Current and Past
Research on
Civil Gang Injunctions
Karen Hennigan
University of Southern California
hennigan@usc.edu
What is a Civil Gang Injunction? (CGI)




A gang can be sued in civil court when members
have persistently engaged in a pattern of criminal
and nuisance activities.
The lawsuit results in orders which prohibit gang
members from engaging in specified activities
that contribute to harm.
This typically includes associating with other gang
members in public, trespassing on private
property, possessing or being in the presence of
weapons, and marking with graffiti in the safety
zone.
After receiving notice, members who violate one
of the provisions can be arrested and charged
with violating a court order.
How widespread is this practice?

Very prevalent in Southern California
– Over 30 gang injunctions in LA, San
Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Ventura
counties between 1993 and 2000 (Maxson et
al, 2002). More recently Orange County.
– In last five years, LA City Attorney has
implemented 25 new civil gang injunctions.
Right now over 49 gangs in LA are under
injunction orders (LA City Attorney’s Anti-Gang
Plan, Jan 2007).

Spreading in other parts of US
– Long history in northern California
(Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, more)
– Arizona, Texas, other states (e.g., North
Carolina)
What do we know about the
impact of CGI’s
 Talk
about three local studies
– Jeffrey Grogger (2002)
Funded by Haynes Foundation
– Maxson, Hennigan & Sloane (2005)
Funded by National Institute of Justice
– Hennigan & Sloane (on going)
Funded by National Science Foundation
Impact of CGIs: On Crime?

Grogger’s (2002) study examined Part 1
Violent Offenses in and around areas with
a CGI in Los Angeles County
– Included in 14 injunction safety zones (19931998)
– Defined three comparison areas:
a) safety zone
b) adjacent RDs
c) neighboring RDs
– Compared counts of violent offenses over five
quarters before and five quarters after a CGI.
Impact of CGIs: On Crime?

Grogger’s Findings
– Number of violent crimes reported in safety
zones was reduced by 1.5 to 3 offenses per
quarter over the first year after the CGI
(7% decrease)
– No increase in violent crimes in adjacent or
neighboring RDs.
– These findings hold after controlling for
possible regression to the mean and excluding
the Rampart Division injunctions (due to
irregularities there).
Impact of CGIs: On Crime?
 Unanswered
Questions
– Would results be replicated using data
on gang crime? In other jurisdictions?
– Displacement away from original gang
areas was not tested.
– Don’t know if the effects of the CGI
persist beyond the 1st year?
– Did the CGIs bring “relief” to the
communities?
Impact of CGIs: On Community?

Maxson, Hennigan, Sloane (2005) Examined change in
community reactions to crime in and around a new
CGI area in San Bernardino
– Two door-to-door surveys – two years apart in five
neighborhoods
- Primary: Safety zone for CGI implemented between
two waves of the survey
- Control1: Similar to primary, no CGI
- Second: Area unexpectedly included in safety zone
- Control2: Similar to second, no CGI
- Prior: Safety zone of CGI implemented 5 yrs prior
- Key measures included visibility of gang members, gang
intimidation, fear of crime, victimization, neighborhood
efficacy, collective efficacy
Impact of CGIs: On Community?

Maxson, et al. Study Findings
– Residents in the Primary CGI Area reported
relatively less gang visibility, intimidation, fear of
confrontation with gang members and less fear of
crime in general than residents in control area.
– Differences were modest and not apparent on
victimization or any long term community-level
outcomes.
– Residents of the Second CGI Area reported higher
gang visibility, more victimization, less faith in
community’s ability to solve problems relative to
its control area.
Impact of CGIs: On Community?
 Unanswered
Questions
– Were any apparent gains in primary CGI
area offset by losses in smaller CGI area?
– Do any positive impacts on communities
persist?
– Does a CGI strengthen the community in
the long run?
– Does a CGI weaken the gangs involved in
any way?
Impact of CGIs: On Gangs?

Hennigan & Sloane (ongoing) are interviewing
male youth ages 14 to 21 in areas claimed by
gangs that do or do not have a recent gang
injunction.
– Goal is to interview youth who are and are not
gang-affiliated in three areas in East LA:
Neigh 1 – Gang injunction plus gang intervention
Neigh 2 – Gang intervention (no CGI)
Neigh 3 – Gang injunction ( weak gang
intervention)
– Respondents are recruited:
Going door-to-door
Engaging youth hanging out in the target areas
Offering a $20 incentive to participate
Impact of CGIs: On Gangs?


Interviews are focused on social identity,
perceptual deterrence, level of involvement
with gang activities
Emerging Findings on Social Identities
– Goal was to identify two social identities for all
respondents including one clearly or
ambiguously antisocial and one conventional
or prosocial (Achieved for 97%)
– Respondent’s antisocial identities could be
categorized as gang-affiliated, other antisocial
affiliation (tagger, skater, party posse or crew)
or ambiguous (friends who hang out)
Impact of CGIs: On Gangs?

Emerging Findings
(based on 100 of 200 interviews)
– Compare characteristics of social identities
– Within individuals:
Gang identity is weaker than conventional
identity.
-
Between individuals:
Gang-affiliates report weaker group identity
and less trust of ingroup than affiliates of
other antisocial groups.
-
Across Neighborhoods:
????
Summary: What do we know
about the impact of CGIs

On crime
– In LA County violent crime decreased by 7% during the
first year after obtaining gang injunctions.

On communities
– In San Bernardino residents’ fear of gang intimidation and
crime in general decreased during the first six months of
a CGI. However, victimization increased and community
efficacy decreased in a small portion of safety zone.

On gangs (working to answer)
– How do characteristics of gang identities vary in places
with and without a CGI during the first year?
– What are the implications for weakening or strengthening
gang affiliation in CGI areas?
What do we need to do next?

We are just beginning to understand the impact
of GCIs on these three dimensions.
– The findings above need to be replicated and extended.
– Long–term impacts and possible “side-effects” of
injunctions need to be explored.
– Based on what we know so far:
In the end, injunctions may be most useful in terms of
the role they may play in more comprehensive
approaches to reducing gang crime, intimidation of
community residents and the hold gangs have on our
youth.
Categories of Antisocial Affiliations
Criminal and Delinquent Activities by Category
Frequency
Variety Index Index (Last 6 Night in
(Ever)
mo)
Custody
Type of Group: n
Mn
Md
Mn
Md
%
Gang
19
15a
14
159a
69
42%
Tagger or
Skater
24
10b
9
116a
47
17%
Party Posse
14
8c
8
66ab
39
0%
Ambiguous
60
6c
4
28b
9
7%
***
***
***
Strength of Social Identity
Subscale of CSES (Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992)
Strength of Social Identity
Type of Antisocial
Identity
Mean subscale score from low (1) to high (6)
5.50
Gang
5.00
Tag, Skate,
Party
Ambiguous
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
Antisocial
Conventional
Core or Peripheral Involvement:
Target measure, adapted from Esbensen et al., 2001
Mean score from not active (2) to leader (6)
How close or far from the center of this group's
activities are you now?
Type of
Antisocial Gp
Gang
Tag, Skate,
Party
Ambiguous
5
4
3
2
Antisocial Gp
Conventional Gp
Trust of Others: Ingroup Members
From social capital scale, Putman, et al. 2002
Trust of Others Reported
(Antisocial vs Conventional Ingroup)
Type of Antisocial
Gp
Mean trust from not at all (1) to a lot (4)
3.50
Gang
Tag, Skate,
Party
3.00
Ambiguous
2.50
2.00
Antisocial Gp
Conventional Gp
Core or Peripheral Involvement:
Controlling for family reported for conventional layer
Core or Peripheral Membership
Core or Peripheral Membership
Where Conventional Group is Family
Where Conventional Group is Not Family
Means Scores on Target
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Type of
Antisocial Gp
NON
GANG
GANG
5
Mean Scores on Target
Type of
Antisocial Gp
NON
GANG
GANG
5.0
4.5
4
3.5
3
Antisocial
Conventional
Antisocial
Conventional