Re-Evaluating Minnesota’s Gang Classification System

1. Re-Evaluating Minnesota’s Gang Classification System Julie Barrows, Ph.D. University of Minnesota (612) 363-5656 barr0325@umn.edu

2. Gang Classification Systems • The Development of Minnesota’s System • A National Perspective • Re-Evaluating Minnesota’s System

3. Development of MN’s System • 1996 killings of DavishaGillum and Byron Phillips • Gang Oversight Council – 1997 • MN Gang Strike Force • Councils of Color • Creation of the 10-pt Criteria System • Looked to other states • Involved process • Goal of objectivity

4. MN’s 10-pt Gang Criteria System • Admits gang membership or association • Is observed to associate on a regular basis with known gang members • Has tattoos indicating gang membership • Wears gang symbols to identify with a specific gang • Is in a photograph with known gang members and/or using gang-related hand signs

5. MN’s 10-pt Gang Criteria System • Name is on a gang document, hit list, or gang-related graffiti • Is identified as a gang member by a reliable source • Arrested in the company of identified gang members or associates • Corresponds with known gang members or writes and/or receives correspondence about gang activities • Writes about gangs (graffiti) on walls, books, and paper

6. MN’s 10-pt Gang Criteria System • 1 criterion indicates suspected membership • 3 criteria indicates confirmed membership • 3 criteria + age (14 or older) + gross misd or felony conviction indicates confirmed and convicted membership

7. A National Perspective • Barrows and Huff (2009) CPP article • Analyzed legislation of gang definitions in all 50 states • Another resource: National Gang Center • http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/

8. A National Perspective • 16 states define gang member in statute • 6 states define a gang member as an “individual who actually and in fact belongs to a gang” • 10 states provide criteria for classification • 6 use 2 of +/-7 • FL uses 2 of 11 and NH uses 2 of 4 • VA uses 1 of 3 and KS uses 3 of 8

9. A National Perspective • All 10 use some combination of: • Resides or frequents gang area • Adopts style of dress

10. A National Perspective • All 10 use “admits membership” • Most common in the literature as well • KS relies only on the admission or on 3 of their other criteria • CA also relies only on the admission, provided it is made during the incarceration classification procedure

11. CA’s Classification System • Two stand alone criteria points: • Subject admits during the incarceration process, or • Subject is required to register with law enforcement as a gang member per Section 186.30 PC (convicted of a gang-related offense) • Or the individual meets 2 of the following:

12. CA’s Classification System • Admits membership in a non-custodial situation • Identified as a gang member by a reliable informant or source • Identified as a gang member by an untested informant or source with corroborative evidence • Seen wearing gang type clothing

13. CA’s Classification System • Seen displaying gang symbols and/or hand signs • Identifiable gang tattoos • Seen frequenting gang areas • Seen affiliating with documented gang members • Arrested with known gang members for offenses consistent with usual gang activity

14. Re-Evaluating MN’s System • Room for improvement, but no need to re-invent • Explain the criteria and provide examples • Consult with gang investigators and corrections officials • Consult with gang members • Evaluate data in GangNET and the Pointer File

15. Gang Identification Systems • Criteria-based classification systems strive for objectivity • Need to avoid both over- and under-identification • Gang members commit more crime- more serious and violent crime- than do nongang members • Public policy needs to target gangs for prevention, intervention, and suppression