined by a retrospective review of law enforcement records for the last three years, a picture emerges that illustrates the depth of the gang culture in the East Region Target Areas and provides a composite profile of the actors populating the most violent of the longstanding gangs in this region. First, the point must be made that gangs in whatever their present form, shape, or structure, have not ceased to exist since before their strong emergence in 1992, in Pittsburgh. The current makeup of the gangs provide some insight into their evolution and transition to more clandestine types of operation, in some cases, but they are nonetheless present and operating with often times violent intent. In the East Region Target Area there are three predominant gangs that have been consistently active for, at least, the last three years - the Bloods, Crips, and LAW. There are other smaller gangs that have evolved recently, but these three have been in existence since the first wave of gang violence spread from this region more than a decade ago. The numbers of members of these gangs are approximate since overt declaration of one’s affiliation has not been the norm since a major law enforcement interdiction in 1996. It is estimated that there are approximately 300+ members, split just about equally between the three main gangs in the East Region Target Areas. (It should be noted that there is an existing phenomena in the gang structure in Pittsburgh, that has these gangs operating in smaller, less organized groups rather than in large scale organized bodies, thereby allowing the use of the same name but not necessarily having any direct affiliation. In some cases this is taken to the extreme when conflicts exist between gangs with the same name, in roughly the same geographic area where streets separate their respective” turfs”. This is an important distinction that needs to be clearly understood.) 79% of the East Region Target Areas gang members are between the age of 18 and 24, 95.2% are male, and 91% are African American. In responding to the structured interviews conducted by the East Region Target Areas outreach team, admitted gang members shared fascinating insight into some of the motivational factors that contribute to their lifestyle choices and the issues that could impact on them, both negatively and positively.
10 More than half of the respondents are in school, of some kind; 62% have, at least, one child, and more than 85% admitted to having family members in a gang. The reasons given for joining a gang varied but predominantly revolved around three issues: friends in the gang, money, and protection. More than 60% believed they would leave the gang at some point for reasons that included school or better educational opportunities, becoming a parent, and for recreational or sports activities. More than 57% responded that family responsibilities would provide sufficient impetus to leave the gang lifestyle. One of the most significant acknowledgements the gang members made was related to the causes of the gang lifestyle. More than 52% responded that poverty and a lack of activities in the community contributed to the gang problem in East Region Target Areas of the city. 43% responded that power, protection, and familial connection contributed to the proliferation of the gang lifestyle in the East Region Target Areas. Gang-involved youth in the East Region Target Areas are impacted by poverty, unemployment, limited educational achievement, and a lack of positive activities. These factors keep young African American males potentially trapped in the gang lifestyle well in to their early 20’s. Criminal Incidents and Violence – East Region Target Areas The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police readily acknowledges that the East Region Target Areas (Zone 5) accounts for 25% of the city’s overall criminal activity and generates the greatest amount of policing activity, by far, in the entire city. Daily reports of gunfire, shootings, prolific drug arrests, and serious assaults highlight an area of Pittsburgh that is in dire need of systemic, as well as, social change. Gangs play a significant role in violent crimes in the East Region Target Areas of Pittsburgh. The selection of the East Region Target Areas of Pittsburgh as the focus for this intervention was, in large part, due to the overwhelming evidence that gang involved violence was an intrinsic part of the overall tapestry of violence and criminality occurring in this region. In the past three years in the East Region Target Areas, 50% of the homicides, one in six aggravated assaults, more than 56% of the weapons offenses and a quarter of the drug arrests were gang-involved crimes. Gang members themselves readily acknowledge their involvement and/or participation in violent activities with 90% claiming to have committed weaponless battery and more than 85% have threatened to use a dangerous weapon. Two thirds admitted to using a dangerous weapon and more than 60% questioned have sold weapons, vandalized property, stolen merchandise, and committed burglary on a vehicle. Violent, gang-involved activity has accounted for almost 25% of the major crimes committed in the East Region Target Areas of Pittsburgh. Gangs in School – East Region Target Areas The cycle of violence evidenced in the reported criminal activities tells one part of the story that defines the issues surrounding gang-involved violence in the East Region Target Areas. As part of the assessment process a student survey was administered to over 660 students in two high schools and two middle schools in the East Region Target Areas. This provided an opportunity
11 for the students to self-report their perceptions of gang-involved activity, both in school and in their communities, as well as, their perceptions of their home life and community. Violent youth gang activity is having an increasingly negative impact on the learning environment in the East Region Target Areas 20% of the students responded positively to being gang members, with a total 25% affirming some affiliation with gang involved behavior. More than one third of the students indicated that there is a gang presence in their school and/or acknowledge gang membership of their peers. More than 28% acknowledge that outside gangs have been around the vicinity of their schools and more than 37% indicated gangs have been involved in fighting that ranged from once a month to almost daily. Suspension rates show a more definitive picture of the escalating violence against school employees and students. In one middle school and both high schools, assaults on students and/or employees have increased in the last two school years by 500%, 600%, and 60%, respectively. While the, often broad, interpretation of what constitutes assault in the school system is left to the discretion of each school’s principal, there is apparently some level of consistency that would warrant the penalty of suspension and generate such a significant increase. As evidenced by the school based probation data, a significant number of students, from as many as 2.3-7.6% at the high schools to 2-3.5% in the middle schools in the East Region Target Areas are involved in criminal activity, either in school, in the community or both. In addition to the survey administered to the students, staff members in the East Region Target Areas schools were queried as to their perception of the contributing factors to youth gang membership in the school and surrounding community. More than 51% indicated family problems and/or a dysfunctional home life as a primary contributing factor, along with more than a third agreeing that peer pressure, a sense of belonging, and self esteem issues were secondary causes to gang membership. One in four confirmed poverty and the lack of or need for money as contributing causes to gang membership. At this point it is clear, family problems are significantly affecting youth in the East Region Target Areas and are playing a role in gang involved participation in criminal activity in the East Region. The issues of parental discipline, oversight, and direct involvement with youth or the lack thereof, provide a glaring indication of some of the additive causes to a gang-involved lifestyle. More than one in three youth who admitted gang membership, shared that such behavior as drinking alcoholic beverages, cutting school, and carrying a handgun would escape the scrutiny of their parents. One in five non-gang youth responded similarly to the same questions. More than half of the community leaders stated that more parents needed to be directly involved with their children as a means of reducing gang involved behavior. More than 85% of the self reported gang members claimed having family members who were gang involved, 14.5% joined because a sibling (male/female) was gang involved, and nearly 43% of the self declared gang youth attribute having family or friends in the gang lifestyle as a major cause of the communities ongoing gang problem.
12
Undoubtedly, certain family dynamics play a significant role in contributing to gang involved behavior and in some cases, contributes directly to ongoing gang membership in the East Region Target Areas. Offenders & Victims of Gang Violence – East Region Target Areas A compelling, if not surprising, finding was that the gang offender and gang victim look alike. Nine out of ten gang offenders, in the East Region Target Areas, are African American males between the ages of 15 and 53, with the average age being 22. Nearly 90% of victims of ganginvolved crime are African American males, between the ages of 0 and 84, with an average age of 25.5 years. Conclusion While not obviating the point of “individual choice” in making decisions about how one chooses to live ones life, there are extremely relevant community dynamics that are, obviously, contributing factors to the ongoing proliferation of gang involved behavior and youth choosing a gang lifestyle, as an alternative to existing non-criminal realities. In truth, within the framework of the existing community issues, a majority of its inhabitants have not made the choice to adopt a gang lifestyle, but struggle through and find some measure of success in negotiating the complexities of poverty, urban blight, apathy, dysfunctional family dynamics, neglect, violence, and fear. It is the intent of this report to address and target the violent youth gang-involved activity that renders the East Region Target Areas community an environment permeated with fear and inaction.
IV. Key Findings – East Region Target Areas Finding 1: Gangs play a significant role in violent crime in the East Region Target Areas of Pittsburgh. • According to an archival record search (1999-2001) of Pittsburgh Police Department crime records, gangs were involved in 50% of homicides, 16.4% of aggravated assaults, and 56.5% of weapons offenses in the East Region Target Areas. o Limitations of these data: These statistics may actually be underreported due to the complexity of identifying gang-related cases in a retrospective examination. • Gangs also play a role in drug crimes in the East Region Target Areas (24.5% of cases during the past three years were gang-involved). • According to the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, the East Region Target Areas (Zone 5) has Pittsburgh’s highest level of crime and represents a significant percentage of the city’s overall violent crime. • Interviews with community residents indicate that 51% of the respondents from the East Region Target Areas feel less safe in their communities now than 2 years ago.
13 • • • •
63.2% of the community residents responded that gang activity had either remained the same or increased in the past year. More than half of the community residents interviewed attribute the increasing violent crime, drug trafficking, and weapons violence to ongoing gang involved activity. Three historically large and violent Pittsburgh gangs, (LAW, Bloods and Crips), have had a consistent 3-year presence in the East Region Target Areas. (Source: City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Intelligence Unit, Table 7, Appendix A) Gang members who were interviewed acknowledged a high level of participation in violent crimes.
In the past year, gang members self-reported the following % Answered Yes criminal activity: Beaten up or battered someone without using a dangerous 90.5% weapon Threatened to attack a person using a gun, knife or other 85.7% dangerous weapon Threatened to attack a person without using a gun/knife/other 81.0% dangerous weapon Beaten up or battered someone using a dangerous weapon 66.7% Fenced or sold weapons or firearms 61.9% Robbed someone by force or by threat of force using a weapon 57.1% Robbed someone by force or by threat of force without using a 52.4% weapon Participated in a drive-by shooting 14.3% Participated in a homicide 4.8% (Source: Gang Member Interviews, Table 16, Appendix A) o Limitations of these data: Gang members do not represent a random sample, and these responses rely upon self-reported behavior. Finding 2: Violent gang activity is having an increasingly negative impact on the learning environment in the East Region Target Areas. •
•
20.2% of the East Region Target Area students stated that they were active gang members on the student survey. (Source: Student Survey, Table 38, Appendix A) o Limitations of these data: A significant percentage of the East Region students (45%) who participated in the student survey did not respond to the gang questions on the survey. Though only 74 students claimed to be gang members, 151 students placed themselves within the influence of gangs. 51% of 151 students showed themselves to be on the fringes of gang life. 43.7% viewed themselves as being more connected to the gang, and 5.3% of students who admitted gang membership labeled themselves as core gang members. (Source: Student Survey, Table 38, Appendix A) o Limitations of this data: While only 74 students claimed to be gang members in the East Region Target Areas on the student survey, 151 students responded to this question, showing their level of involvement with gangs. 77 youth labeled
14 themselves as fringe members, and 74 placed themselves in a closer relationship to the core of the gang. •
Students in East Region Target Area schools indicate that gangs are active in schools. One in four students stated that gangs were involved in frequent fights, that rival gang members came around the school, and that gangs were involved in drug sales at the schools. 12.6% of East Region Target Area students indicated that gang members had brought guns to their school in the past six months.
•
Student Survey: Students in East Region Target Areas Reporting Gang Activity at School o Limitations of these data: Student survey data rely upon self-reporting by students and are limited by the knowledge, experiences and candor of the students. 44-64% of the respondents answered “don’t know” in response to these questions.
Are there any gangs at your school? Do any of the students at your school belong to a gang? What about gangs that don’t have members attending your school…have any of those gangs come around your school in the past six months? How often have gangs been involved in fights, attacks, or violence at your school in the past 6 months? • Once or twice a month • One or more times a week Have gangs been involved in the sale of drugs at your school in the past six months? Have any gang members brought guns to your school in the past six months?
YES 34.2% 38.6% 28.7%
22.1% 14.1% 26.5% 12.6%
(Source: Student Survey: Table 41 a-c, Appendix A) •
Two of the East Region Target Area schools are seeing drastic increases in the levels of suspensions for assaults on students and employees. o Limitations of these data: Enforcement of PPS code of conduct varies by school principal. 1999-00 Assaults on Employees 14 (2.2%) 17 (2.0%)
2000-01 Assaults on Employees 3 (0.5%) 17 (1.9%)
% 1999-00 Change Assaults on Students -77.3% 33 (5.1%) -5.0% 33 (3.9%)
Arsenal Middle School Reizenstein Middle School Peabody High School 10 (1.1%) 16 (1.8%) +63.6% 23 (2.5%) Westinghouse High 3 (0.4%) 25 (3.4%) +750% 16 (2.17%) School (Source: Pittsburgh Public Schools: Table 32a, Appendix A)
2000-01 Assaults on Students 19 (3.0%) 176 (19.2%) 23 (2.6%) 66 (9.0%)
% Change
-41.2% +392.3% +4% +328.6%
15 •
Fairly high percentages of students in the East Region Target Area schools are on probation, indicating that students are involved in criminal activity in the community and/or the school:
% of all students on probation Arsenal Middle School 3.5% Reizenstein Middle School 2.0% Peabody High School 2.3% Westinghouse High School 7.6% (Source: Allegheny County School Based Probation Program, Table 33, Appendix A) • • • •
• •
26.5% of students in the East Region responded affirmatively to gang involvement in drug sales at school within the prior six-month period. 12.6% acknowledge gang member had brought a gun to school in the prior six-month period. 28.7% admit to seeing gang members around the schools in the East Region. One third admit to seeing fights, attacks, or violence from once a month to every day in the East Region. o Limitations of these data: Student survey data rely upon self-reporting by students and are limited by the knowledge, experiences and candor of the students. 46.6% 58.6% of the respondents answered “don’t know” to these questions. School. Staff members report that intimidation, fights, bullying, and assaults are among the top issues present in and around the school. 73% of the school personnel believe there is a gang problem in their school.
Finding 3: The East Region Target Areas are disproportionately impacted by poverty and social disorganization that puts young people at greater risk for gang involvement and results in ongoing criminal activity. •
Families in the East Region Target Areas are twice as likely to live in poverty than the average Pittsburgh family. While quality of life and poverty statistics have improved in the city of Pittsburgh as a whole, quality of life and poverty has worsened in the target areas. Although median household incomes have improved throughout the city of Pittsburgh, they are still below the poverty level in the East Region Target Areas. The percentage of female-headed households below the poverty level in the East Region Target Area is double that of the city as a whole. Children in the East Region Target Areas are three times as likely to be born to a teen mother. The unemployment rate is 5 percentage points higher than the overall city rate. Poverty and social disorganization continue to feed the East Region Target Areas’ problems with gangs, providing an increasing pool of young people from families stretched by the demands of modern life, living in poverty, and without available resources. Changes in welfare requirements have also created increasing numbers of working poor families in the area, where parents must work long hours for low pay (increasing the strain on the families), and where many families live below the poverty level. Young people live in families with adults who are
16 struggling to survive financially and who work in service/menial professions. Adults may in turn be more likely to use alcohol/ drugs or to engage in criminal activity.
Category Median Household Income % Family Households below poverty % Family households below poverty (female-headed, no spouse, with related children under 18 years of age) % Households with Public Assistance Income % Unemployment Teen birth rate (per 1,000 female teens) % High School graduate or higher (population 25 years or over) % High School Drop-Out (1994 & 2001)
•
Pittsburgh 1990 $20,747 16.6% 9.9%
2000 $28,588 15.0% 9.1%
East Region Target Areas 1990 2000 $12,213 $17,569 33.1% 28.2% 18% 21.6%
13.7%
5.5%
27.5%
11.9%
9.1% 49.9
10.1% 33.3
21.1% 106.2
15.8% 98.6
72.4%
81.3%
66.9%
73.4%
18.7%
11.2%
Peabody: 24% Westinghouse: 20.6%
Peabody: 10.2% Westinghouse: 16.1%
Youth perceptions around social disorganization in the East End Target Areas are influential in decisions to join a gang. Students who are gang members are more likely to report that adults in the area are using illicit drugs, selling drugs, engaging in criminal activity, and getting drunk/high in the East Region Target Areas. (Source: Student Survey, Table 39, Appendix A) Community Risk Factors: Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use If a kid drank some beer, wine or hard liquor in your neighborhood, would he or she be caught by police? (Response: “NO!”) How wrong would most adults in your neighborhood think it was for kids your age to use marijuana? – (Response: “Not wrong at all” About how many adults have you known personally who in the past year have: • Gotten drunk or high? Response: “5 or more adults” • Used marijuana, crack cocaine, or other drugs? Response: “5 or more adults” • Sold or dealt drugs? Response: “5 or more adults”
Non-gang Members 26.6%
Gang Members 47.7%
6.2%
15.9%
37.9%
56.5%
29.3%
50.8%
24.4%
46.2%
17 •
Done other things that could get them in trouble with the police like stealing, selling stolen goods, mugging, or assaulting others? Response: “5 or more adults” Community Risk Factors: Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns? If you wanted to get some beer, wine, or hard liquor, how easy would it be for you to get some? Response: “Very Easy” If you wanted to get a drug like cocaine, LSD, or amphetamines, how easy would it be for you to get some? Response: “Very Easy” If you wanted to get a handgun, how easy would it be for you to get one? Response: “Very Easy” • • •
18.4%
34.4%
Non-gang Members 27.5%
Gang Members 45.2%
12.5%
27.4%
16.2%
28.6%
52.4% of the gang members interviewed in the East End Target Area listed poverty as a primary cause of the gang problem in the community (Source: Gang Member Interviews, Table 15, Appendix A). 51.5% of school staff members listed “Family problems/dysfunctional home life” as a factor that contributes to gang membership in the East Region Target Areas. 24.2% cited poverty as a significant factor in gang membership. (Source: School Staff Interviews, Table 42, Appendix A)
Finding 4: City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police (Pittsburgh Police Department), Pittsburgh Public Schools Police, Shuman Detention Center, and Allegheny County School-Based Probation currently have no formal mechanism to track gang-involved criminal activity. • •
•
•
Information about gangs is not collected/disseminated effectively within or between key agencies. The Pittsburgh Police Department does not at present distinguish gang incidents from nongang incidents for investigative or reporting purposes. The findings for this report are the result of a manual, retrospective review of 1631 records conducted over a six-month period by 9 members of the Police Department Systems for tracking gang members are not functioning effectively within the City of Pittsburgh Police Bureau, and gang intelligence information is not shared between police zones. The Police Bureau is investigating the creation of a gang database which could be activated to allow officers to access gang intelligence more easily. The Pittsburgh Public School District is not identifying school incidents as gang/non-gang involved.
18 Limitations of the Data: o Labor intensive and time consuming, therefore data may not reflect current situation. o Due to limited resources, the review of the drug and weapon offenses was limited to arrest records, therefore these data may not be representative of all such offenses. o The data are retrospective, and therefore may be biased (missing data, inaccurate recall, etc.) Finding 5: Although some resources/programs are available to address gangs in the East Region Target Areas, there is a lack of coordinated resources that target and enroll violent, gang-involved youth. • •
92.9% of community leaders, 63 % of parents and 53% of community residents said they did believe gangs were a problem. Community Leaders identify the top three things that should be done to reduce gang activity as “jobs and job training,” “mentoring,” and “more parental involvement.” What should be done to reduce the gang problem in the community? Community Leaders’ Top Three Responses % who responded Jobs and job training 85.7% Mentoring 64.2% More parental involvement 57.1% School Programs 42.8% (Source: Community Leader Surveys, Table 44, Appendix A)
• •
Community residents in the East Region identified the top three ways they were willing to help as “neighborhood outreach,” “Become a youth group leader” and “mentor.” From 32 that responded to the question, 20 out of the 49 residents interviewed were not satisfied with the current response to gangs.
Answer Jobs provision and job training Programs/recreation Mentoring More police protection *(49 East Region residents filled surveys. Many checked multiple answers.) • •
Number of responses* 36 32 30 9
There are law enforcement projects, including G.R.E.A.T., which “provides a school-based, officer-instructed program that includes classroom instruction and various learning activities”, but not in the East Region target area schools. East End Outreach at the YMCA-Homewood/Brushton is the primary program that targets gang-involved individuals with direct intervention, conflict resolution, and mediation.
19 •
There are juvenile probation programs and a number of programs with offices in East Region that target at-risk teens and their families through activities such as drug and alcohol counseling, conflict resolution, and mental health counseling. • In East Liberty there are 58 programs, in Homewood West 91, and in Homewood South, 49. These three areas make up East Region of Pittsburgh. (Source: Community Leader Surveys, Parent Surveys, Community Resident Surveys, Mayor’s Youth Policy Office Resource Database) Limitations of the Data: o o o o
Most of the community resident and parent surveys were conducted by the Homewood YMCA A variety of age groups from young adults through elderly were surveyed, but the residents were not randomly chosen. This information is not always able to include every program because community organizations are sometimes hard to contact. The number may be a little higher or lower depending on what programs may have stopped and which ones are just coming into existence.
Finding 6: Family problems are adversely affecting youth in the East Region Target Areas. These problems are playing a role in youth gang membership. •
Youth gang members were more likely to report poor discipline practices by parents in the East Region Target Areas. Family Risk Factors: Poor Discipline
Non-Gang Members 19.1%
If you drank some beer, wine or liquor without your parents’ permission, would your parents catch you? Response: “NO!” If you skipped school would your parents catch 21.0% you? Response: “NO!” If you carried a handgun without your parents’ 16.8% permission, would your parents catch you? Response: “NO!” (Source: Student Survey, Table 39, Appendix A) • • •
Gang Members 36.6%
38.4%
28.6%
51.5% of school staff members list family problems/dysfunctional home life as a factor that contributes to youth gang membership (Source: School Staff Interviews, Table 42). 57% of community leaders stated that more parental involvement was needed to reduce the gang problem (Source: Community Leader Interviews, Table 44). 85.7% of gang members (from the East Region Target Areas) who were interviewed stated that they had family members who had been involved in gangs. 14.3% indicated that they
20 joined gangs because a brother or sister was in the gang. 42.9% of the interviewed gang members stated that youth having family/friends in gangs was a major cause of the community’s gang problem. (Source: Gang Member Interviews, Tables 11, 12 and 15, Appendix A). o Limitations of the data: Interviewed gang member were not randomly selected and therefore may not be representative of all gang members. Also, interviews relied upon self-reported data. Finding 7: Gang-involved youth in the East Region Target Areas are impacted by poverty, unemployment, limited educational achievement, and lack of positive activities. These factors keep young African American males trapped in the gang lifestyle well into their early 20s. • •
The majority of identified gang members in the East Region Target Areas are young, African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24. However, some gangs have significant numbers of members above age 24. Gang members indicate that primary causes of gang membership include lack of activities, power, and boredom, which are all closely tied to lack of employment, lack of educational attainment, and lack of positive alternatives to gangs.
What do gang members believe are the top three causes of the gang problem in the East Region Target Areas Poverty Lack of Activities Power Boredom (Source: Gang Member Interviews, Table 15, Appendix A) •
Gang members also listed school/education opportunities and obtaining a job as significant reasons that might influence them to leave a gang.
Which of the following are reasons likely to persuade gang members to get out of a gang Get into school/education program Become a parent Recreation/sports program Family responsibilities Obtain a job (Source: Gang Member Interviews, Table 14, Appendix A) • •
% who listed this answer 52.4% 52.4% 42.9% 33.3%
% who listed this answer 71.4% 61.9% 61.9% 57.1% 52.4%
The majority of the gang members who were interviewed (71%) were unemployed. Community leaders indicate that jobs and job training are sorely needed in the target community.
21 What should be done to reduce the gang problem in the community? Community Leaders’ Top Three Responses % who responded Jobs and job training 85.7% Mentoring 64.2% More parental involvement 57.1% School Programs 42.8% (Source: Community Leader Surveys, Table 44, Appendix A) • • • • •
Poverty and unemployment are significantly higher in the East Region Target Areas than in the city of Pittsburgh as a whole. 90% of the parents interviewed in the East Region Target Areas feel that jobs and job training are needed to reduce the gang problem. 80% responded that mentoring and recreational programs would contribute to a reduction in gang activity. 70% feel that more parental involvement would reduce gang activity. Community residents in the East Region Target Areas feel the main reasons for gang activity in their community is a lack of positive activities, family/friends in the gang, and pervasive poverty.
Parent Interviews – East Question 3: What should be done to reduce the gang problem? Answer Number of responses* Jobs and job training 26 Mentoring 22 Recreational programs 22 More parental involvement 20 School programs 17 Tutoring 11 More police presence 8 Other “life shield training, that’s relevant” 1 *(29 parents in East Pittsburgh answered the survey. Many checked multiple answers) Community Resident Survey – East Question 11. Please pick the top 3 reasons you believe gang activity exists in your community Answer Number of responses* Lack of activities 23 Family/friends in gangs 22 Poverty 16 To feel loved/sense of belonging 15 Power 10 *(49 East Region residents filled surveys. Many checked multiple answers.)
22 Question 12. Please pick the top three things you believe should be done about gangs and gang activity in your community Answer Jobs provision and job training Programs/recreation Mentoring More police protection *(49 East Region residents filled surveys. Many checked multiple answers.)
Number of responses* 36 32 30 9
V. Summary of Resources According to the Pittsburgh Mayor’s Youth Policy Office there are many programs in Pittsburgh that target “at risk” youth. One example is the East End Cooperative Ministries’ Children and Youth Department which is a drug and alcohol prevention program designed to reduce risk factors for drug use and gang membership among “at risk” youth. Other programs include YouthWorks, National Council for Urban Peace and Justice, Community Empowerment Association, and the East-End Youth Outreach under the YMCA, which provide direct outreach and intervention in communities and schools. There are approximately 200 programs physically located in the East Region Target Areas that work with children who reside in these areas. This does not include additional programs which may not have office space in these neighborhoods but still offer services, such as emergency hotlines, for children across the city of Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh School District is affiliated with 27 community agencies that offer their services to students in 56 elementary schools, 17 middle schools, 13 high schools, and 5 special schools. In addition, there are mental health partnerships in 59 of the 91 schools. Many of these programs are drug and alcohol service providers and mental health agencies. There are also City government initiatives working to prevent gang violence. One is the Youth Crime Prevention Council, which is a collaborative initiative lead by the Mayor that involves law enforcement agencies, private organizations, social service agencies, community groups, the Pittsburgh School District, grass roots organizations, and individual citizens dedicated to addressing youth gang violence. The City’s law enforcement program, Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.), has a primary goal of gang prevention. G.R.E.A.T. “provides a school-based, officer-instructed program that includes classroom instruction and various learning activities.” The program trains students in four important skill areas: personal skills, resiliency skills, resistance skills, and social skills. Pittsburgh has a Community Oriented Policing Program (COP) which “was established to create partnerships between neighborhood residents, schools, businesses and the police. COP officers work with the community to solve crime and reduce the fear of crime, social disorder and neighborhood decay” (Source: City of Pittsburgh website). The officers in the program are highly visible in the communities they serve in order to be easily accessible to residents.
23
Appendix A: Answers to Key Questions Domain 1: General Descriptive Data
1)
How is the community described?
Tables’ 1c-e and Table 6 (see next page) present the demographic and socioeconomic profile of the East Region area that was targeted for the assessment. The following is a summary of the observations made from these data. • • • •
•
The female population is 20% higher (52.4%-56.9%) than the male population (43.1%47.6%) in the East region targeted areas. The City is predominantly Caucasian (approximately 68%) and African American (~ 27 %). The East region targeted regions are predominantly African American (75-97%). Approximately one third of the City’s population is 35-64 years of age. This age group comprises 32-37% of the population in the East Region targeted census tracts. The East region targeted area is the lowest income area with a median income ($17,569 in 2000) that falls below the federal poverty threshold ($17,603 in 2000) and reaches only 59% of the City’s median level ($28,588 in 2000). Several indicators of poverty provide evidence that the socioeconomic profile of the targeted areas is significantly worse than that of the City as a whole. This is especially pronounced for the East region.
Table 1a: General Descriptive Data - City of Pittsburgh (175 census tracts in 1990; 141 census tracts in 2000) Category
City of Pittsburgh 1990
2000
Total Population
369,879
334,563
% Males
46.4 %
47.6 %
% Females
53.6 %
52.4 %
% African American/black
25.8 %
27.1 %
% Hispanic/Latino
.9 %
1.3 %
% Caucasian/white
72.1 %
67.6 %
% Asian
1.6 %
2.7 %
% Native American/Indian
.2 %
.2 %
% Other
.3 %
.7 %
24 % Under 10 Years of Age
11.8 %
11.0 %
% 10 - 14 Years
5.1 %
5.7 %
% 15 - 19 Years
7.2 %
7.7 %
% 20 - 24 Years
9.8 %
10.3 %
% 25 - 34 Years
16.9 %
14.6 %
% 35 - 64 Years
31.2 %
34.3 %
% Over 64 Years
21.2 %
16.4 %
Median Household Income
$20,747
$28,588
% Family Households below Poverty
16.6 %
15.0 %
% Family Households below Poverty (Female-headed, no spouse, with related children under 18 years of age)
9.9 %
9.1 %
% Households with Public Assistance Income
13.7 %
5.5 %
% Unemployment (civilian labor force)
9.1 %
10.1 %
Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000 female teens)
49.9
33.3
% High School Graduate or Higher (Population 25 years and over)
72.4 %
81.3 %
% High School Drop-out (1994 & 2001)
18.7 %
11.2 %
Table 1c: East Liberty - Census Tract # 818, 1113* & 1115 (Year 1990); # 1113* & 1115 (2000) Category
Region: East
East Liberty 1990
2000
Total Population
4,731
3,683
% Males
44.5 %
43.1 %
% Females
55.5 %
56.9 %
% African American/Black
67.2 %
75.4 %
% Hispanic/Latino
1.0 %
1.2 %
% Caucasian/White
30.0 %
19 %
% Asian
1.9 %
2.3 %
% Native American/Indian
.3 %
.5 %
% Other
.6 %
.5 %
25
% Under 10 Years of Age
9.5 %
13.8 %
% 10 - 14 Years
3.9 %
4.5 %
% 15 - 19 Years
4.4 %
5.6 %
% 20 - 24 Years
8.9 %
9.2 %
% 25 - 34 Years
17.7 %
13.5 %
% 35 - 64 Years
35.4 %
37.1 %
% Over 64 Years
20.0 %
16.2 %
Median Household Income
$14,349
$15,325
% Family Households below Poverty
25.7 %
32.5 %
% Family Households below Poverty (Female-headed, no spouse, with related children under 18 years of age)
15.2 %
27.6 %
% Households with Public Assistance Income
16.3 %
12.4 %
% Unemployment (civilian labor force)
13.8 %
10.6 %
Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000 female teens)
80.2
61.2
% High School Graduate or Higher (Population 25 years and over)
69.7 %
75.9 %
% High School Drop-out (1994 & 2001)
24.0 %
10.2 %
* Census tract #1113 was not included in the assessment.
Table 1d: Homewood West - Census Tract # 1207 (Year 1990 and 2000) Category
Region: East
Homewood West 1990
2000
Total Population
1,369
1,114
% Males
47.2 %
47.6 %
% Females
52.8 %
52.4 %
% African American/Black
97.5 %
94.0 %
% Hispanic/Latino
.9 %
.9 %
% Caucasian/White
1.5 %
3.0 %
% Asian
.1 %
.5 %
26 % Native American/Indian
.4 %
.3 %
% Other
.6 %
.8 %
% Under 10 Years of Age
13.1 %
14.3 %
% 10 - 14 Years
7.6 %
8.6 %
% 15 - 19 Years
6.9 %
5.8 %
% 20 - 24 Years
6.5 %
5.4 %
% 25 - 34 Years
14.2 %
10.4 %
% 35 - 64 Years
34.3 %
37.4 %
% Over 64 Years
17.5 %
18.0 %
Median Household Income
$12,451
$20,658
% Family Households below Poverty
35.6 %
10.7 %
% Family Households below Poverty (Female-headed, no spouse, with related children under 18 years of age)
16.9 %
7.1 %
% Households with Public Assistance Income
32.0 %
10.0 %
% Unemployment (civilian labor force)
25.6 %
14.0 %
Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000 female teens)
133.3
130.4
% High School Graduate or Higher (Population 25 years and over)
71.0 %
75.7 %
% High School Drop-out (1994 & 2001)
20.6 %
16.1 %
Table 1e: Homewood South - Census Tract # 1303 & 1304 (Year 1990 and 2000) Category
Region: East
Homewood South 1990
2000
Total Population
4,811
3,647
% Males
42.8 %
43.1 %
% Females
57.2 %
56.9 %
% African American/Black
97.7 %
97.0 %
% Hispanic/Latino
.5 %
.8 %
% Caucasian/White
1.8 %
.8 %
% Asian
.2 %
.1 %
27 % Native American/Indian
.2 %
.2 %
% Other
.1 %
.3 %
% Under 10 Years of Age
16.0 %
17.6 %
% 10 - 14 Years
7.6 %
8.2 %
% 15 - 19 Years
7.1 %
6.7 %
% 20 - 24 Years
6.0 %
5.4 %
% 25 - 34 Years
14.6 %
9.7 %
% 35 - 64 Years
30.6 %
32.7 %
% Over 64 Years
18.2 %
19.7 %
Median Household Income
$9,840
$16,724
% Family Households below Poverty
37.9 %
41.4 %
% Family Households below Poverty (Female-headed, no spouse, with related children under 18 years of age)
22.1 %
30.2 %
% Households with Public Assistance Income
34.1 %
13.4 %
% Unemployment (civilian labor force)
23.9 %
22.8 %
Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000 female teens)
105.0
104.0
% High School Graduate or Higher (Population 25 years and over)
60.0 %
68.7 %
% High School Drop-out (1994 & 2001)
20.6 %
16.1 %
Table 6. Socioeconomic Characteristics by Region* City of Pittsburgh
East Region
Median Household Income 1990 2000 % Change (1990 to 2000)
$20,747 $28,588 +37.8%
$12,213 $17,569 +47.6%
% Family Households below Poverty** 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
16.6% 15.0% -1.6%
33.1% 28.2% -4.8%
28 % Family Households below Poverty (Female-headed, no spouse, with related children under 18 years) 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
9.9% 9.1% -0.8%
18.0% 21.6% +3.6%
13.7% 5.5% -8.2%
27.5% 11.9% -15.5%
9.1% 10.1% +1.0%
21.1% 15.8% -5.3%
Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000) 1990 2000 % Change (1990 to 2000)
49.9 33.3 -33.3%
106.2 98.6 -8.9%
% High School Graduate or higher (Population 25 years and over) 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
72.4% 81.3% +8.9%
66.9% 73.4% +6.5%
% High School Drop-out*** 1994
18.7%
P: 24.0% W: 20.6%
2001
11.2%
P: 10.2% W: 16.1%
Change (1994 to 2001)
-7.5%
P: -13.8% W: -4.5%
% Households with Public Assistance Income 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000) % Unemployment (civilian labor force) 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
* ** ***
Data are aggregated for target census tracts within the region. Poverty Threshold (family of 4): 1990 = $13,359; 2000 = $17,603; % Change (1990 to 2000) = +31.8% Cumulative; P = Peabody, W = Westinghouse
2)
Has the population of the community changed?
Tables 2-6 present changes, from 1990 to 2000, in the demographic and socioeconomic profile of the East Region targeted areas. •
Overall, the East Region target areas experienced a decline in population of 22.61%. This decline was more than double the decline for the entire City.
• • •
29 While a slight increase in the male population (1.2%) was observed citywide, the targeted areas of the East Region had a slight decrease in males. In comparison to the entire City, the East region target areas experienced a greater increase in African Americans and a greater decrease in Caucasians. The rise in the population < 15 years of age and the decline in the 25-34 year old age group were more pronounced in the East Region target areas than city-wide. Relative to the City as a whole, the East Region target areas have a greater increase in Female-headed households and less of a decline in the teen birth rate.
Table 2. Percent Change (1990÷2000) in Population by Region Total Population 1990
Total Population 2000
% Change in Total Population
City of Pittsburgh
369,879
334,563
- 9.55 %
East Region East Liberty Homewood South Homewood West
10,911 4,731 4,811 1,369
8,444 3,683 3,647 1,114
- 22.61 % - 22.15 % - 24.19 % - 18.63 %
Table 3. Percent Change (1990÷2000) in Gender by Region % Change in Male Population
% Change in Female Population
City of Pittsburgh
% 2.52 %
- 2.18 %
East Region East Liberty Homewood South Homewood West
- 0.53 % - 3.23 % % 0.77 % % 0.87 %
% 0.41 % % 2.60 % - 0.58 % - 0.78 %
Table 4. Change in Race (difference between 1990 and 2000) by Region* Change in
City of Pittsburgh
East Region
African American
% 1.32 %
% 1.33 %
Caucasian
- 4.53 %
- 3.49 %
Hispanic/ Latino
% 0.36 %
% 0.16 %
9
30 Asian
% 1.09 %
% 0.25 %
Native American
% 0.02 %
% 0.01 %
Other
% 0.40 %
% 0.13 %
* Mean change for target census tracts within the region
Table 5. Change in Age (difference between 1990 and 2000) by Region* Change in Persons
City of Pittsburgh
East Region
< 10 years
% 0.60 %
% 0.75 %
10-14 years
% 0.60 %
% 0.75 %
15-19 years
% 0.50 %
- 0.07 %
20-24 years
% 0.50 %
- 0.45 %
25-34 years
- 2.30 %
- 4.27 %
35-64 years
% 3.10 %
% 2.31 %
> 64 years
- 4.80 %
- 0.62 %
9
* Mean change for target census tracts within the region Table 6. Socioeconomic Characteristics by Region* City of Pittsburgh
East Region
Median Household Income 1990 2000 % Change (1990 to 2000)
$20,747 $28,588 +37.8%
$12,213 $17,569 +47.6%
% Family Households below Poverty** 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
16.6% 15.0% -1.6%
33.1% 28.2% -4.8%
9.9% 9.1% -0.8%
18.0% 21.6% +3.6%
% Family Households below Poverty (Female-headed, no spouse, with related children under 18 years) 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
31 % Households with Public Assistance Income 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
13.7% 5.5% -8.2%
27.5% 11.9% -15.5%
9.1% 10.1% +1.0%
21.1% 15.8% -5.3%
Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000) 1990 2000 % Change (1990 to 2000)
49.9 33.3 -33.3%
106.2 98.6 -8.9%
% High School Graduate or higher (Population 25 years and over) 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
72.4% 81.3% +8.9%
66.9% 73.4% +6.5%
% High School Drop-out*** 1994
18.7%
P: 24.0% W: 20.6%
2001
11.2%
P: 10.2% W: 16.1%
Change (1994 to 2001)
-7.5%
P: -13.8% W: -4.5%
% Unemployment (civilian labor force) 1990 2000 Change (1990 to 2000)
* ** ***
Data are aggregated for target census tracts within the region. Poverty Threshold (family of 4): 1990 = $13,359; 2000 = $17,603; % Change (1990 to 2000) = +31.8% Cumulative; P = Peabody, W = Westinghouse
3)
Have the service needs to the population changed?
The observed changes in the demographic and socioeconomic profile of the targeted communities suggest that the service needs have changed. While the median income has increased in all regions of the city, the East Region has the highest number of families below the poverty level (see table 6 under question 2). Welfare-To-Work rules have impacted greatly on the East Region with a significant drop in households receiving public assistance between from 1990 to 2000. The need for better employment opportunities for men and women in the 25-34 year age group, affordable day care to enable single mothers to further their education and/or pursue employment, and stronger teen pregnancy prevention programs are warranted. East Region has highest number of Family Households below poverty. (28.2%)
32 East Region had the highest increase in Family Households below the poverty level. (+3.6%) East Region had the second highest drop in households receiving public assistance. (55%) East Region had the least decline in teen birth rate. (-8.9%) East Region had the lowest increase in high school graduates above 25 years old. (+6.5%) East Region median income ($17,569) is lowest in the city and below the national poverty level ($17,603).
Domain 2: Gang Data 4)
What gangs are active? How many members in each gang? What are their age, race, and gender?
Tables 7-15 below present data that describe youth gangs in Pittsburgh. In the East Region, a total of 7 gangs were documented by law enforcement record review. Three of these gangs, Bloods, Crips, and LAW, were consistently identified over a three-year period (1999-2001). The demographic profile of five East Region gangs was compiled from arrest data. The 3 dominant gangs, Crips, Bloods and LAW, differ in demographic profile. The Crips have the widest age range (15-53 years), and 31% of the membership is over 24 years of age, whereas all of the Bloods and 80% of LAW are 18-24 years of age. Although the membership of these 3 gangs is predominantly African American and male, the Bloods have a higher proportion of Caucasians, and the Crips, a larger female population. Table 7. Pittsburgh Gangs in the East Region by Year* 1999
2000
2001 (Approximate # of Members**)
Bloods
Bloods
Bloods (70 - 100)
Crips
Crips
Crips (100+)
Duce Hoodtown Mafia LAW
LAW
LAW (70 - 100) MOB (10 - 40)
*Source of data: Law enforcement record review
Original Gangsters (40 - 70) ** City-wide
33 Table 8. Age distribution of East Region Gang Members* Age (years)
Bloods (n=4)
Crips (n=110)
LAW (n=34)
Gang Name Unknown (n=42)
< 10
0.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
10 - 14
0.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
15 - 17
0.0 %
11.8 %
2.9 %
21.4 %
18 - 21
75.0 %
42.7 %
35.3 %
31.0 %
22 - 24
25.0 %
14.6 %
44.2 %
26.2 %
> 24
0.0 %
30.9 %
17.6 %
21.4 %
* Gang members arrested (1999-2001) for Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Weapon or Drug Offenses
Table 9. Demographic Profile of East Region Gang Members* Gang Name (# of offenders)
Mean Age (range)
Gender
Race**
Bloods (4)
20.5 years (19-24)
100% Male
75% AA / 25% C
Crips (110)
23.3 years (15-53)
86% Male
99% AA / 1% C
Hoodtown Mafia (1)
25.0 years
100% Male
100% AA
LAW (34)
22.4 years (17-29)
100% Male
97% AA / 3% A
MOB (2)
28.0 years
100% Male
100% AA
Unknown (42)
21.2 years (15-31)
88% Male
98% AA / 2% C
* Gang members arrested (1999-2001) for Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Weapon or Drug Offenses ** AA=African American, C=Caucasian, A=Asian
Table 10. East Region Gang Member Interviews: Demographic Profile of Respondents Gender
Number (%)
Male
20 (95.2 %)
Female
1 (4.8 %)
Race African-American
19 (90.5 %)
American Indian or Alaskan Native
1 (4.8 %)
Other
1 (4.8 %)
34 Table 11. East Region Gang Member Interviews: Responses to Personal Questions Are you currently in school?
Number (%)
Yes
12 (57.1 %)
No
9 (42.9 %)
Do you have any children? Yes
13 (61.9 %)
No
8 (38.1 %)
Has any family member ever been in a gang? Yes
18 (85.7 %)
No
3 (14.3 %)
Table 12. East Region Gang Member Interviews: Respondents’ Reasons for Joining a Gang Why did you join or associate with a gang?*
Number (%)
A friend was in the gang
7 (33.3 %)
For money
5 (23.8 %)
For protection
4 (19.0 %)
A brother or sister was in the gang
3 (14.3 %)
For fun
2 (9.5 %)
To get respect
2 (9.5 %)
Other: “I wanted to”
2 (9.5 %)
I was forced to join
1 (4.8 %)
To fit in better
0 (0.0 %)
* 21 Gang members were asked to rank their reasons for joining a gang. Above are their #1 reasons. Note: Some respondents gave more than one #1 reason. Table 13. East Region Gang Member Interviews: Opinions About Leaving the Gang Do you think you will ever leave the gang?
Number (%)
Yes
13 (61.9 %)
No
6 (28.6 %)
Do not know
1 (4.8 %)
No response
1 (4.8 %)
35 Table 14. East Region Gang Member Interviews: Reasons Respondents Would Leave a Gang Which of the following are reasons likely to get you out of a gang?
Number (%)
Get into school/education program
15 (71.4 %)
Become a parent
13 (61.9 %)
Recreation/sports program
13 (61.9 %)
Family responsibilities
12 (57.1 %)
Obtain a job
11 (52.4 %)
Get married
10 (47.6 %)
Advice/pressure from a family member/relative
8 (38.1 %)
Advice/pressure from someone else
8 (38.1 %)
Move out of neighborhood
5 (23.8 %)
Go to jail/prison
4 (19.0 %)
Because of a steady girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse
3 (14.3 %)
Table 15. East Region Gang Member Interviews: Opinions About What Causes the Gang Problem What do you think are the top three causes of the gang problem in your community?*
*
Number (%)
Poverty
11 (52.4 %)
Lack of activities
11 (52.4 %)
Power
9 (42.9 %)
Protection
9 (42.9 %)
Family/friends in gangs
9 (42.9 %)
Boredom
7 (33.3 %)
To feel loved/sense of belonging
6 (28.6 %)
Gang members move to community from other places
5 (23.8 %)
Family problems
4 (19.0 %)
School problems
1 (4.8 %)
Police labeling
1 (4.8 %)
Prejudice
1 (4.8 %)
Responses represent the opinions of the 18 interviewees who think that there is a gang problem in their community.
36 Table 16. East Region Gang Member Interviews: Respondents= Self-Report of Criminal Activity In the past year, have you:
Number (%) Answered Yes
Beaten up or battered someone without using a dangerous weapon?
19 (90.5 %)
Threatened to attack a person using a gun, knife or other dangerous weapon?
18 (85.7 %)
Threatened to attack a person without using a gun/knife/other dangerous weapon?
17 (81.0 %)
Beaten up or battered someone using a dangerous weapon?
14 (66.7 %)
Fenced or sold weapons or firearms?
13 (61.9 %)
Destroyed property worth $300 or more?
13 (61.9 %)
Fenced or sold stolen goods (other than weapons)?
13 (61.9 %)
Stolen parts or property from a vehicle (hubcaps, stereo, cell phone, etc.)?
13 (61.9 %)
Robbed someone by force or by threat of force using a weapon?
12 (57.1 %)
Robbed someone by force or by threat of force without using a weapon?
11 (52.4 %)
Thrown rocks or bottles at persons, vehicles, or property?
11 (52.4 %)
Destroyed property worth less than $300?
11 (52.4 %)
Written gang graffiti on school property, neighborhood houses, stores, etc.?
10 (47.6 %)
Stolen bicycle or bike parts?
10 (47.6 %)
Stolen a motor vehicle?
9 (42.9 %)
Entered a house, store, or building to commit a theft?
8 (38.1 %)
Broken into a house, store, or building to commit a theft?
8 (38.1 %)
Shoplifted?
5 (23.8 %)
Set fire to building or property?
5 (23.8 %)
Participated in other crimes?
4 (19.0 %)
Participated in a drive-by shooting?
3 (14.3 %)
Participated in a homicide?
1 (4.8 %)
Forced someone to have sex with you (rape)?
0 (0.0 %)
37 Table 17a. Gang Crime (1999-2001): All Regions (10 targeted census tracts combined) Total Number of Crimes Reviewed
Total Gang Crime Number (%)***
Criminal Homicide*
35
13 (37.1%)
Aggravated Assault*
688
122 (17.7%)
Weapon Offenses**
106
61 (57.5%)
Drug Offenses**
802
213 (26.6%)
TOTAL
1631
409 (25.1%)
Table 17b. Gang Crime: All Regions (10 targeted census tracts combined) by Year 1999***
2000***
2001***
Criminal Homicide*
2/12 (16.7%)
6/11 (54.5%)
5/12 (41.7%)
Aggravated Assault*
31/234 (13.2%)
41/215 (19.1%)
50/239 (20.9%)
Weapon Offenses**
23/39 (59.0%)
19/23 (82.6%)
19/44 (43.2%)
Drug Offenses**
42/283 (14.8%)
80/256 (31.2%)
91/263 (34.6%)
TOTAL
98/568 (17.3%)
146/505 (28.9%)
165/558 (29.6%)
5)
What crimes are gangs/gang members committing? How has this changed over time?
Tables 19a and 19b show that the East Region targeted areas have the highest numbers of gang involved crimes with 50% of the homicides, 16.4% of the aggravated assaults, 56.5% of the weapons, and 24.5% of the drug offenses being gang involved in 1999-2001. Overall, while the gang-involved crimes remain the highest in the East Region, between 1999 and 2000 there was a sharp increase in violent crimes and a relative decrease between 2000 and 2001. Table 19a. Gang Crime (1999-2001): East Region (2000 census tract #1115, 1207, 1303, 1304) Total Number of Crimes Reviewed
Total Gang Crime Number (%)
Criminal Homicide*
16
8 (50.0%)
Aggravated Assault*
353
58 (16.4%)
Weapon Offenses**
46
26 (56.5%)
Drug Offenses**
368
90 (24.5%)
TOTAL
783
182 (23.2%)
38 Table 19b. Gang Crime: East Region by Year 1999***
2000***
2001***
Criminal Homicide*
2/6 (33.3%)
4/6 (66.7%)
2/4 (50.0%)
Aggravated Assault*
12/117 (10.3%)
19/111 (17.1%)
27/125 (21.6%)
Weapon Offenses**
12/22 (54.5%)
7/7 (100.0%)
7/17 (41.2%)
Drug Offenses**
34/170 (20.0%)
34/98 (34.7%)
22/100 (22.0%)
TOTAL
60/315 (19.0%)
64/222 (28.8%)
58/246 (23.6%)
6)
Where are gang crimes being committed? How has this changed over time?
Tables 18a - 21b show that gang crimes are occurring in each of the assessed areas, however, the pattern of involvement varies by region. For example, the proportion of gang-involved homicide ranged from 0% in the North (1999, 2000 and 2001) to 33% (1999), 67% (2000), 50% (2001) in the East. Table 18a. Gang Crime (1999-2001): Central Region (2000 census tract #501) Total Number of Crimes Reviewed
Total Gang Crime Number (%)***
Criminal Homicide*
6
2 (33.3%)
Aggravated Assault*
103
16 (15.5%)
Weapon Offenses**
17
6 (35.3%)
Drug Offenses**
120
33 (27.5%)
TOTAL
246
57 (23.2%)
Table 18b. Gang Crime: Central Region by Year 1999***
2000***
2001***
Criminal Homicide*
0/2 (0.0%)
0/1 (0.0%)
2/3 (66.7%)
Aggravated Assault*
8/43 (18.6%)
2/28 (7.1%)
6/32 (18.8%)
Weapon Offenses**
2/5 (40.0%)
4/6 (66.7%)
0/6 (0.0%)
Drug Offenses**
5/37 (13.5%)
11/50 (22.0%)
17/33 (51.5%)
TOTAL 15/87 (17.2%) 17/85 (20.0%) * Incident data ** Arrest data *** % Gang-involved crime = # Gang-involved crimes / # crimes reviewed
25/74 (33.8%)
39 Table 19a. Gang Crime (1999-2001): East Region (2000 census tract #1115, 1207, 1303, 1304) Total Number of Crimes Reviewed
Total Gang Crime Number (%)
Criminal Homicide*
16
8 (50.0%)
Aggravated Assault*
353
58 (16.4%)
Weapon Offenses**
46
26 (56.5%)
Drug Offenses**
368
90 (24.5%)
783
182 (23.2%)
TOTAL Table 19b. Gang Crime: East Region by Year 1999***
2000***
2001***
Criminal Homicide*
2/6 (33.3%)
4/6 (66.7%)
2/4 (50.0%)
Aggravated Assault*
12/117 (10.3%)
19/111 (17.1%)
27/125 (21.6%)
Weapon Offenses**
12/22 (54.5%)
7/7 (100.0%)
7/17 (41.2%)
Drug Offenses**
34/170 (20.0%)
34/98 (34.7%)
22/100 (22.0%)
TOTAL
60/315 (19.0%)
64/222 (28.8%)
58/246 (23.6%)
Table 20a. Gang Crime (1999-2001): North Region (2000 census tract #2107, 2507, 2509) Total Number of Crimes Reviewed
Total Gang Crime Number (%)
Criminal Homicide*
4
0 (0.0%)
Aggravated Assault*
116
29 (25.0%)
Weapon Offenses**
24
17 (70.8%)
Drug Offenses**
178
43 (24.2%)
322
89 (27.6%)
TOTAL Table 20b. Gang Crime: North Region by Year 1999***
2000***
2001***
Criminal Homicide*
0/2 (0.0%)
0/2 (0.0%)
0/2 (0.0%)
Aggravated Assault*
7/43 (16.3%)
14/39 (35.9%)
8/34 (23.5%)
Weapon Offenses**
4/5 (80.0%)
7/9 (77.8%)
6/10 (60.0%)
Drug Offenses**
2/43 (4.7%)
21/59 (35.6%)
20/76 (26.3%)
TOTAL 13/93 (14.0%) 42/109 (38.5%) * Incident data ** Arrest data *** % Gang-involved crime = # Gang-involved crimes / # crimes reviewed
34/120 (28.3%)
40 Table 21a. Gang Crime (1999-2001): South Region (2000 census tract #1809, 3001) Total Number of Crimes Reviewed
Total Gang Crime Number (%)
Criminal Homicide*
9
3 (33.3%)
Aggravated Assault*
116
19 (16.4%)
Weapon Offenses**
19
12 (63.2%)
Drug Offenses**
136
47 (34.6%)
TOTAL
280
81 (28.9%)
Table 21b. Gang Crime: South Region by Year 1999***
2000***
2001***
Criminal Homicide*
0/2 (0.0%)
2/2 (100.0%)
1/5 (0.0%)
Aggravated Assault*
4/31 (12.9%)
6/37 (16.2%)
9/48 (18.8%)
Weapon Offenses**
5/7 (71.4%)
1/1 (100.0%)
6/11 (54.5%)
Drug Offenses**
1/33 (3.0%)
14/49 (28.6%)
32/54 (59.3%)
TOTAL 10/73 (13.7%) 23/89 (25.8%) * Incident data ** Arrest data *** % Gang-involved crime = # Gang-involved crimes / # crimes reviewed
48/118 (40.7%)
7) When are gang crimes being committed? (East Region - month of year, day of week, time of day) Tables 22-25 below show that in the East Region (1999-2001), 23% of gang crime occurred during the months of January and February and an additional 25% occurred during July and August. Nearly half (47%) of gang crime occurred during the latter part of the week (ThursdaySaturday) and least frequently on Sundays and Mondays; 47% occurred between 6:00 p.m. and midnight. Table 22. East Region Gang Crime by Year of Offense Year
Number of Gang-Involved Offenses
Percent
1999
60/315
19.0 %
2000
64/222
28.8 %
2001
58/246
23.6 %
Total
182/783
23.2%
41 Table 23. East Region Gang Crime by Month of Year (1999-2001) Month
Number of Gang-Involved Offenses
Percent
January
20
11.0 %
February
22
12.1 %
March
10
5.5 %
April
13
7.1 %
May
15
8.2 %
June
15
8.2 %
July
20
11.0 %
August
26
14.3 %
September
9
4.9 %
October
10
5.5 %
November
14
7.7 %
December
8
4.4 %
Total
182
100.0%
Table 24. East Region Gang Crime by Day of Week (1999-2001) Day
Number of Gang-Involved Offenses
Percent
Sunday
17
9.3 %
Monday
13
7.1 %
Tuesday
38
20.9 %
Wednesday
28
15.4 %
Thursday
22
12.1 %
Friday
29
15.9 %
Saturday
35
19.2 %
Total
182
100.0%
42 Table 25. East Region Gang Crime by Time of Day (1999-2001) Time Period
Number of Gang-Involved Offenses
Percent
Midnight - 2:59 a.m.
18
9.8 %
3:00 - 5:59 a.m.
16
8.7 %
6:00 - 8:59 a.m.
1
0.5 %
9:00 - 11:59 a.m.
16
8.7 %
Noon - 2:59 p.m.
27
14.8 %
3:00 - 5:59 p.m.
19
10.4 %
6:00 - 8:59 p.m.
44
24.2 %
9:00 - 11:59 p.m.
41
22.5 %
182
100.0%
Total
8)
Who is committing gang crimes? (East Region)
Table 26 shows that in East Region target areas the majority of offenders of gang-involved homicide, aggravated assault, weapon or drug offenses (1999-2001) are 18-24 years of age (61%), male (90%) and African American (98%).
Table 26. Demographic Profile of Offenders of East Region Gang Crime* Number of Offenders
193
Age (years) Mean
22.7 years
Range
15 - 53 years
Number (%) < 10 years
0 (0.0 %)
10 - 14 years
0 (0.0 %)
15 - 17 years
23 (11.9 %)
18 - 21 years
75 (38.9 %)
22 - 24 years
43 (22.3 %)
> 24 years
52 (26.9 %)
43
Gender Male
173 (89.6 %)
Female
20 (10.4 %)
Race African American
189 (97.9 %)
Caucasian
3 (1.6 %)
Asian
1 (0.5 %)
Hispanic/Latino
0 (0.0 %)
Native American/American Indian
0 (0.0 %)
Other
0 (0.0 %)
* Gang members arrested (1999-2001) for Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Weapon or Drug Offenses
9)
Who are the victims of gang crimes? (East Region)
In East Region target areas the majority of victims of gang-involved homicide, aggravated assault, weapon or drug offenses (1999-2001) are 22-84 years of age (60%), male (84%) and African American (91%) (see table 27 below). Table 27. Demographic Profile of Victims of East Region Gang Crime* Number of Victims
84
Age (years) Mean
25.6 years
Range
0 - 84 years
Number (%) < 10 years
4 (5.3 %)
10 - 14 years
1 (1.3 %)
15 - 17 years
9 (11.8 %)
18 - 21 years
16 (21.1 %)
22 - 24 years
15 (19.7 %)
> 24 years
31 (40.8 %)
44 Gender Male
65 (84.4 %)
Female
12 (15.6 %)
Race African American
71 (91.0 %)
Caucasian
7 (9.0 %)
Asian
0 (0.0 %)
Hispanic/Latino
0 (0.0 %)
Native American/American Indian
0 (0.0 %)
Other
0 (0.0 %)
* Victims of gang-involved Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Weapon or Drug Offenses (1999-2001)
Domain 3: Student and School Data 10)
What are the characteristics (overall demographics) of each school?
The schools targeted for assessment have roughly equal numbers of males and females. The schools are predominantly African American (East = 80-99%). In comparison to the other target high schools, the East Region high schools rank 1st and 3rd for highest median number of days absent and for percent increase in absenteeism per student per school year. In comparison to the other target middle schools, Arsenal Middle School (East) ranks highest for percentage of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch and 2nd highest for percentage of students receiving public assistance (see tables 28-31 below) Table 28. School Enrollment by Region Total Enrollment 1999-2000
Total Enrollment 2000-2001
% Change in Total Enrollment
650 848 936 756
641 917 893 735
- 1.38 % + 8.14 % - 4.59 % - 2.78 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S. M.S.=Middle School; H.S.=High School
45 Table 29. Gender and Race Distribution by School (2000-2001) % Male
% African American
% Caucasian
% Other
Pittsburgh Public Schools
50.9 %
55.5 %
40.1 %
4.4 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
51.3 % 53.4 % 51.5 % 47.5 %
80.3 % 87.1 % 83.2 % 99.3 %
15.8 % 9.3 % 13.2 % 0.1 %
3.9 % 3.6 % 3.6 % 0.6 %
Table 30. Median Number of Days Absent per Student per School Year 1999-2000
2000-2001
% Change
Pittsburgh Public Schools
11
12
+ 9.1 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
12 12 16 21
16 20 25 37
+ 33.3 % + 66.7 % + 56.2 % + 76.2 %
Table 31.
Percent of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Lunches and Percent of Students Receiving Public Assistance (1999-2000) % of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Lunch
% of Students Receiving Public Assistance
Pittsburgh Public Schools
62.2%
35.7 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
91.7 % 77.0 % 57.7 % 60.1 %
55.3 % 49.9 % 33.3 % 37.8 %
11)
What delinquent behaviors are students involved in?
In comparison to the other target high schools, the East region high schools ranked 1st and 3rd for total assault rate (2000-01) and for percent increase in total assaults (1999-00 to 2000-01). Westinghouse High School (East) also had the highest drug suspension rate (2000-01). In comparison to the other target middle schools, the East region middle schools ranked 2nd and 3rd for weapon-related suspensions (2000-01). See the data in tables 32 and 33 below.
46 Table 32a. Number of Suspensions and Suspension Rates* for Assaults by School 1999-00 Number (Rate): Assaults on Employees Assaults on Students Total Assaults East Region Arsenal M.S.
2000-01 Number (Rate): Assaults on Employees Assaults on Students Total Assaults
Change
14 (2.2 %) 33 (5.1 %) 47 (7.2 %)
3 (0.5 %) 19 (3.0 %) 22 (3.4 %)
- 1.7 % - 2.1 % - 3.8 %
Reizenstein M.S.
17 (2.0 %) 33 (3.9 %) 50 (5.9 %)
17 (1.9 %) 176 (19.2 %) 193 (21.0 %)
- 0.1 % + 15.3 % + 15.1 %
Peabody H.S.
10 (1.1 %) 23 (2.5 %) 33 (3.5 %)
16 (1.8 %) 23 (2.6 %) 39 (4.4 %)
+ 0.7 % + 0.1 % + 0.9 %
Westinghouse H.S.
3 (0.4 %) 16 (2.1 %) 19 (2.5 %)
25 (3.4 %) 66 (9.0 %) 91 (12.4 %)
+ 3.0 % + 6.9 % + 9.9 %
* Suspension rate = # of suspensions / total school enrollment Table 32b. Number of Suspensions and Suspension Rates* for Weapons and Drugs by School 1999-00 Number (Rate): Weapons Drugs
2000-01 Number (Rate): Weapons Drugs
Change
14 (2.2 %) 1 (0.2 %)
11 (1.7 %) 6 (0.9 %)
- 0.5 % + 0.7 %
Reizenstein M.S.
31 (3.7 %) 4 (0.5 %)
12 (1.3 %) 6 (0.7 %)
- 2.4 % + 0.2 %
Peabody H.S.
1 (0.1 %) 12 (1.3 %)
3 (0.3 %) 4 (0.4 %)
+ 0.2 % - 0.9 %
2 (0.3 %) 15 (2.0 %)
- 1.6 % + 0.5 %
East Region Arsenal M.S.
14 (1.9 %) 11 (1.5 %) * Suspension rate = # of suspensions / total school enrollment Westinghouse H.S.
Table 33. School-based Probation (2001-2002) and School Police Caseload (2000-01 & 2001-02) School-based Probation # Students (rate*)
School Police Assaults # Students (rate**)
School Police Weapons # Students (rate**)
School Police Drugs # Students (rate**)
East Region 5 (0.4 %) 22 (1.8 %) 32 (2.6 %) 20 (3.5 %) Arsenal M.S. 7 (0.3 %) 32 (1.6 %) 33 (1.6 %) 22 (2.0 %) Reizenstein M.S. 18 (1.0 %) 21 (1.2 %) 27 (1.5 %) 20 (2.3 %) Peabody H.S. 19 (1.3 %) 6 (0.4 %) 17 (1.2 %) 53 (7.6 %) Westinghouse H.S. * Rate = # of students on probation / total school enrollment (2001-02) ** Rate = # of students arrested by school police (2 years combined) / total (2-year) school enrollment
47 12)
What are the characteristics of students involved in gangs or at risk for gang involvement?
Table 38 shows that of the 323 students who self-reported ever belonging to a gang, 161 (50%) reported current gang membership. Approximately 26% are currently members of a delinquent gang, and 4% are core members of a delinquent gang that is organized. The students who selfreport current gang membership are predominantly male. Those who were classified as a current core member of a delinquent gang that is organized are also predominantly male. Table 38. Student Survey: Gang Membership by School Region CENTRAL n (%)
EAST n (%)
NORTH n (%)
SOUTH n (%)
TOTAL N
126 (7.4)
662 (38.8)
341 (20.0)
577 (33.8)
1706
NO
71 (80.7)
292 (79.8)
154 (88.0)
156 (76.1)
673
YES
17 (19.3)
74 (20.2)
21 (12.0)
49 (23.9)
161
TOTAL
88
366
175
205
834
Level I
14 (45.2)
77 (51.0)
38 (64.4)
33 (40.2)
162
Level II
4 (12.9)
30 (19.9)
7 (11.9)
17 (20.7)
58
Level III
11 (35.5)
36 (23.8)
11 (18.6)
25 (30.5)
83
Level IV
1 (3.2)
3 (2.0)
1 (1.7)
3 (3.7)
8
Level V
1 (3.2)
5 (3.3)
2 (3.4)
4 (4.9)
12
TOTAL
31
151
59
82
323
TOTAL # OF RESPONDENTS Question #90: Are you a gang member now?*
“Degree of Gang Bonding”**
* Regional differences are statistically significant (Chi-Square Test, p 24 years
31 (40.8 %)
Gender Male
65 (84.4 %)
Female
12 (15.6 %)
Race African American
71 (91.0 %)
Caucasian
7 (9.0 %)
Asian
0 (0.0 %)
Hispanic/Latino
0 (0.0 %)
Native American/American Indian
0 (0.0 %)
Other
0 (0.0 %)
* Victims of gang-involved Homicide, Aggravated Assault, Weapon or Drug Offenses (1999-2001)
97 Domain 3: Student and School Data Table 28. School Enrollment by Region Total Enrollment 1999-2000
Total Enrollment 2000-2001
% Change in Total Enrollment
Central Region Milliones M.S.
630
596
- 5.40 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
650 848 936 756
641 917 893 735
- 1.38 % + 8.14 % - 4.59 % - 2.78 %
North Region Columbus M.S. Oliver H.S.
523 1427
546 1337
+ 4.40 % - 6.31 %
South Region Knoxville M.S. Prospect M.S. Carrick H.S.
426 312 1417
424 273 1413
- 0.47 % - 12.50 % - 0.28 %
M.S.=Middle School; H.S.=High School
Table 29. Gender and Race Distribution by School (2000-2001) % Male
% African American
% Caucasian
% Other
Pittsburgh Public Schools
50.9 %
55.5 %
40.1 %
4.4 %
Central Region Milliones M.S.
52.9 %
98.7 %
0.7 %
0.6 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
51.3 % 53.4 % 51.5 % 47.5 %
80.3 % 87.1 % 83.2 % 99.3 %
15.8 % 9.3 % 13.2 % 0.1 %
3.9 % 3.6 % 3.6 % 0.6 %
North Region Columbus M.S. Oliver H.S.
56.4 % 50.2 %
88.3 % 66.5 %
10.1 % 30.7 %
1.6 % 2.8 %
South Region Knoxville M.S. Prospect M.S. Carrick H.S.
48.3 % 50.2 % 49.4 %
67.9 % 25.3 % 22.3 %
29.7 % 71.1 % 76.1 %
2.4 % 3.6 % 1.6 %
98 Table 30. Median Number of Days Absent per Student per School Year 1999-2000
2000-2001
% Change
Pittsburgh Public Schools
11
12
+ 9.1 %
Central Region Milliones M.S.
12
30
+ 150.0 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
12 12 16 21
16 20 25 37
+ 33.3 % + 66.7 % + 56.2 % + 76.2 %
North Region Columbus M.S. Oliver H.S.
13 21
22 34
+ 69.2 % + 61.9 %
South Region Knoxville M.S. Prospect M.S. Carrick H.S.
16 16 15
25 19 18
+ 56.2 % + 18.8 % + 20.0 %
Table 31.
Percent of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Lunches and Percent of Students Receiving Public Assistance (1999-2000) % of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Lunch
% of Students Receiving Public Assistance
Pittsburgh Public Schools
62.2%
35.7 %
Central Region Milliones M.S.
89.4 %
51.7 %
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
91.7 % 77.0 % 57.7 % 60.1 %
55.3 % 49.9 % 33.3 % 37.8 %
North Region Columbus M.S. Oliver H.S.
85.6 % 60.1 %
60.9 % 38.6 %
South Region Knoxville M.S. Prospect M.S. Carrick H.S.
90.3 % 79.6 % 42.5 %
54.2 % 43.5 % 19.1 %
99 Table 32a. Number of Suspensions and Suspension Rates* for Assaults by School 1999-00 Number (Rate): Assaults on Employees Assaults on Students Total Assaults Central Region Milliones M.S.
2000-01 Number (Rate): Assaults on Employees Assaults on Students Total Assaults
Change
19 (3.0 %) 120 (19.0 %) 139 (22.1 %)
14 (2.3 %) 114 (19.1 %) 128 (21.5 %)
- 0.7 % + 0.1 % - 0.6 %
14 (2.2 %) 33 (5.1 %) 47 (7.2 %)
3 (0.5 %) 19 (3.0 %) 22 (3.4 %)
- 1.7 % - 2.1 % - 3.8 %
Reizenstein M.S.
17 (2.0 %) 33 (3.9 %) 50 (5.9 %)
17 (1.9 %) 176 (19.2 %) 193 (21.0 %)
- 0.1 % + 15.3 % + 15.1 %
Peabody H.S.
10 (1.1 %) 23 (2.5 %) 33 (3.5 %)
16 (1.8 %) 23 (2.6 %) 39 (4.4 %)
+ 0.7 % + 0.1 % + 0.9 %
Westinghouse H.S.
3 (0.4 %) 16 (2.1 %) 19 (2.5 %)
25 (3.4 %) 66 (9.0 %) 91 (12.4 %)
+ 3.0 % + 6.9 % + 9.9 %
45 (8.6 %) 76 (14.5 %) 121 (23.1 %)
91 (16.7 %) 421 (77.1 %) 512 (93.8 %)
+ 8.1 % + 62.6 % + 70.7 %
17 (1.2 %) 64 (4.5 %) 81 (5.7 %)
11 (0.8 %) 103 (7.7 %) 114 (8.5 %)
- 0.4 % + 3.2 % + 2.8 %
15 (3.5 %) 92 (21.6 %) 107 (25.1 %)
9 (2.1 %) 105 (24.8 %) 114 (26.9 %)
- 1.4 % + 3.2 % + 1.8 %
Prospect M.S.
1 (0.3 %) 15 (4.8%) 16 (5.1 %)
5 (1.8 %) 50 (18.3 %) 55 (20.1 %)
+ 1.5 % + 13.5 % + 15.0 %
Carrick H.S.
4 (0.3 %) 11 (0.8 %) 15 (1.1 %)
2 (0.1 %) 6 (0.4 %) 8 (0.6 %)
- 0.2 % - 0.4 % - 0.5 %
East Region Arsenal M.S.
North Region Columbus M.S.
Oliver H.S.
South Region Knoxville M.S.
* Suspension rate = # of suspensions / total school enrollment
100 Table 32b. Number of Suspensions and Suspension Rates* for Weapons and Drugs by School 1999-00 Number (Rate): Weapons Drugs
2000-01 Number (Rate): Weapons Drugs
Change
12 (1.9 %) 1 (0.2 %)
1 (0.2 %) 0 (0.0 %)
- 1.7 % - 0.2 %
14 (2.2 %) 1 (0.2 %)
11 (1.7 %) 6 (0.9 %)
- 0.5 % + 0.7 %
Reizenstein M.S.
31 (3.7 %) 4 (0.5 %)
12 (1.3 %) 6 (0.7 %)
- 2.4 % + 0.2 %
Peabody H.S.
1 (0.1 %) 12 (1.3 %)
3 (0.3 %) 4 (0.4 %)
+ 0.2 % - 0.9 %
Westinghouse H.S.
14 (1.9 %) 11 (1.5 %)
2 (0.3 %) 15 (2.0 %)
- 1.6 % + 0.5 %
6 (1.1 %) 0 (0.0 %)
21 (3.8 %) 2 (0.4 %)
+ 2.7 % + 0.4 %
6 (0.4 %) 9 (0.6 %)
3 (0.2 %) 13 (1.0 %)
- 0.2 % + 0.4 %
4 (0.9 %) 2 (0.5 %)
3 (0.7 %) 3 (0.7 %)
- 0.2 % + 0.2 %
3 (1.0 %) 3 (1.0 %)
3 (1.1 %) 0 (0.0 %)
+ 0.1 % - 1.0 %
Central Region Milliones M.S. East Region Arsenal M.S.
North Region Columbus M.S. Oliver H.S. South Region Knoxville M.S. Prospect M.S.
- 0.3 % 2 (0.1 %) 5 (0.4 %) + 0.1 % 8 (0.6 %) 7 (0.5 %) * Suspension rate = # of suspensions / total school enrollment Table 33. School-based Probation (2001-2002) and School Police Caseload (2000-01 & 2001-02) Carrick H.S.
School-based Probation # Students (rate*)
School Police School Police School Police Assaults Weapons Drugs # Students (rate**) # Students (rate**) # Students (rate**)
Central Region Milliones M.S.
19 (2.8 %)
31 (2.4 %)
15 (1.2 %)
4 (0.3 %)
East Region Arsenal M.S. Reizenstein M.S. Peabody H.S. Westinghouse H.S.
20 (3.5 %) 22 (2.0 %) 20 (2.3 %) 53 (7.6 %)
32 (2.6 %) 33 (1.6 %) 27 (1.5 %) 17 (1.2 %)
22 (1.8 %) 32 (1.6 %) 21 (1.2 %) 6 (0.4 %)
5 (0.4 %) 7 (0.3 %) 18 (1.0 %) 19 (1.3 %)
North Region Columbus M.S. Oliver H.S.
30 (6.0 %) 89 (7.3 %)
30 (2.9 %) 33 (1.3 %)
9 (0.9 %) 26 (1.0 %)
6 (0.6 %) 28 (1.1 %)
South Region 5 (0.6 %) 4 (0.5 %) 26 (3.2 %) 18 (4.5 %) Knoxville M.S. 1 (0.2 %) 8 (1.3 %) 11 (1.7 %) 16 (4.5 %) Prospect M.S. 21 (0.8 %) 6 (0.2 %) 18 (0.7 %) 50 (4.0 %) Carrick H.S. * Rate = # of students on probation / total school enrollment (2001-02) ** Rate = # of students arrested by school police (2 years combined) / total (2-year) school enrollment
101 Table 34. Student Survey: Overall Response Rates for Gang-related Questions Question*
Total Number of Responses to Gang-related Questions
Response Rate**
#88
971
57 %
#90
834
49 %
#94
509
30 %
#96
552
32 %
#97
552
32 %
#102
552
32 %
#106
536
31 %
#108
533
31 %
#109
536
31 %
#110
539
32 %
#111
530
31 %
#112
527
31 %
#113
534
31 %
#165
1352
79 %
#166
1349
79 %
#167
1343
79 %
#168
1012
59 %
#169
1003
59 %
#170
1003
59 %
* See following tables for question descriptions. ** # of responses to question / 1706 (total # surveys returned)
102 Student Survey: Degree of Gang Bonding*
*Degree (Levels) of Gang Bonding: Level I Consists of respondents who answered “yes” to question #88 who are not current gang members: n=162 Question #88 - Ever belonged to a gang? (323 / 971 students, 33.3 %, answered “Yes”) Level II Consists of respondents who answered “yes” to question #90 who don’t qualify for Level III: n=58 Question #90 - Currently a gang member? (161 / 834 students, 19.3 %, answered “Yes”) Level III Current members of a delinquent gang Consists of respondents who met Level II criteria and also answered “Yes” to any one of the following but do not qualify for Level IV: n=83 #106-get in fights with other gangs?, #108-steal things?, #109-rob other people?, #110-steal cars?, #111-sell marijuana?, #112-sell other illegal drugs?, or #113-damage or destroy property? Level IV Current members of a delinquent gang that is organized Consists of respondents who met Level III criteria and also answered “Yes” to all of the following but do not qualify for Level V: n=8 #96-their gang has initiation rites, #97-their gang has established leaders, and #102-their gang has symbols or colors Level V Current core members of a delinquent gang that is organized: n=12 Consists of respondents who met Level IV criteria and also indicate that they are core members of their gang by marking one of the two innermost circles in #94-How far from the center of the gang are you?
Table 35. Student Survey: Degree of Gang Bonding Degree (Level) of Gang Bonding
Number (% of Total)
Level I
162 (50.2 %)
Level II
58 (18.0 %)
Level III
83 (25.7 %)
Level IV
8 (2.5 %)
Level V
12 (3.7 %)
TOTAL*
323 (100 %)
* Number of students who self-reported past/current gang membership.
103 Table 36. Student Survey: Age Analyses MEAN AGE
AGE RANGE
N*
14.4
12 - 19
1673
NO
14.2
12 - 19
665
YES
14.5
12 - 19
157
Level I
14.1
12 - 18
161
Level II
14.5
12 - 18
56
Level III
14.4
12 - 19
82
Level IV
14.4
12 - 17
8
ALL RESPONDENTS #90. Are you a gang member now?
“Degree of Gang Bonding”
Level V 15.1 13 - 17 11 * N=Number of Responses; Data are displayed for students who provided information on age and “gang bonding” Age differences are not statistically significant. Table 37. Student Survey: Gender Analysis MALES n (%)*
FEMALES n (%)*
N
813 (48.8)
854 (51.2)
1667
NO
330 (50.2) (76.9)
328 (49.8) (84.8)
658
YES
99 (62.7) (23.1)**
59 (37.3) (15.2)**
158
ALL RESPONDENTS #90. Are you a gang member now?
TOTAL
429
387
816
“Degree of Gang Bonding” Level I
87 (55.1) (46.8)***
71 (44.9) (54.6)***
158
Level II
25 (44.6) (13.4)***
31 (55.4) (23.8)***
56
Level III
62 (75.6) (33.3)***
20 (24.4) (15.4)***
82
Level IV
3 (37.5) (1.6)***
5 (62.5) (3.8)***
8
Level V
9 (75.0) (4.8)***
3 (25.0) (2.3)***
12
TOTAL 186 * % to the right are row percentages; % below are column percentages. ** Gender differences are statistically significant (Fisher=s Exact Test, p
