Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Gang injunctions and community participation
(USC Thesis Other)
Gang injunctions and community participation
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
GANG INJUNCTIONS AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
by
Eduardo Mendoza Miranda
___________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
August 2007
Copyright 2007 Eduardo Mendoza Miranda
ii
EPIGRAPH
___________________________________________________________________
“Nada en la vida es facil. Tenemos que trabajar para illegar a nuestra meta.”
Tomas Hernandez Miranda, Sr.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
___________________________________________________________________
I would not be here today if it were not for the love and support that my family
has given to me. Roxanne, Lalo, Kyle, and Divina, you are the ones who make
me continue to work diligently to reach my goals. Additionally, without my
brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews I would not be where I am today. Lastly,
my father and mother, Tomas and Maria Miranda, thank you for sacrificing
your life for the betterment of your children. I will never ever be able to repay
your humble generosity and the love you have given to me.
I would like to thank the members of my committee for their continued support
throughout the process: Professors Harry Richardson, Chester Newland, James
Moore II, and Garrett Capune, and Sheriff Lee Baca.
Dissertation Committee
____________________________________________________
Harry Richardson, M.A.
Professor
James Irvine Chair in Urban and Regional Planning
School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC
Los Angeles, California
iv
Chester A. Newland, Ph.D.
Professor
Frances R. and John J. Duggan Distinguished Professor in Public Administration
School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC
Sacramento and Los Angeles, California
Professor James Moore II, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, USC
Los Angeles, California
Professor Garrett Capune, Ph.D.
Director of the Center for the Administration of Justice
School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC
Los Angeles, California
Lee Baca, DPA
Sheriff, Los Angles County
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________________
Epigraph .................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... vii
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... viii
Abstract .....................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1
1.1 PREVIEW.......................................................................................................1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ......................................................................1
1.3 BRIEF HISTORY OF LA COLONIA NEIGHBORHOOD ........................................2
1.4 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY .........................................................................3
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................5
1.6 THE SETTING ................................................................................................5
1.7 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................6
1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .........................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................7
2.1 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY................................................................................7
2.1.1 Social Disorder ..................................................................................7
2.1.2 Major Theories/Concepts...................................................................8
2.1.3 What is a Social Problem?...............................................................11
2.1.4 Main Themes ...................................................................................14
2.2 GANGS ........................................................................................................16
2.2.1 What is Known about Gangs? .........................................................16
2.2.2 Gangs during the Depression/World War II....................................20
2.2.3 Gangs Emerge in the 1950s .............................................................20
2.2.4 Intervention Programs .....................................................................22
2.2.5 Different Viewpoints .......................................................................25
2.2.6 Summary..........................................................................................30
2.3 LAW/SOCIAL CONTROL...............................................................................31
vi
2.3.1 Social Control and Values ...............................................................32
2.3.2 Civil Remedies.................................................................................35
2.3.3 Anti-Social Behavior Orders (ABSOs) in the United
Kingdom.............................................................................................41
2.3.4 The City of Pasadena Model............................................................43
2.3.5 Physical Environment......................................................................45
2.3.6 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED).............................................................................................47
2.3.7 Broken Windows Theory.................................................................53
CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY: THE COLONIA CHIQUES
GANG..........................................................................................................57
3.1. LA COLONIA NEIGHBORHOOD ...................................................................57
3.2 CAR CLUB INFLUENCE ................................................................................60
3.3 THE BEGINNING OF COLONIA CHIQUES ......................................................61
3.4 OTHER GANGS ............................................................................................65
3.5 DETERIORATION OF GANG CODE OF CONDUCT...........................................70
3.6 GANG MEMBER VEHICLES AND ALTERCATIONS AMONG
THEMSELVES ..............................................................................................72
3.7 HISTORY OF OXNARD POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO
GANGS........................................................................................................73
3.8 GANG INJUNCTION STATISTICS ...................................................................82
Figure 1. Colonia Chiques gang crimes (felony assaults and
attempted murders) from 2001 to 2006. .............................................83
3.9 BRODERICK BOYS GANG INJUNCTION ........................................................84
CHAPTER 4: PERSPECTIVES AND OPINIONS ...........................................86
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................86
4.2 INTERVIEWS................................................................................................86
4.3 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................107
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION...........................................................................108
5.1 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION....................................................................108
5.2 STUDY OTHER INJUNCTIONS.....................................................................108
5.3 SYSTEMIC ISSUES......................................................................................109
5.4 HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.........................................................................111
5.5 OPINION....................................................................................................112
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................115
vii
LIST OF TABLES
___________________________________________________________________
Table 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation .................................................4
Table 2. Oxnard Police Department’s Permanent Colonia Chiques
Injunction Prohibitions .........................................................................78
viii
ABBREVIATIONS
___________________________________________________________________
Chiques: Refers to the Colonia Gang as little Chicago since the City of
Chicago had many gangs in the early 1900s.
SARA: Refers to the community policing model used to solve problems in
the community by using the following steps (scanning, analysis,
response, and assessment).
COXCH: Refers to the Colonia Chiques Gang and is usually used by the gang
when writing gang Graffiti.
ix
ABSTRACT
___________________________________________________________________
Civil Gang Injunctions have existed since 1987. The City of Oxnard
recently implemented a spatially extensive one. The majority of the residents
approved the injunction but regretted not being part of the process before the
District Attorney’s Office and the Oxnard Police Department obtained a court order
against the La Colonia Chiques Gang. A small minority of the population
completely opposed the injunction and its implementation.
This project focuses on public safety, civil rights, perceptions, and
opinions/perspectives. It shows how Oxnard gangs developed from car clubs,
describes the history of the La Colonia neighborhood along with recent statistics,
and presents the opinions of community members, gang members, and police
officers about this injunction.
A good example of a successful injunction in the Los Angeles area was the
Redondo Beach Injunction against the North Side Redondo Gang. It showed how
the community was involved in the process and the effectiveness of the SARA
(Scan, Analyze, Respond, and Assess) model. The District Attorney and the
Redondo Beach Police Department brought the community together to achieve a
united goal to combat gang violence.
x
The literature review attempts to establish a rationale based on the Spergel
Model, Arnstein’s citizen participation ladders, Nye’s comment about soft power,
Churchman’s system approach, Saxton’s article on citizen participation, and the
works of many other authors.
The core of the research presents the views of activists, elected officials,
police officers, and citizens who have argued their positions on civil gang
injunctions.
The discussion of findings supports the conclusion that the injunction
suffered from defects and could have been implemented differently. This
researcher’s perspective is unusual because he is a police officer who worked
where the gang injunction was implemented. A major conclusion is that it is
essential to consider the community involvement when implementing controversial
social urban policies such as gang injunctions.
1
Chapter 1
___________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preview
Lack of community involvement in the decision to implement a gang
injunction can lead to antipathy in the community. This discord among community
residents may lead to many perceptions (positive and negative) among the involved
stakeholders. It is important to allow the community to be part of the process for
the success of an injunction. A case in point is the Oxnard Police Department’s
gang injunction against the Colonia Chiques Gang.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In September 2003, the Oxnard Police Department (approximately 240
officers) along with the Ventura County District Attorney’s (DA’s) Office began
working on a gang injunction against the Colonia Chiques Gang. A gang
injunction is a civil lawsuit against a street gang and its members based on the legal
theory of “public nuisance.” The allegation is that within the “safety zone” the
conduct and activities of the street gang constitute a public nuisance, which
interferes with the community’s comfortable enjoyment of life and their property
(Holland, 2003, p. 1). The recent wave of gang crime left little choice for the
2
police but to propose a gang injunction similar to then-existing ones in the City of
Los Angeles. Oxnard Police targeted the Colonia Chiques Gang (1000 members)
because it had been the most violent gang in the last ten years with the most
assaults in 2003, including twelve gang-related homicides. So many homicides is
unheard of for cities of similar size. The police needed to react because of
community concerns. Prior to its implementation, the injunction was not public
knowledge. It became publicly known in March 2004 through a preliminary
injunction against the gang in June 2004.
1.3 Brief History of La Colonia Neighborhood
La Colonia Neighborhood is a small community about one-eighth of the
overall 25 square miles of the city. The neighborhood’s history dates back to1903
and is sometimes compared to East Los Angeles area. It has the largest public
housing project in Ventura County. It is a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood
(approximately 13,000 to 20,000 residents depending on the agriculture season)
made up of migrant workers and first and second generation Hispanics. The
income level is low to lower middle class.
La Colonia neighborhood is where the Colonia Chiques gang originated and
grew to approximately 1,000 members, conservatively speaking. However, the
gang members not only live in Colonia but throughout the City of Oxnard.
3
1.4 Importance of the Study
To ensure the future success of injunctions, the community must be
considered in the process. This study is important since this is probably the first of
several injunctions in the City of Oxnard. Any city that wishes to use this new law
enforcement tool needs to examine the perceptions and public safety vs. civil rights
concerns that were generated in this injunction because of lack of community
involvement. Successful injunctions (i.e., North Side Redondo Gang from the City
of Redondo Beach) use community-policing concepts to obtain community
approval. What occurred in Oxnard is described clearly in Efraim Gil and Enid
Lucchesi’s work (1979) on citizen participation; see Sherry R. Arnstein’s Ladder of
Citizen Participation in Table 1 below.
In the non-participation degree steps, an individual (often pre-selected from
above) is at best part of an advisory board to focus merely on changing an
individual not a community response to problems. In the degree of tokenism step,
the citizen is made to feel important by being appointed to advisory positions but
without authority. In this step, the citizens are informed of policy after it has
already been decided. In the degree of citizen power step, a partnership develops
between citizens and officials to give citizens actual power and some control over a
final project.
4
Table 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation
Step Citizen Participation Degree
8. Citizen Control
7. Delegated Power = Degrees of Citizen Power
6. Partnership
5. Placation
4. Consultation = Degrees of Tokenism
3. Informing
2. Therapy
1. Manipulation = Nonparticipation
Source: Efraim Gil and Enid Lucchesi, “Citizen Participation in Planning” (adapted from
table on pp. 559–560), in The Practice of Local Government Planning, edited by Frank S.
So (Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, 1979), 552–574.
In the Oxnard gang injunction, the citizens fell into the degree of tokenism
step because they were consulted about the gang injunction after the fact. This is
why the citizenry of Oxnard developed some negative perceptions about gang
injunctions. Consultation with Oxnard citizens could have created a different
outcome, and some adverse perceptions could have been addressed from the
beginning. The Ventura County Superior Court attempted to involve the
community after the preliminary injunction had been approved. Bridging the gap
after the fact took plenty of work on both sides (community and police) of the table
to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties. As a law enforcement agency and
5
a proactive community, Oxnard needs to continue productive dialogue to avoid
surprises from both sides.
1.5 Literature Review
An examination of previous research on sociological theory, gangs, and the
law/social control are the main ingredients of the literature review. Given the
nature of the problem being addressed, the review focuses on examining the
fundamentals of deviant behavior in American society, the reasons why youths join
gangs, public safety vs. civil rights, and the reasons that youths leave gangs. In
addition, the review focuses on past intervention models developed to assist in
diverting youths from gangs, crime, and other anti-social behavioral conduct.
1.6 The Setting
The case study that follows refers to the City of Oxnard. In 2000 the city
had a population of approximately 180,000 residents, depending on the agricultural
season. The ethnic breakdown included Hispanic (62.6%), White (23.3%), Asian-
Americans (6.9%), African-American (6.0%), American Indian (.8%), and Pacific
Islander (0.4%). The gang injunction not only covered La Colonia neighborhood
but also 6.6 square miles (one-fourth) of the city (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Primarily agricultural with many migrants, Oxnard has historically had a high
undocumented Hispanic field worker population.
6
1.7 Methodology
The study included a review of literature and drew upon principal texts,
Web Internet searches, and newspaper articles. The statistics came from the
Oxnard Police Department Crime Analysis Bureau; the U.S. Census Bureau;
articles in newspapers; Internet sites; and a survey questionnaire to community
members, gang members, elected officials, and police officers. Since the Colonia
Chiques Gang Injunction is ongoing, only recent data are available.
1.8 Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study result from the focus on public safety vs. civil
rights, the lack of community support, and perceptions about the Colonia Chiques
Gang. The study does not include all injunctions in California but makes reference
to one success, Los Angeles County. In more thorough research, other injunctions
might be examined to include more community perceptions and reactions. In
addition, there are few books published about injunctions or perceptions of
injunctions. More research is needed, including more academic literature so that
more insightful analyses may be developed.
7
Chapter 2
___________________________________________________________________
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 Sociological Theory
2.1.1 Social Disorder
To comprehend the study of social disorder, one must understand and
recognize that social disorder is a visible behavior and commonly practiced, as
exemplified in committed crimes on the public scene. One can observe it (drug
dealing, drinking alcoholic beverages in public, etc.), be involved in it (whistling at
people, sexual harassment), or see it with one’s eyes (graffiti or vandalism).
Nonetheless, when one perceives disorder in a neighborhood, this might be the
social norm which fits into the system of the neighborhood.
This examination of popular literature on the subject of structural-
functionalism includes the work of Wesley G. Skogan (1990) who stated that
“social disorder appears as a series of more or less episodic events” (p. 4). This
essay also draws understanding of structural-functionalism from the perspective of
the renowned sociologist Robert Merton (Goodman and Ritzer, 2004, p. 243). In
addition, concepts of social problems are addressed. Finally, past empirical studies
8
are explored to obtain a foundational understanding of social disorder and how it
pervades contemporary society.
2.1.2 Major Theories/Concepts
In order to understand social disorder and related concepts, one must
examine the sociological theory of structural-functionalism. As documented by
Robert Merton, this theory emerged in Europe in the 19
th
century as a reaction to
what was visibly a catastrophe in social order. Two major historical developments
occurred during this era, the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.
During expansion of the industrial society, poor working conditions, crime, urban
slums, and poverty increased (although urban conditions were less than ideal,
incomes rose).
Furthermore, in order to effectively understand Robert Merton’s philosophy
on the theory of structural-functionalism, a review of the foundational aspects and
ideas of functionalism is required. As explained by Goodman and Ritzer in their
book Sociological Theory (2004), functionalism addresses the essential need and
interest for order in an organized, functional society. Popular theorists on the
subject of functionalism view society in a highly utilitarian fashion. As
exemplified by Emile Durkheim (Goodman and Ritzer, 2004, p. 104), they are
concerned with the rules and norms that hold organized populations together in a
functional, co-existent society. In effect, functionalists focus on society as a whole.
Functionalists do not examine the individual but look for the system parts that
9
make society function to uphold social order. Additionally, a functionalist believes
that, in order for a society to maintain functional order, there needs to be a central
value system that governs a community and overall society. As further explained
by Goodman and Ritzer, in a functionally orderly society, its members are
compelled and agree to observe its prescribed social norms and laws. These rules
are drawn from the core values of the majority of the population. In evolving
functional societies, maxims such as “do not steal” promoted the ability of a
population to co-exist. In modern society, maxims such as “don’t drink and drive”
are considered useful to hold the society together. The failure of a society’s
inhabitants to observe its laws leads to social disorder. In his work, Wesley Skogan
(1990, p. 2) provided a clear example of this ideal. Functionalists look at the parts
in the common value system that will keep the system’s integrity.
Merton (Goodman and Ritzer 2004) embraced the structural-functionalism
theory, but he did not support the accepted theory of functional analysis. The three
categories that he disagreed with were functional unity, universal functionalism,
and indispensability.
Functional unity is the belief that all members of a society maintain the
same uniform social and cultural values and beliefs. In operational terms,
functional unity requires a high degree of assimilation to the values, norms, and
laws of a society. Merton, in contrast, believed that functional unity had some
10
validity within small, primitive societies but not within large, more complex
societies.
Goodman and Ritzer (2004) best summarized universal functionalism.
They stated, “It is argued that all standardized social and cultural forms and
structures have positive functions” (p. 244). Merton strongly disagreed with this
view, stating as an example of why the concept of universality is not effective in
explaining functionalism: “Rabid nationalism can be highly dysfunctional in a
world of proliferating nuclear arms” (p. 244).
Lastly, indispensability holds “that all structures and functions are
functionally necessary for society and that no other structures and functions could
work quite as well as those that are currently found within society” (p. 244).
Merton criticized this statement because he believed people need to “admit that
there are various structural and functional alternatives to be found within society”
(p. 244).
Merton’s argument is that one needs to look at the theories on an empirical
level and not always within the context of theoretical systems: “Merton’s belief that
empirical tests, not theoretical assertions, are crucial to functional analysis led him
to develop his paradigm of functional analysis as a guide to the integration of
theory and research” (p. 244).
Merton’s research on the subject of structural-functional analysis focused
on groups, organizations, societies, and cultures. Merton’s theory is important
11
when examining the study of social disorder because it provides a clear
understanding of structural-functionalism theory. Structural Functionalism
embraces the notion that, in order to understand social disorder, it is necessary to
examine the culture, groups, organizations, and societies that play an integral part
in the order or disorder of the neighborhood. It is for this reason that people need
to examine the social problem, deviant behavior, and social action concepts to
better understand the effects of social disorder.
2.1.3 What is a Social Problem?
This question is significant when researching social disorder. In her
comprehensive work titled Thinking About Social Problems, Donileen R. Loseke
(2003) provided an overview of the four basic definitions of what constitutes a
social problem. According to Loseke, a social problem is a condition normally
viewed as erroneous and undesirable by a group or a society. Secondly, a social
problem is the term usually used when the issue has become society’s problem and
has grown to be considered prevalent. For instance, if there is disorder in a
neighborhood (violence, prostitution, gangs, etc.) and it spreads to impact the
whole neighborhood, this could be defined as a social problem, using Loseke’s
criteria. In essence, Loseke’s definition of a social problem includes, as a major
criterion, that a large group of co-habitants of a given community or society is
directly affected.
12
Thirdly, Loseke described social problems as a condition that can be altered
by the members of the community or the affected society. For example, assisting
someone to die does not anger a community, but it may sadden and confuse them.
On the other hand, a rape or a mindless shooting angers and scares a community
because these acts are viewed by the whole as totally unacceptable, a gross
violation of the social contract that holds people together.
The last definition of a social problem is something that we know, as a
society, that needs to be treated, changed, or acted upon in order to restore or
maintain the level of desired social order in a given society. As noted by Loseke
(2003), an example of an undesirable social condition is the perception that an
excessive number of liquor stores are in a given community where there is a
disproportionate level of alcoholism, as well as incidents of related illicit behavior
among residents, as compared to other communities in the region. Another
criterion of this definition of social problems, as further explained by author Loseke
(2003), is that the condition must elicit a significant call from members of a group
or society for removal or reduction of the undesired social disorder, such as
requesting increased policing and enforcement of established laws.
The second study was completed by Ralph B. Taylor (1996),
“Neighborhood Responses to Disorder and Local Attachment: The Systemic Model
of Attachment, Social Disorganization, and Neighborhood Use Value.” He
described three key aspects of social disorder. Taylor wrote about the systemic
13
model of community attachment, neighborhood use value concept, and social
disorganization perspective. The concept of the systemic model argues that, if the
neighborhood is stable, it has a positive affect in the community, which results in
citizen involvement. The neighborhood use value model argues that, if highly
affluent members live in the neighborhood, they tend to get better services from
city agencies. Thus, the model shows a more ordered neighborhood, which is
interpreted as a functional one. The reason is that the residents have vested
interests in the community.
The social disorganization literature states that, if the neighborhood is
stable, more people are willing to intervene in any disorder and not worry so much
about security. On the other hand, the responses to disorder literature “suggest
direct effects of class, race, stability, crime, and related problems like physical
deterioration on responses of disorder” (Taylor, 1996, p. 53). Skogan (1990)
argued that physical deterioration has the strongest impact. These three aspects
give one a better understanding on how disorder in a neighborhood can be
stabilized or how certain neighborhoods are affected by the lack of services, which
in turn brings disorder. In summary, there is not a clear understanding whether
disorder and physical deterioration play dependent or independent roles in citizen
response to disorder. In the last research study, Raudenbush and Sampson (2001)
examined disorder and its relation to crime. They discussed how social and
physical order contributes to crime and how police need to enforce the low-level
14
criminal law to gain control of a neighborhood. Their research encompassed 196
Chicago neighborhoods and argued that the key to disorder and crime comes down
to poverty. They discussed “collective efficacy,” saying that “cohesion among
neighborhood residents, combined with shared expectations for informal social
control of public space, is proposed as a major social process inhibiting both crime
and disorder” (p. 1). They examined disorder through observation rather than
perception. The key findings were that disorder does not necessarily encourage
crime, but both disorder and crime are related. The most important finding is that
collective efficacy assisted in explaining different categories of crime and disorder.
Disorder and crime were found to be in areas of poverty in relation to physical
disorder. Disorder was linked only up to the level of robbery. Homicide was not
directly related to disorder. The neighborhood with collective efficacy showed that
crime was low. This had nothing to do with sociodemographics or the observed
disorder. Cohesion among the residents resulted in low levels of disorder or
deterred disorder. All of the findings mentioned above demonstrate that a
reduction in disorder may reduce crime. This happens because the neighborhood is
stable due to collective efficacy.
2.1.4 Main Themes
The significant themes in this chapter are social disorder, deviant behavior,
and social action. Social disorder can be perceived as ordered behavior, depending
on the individual’s perception. Of course, social disorder can be behavior that
15
people see occurring in front of their very own eyes (drinking in public). Skogan
(1990) gave an insightful analysis on the difference between crime and disorder,
which is the underlying theme of this essay: “The only real difference between
crime and many disorders is that politicians have not enacted some widely agreed
upon values into law” (p. 5).
Deviant behavior can be viewed in the same way as disorder. Perceived by
the person observing this behavior, it does not necessarily need to be against the
law. It can be acceptable or unacceptable behavior according to the social norms of
a neighborhood. This concept affects ways of life throughout the world. It is
further discussed in the next two chapters that focus on gangs and the law in
relationship to social control.
The social action concept is relevant to the above-mentioned themes, since
it is through individual response that neighborhoods become stable or unstable. If
individuals willingly take action when a disorder or crime occurs, eventually
collective efficacy characterizes the neighborhood. As a result, the whole
neighborhood works as a collective group to stop disorder and crime. Social action
by an individual may also lead to crime if it is the person’s intent to use his action
to gain a goal that is deviant in nature. Consequently, one needs to look at a
neighborhood without social biases because what outside people perceive as
disorder may be the way of life in that neighborhood. Sometimes, perceptions of
physical disorder skew people’s ways of thinking of disorder.
16
2.2 Gangs
Gang activity has been part of the urban landscape since the beginning of
large-scale immigration of specific populations into the United States in the 1890s.
In the early twentieth century, immigration to New York was in mass numbers.
Newly arrived Irish and Italian immigrants found that economic and social factors
of that era made the cost and other conditions of living difficult. As a means to an
end, some formed gangs to provide social and material needs in order to survive.
This essay focuses on ethnicity and race, economics, family, and other social
conditions that brought about the creation of the gang culture as it is known today.
2.2.1 What is Known about Gangs?
In the 1890s, immigration played a significant role in the formation of
gangs. During that time, there were urbanization, ethnicity, and poverty issues.
Initial gang involvement was from Western Europe during the large influx of
immigrants into New York City. A majority of these immigrants were of Irish and
Italian descent, and many had difficulty adjusting to the economic and social
conditions of the United States. Needs for protection, socio-economic stability, and
alternatives to extended family structures gave rise to gangs as they are known
today. The issues, which the early immigrants struggled with back then, can be
seen today in contemporary gangs: poverty, poor education, poor housing, lack of
constructive activities, and lack of family structure (Klein, Maxson, and Miller,
2001, p. 15).
17
So trained for the responsibility of citizenship, robbed of
home and of childhood, with every prop knocked from
under him, all the elements that make for strength and
character trodden out in the making of the boy, all the high
ambition of youth caricatured by the slum and become base
passions, so equipped he comes into the business of life.
As a “kid” he hunted with the pack in the street. As a
young man he trains with the gang, because it furnishes the
means of gratifying his inordinate vanity; that is the slum’s
counterfeit of self-esteem. (p. 15)
As one reads the excerpt from Klein, he can ironically say that history is
repeating itself. In many ways, the gang problem that existed back in the 1890s
mirrors the gang problem of today. Currently, an initial response is to say, if these
individuals are kept busy, they will not be involved in gangs. But more is needed
than just keeping them busy. Factors such as the family structure need to be
addressed. Many people live in poverty without opportunities to experience
anything better than the destructive atmosphere that pervades their environments.
Herbert Asbury (2001) studied the gangs within the Five Points area. He
distinguished the gang activities to those that were committed by criminals who
would go and commit illegal acts. A function of these early gangs was to fight
among each other and rival gangs.
It is important to note that the colors red and blue, which are now used by
the Bloods and Crips, were also used by the Irish Gangs in the 1920s. The Roach
Guard wore blue and the Dead Rabbits red. It is important to recognize that in
terms of gang representation basic symbols such as colors were as important back
then as they are today. For the most part, Asbury reported that the gang activity
18
was centralized to the neighborhoods in which members lived, and they all knew
each other (Decker and Van Winkle, 2001, pp. 15–16).
According to Scott H. Decker and Barrik Van Winkle, in 1927 Fredrick
Thrasher was the first author of serious academic work on gangs. Thrasher came
from the Chicago School of Sociology. His perspectives on gangs included two
concepts of culture and neighborhood ecology, which he explored in Chicago. He
observed that many gangs at the time were located in small areas. The three
ecological features that he covered were “deteriorating neighborhoods, shifting
populations, and mobility and disorganization of the slum” (cited in Decker and
Van Winkle, 2001, p. 16). Thrasher saw gangs as dynamic groups constantly
changing:
[T]he spontaneous effort of boys [was] to create a society
for themselves where none adequate to their needs exists.
What boys get out of such association that they do not get
otherwise under the conditions that adult society imposes is
the thrill and the zest of participation in common interest,
more especially in corporate action, in hunting, capture,
conflict, flight, and escape. Conflict with other gangs and
the world about them furnishes the occasion for many of
their exciting group activities. (p. 16)
Thrasher discovered many definitions of gangs and the difficulty in
describing them. What is important to the evolution of a gang is its cohesiveness in
terms of conflict. Violent acts strengthen the bond of the group. He describes three
stages:
19
In its earliest stage, the gang is diffuse, little leadership
exists, and the gang may be short lived. Some gangs
progress to the next stage, where they become solidified.
Conflict with other gangs plays a notable role in this
process, helping to define group boundaries and strengthen
the ties between members, uniting them in the face of a
common threat. The final step in the evolution of the gang
occurs when it becomes conventionalized and members
assume legitimate roles in society. For those groups that
fail to make this transition, delinquent or criminal activity
becomes the dominant focus of the group. (p. 16)
Thrasher also mentioned that during the transition phase most gang
members participated in lawful activities such as athletics. He also pointed to the
geography of the area where the gangs originated. It is important to realize that,
when a group of people is isolated from the rest of society, the members tend to
have more solidarity in their group. With respect to gangs, Thrasher stated, “It
helps to explain the lack of integration into the economic, educational, and social
structure of cities and serves to prevent many gang members from giving up their
gang affiliations for activities of a more law abiding nature” (p. 17).
Most importantly, Thrasher’s studies on gangs highlight many
characteristics about gangs that are seen today in the gang culture. He examined
the issues of “gang transmission, growth of gangs, sources of cohesion among gang
members, the role of threats, the importance of collective behavior, distinguishing
adolescent group behavior from gang behavior, and most importantly, the role of
culture in understanding gangs” (p. 17).
20
2.2.2 Gangs during the Depression/World War II
As America moved into the Depression and World War II era, gangs
sharply declined. The attention they had received in the past nearly ceased because
of the economic difficulties the United States experienced and the government’s
focus on World War II. After, the American economy struggled to restructure jobs.
Additionally, there was a large migration of Blacks to northern parts of the United
States in search of jobs and opportunity. This resembled the early Western
European immigration to the Northeast and Midwest in search of jobs. Just like
early immigrants, Blacks found themselves in less than friendly environments (p.
17).
2.2.3 Gangs Emerge in the 1950s
Gangs re-emerged in importance in U.S. cities in the 1950s. This brought
about new theories, research, and policies. From the 1950s through the 1960s,
criminologists found new ideas and policy recommendations. Using the famous
sociological theories of Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton, and Albert Cohen
(Decker and Van Winkle, 2001, p. 17), they developed the theory of status
frustration. The pressure of meeting middle class standards was identified as the
cause of this frustration. This was said to be why the boys turned to delinquent
behavior and join gangs. Many of these boys were unable to receive the
opportunities to succeed based on what society defined as successful. Because
opportunities were not equally available in neighborhoods, “three forms of
21
adaptations...conflict gangs, property gangs or retreatist gangs...resulted from the
level of available opportunities and the extent to which boys were integrated in the
neighborhoods” (p. 18).
Walter Miller (1958) disagreed with the theory of status frustration. He
argued that a set of values spread into lower class cultures and they led to
delinquent and gang involvement. “For Miller, six ‘focal concerns’ defined life for
lower-class boys: fate, autonomy, smartness, toughness, excitement, and trouble”
(quoted in Decker and Van Winkle, 2001, p. 18). He argued that the lower class
learned these values in their own neighborhoods because these values were most
prominent. Miller stood by the philosophy that the subculture created and
maintained the delinquent groups and gangs (p. 18).
Another theory that emerged was by Lewis Yablonsky (1962) in reference
to violent gangs. Yablonsky laid his foundation from Thrasher’s ideas and
identified three types of gangs: “Delinquent gangs, violent gangs, and social
gangs—indicating that the violent gang was the most persistent and problematic for
society” (p. 18). Violence plays an integral part in the gang. It develops out of
concerns with safety and territoriality. The members of a violent gang have certain
needs that are met by violence:
It meets the psychological needs of boys incapable of
finding such fulfillment in the larger society. Because of
its lack of organization, Yablonsky identifies the violent
gang as a “near group”; a “collective structure” situated
somewhere between totally disorganized aggregates (like
22
mobs) and well-organized aggregates (like delinquent or
social gangs). (p. 18)
2.2.4 Intervention Programs
To further understand the dynamics of a gang, one must look at action
research. With respect to gangs, such research was conducted by Spergel (1966),
Klein (1971), and Short and Strodtbeck (1974) (cited in Decker and Van Winkle
2001). The importance of the studies by the above-mentioned experts is that they
used evaluations to create a baseline to later revisit theories on gangs. They
grounded their research on intervention programs that were based on gang theories
and behavior.
Spergel looked at the detached worker and how to do gang intervention. He
argued four positions on how to do successful work with gang members: “(1) the
delinquent subculture (beliefs, norms and values) within the neighborhood, (2) the
delinquent group itself, (3) the individual delinquent, and (4) the agency worker”
(pp. 18–19). Spergel’s main argument was through the research of Cloward and
Ohlin, who argued that the role of delinquency theory encompassed: “[S]treet work
practice must be determined by theoretical explanations of delinquent groups” (p.
19). Spergel’s work offered the street worker programs and prevention anecdotes
on how to deal with gang and delinquent behavior.
Klein focused his research mainly on theory and analysis. He worked on
two programs, the Group Guidance Project and the Ladino Hills Project (1962-
23
1968) where he developed his analysis. He believed that the street worker should
be fully involved with the gang members and gang activities. He used the theories
of Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin, Miller, and Bloch and Niederhoffer (Decker and
Van Winkle, 2001, p. 19). One of his conclusions referenced the constant attention
gang members received from street workers. His research showed that it was these
very services that caused the delinquency of gang members to continue: “Gang
intervention programs may have the latent consequence of contributing to the
attractiveness of gangs, thereby enhancing their solidarity and promoting more
violence” (p. 19). His research also focused on the structure of gangs and gang
members. He concluded that there were many differences in gangs and their
members. They are not at all uniform. The most common element was their
adolescence (p. 19).
In terms of leadership and cohesion, Klein found that the age of leadership
evolved gangs. Furthermore, he discovered that gang members usually just “hung
out” and often had no other purpose. The only time cohesion existed was when
they were threatened, usually by external sources:
The external sources of cohesion were structural (poverty,
unemployment, and weak family socialization), but also
included pressures that resulted from interaction with other
gangs, as well as members of one’s own gang. In
particular, the threat of violence from another gang
increased solidarity within the gang. (p. 19)
24
His research in the Group Guidance Project led him to Chicago’s Ladino
Hills Project. Klein’s objective was to work with the gangs and gang members to
decrease the membership and illegal behavior. His strategy was to avoid police
officers, social workers, and schools and, instead, to pay attention to the gang
members because it would make the gang lifestyle more attractive. The results
from his research showed that less attention paid to the gang reduced the
cohesiveness of the gang during the project. Although this occurred, delinquency
rose in the particularly more serious crimes. “However, the amount of delinquency
overall declined, a decline that was concentrated among ‘companionship’ offenses.
The withdrawal of adults from gang activities diminished both gang cohesion and
delinquency” (Decker and Van Winkle, 2001, p. 20).
Short and Strodtbeck (1974) used a similar approach to Klein’s work. They
actually examined the War on Poverty and how it increased cohesiveness. Short
and Strodtbeck used similar methods as Shaw and McKay’s in terms of poverty.
They also used the theoretical ideas of Cohen, Cloward, and Ohlin and Thrasher
(Decker and Van Winkle, 2001, p. 20). It was difficult for them to find gangs
mentioned in many theories. Instead, they looked at processes and values, which
led to delinquency among gangs.
Short and Strodtbeck found five specific indices of gang
activity: (1) conflict, (2) institutional social activities, (3)
sexual behavior, hanging out, and selling alcohol, (4)
homosexuality, fathering illegitimate children, and
common-law marriages, and (5) involvement in minor car-
related crimes, conflict, and alcohol use. (p. 20)
25
The findings showed that gang members and non-gang members did not
differentiate in their activities.
Status plays an important role in the gang structure and its actions. A threat
to the status of a gang is crucial in understanding its foundation:
Three systems external to the gang provide the major
sources of (and threats to) individual status: (1) adult
institutions such as school and jobs, (2) community
institutions in the areas that generate gangs, especially
street culture, and (3) gang culture. (p. 20)
According to Short and Strodtbeck, the gang is born by the relationships of the
institutions mentioned above.
2.2.5 Different Viewpoints
Jeffrey J. Mayer (1996) stated, “[A] perception of gangs as an alien
presence or invading force dominates high-profile news accounts even in the face
of contradictory evidence” (p. 70). He argued that journalists, prosecutors, and
others tend to label all street-gangs as criminal organizations. This label is
incorrect because many youths associate with gangs for many other reasons which
have nothing to do with crime. He argued that two theories describe the
characteristics of a gang, one a social unit and the other a gang to commit crimes.
Ultimately, it is organized to commit crime and for no other reason.
The media have always mislabeled a gang by giving it an organizational
structure. According to Mayer, this is not correct, but at the same time, the media
26
argues that the gang is a form of social ties. It is ironic because some media often
contradict themselves. Many gang members join gangs for pleasure, which
sometimes leads to criminal activity.
When Mayer interviewed gang members, they considered gang activity as
enjoyment and not getting together for a criminal purpose: “The fact that pleasure
manifests itself as crime is simply a brutal and disheartening truth. While some
social activities may also be criminal, common pursuit of pleasure is not
synonymous with a unifying criminal purpose” (p. 72).
Mayer wrote about gang identity and symbols and defended the argument
that just because one wears the gang clothing or know the gang symbols, does not
necessarily make him a gang member. There are “wannabes” who are attracted to
the gang because of the clothes and luxury. Others do it for survival, such as when
the youths in the neighborhood are going to school and, to avoid confrontation with
gang members, they need to know the gang members and their symbols. “Thus,
even when youths consciously adopt gang symbols, they are not necessarily
criminals or even gang members” (p. 75). In the rest of his essay he said that
simple definitions of gangs are inadequate because of their diversity.
Neither law enforcement nor other experts can give an adequate definition
to cover all aspects of gangs. When a gang is defined, it is either too broad or to
narrow, and this leads to wrong assumptions.
Similarly, a 1993 description of the much-heralded
Department of Justice program operation “Weed and Seed”
27
is no more helpful, stating only that it “is a community-
based, comprehensive, multi-agency approach to
combating violent crime, drug use, and gang activity in
high-crime neighborhoods.” Inherent in the Department of
Justice statement is the belief that the term “gang activity”
is as self-explanatory as “violent.” Furthermore, the
Department assumes that gangs, when identified, have at
their core a criminal purpose. (p. 75)
Until society is able to avoid developing social stereotypes on the definition of a
gang, it will remain useful to focus on the fact that gangs are groups of individuals.
In Sharon Bard’s (1996) interview with Father Greg Boyle, he stated, “If we
think they’re human beings, then our strategy is…clear—love, employment,
opportunity, school, recreation, care” (p. 98). Father Boyle is a priest at Dolores
Mission Church in East Los Angeles and is famous for his work with gangs. He
believes that gang members need love and compassion, but he also attributes gang
membership to poverty and despair. Gang members need opportunities and jobs.
Father Boyle believes that the gang problem is a social problem that needs
to be addressed on different fronts. He mentions poverty, dysfunctional family,
despair, boredom, unemployment, and failure of schools. He agrees that law
enforcement has an integral part, but he cannot address all the issues. In his
interview with Bard, he wants people to look at gang members as people and not
monsters. They need love and compassion just like any other human being.
When Father Boyle first arrived at Dolores Mission Church, his
congregation was upset to see gang members hanging out near the church. After he
28
explained to the congregation what he was attempting to accomplish, the
congregation did not oppose his idea, but embraced it.
One of his successful programs is called Caminatas, which is a group of
women who walk all night long.
They walk all night long on the weekends, in packs, in the
projects. Their mission is dangerous and very disarming.
Yet their presence makes the guys put their guns away and
go inside. Part of the Caminatas’ message is, “You are not
the enemy. You are our sons, but we won’t allow you to
kill each other.” They’re a force to be reckoned with.
(Bard, 1996, p. 102)
Most importantly, Father Boyle attributes gang membership to poverty. He
believes that to minimize gang memberships there needs to be job opportunities for
these gang members. After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, many community
organizers wanted intervention programs.
A seventeen-year-old African-American male made his point during one of
the meetings.
In a very gentle and wise tone he said to Senator John D.
Rockefeller, “I really appreciate the fact that you want to
have a gang intervention program for my younger brother.
But what good will it do him if my mother and father don’t
have a job, and can’t feed us, pay the rent, or take care of
us?” (p. 102)
According to Father Boyle, if the economic tension is relieved for these
families, then the children will see there could be a future. The argument that these
gang members will not work a six-dollar-an-hour job since they make more money
29
selling drugs is not correct. Father Boyle disagreed and had success stories to
prove it. Father Boyle argues that sometimes people need to hold these kids’ hands
to keep them on the right track.
Father Boyle was interviewed by 60 Minutes, and he received and continues
to receive praise and admiration for his work with gangs in Los Angeles. One
person wrote, “I had no idea that these were human beings. People who cry, have
feelings and have been dealt a bad hand by and large” (p. 103). Father Boyle
closed his interview with Bard by stating, “And in the end, I think we all will
benefit if we listen to our hearts” (Bard, 1996, p. 103).
Laron Douglas (1996) is a member of the Black Gangster Disciples which
is a well-known gang in Chicago and nearby municipalities. He argued that the
gang members are there to help each other and are against gang violence. He
defended drug dealing because it is the primary source of income for the gang. He
argued that selling drugs gets the members out of poverty and buys businesses, and
they become productive citizens in society. Douglas is currently serving time at
Mansfield Correctional institution in Mansfield, Ohio. He is not the most articulate
person, but he emphasized the issue of poverty. This is one underlying theme when
it comes to gang membership. Another common theme is the lack of parents at
home.
Douglas stated, “Being in this glorious organization has taught me a lot. I
grew up without a father, and I turned to my Disciple brothaz for love” (p. 162).
30
He stated that it was cool to be a gang member when he was young, but now it
wasn’t. Douglas told gang members it was about the money and not about being a
gang member. His whole argument dealt with selling drugs to get out of poverty,
buy materialistic items, own businesses, and be productive. He stated,
Some brothaz only know how to hustle, which is good, but
the brothaz with the great minds, we need them in school
and college so we can own more businesses and become
more productive in society. We do appreciate legit
professions, but living in the ghetto is hard, so we got to
start somewhere and move up. (p. 163)
His point is clear that selling drugs is the key to getting out of a gang.
2.2.6 Summary
Perhaps since America was dealing in the 1950s and 1960s with racial and
ethnic minorities who were searching for opportunities for economic and social
justice, the attraction to the gangs of that era briefly decreased later. In the sixties
they faded a bit since the issues of the time were racism, increasing crime, and
urban unrest. The disinterest in gangs “confirmed what Klein and Short and
Strodtbeck had reported; gangs had little permanence and stability and, if left alone,
may well fade away” (Decker and Van Winkle, 2001, p. 21).
Who knows why there was a decline? Maybe the federal government was
not providing funding for the studies of gangs. What one can ascertain is that
history has the tendency to repeat itself with each new generation. The nation
31
needs to learn from history by beginning to develop ongoing, research-based
strategies to prevent today’s reoccurring problems with gangs.
2.3 Law/Social Control
In any community, most laws are not enforced by police actions. People
have a basic “common sense” or knowledge of the law and, as law-abiding citizens,
follow through without fear of their enforcement. Of course, in many instances, it
is very easy to commit law-breaking offenses, from a trivial traffic infraction, to
something major like gang-related offences, which may lead to an arrest or a
citation. The question is, “What are the means of social control used and when do
the police play a larger role?”
It may be argued that a burglary may be controlled by the law, or a moral
code exists in the neighborhood that stops this illegal activity. Additionally, with
technological advances there are burglar alarms, car alarms, and surveillance
cameras. It might be argued that civil remedies are effective modes of control in
certain situations, or control may be gained by other means. Others argue that the
physical environment plays an important role as a mode of controlling behavior.
This essay looks at the law as a legal means, which is a part of a large spectrum of
modes of control in a neighborhood.
32
2.3.1 Social Control and Values
In understanding the law and its relation to social control, we must examine
the theories which describe theories of the social control concept. Much of the
literature on social control relates to organisms and nature. This has been seen in
the Darwinian tradition. At the same time, social control is between a person and
society (Sills, 1968, p. 381).
In our society, there are many ways we build our persona. Through
socialization, we learn what is expected of us. This process begins during
childhood and continues until our death. As we are exposed to many different
institutions (family, marriage, and religion), we develop many characteristics and
values. We also pay attention to what society defines as acceptable and
unacceptable (Sills, 1968, p. 382).
The next characteristic is how society uses social control to change deviants
or keep them from interfering with what society has made the norm. Another
characteristic is stratification of society. We do this by categorizing people and
how we give out resources to them based on categories. The most significant ones
are class, race, and gender. These three categories affect the way we socialize and
dictate what social control we face, available resources, and obstacles. The last
characteristic is that society gives us ideologies and helps us justify the
socialization systems by which we live. Ideologies assist in answering the “why”
question that people ask. The term “sociological imagination” is used to describe
33
all of these characteristics mentioned and how they assist in changing lives.
Humans are responsible for building society, and this is done by socializing, social
control, stratification, and ideologies (“Social Control,” 2005, p. 1).
In order to have social control and the law working together, we must
understand the value concept. In a neighborhood, all residents live by a set of
values or a moral code. If they work outside the values of the neighborhood, the
other residents take notice and take action. Law enforcement intervention is not
always needed to stop any deviance in the neighborhood. There are social controls
and values that exist in the neighborhood and that are not known to the person
looking from the outside.
Is there an incentive system in place to reduce crime? The economics of
crime literature emphasizes strategies to increase the costs and reduce the benefits
of criminal participation. It all depends on the neighborhood and the residents who
live in it. There is such an incentive as monetary rewards for information that leads
to an arrest of a suspect(s). No neighborhood has an incentive system in which
people receive money for assisting in reducing crime. Residents who report crime
are caring human beings and persons who have some vested interest and who want
social control towards any type of deviance that will affect the neighborhood or
their personal security.
For example, an incentive in taking that first step of getting involved to
reduce crime in a neighborhood means that people will have an easier time selling
34
their home if they decide to leave. The increased property values and the
neighborhood’s lower crime rate make this possible. Many people who move into
neighborhoods want to know the crime rate. This is important to people who do
not want to put themselves or their family at risk.
Does a moral code exist in neighborhoods? “Yes.” If one speaks to
residents in a neighborhood, they say in a few words what can and can not be done.
Criminals, gang members, and residents know that, in their neighborhoods, there
are unwritten rules everyone follows; otherwise, action is taken. Some of these
rules might be for the good of the neighborhood and others not.
In the La Colonia neighborhood, when crimes occur involving gang
members or drug dealing, few people call the police. This unwritten rule reflects
the neighborhood residents’ intimidation and fear of retaliation. This also shows
the lack of cohesiveness in the neighborhood. The neighbors do not really know
the neighbors or, if they do, they just want to be left alone. Community clean ups,
social activities, and neighborhood councils help break these barriers. In the La
Colonia Neighborhood, residents that tend to become involved in crime prevention
programs and other revitalization activities are residents that have a vested interest
in ensuring that the quality of life is improved. Property owners and long-time
public housing tenants have taken the lead to reduce crime in the La Colonia
Neighborhood. Ultimately, it is the residents who care and have that vested interest
in their neighborhood and who will be the active ones in keeping the neighborhood
35
cohesive. Thus, any deviant behavior is not tolerated based on the moral code,
perception, and philosophy of social control of the neighborhood.
2.3.2 Civil Remedies
The idea of using civil remedies to cure crime in neighborhoods is not a
new tool; this has been around since the 1980s. The civil gang abatement strategy
is a new tool for law enforcement in stopping gangs from intimidating the residents
in the neighborhood. It is the hope that this tool will help the neighborhood gain
control once again. One must not forget that this new tool can seen by the
community as a vehicle for police abuse. A well established checks and balances
system needs to be incorporated into any civil abatement strategy.
Furthermore, the trade-offs between public safety and protection of civil
liberties need to be examined further. Since 911 we have become a security-
conscious society. People have made security decisions that have questioned our
civil liberties. There are valid arguments on both sides, but coming to a consensus
is difficult. In terms of civil gang injunctions, some arguments are perception-
driven and another is the lack of the participatory process for the citizens which
will have their civil liberties challenged (i.e., Oxnard Civil Gang Injunction against
The Colonia Chiques Gang).
Detective Neail Holland (2003) stated that the injunction received
immediate community support by 99% of the population even before it was on the
front page of the August 3, 2004, Ventura County Star:
36
[T]he objective behind the civil injunction is to better the
quality of life of the people who live in the Safety Zone
(6.6 square miles), reduce gang crime, provide a breathing
space for the community, give outreach programs a better
opportunity to work, reduce the ability for borderline gang
associates to join the gang, and give current gang members
and associates an excuse to leave the gang. (p. 1)
Detective Neail Holland’s statement is valid, but those community members
who supported the injunction expressed their dissatisfaction with the law
enforcement system. Understandably, they were not given the opportunity to voice
any of their concerns before it was implemented. They felt their concept of
community policing was undermined by the injunction. In the PA Times article,
Gregory D. Saxton (2004) mentioned the upcoming participatory process on public
and non-profit management:
One of the most important ongoing revolutions is the
increasing call for participation by stakeholders in key
decision-making processes in all areas of society—in
popular culture, in business, in civil society and in
government. Together, these participatory developments
are heralding an era of significant social change. A
Participatory Society is on the horizon-and public
administration must be ready for the transformation. (p. 5)
A participatory society movement is developing, and every system in society needs
to take notice. Most importantly, other law enforcement agencies need to learn
from this new participatory society which wants to be involved in the decision
making process. While police vigilance in finding a solution to this gang problem
37
is commended, some community members have written to the Ventura County Star
and Los Angeles Times in opposition to the gang injunction.
Many educators, attorneys, and citizens against the injunctions have several
valid concerns regarding the injunction. One main concern is that the injunction is
too vague and is discriminatory. Denis O’Leary, a member of the Oxnard
Elementary School District, said he supports the injunction but is afraid of the way
it reads, because the police could profile a student during recess and find him in
violation of the injunction (Wolcott, 2004, May 23). Gloria Mendoza, a Colonia
resident, feared the police have too much power and will arrest her children just
because they dress a certain way (Wolcott, 2004, May 23). Public Defender
Kenneth Clayman was concerned the Safety Zone was too large and that the
restrictions of the injunction were greater than have been allowed. He wanted to
ensure his client’s constitutional rights were not violated (Kelley, 2004, May 23).
John H. Hachmeister of Torrance and Gabriella Navarro-Busch of Ventura
(attorneys for defendants) argued that the 133 supporting declarations from the
members of the Oxnard Police Department failed to show at least one declaration
from a resident, business owner, or any person who frequented or worked in the
Safety Zone. Furthermore, Hachmeister was worried police officers will harass
citizens and cross over the line of justice to make arrests (Kelley, 2004, May 23).
Dolly Villa (2004), a local citizen who lived in Oxnard and started the
Colonia Civil Rights Coalition, believed this new injunction was communistic and
38
oppressive. She did not understand how the police could prohibit the wearing of
the Dallas Cowboy Football shirt (the dress attire of the Colonia gang, which is the
gang affiliation dress code) within the Safety Zone. She accused Oxnard Police
Chief Art Lopez (former LAPD Deputy Chief) of using the same tactics he used in
Rampart such as the injunction against the Eighteenth Street Gang. She further
stated that she was never asked her opinion about the injunction, which will
directly affect her family and friends.
After examining the Oxnard Police Department legal declarations provided
by Oxnard Police Department Officers, Nicolas M. Crisosto was convinced that in
11 years the Colonia Chiques Gang had been only responsible for four of the thirty-
nine homicides. He went on to mention that Alejandro Alonso’s (doctoral
candidate from the University of Southern California studying gang injunctions)
research demonstrates the reasons behind civil injunctions. He theorized that it will
benefit developers in downtown Oxnard and “pave the way for the further
gentrification of La Colonia” (Crisosto, 2004, editorial section). Alonso stated that
this had happened in other communities such as in the City of Los Angeles. First
the injunction was implemented, and then the Staples Center caused the working
class community to move out of the neighborhood because they could not afford to
live there (Crisosto, 2004, editorial section). One key argument that Crisosto, a
member of the Colonia Civil Rights Coalition, made was that the community
needed to be involved in every step of the process and the police should not
39
exaggerate the numbers and expect the community to accept them without
question. Just as there are these above stated reasons against the injunction, many
people support it.
Alex Piskorowski from Thousand Oaks stated in his letter to the Ventura
County Star on 3 August 2004 that Dolly Villa was trying to make the gang
injunction a race issue. He went on to state that many residents in La Colonia did
not speak up in fear of retaliation. He suggested she use her energy to fight gangs
and not support them.
Bakari Meyers (2004), who lives in the City of Port Hueneme and is an
Oxnard Police Officer, addressed Dolly Villa’s concerns about the injunction. He
advised everyone to go to the Oxnard Police Department Web site and obtain
accurate information and not allow Dolly Villa to mislead the public. Bakari
mentioned the fact that this injunction only affected one percent of the population.
This injunction could not be enforced until the gang member met the criteria
allowed by the Court and had been served.
A local medical doctor, Dr. Chris Landon, looked at the boundaries of the
injunction and supported the injunction. He argued that parents were reluctant to
allow children to play outside in gang-infested neighborhoods in fear of gang
violence. This led to health issues for the children such as asthma, obesity, and
other health risks. He said that the health field is starting to look at children’s health
issues in relation to community violence (Alvarez, 2004).
40
Since the injunction was introduced in Oxnard and has been at the forefront
of the media, Superior Court Judge Frederick Bysshe, who was the judge
overseeing the injunction, ordered law enforcement and community members to
include prevention and intervention. Instead of giving the gang member a way out,
there should be a model in place so prevention and intervention measures are used
to completely avoid the gang culture altogether. “But it is the Court’s opinion that
uncommon problems require uncommon solutions,” he said. “We as a community
need to look beyond the approaches that have been traditionally utilized in an
attempt to provide for community security” (Keating, 2004, September 21).
There are many arguments on the gang injunction. Each and everyone’s
opinion should be included and addressed before any action is taken. The fear of a
community is the unlawful exercise by a police department, which can be perceived
by many as a military state. By making the community part of the process, any
misinformation can be addressed with foresight. Recently, members of the
community and law enforcement officials held weekly meetings to explore the
possibility of an intervention and prevention program. These meetings were
requested by Judge Bysshe in order to facilitate a mediation process by both
groups. Additionally, this forum allowed both sides to express their concerns and
views in a constructive and collaborative manner.
Additionally, there are civil remedies that do not just focus on gangs, but
they can be used to stop a gang problem before it begins.
41
Such laws allow us to deal with neighbors who party too
loudly or allow junk and garbage to pile up. They also deal
with failure to meet zoning restrictions or requirements for
proper electrical and plumbing installation. Public
nuisance laws fall under the same general heading. (Klein,
1995, p. 182)
This method does not appear to be the typical gang suppression efforts seen in the
past. These new civil remedies work as well or even better because, at least, they
give the neighborhood (city) the power to pressure the landlord in making the
tenants comply with the law or the landlord will suffer civilly.
2.3.3 Anti-Social Behavior Orders (ABSOs) in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has ABSOs (Anti-Social Behavior Orders), which are
civil orders against a person who has become involved in a behavior that is going to
cause distress. These orders are there to protect the person from further acts against
him by the defendant. Through the Crime and Disorder Act, the ABSOs were first
introduced in England and Wales in 1998. Legislation after this act supported its
enforcement. In England and Wales, legislation through the Anti-Social Behaviour
Act 2003 made the original Crime and Disorder Act stronger (“Anti-Social
Behaviour Order,” 2006, p. 1).
These ABSOs are civil orders and must still be proved like any criminal
criterion. Any violation against the ABSOs can result in criminal penalties up to
five years in prison. The following is a list of ABSOs: vandalism, theft, abusive
behaviour, harassment, flyposting, and organization of outdoor parties. Some of
42
the less frequent ABSOs are orders such as when an ABSO was ordered for a
woman who wanted to commit suicide in a river. The logic behind this ABSO was
that the woman placed rescue workers at risk when they tried to save her. Another
less common ABSO was when an order was given to the town of Skegness that
allowed police to arrest anybody who created trouble with the city (“Anti-Social
Behaviour Order,” 2006, p. 2).
Although ABSOs are supported in England, a MORI (Market & Opinion
Research International) poll (“Anti-Social Behaviour Order,” 2006, p. 2) on June 9,
2005, showed that 82% of the British public supported ABSOs, but only 39% said
they were successful in their current structure. Some of the opponents of ABSOs
argue that it makes lawful behavior a criminal violation. Others argue that the
court has open range on ABSO penalties and little constraint on what it can impose.
They argue that the court can impose indefinite house arrest of any person who has
Tourette’s syndrome or a bizarre hairstyle. Additionally, individuals that break the
terms of their ABSOs can be jailed for up to five years (“Anti-Social Behaviour
Order,” 2006, p. 2).
It is apparent in the United States and England there are similarities and
difference in the adjudication of criminal/civil remedies. It is fair to say there will
always be an argument for and against gang injunctions and ABSOs. As long as
we live in a society where we value security and safety, there will always be
43
arguments for and against civil liberties. Striving to find a balance between safety
and civil liberties is what we need to attempt to do.
2.3.4 The City of Pasadena Model
A good example of how the civil process works is the City of Pasadena’s
Nuisance Abatement Program. It is a multi-agency task force that finds problems
and solutions for neighborhoods. The structure of this team allows the city to
address property problems. It teaches property owners how to remedy crime and
decay in their neighborhood. The members of the team include the City
Prosecutor’s office, Neighborhood Connections (a non-profit group), Pasadena
Police Department, Code Compliance, the Housing Department, and Day One (a
non-profit, community-based organization). The program trains landlords how to
prevent illegal activity on their properties. Experts in the field speak to them on a
myriad of issues facing landlords in hopes that they will follow through and
maintain their properties clean and crime free (“Nuisance Abatement Programs,”
2005).
Additionally, Pasadena has another program called City Resources against
Slum Housing. It focuses on homes to comply. The team consists of the City
Prosecutor’s Office, Code Compliance, the Health Department, Fire Department,
and the Police Department. They meet weekly to target properties which are in
severe violation. If in thirty days the property owner is not in compliance, a
criminal complaint is filed (“Nuisance Abatement Programs,” 2005).
44
Two other effective programs are the Community Partnership Against
Gangs (C.P.A.G.) and the Graffiti Task Force. The C.P.A.G. works with local law
enforcement agencies, State Parole, and the Los Angeles County Probation to share
information about gang members. They have developed a tracking system through
the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office in conjunction with the juvenile and
felony division of the District Attorney’s Office to track these gang members. As
part of their strategy, they also have integrated a gang curriculum in the Pasadena
Unified School District to make schools aware of gang issues. They have also
partnered with the Family Support program (F.S.P.) to provide the more at-risk
clients’ services with local providers. The Graffiti Task Force, which involves the
Pasadena Police Department, Code Enforcement, and the Pasadena School District,
is combined with the C.P.A.G. to take care of the graffiti problem in Pasadena.
They have modeled their Graffiti Task Force like the City of Anaheim’s
(“Nuisance Abatement Programs,” 2005).
The City of Pasadena is using a wide range of civil remedies to fight crime
in their city. There are multitudes of methods of fighting crime. A plan of action
needs to be taken by a city in order for the civil remedy process to work. The City
of Pasadena tells other law enforcement agencies that there are many ways to take
care of crime in a neighborhood. The civil process has worked extremely well in
Pasadena. The partnerships that have developed have changed the whole outlook
45
on crime in the city. There is cohesiveness in the neighborhood that automatically
and immediately reacts to rid crime.
Jane Jacobs (1993) argued that safety comes from having people look from
their settings (home, business) to stop crime.
In the first several chapters of this book, I have dwelt
heavily upon the self-government functions of city streets:
to weave webs of public surveillance and thus to protect
strangers as well as themselves; to grow networks of small-
scale, everyday public life and thus of trust and social
control, and to help assimilate children into reasonably
responsible and tolerant city life. (pp. 155–156)
She explained that neither cops nor streetlights are the solution, but people who live
in the area and who have a constant view of the occurrences in the neighborhood.
She also argued that small shop owners, cafés, and other hangouts create social
orders and not urban regeneration. Her book laid out the foundation to what we
know today as crime prevention through environmental design.
2.3.5 Physical Environment
Skogan (1990) wrote about physical decay and social disorder and how they
differ from one another. Physical disorder is long-term: it shows immediately in
neighborhoods. Disorders tend to leave permanent, visible marks on individuals
visiting the neighborhood. Disorders vary but include abandoned vehicles,
unkempt buildings, vacant lots, vandalism, trash, dog litter, or vacant lots which are
used as trash depositories.
46
Skogan further described vandalism “as a common fact in many
neighborhoods, and indeed it was the most highly rated kind of disorder” (p. 37).
Through his research, he noticed that vandals commit a small amount of vandalism
to private homes. They focus on street signs, buildings, vending machines, park
facilities, and schools. Skogan also noticed that many of these offenders are young
with little or no supervision:
A great deal of vandalism is carried out by bands of youths.
The fact that young vandals operate in groups suggests that
they gain prestige among their peers by showing off and
taking risks. Vandals come from poorer, high-density
residential areas where there are many children, and they
inflict most of their damage close to home. (pp. 37–38)
Lack of family structure causes this type of deviance. Many youths come
from “broken homes” where mom or dad is in jail. They have an uphill battle when
their own family foundation crumbles due to an unstable household. In order to
prevent juvenile delinquency, parents need to take responsibility for their children.
Parents cannot believe that community programs will save their children.
American youths need a role model so they are not influenced by their peers to
commit deviant acts such as vandalism. This type of crime is evident throughout
the world. No one country has found a way to rid this neighborhood cancer which
contributes to physical decay.
Some other contributors to physical decay are abandoned buildings or
buildings which have turned into slums due to landlord abandonment. These attract
47
homeless people, vandals, narcotic activity, and other illegal activity. Another
form is rubbish. Trash on the sidewalk, street, and alleys contributes to the decay
of the neighborhood. All of the mentioned physical disorders contribute to
neighborhood blight.
Skogan (1990) stated, “A final problem—rats. Concentrations of
abandoned buildings, junk-strewn vacant lots, and unbundled garbage provide
hiding places and levels of nourishment that ensure heavy rat infestations” (p. 46).
The physical environment is very important in reducing crime. It is imperative that
municipalities and neighborhoods work together to minimize the physical decay so
that crime stays low.
2.3.6 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is a fairly new
tool that law enforcement is implementing to reduce crime in neighborhoods. The
goal is to get rid of any opportunities to commit crimes in the environment. City
planners use this new tool to assist in reducing crime in their cities by designing a
neighborhood/business district in a way that crime cannot occur because they
consider physical environment to promote positive behavior. For example, city
planners and law enforcement agencies work together, using both crime statistics
and zoning laws to prevent negative uses, such as bars and alcohol outlets from
operating in a neighborhood that already has an over concentration of problematic
establishments. These strategies towards alcohol outlets have reduced the instances
48
of police calls for service to problematic bars, public drunkenness, and other
crimes.
Another example of CPTED is the use of a simple strategy of removing pay
phones or removing the pay phones’ ability to receive outside calls from areas that
are prone to loitering and drug traffic. Many CTPED strategies are cost effective
and easy to implement to remove the unwanted nuisance behavior from
neighborhoods. The goal is to remove the “environmental” cause of the nuisance
and “prevent” further public nuisance altogether.
The National Institute of Justice article dated August 1996, written by Dan
Fleissner and Fred Heinzelmann, “CPTED and Community Policing,” focused on
the history of CPTED and how the strategy developed since 1970 within the
context of community policing. The article proved that people have been talking
about physical design since the 1970s without the title of CPTED. Both of these
efforts have gained community trust and reduced crime. The key to CPTED and
community policing is partnerships with the community. Fleissner and
Heinzelmann also used the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment)
model to solve problems: “This problem-solving model provides an easy and
understandable framework for developing the broad partnerships necessary for
CPTED and community policing initiatives to succeed” (p. 2).
Another aspect that CPTED and community policing provide is informal
social control. “Environmental strategies that are designed to reduce crime and fear
49
(such as closing drug houses and using traffic diversion and control to promote
neighborhood cohesion) can also increase informal social control and enhance the
quality of neighborhood life” (p. 2).
In Hartford, Connecticut, a comprehensive CPTED/community policing
strategy was used so that residents could regain control of their neighborhoods.
They formed (CPTED) traffic diversions, neighborhood watch groups, and
community policing. The strategies allowed the residents a better quality of life.
This also demonstrated how a neighborhood is able to gain social control.
One general trend has been for CPTED and community
policing strategies to reinforce each other as they focus on
comprehensive problem solving, the promotion of working
relationships with the community, and the development of
education and orientation programs that can assist
residential and business groups as they address specific
neighborhood problems—especially those dealing with
crime and the environment. (pp. 3–4)
CPTED/community policing has a proven track record, but one question
still needs to be answered according to Fleissner and Heinzelmann:
Another question that needs additional study is how best to
institutionalize CPTED for private as well as public
development (e.g., as part of building codes). CPTED and
community policing together offer comprehensive
approaches that hold promise for effectively solving
problems of crime and crime prevention. (p. 4)
A local example of institutionalization of CPTED is the City of Oxnard which
instituted a policy regarding the approval of alcohol permits using a Conditional
50
Use Permit Process (CUP) that is part of the City’s planning process. As part of the
process of obtaining a permit to sell alcoholic beverages in the City of Oxnard, an
analysis of crime and alcohol outlet concentration must be completed to ensure that
the area where the business wants to open does not have a high crime rate and does
not have an over concentration of establishments that sell alcohol. This analysis
also takes into account the potential of a negative impact to the surrounding
neighborhood and the proximity to other nearby uses such as schools, churches,
and residential areas. The applicant must also meet with and gain approval from the
neighborhood council where he intends to open for business. Furthermore, the
police department adds standard conditions of operation specifically for the sale of
alcohol, for example mandatory Responsible Beverage, Sales and Service Training,
increased lighting, and other recommendations brought forth by the community and
the planning department prior to approval by the planning commission.
Crowe’s (2000) book is not written for an academic study, because it would
be an enormous task to cover all the cross disciplines that CPTED encompasses.
He said his book builds on Dr. C. Ray Jeffery’s (1977) book by expanding “upon
the assumption that the proper design and effective use of the built environment can
lead to a reduction in the fear of crime and the incidence of crime, and to an
improvement in the quality of life” (p. 1). The purpose of his book was not to tell
people how to design a building, but to make sure the right questions are asked to
better create a design to improve human activities.
51
CPTED in the United States came to fruition with the research done by Jane
Jacobs in 1961. According to Crowe, she sought to increase identity through
territorial and natural surveillance. Crowe wrote that Oscar Newman (1972)
showed the significance of natural surveillance, access control, and territorial
concern in his book Defensible Space: “Newman proved that a relationship exists
between space management and design, and crime in public housing environments”
(p. 6).
Dr. C. Ray Jeffrey (1977) was the person responsible for the phrase, Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design. His book covered the relationship
between urban design and crime. He used some of the excerpts of a 1968 report
from the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, which
made the public aware of the associations between urban design and crime. The
Commission studied U.S. cities between 1964 and 1968 when there were enormous
amounts of violence and racial unrest.
Richard Gardiner (1977), a landscape architect, was the key individual in
demonstrating the positive effects of CPTED in neighborhoods. His manual
Design for Safe Neighborhoods showed the results of positive neighborhood
designs in Hartford, Connecticut, neighborhoods. His strategies reduced crime and
improved the quality of life.
The most noteworthy CPTED development was Westinghouse Electric
Corporation. Through this company’s efforts and the U.S. Department of Justice,
52
consultants and subcontractors implemented successful CPTED concepts from
public housing into retail, transportation, and school environments: “Much was
learned from these efforts, which have formed the basis for current efforts in the
United States” (Crowe, 2000, p. 7).
In the 1980s, the federal government’s interest in CPTED subsided. Many
state and local government entities continued to use CPTED with positive results.
Many building codes required CPTED principles. CPTED created new rules in
terms of design and management of schools and the convenient food store industry.
“The state of Florida has taken the most steps by passing legislation and actively
conducting training for the public and private sectors” (p. 7). CPTED is still
popular, and its principles are still being implanted throughout the United States.
Murray (1995) wrote in his article, “The Physical Environment,” that it is
common sense that the physical environment plays a major role in relation to
crime. He covered the Defensible Space Theory, which Oscar Newman developed
from Jacobs’ book. Murray mentioned Newman’s idea that three relationships are
involved between people, their physical environment, and crime (territoriality,
Natural Surveillance, and “image and milieu”).
Initially, the territoriality theory became popular in the 1960s when Robert
Audrey wrote on the theory of territoriality. Newman used this theory and applied
it to a family and a community. He wrote that, if a family feels territoriality when
protecting an apartment complex entryway, they defend it at all cost to any
53
intruder. The same applies to a community. “Proper design can establish real and
symbolic barriers and demarcation lines that foster this sense of territoriality”
(Petersilia and Wilson, 1995, p. 351).
Natural Surveillance theory is important in defensible space theory because,
if one designs space to place more citizen observation on the street, the less likely
the criminal element will act and if he/she does, there will be plenty of witnesses,
thus assisting law enforcement and preventing crime.
Image and Milieu theory asserts that with proper design, a housing project
or neighborhood can rid itself of the criminal element. If physical decay is
allowed, then crime occurs. The key to this theory is “informal social control.” It
means that a society puts pressure to stop violations of norms. The argument is that
defensible space “increases the effectiveness of informal social control, which in
turn reduces crime” (p. 351). “The two-step process distinguishes defensible space
theory from traditional physical means of deterring crime by such things as better
locks, higher fences, and stouter doors” (p. 351).
2.3.7 Broken Windows Theory
This theory is derived from James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in an
article in the Atlanta Monthly in March 1982. They stated,
If the first broken window in a building is not repaired, then
people who like breaking windows will assume that no one
cares about the building and more windows will be broken.
Soon the building will have no windows…. (cited in Coles
and Kelling, 1996, p. xv)
54
Wilson and Kelling believed that crime occurred because of laid-back
police efforts and that more proactive law enforcement procedure was the key to a
safer neighborhood. They went on to state that if uncouth comments by youths
were left uncontested, they believed that nobody cared and committed more serious
crimes. The application of this theory was more evident during Mayor Guiliani’s
administration in New York. Police enforced the lowest level of crimes such as
jaywalking, vagrancy, and public intoxication. Overall crime dropped
immediately, especially violent crime. As one can see, this short synopsis of
COPPS and the “Broken Window Theory” works if people are willing to invest in
the resources.
This part of the dissertation explores the arguments of Catherine M. Coles
and George L. Kelling (1996) vs. Ralph Taylor (2001). Coles and Kelling (1996)
argued that the Broken Windows Theory is correct, while Taylor argued that the
Broken Windows Theory is partially true, but in order to rid crime, one needs to
provide economic stability to the individuals who live in high-crime areas. Cole
and Kelling focused on controlling disorderly behavior. By doing this, they
reasoned, the crime rate should drop significantly. Cole and Kelling offered new
ideas rather than traditional ones (tougher laws, the death penalty, more prisons,
and the three strikes law). They wanted the police to develop partnerships with
communities and local organizations to fight crime. They discussed leadership in
crime prevention by “fixing broken windows.”
55
Their crime prevention tactics were not the typical passive approach. They
believed in aggressive confrontation of public disorder. The typical crimes of
vagrancy, vandalism, and panhandling fall under the category of public disorder.
Their influence was evident during former Police Chief Bratton’s tenure during
which he used Cole and Kelling’s policy recommendations and implemented them
in the New York City Police Department. Cole and Kelling’s work is being used
across the nation by other police departments as their concept of Fixing Broken
Windows receives national attention.
Taylor (2001) focused on crime and disorder in 30 Baltimore
neighborhoods. Taylor used the term “incivilities” to connect the crime in the
neighborhood. He compared the data from 1981–82 and mentioned that some of
the crime could be correlated with physical decay. As for other crimes, this kind of
analysis is impossible. Taylor’s research showed that increased assaults can be
connected to physical disorder but rapes with social disorder. Furthermore, he
claimed that “incivilities” did reflect the primary disorder, but it was insecurely
connected. All of these problems related to “incivilities” need distinctive
responses. Taylor argued that law enforcement spent too much time on a small set
of law enforcement strategies and that it needed to try something different. The
law enforcement philosophy has been to arrest the disorderly and move the
homeless. Other avenues need to be explored.
56
The main argument between Taylor and Cole and Kelling is that Taylor
understood that the Broken Windows theory is part of the solution to rid crime but
not the whole solution. Taylor argued that the community needs to examine
neighborhoods a little deeper, just like in Baltimore, to realize that economic
decline is the root problem of crime. In order to take care of the crime issues, the
whole community (business people, politicians, and leaders) needs to work together
to provide economic opportunities for those residents who live in high-crime areas.
57
Chapter 3
___________________________________________________________________
CASE STUDY: THE COLONIA CHIQUES GANG
3.1. La Colonia Neighborhood
Before discussing the Colonia Chiques Gang, it is informative to explore
the beginnings of La Colonia Neighborhood in more detail. A complete
understanding of the neighborhood allows one to understand how the gang evolved.
La Colonia neighborhood developed around a sugar beet factory, agriculture,
packing plants, and railways. Since this was an agriculture area, many Mexicans
were drawn to it in search of work. The word “Colonia” in English means colony.
In Mexico it means a small colony located in the outskirts of a large city. In the
early 1940s, La Colonia was the most affordable place in the City of Oxnard to
live. Many African-Americans worked in the local cannery and nearby civil
servant jobs. La Colonia was an area where affordable housing was initially built
in the city and where public housing was located. Vicky Gonzales, a resident in
Colonia, claimed that many Colonia homes were moved from other parts of the
area, some from as far as Chavez Ravine in Los Angeles. Many African Americans
moved into Colonia at this time due to the affordable and public housing (Holland,
2004, p. 57).
58
At first glance of the City of Oxnard map, one notices that the city is
divided in half by a railroad track, which begins in the north end of the city and
makes its way south through the city. Significantly, the railroad divides the
Eastside from the rest of the city.
Colonia is on the eastside of Oxnard and was known as
“Eastside” and anything west of the train tracks became
known as “Westside.” The division in the city became a
way to informally associate oneself with an area in the city.
(p. 57)
As the population of the city expanded, Colonia did not keep pace with the
rest of the city. It was referred to as a “barrio” or the “projects.” Many citizens
considered that any residential neighborhood outside of La Colonia was more
affluent. People used the term “Scalon” which meant “a step up,” but the correct
Spanish word is “Escalon.” Residents who lived outside La Colonia were
perceived to have more money and social status. In the late 1960s “Scalon”
referred to the Southside of Oxnard and was eventually one of the rival gangs
against Colonia Chiques (p. 57).
As new neighborhoods developed in the city, many residents claimed
territory as their own. This transition was not the beginning of the Colonia Chiques
gang, but many newly developed communities were proud of where they lived and
as result of this “neighborhood” graffiti began to appear. In La Colonia one could
see “Colonia,” “CO,” and “COL” in the alleys and on fences. One could even find
individuals tattooing their bodies with the name of their neighborhood (p. 57).
59
Since the city was made up of a network of railways, highways, port, and
harbor, with easy access in and out of the city, the drug trade flourished. This was
when Mexican Brown (heroin) infiltrated La Colonia. Additionally, the over-
availability of alcohol and marijuana also made its way into La Colonia. In the
1930s and 1940s, the drug trade and crime ran rampant throughout the city. Many
residents associated the City of Oxnard with the City of Chicago. The whole
notion behind this was the fact that the city was a major drug distribution center for
southern California which made its way to Chicago. Coincidently, many families
arrived from Chicago during this time. Since the City of Oxnard was being
mentioned in the same phrase as the City of Chicago, many believed that the crime
in Oxnard began to mirror the crime in Chicago bringing the gangster era made
famous by Al Capone to light. This is how La Colonia began to be known as
“Little Chicago.” It was transformed to “Chiques” when it was mentioned in
Spanish. Eventually, the whole city was called “Chiques,” and people tattooed the
words “Little Chicago” on their bodies. The name “Chiques” started to be used by
other Hispanic gangs in the city (p. 58).
In any gang there is system of narcotics. When it comes to narcotics, the
narcotic system continues and the boundaries of a gang cease to exist. This is
where all gangs unite and work together to keep the narcotic activity flowing. The
Colonia Chiques gang used narcotic activity as a way of holding power. When
economic power in a gang exists, gang leaders make all the important decisions. If
60
the leader is the main supplier in his gang, then the rest of the gang looks up to him.
The reason behind this is that drugs provide the income to obtain materialistic
items. Normally, citizens would not be able to have these items if it were not for
the sale of narcotics. La Colonia is a poor neighborhood where the sale of
narcotics is everywhere. The constant sale of narcotics is fuelled by the desire of
the community drug addicts to use these illicit drugs (p. 58).
The abuse of drugs has been a way of life for gang members since the
1970s. The average age of gang members who start drugs was twelve. They
initially experimented with marijuana and eventually, within one year, graduated to
other more potent drugs such as heroin. Gang members also used LSD, heroin,
PCP, and canabinol. Methamphetamine and cocaine were not normally used by
gang members at that time since they were considered a “white man’s highs.” PCP
arrived in Oxnard from Los Angeles. In addition, drug dealers sold cross-tops,
pink ladies, and Quaaludes. In (1986), crack cocaine landed in the streets of
Oxnard, and gang members desired it because it was cheap. The most influential
drug in Colonia is heroin, which has plagued the area and has addicted many
veteranos (old time gang members) since the 1970s. Many of these veteranos
served time for drug offenses (p. 59).
3.2 Car Club Influence
The birth of car clubs in Oxnard began in the 1950s. It became obvious in
the early stages that the car club scene would take an active role in the development
61
of the Colonia Chiques gang. The cars that were most popular at the time were low
riders. Some early car clubs included the Untouchables (1950s), Dukes (1962
formed in Los Angeles), and the Stylelistics (1968). These car clubs cruised
Cooper Road, which became very popular, and many people began to congregate
wearing their zoot suits. Due to the many people on the street, drug and alcohol
use caused many fistfights, also known as “rumbles.” The car clubs fought on
Cooper Road and went down to Los Angeles to fight. In this era, it was only fist
fights (Holland, 2004, p. 59).
Additionally, in the 1970s other car clubs came into existence such as
Eastside Classics, La Gente, New Image, Fantasy Life, Latin Cruisers, Aztlan, A
Touch of Class, Brown Sensations, and Switch. Many car clubs congregated on
Cooper Road causing major traffic problems. Emergency response vehicles were
not able to pass due to increased traffic congestion. In 1976 car clubs started to
move to Saviers Road to cruise because of the police enforcement on Cooper Road.
In 1979 the Oxnard Police Department shut down cruising on Cooper Road
completely (pp. 59–60).
3.3 The Beginning of Colonia Chiques
In the beginning of the Colonia Chiques gang, many children who grew up
in the neighborhood understood how tough it was to live there. They knew right
from the onset they had to be tough to survive. The children of La Colonia played
in the streets and local parks. They attended the same schools where friendships
62
blossomed. In 1972, an 18-year-old known as “Mr. Blue” was the founder of
Eastside Classics. The son of a local pastor in La Colonia, he had an influential
reputation. He was an individual who enjoyed working on gasoline engines. Mr.
Blue lived in La Colonia, which had a large Mexican population at this time. Mr.
Blue was not an innocent individual but one who was beginning to develop a
criminal rap sheet through high school (Holland, 2004, p. 60).
An incident that occurred to Mr. Blue in 1972 changed the history of La
Colonia into the gang that it is today. In 1972, Mr. Blue was approached by a
Mexican who needed to push his Volkswagen. Mr. Blue was not going to push the
VW with his 1963 Chevrolet Impala so he did not oblige. Mr. Blue suspected that
this person was from Scalon and was attacked and struck in the head. Mr. Blue
remembered that other Scalon members appeared and chased him to an alley where
he was cornered. The subjects began to yell “Scalon.” It was with the assistance of
“border brothers” (illegal aliens) from Mexico who helped Mr. Blue that he
survived this incident. He was eventually driven back to La Colonia by the “border
brothers” and dropped off (pp. 60–61).
The very next day Mr. Blue contacted all of his La Colonia friends, and this
is where they made a decision. “If they hit one of us, then they hit all of us,” and
“if I hit one person, we all hit him” (p. 61). This was the beginning of the Eastside
Classics. The police identified this group as a car club that had seven or eight cars
(Chevrolets) with 50 members. These vehicles were low-riders with hydraulics
63
popular at the time. To identify themselves they had T-shirts made with the words
“Eastside Classics.” Mr. Blue was not a man of great stature at 5’8” and 180
pounds. He had no tattoos but was responsible for leading Colonia into many
confrontations with other gangs and clubs. During this time, the fights usually
involved fists, knives, and different types of clubs. The Eastside Classics went to
the Ventura County Fair and fought the Ventura Avenue gang. They fought at the
Ventura Theatre in Los Angeles and even with Scalon. They fought frequently, but
they did not commonly use weapons (p. 61).
People remember 1976 when the car clubs began to cruise Saviers Road and
the first time that gangs used guns during confrontations. Large caliber weapons
were not used; .22 and .25 calibers were the guns of choice. Others preferred the
Midnight Special because it made a quiet sound making detection more difficult.
In 1976 the murder rate skyrocketed. Prior to this year Oxnard average 2.6
homicides per year. In 1976 there were 15 homicides and the following fifteen
years 12.1 homicides per year, including the record high of 26 in 1979. Detective
Holland spoke to one veterano who told him that he went to nine funerals that year.
The veteranos in the neighborhood reminisced of the days when fists settled
disputes instead of guns. This type of behavior made gangs more dangerous and
lethal than before (pp. 61–62).
An incident on April 18, 1976, changed Eastside Classics. On this date,
Colonia went to the Elks Lodge located in the South side of Oxnard to fight Scalon.
64
During the fight Eastside Classics member Marco Ortiz killed Scalon member Luis
Provencio. After the altercation, the Oxnard Police Department arrived and
arrested many Eastside Classic members. The very next day Ortiz went to visit Mr.
Blue and admitted to the homicide. Ortiz told Mr. Blue that he would go into
hiding for a while, but Mr. Blue did not hear from Ortiz for thirty years.
Apparently, Ortiz had gone to Mexico and then returned to Oxnard. Ortiz lived
under an alias with his girlfriend. Ortiz and his girlfriend had a domestic fight and
police arrived. She told police who he really was, and he was arrested for murder
for which is currently serving. A couple weeks later Mr. Blue accidentally
murdered one of his fellow members by Colonia Park. He was sentenced to ten
years for murder but got out in six. When Mr. Blue was arrested, he stated, “You
guys are taking me away from my gang” (p. 62).
After the Elks lodge incident and the accidental murder, Eastside Classics
just died out. Many original members were imprisoned, and the core of the club
was divided. The younger members wanted to continue, but it just went away. The
younger generation knew that they needed to stay together because they would be
attacked by their rivals. During this time, the Rose Park neighborhood, which in
the past was considered only an extension of Colonia, wanted to be part of it. In
the 1980s the Rose Park neighborhood was accepted as part of Colonia (p. 63).
During the 1970s, it was difficult to identify who was part of any gang.
There were no specific colors or physical markers that showed which neighborhood
65
a gang member represented. The typical attire was white T-shirt, Pendleton’s,
corduroys, and hush puppies. African-American males wore short hair with no
braids. Mexican males had long hair and wore hairnets and beanies. The shaved
heads came into play later on in the gang. The braids that an African-American
male displayed were not seen until after going to prison. Popular music at this time
was “Earth, Wind, and Fire,” “Cool and the Gang,” and rhythm and blues. When
Mr. Blue finished serving his sentence, he returned to Oxnard to learn that the gang
had grown considerably and stretched throughout the city. He also noticed other
gangs had been created and now challenged Colonia Chiques (p. 63).
3.4 Other Gangs
Many other gangs developed because of the mere presence of Colonia
Chiques. Scalon Chiques did not come into existence as Colonia Chiques. The
Scalon generation that existed in the 1960s is where everything started. Described
as the roots of the gang, they lived in the Hueneme projects in the 1960s. Known
for its low income housing, it was the area of Hueneme Road and Ventura Road in
the City of Port Hueneme where the income for the families who lived there was
from field laborers and civil service. Next to this area is the Port Hueneme and
Naval Air Station Port Hueneme. In close proximity to these apartments was
Moranda Park where many hung out near the handball courts. These courts were
eventually torn down. Most of the juveniles eventually attended Hueneme High
School. Scalon and Colonia Chiques were in constant conflict with each other.
66
There was a fair every July 4 when the two gangs got together to fight. Ultimately,
many of the families moved out of the “projects” into Oxnard to areas near
Community Park, A Street and Bryce Canyon Avenue, and West Spruce Street
(Holland, 2004, pp. 63–64).
In the late 1970s, there was distinctive split in the Scalon Chiques gang.
Two other gangs developed in the area, Calle A (A Street) and Calle Paula (Paula
Street). The gang members who lived west of Saviers Road were known as Scalon
Chiques Calle A, and the gang east of Saviers Road as Calle Paula (Paula Street).
Until this split occurred, the only gangs individuals claimed were Colonia and
Scalon. In 1978 numerous students attended a ditching party in the vicinity off
Channel Islands Boulevard and Patterson. The party involved individuals from A
Street and females who lived in the Colonia apartments. All attendees were
drinking the popular beer Mad Dog 20. Subsequently, an argument occurred
between some girls and one of the girls yelled “Colonia” and another person yelled
“A Street.” Although they still referred to themselves as Scalon, this was the
beginning of Calle A gang (p. 64).
Graffiti was prevalent in the area of Spruce Street alley and all the way west
to Ventura Road where the Scalon gang hung out. In this area one could see
“Scalon,” “Chiques,” and “Calle A” tagged on the walls. In addition, the area
behind the Liquor Cellar at Channel Islands Boulevard and Saviers Road displayed
this graffiti. Occasionally, their graffiti was crossed out by Colonia Chiques,
67
upsetting the gang members. To intimidate people, they flashed “SC” (Southside
Chiques) when anybody passed by the areas mentioned above (p. 64).
As mentioned earlier in this paper, guns became involved in gang violence
in 1978. One specific shooting was in the area of Saviers Road where a Calle A
gang member was hanging out at a local bar. Colonia gang members were in the
nearby restaurant when gunfire broke out. In this year, a gang member from Calle
A was killed at the beach. It is believed that it was a Colonia Chiques gang
undertaking. All of this activity increased retaliation. This same year a meeting
was held with Scalon gang members to decide how to take action against Colonia.
Scalon knew that Colonia had many guns and their prison experience would
definitely make them a formidable opponent. Additionally, Colonia had members
who were in the “mob” which helped educate other gang members. Scalon knew it
would be a difficult feat but worked diligently to close the gap in one month.
Scalon retaliated with drive-bys. The war between these two gangs increased and
they both remain enemies today (pp. 64–65).
In 1980, a homicide occurred in the area of Channel Islands Boulevard at
Saviers Road. The incident occurred next to the Cal Fed building at the above
mentioned intersection where a group of Calle A gang members yelled “Calle A.”
Along came a Colonia gang member in a vehicle and shot and killed one of the
Calle A gang members. In the same year a Calle A gang member committed a
burglary where numerous handguns were obtained such as .38 specials, .45’s, and 9
68
mm guns. The younger gang members held all the guns since the older gang
members knew that the juvenile laws were lenient. In the same year the Scalon
gang relocated to Charles Street and areas of Perkins Road. The older gang
members stayed near A Street and Bryce Canyon Road. Inevitably, all the Scalon
Gangs joined forces and became Southside Chiques. In 1992, they began
identifying themselves by wearing “White Sox” (the Chicago White Sox
professional baseball team) attire which meant they were from the Southside of
Oxnard. In 2003, Southside Chiques began to wear the Oakland Raiders attire to
identify their gang (pp. 64–65).
Furthermore, while Southside fought with Colonia, the Paula Street gang
came into existence in 1977. Students who attended Channel Islands High School
and resided in the north Blackstock neighborhood frequented the Island Plaza
shopping center. Eventually called the Mayfair Boys for a store in the mall in
1979, they decided to call themselves the Paula Street gang because many of the
members lived on this street. The members were Channel Islands High School
athletes who did not have tattoos but had shaved heads. This was the first gang to
have shaved heads in the City of Oxnard. Hispanic gang members at this time
wore long hair. Paula Street engaged residents in the Cal/Gisler neighborhood in
violent gang acts. Other gangs shot at them many times. In 1979, the Colonia gang
was involved in a shooting on Fournier Street. This same year Paula Street went to
the Port Hueneme Pier and shot a Colonia gang member. Consequently, Colonia
69
put a “green light” on the Paula Street gang. In other words, members had
permission to shoot a Paula Street gang member (p. 66).
In 1983, Colonia shot a Paula Street gang member at the Port Hueneme
Pier. Police conducted an investigation and made an arrest in Texas. The Paula
Street gang member identified the suspect and testified against him. This act gave
the Paula Street gang the reputation of being “rats,” which alienated the gang, and
nobody wanted to associate with them. In the same year, Calle A gathered and
Paula Street approached them with an offer of peace. They also hoped that Calle A
would join them in fighting Colonia. Calle A rejected the offer because of Paula
Street’s reputation. Paula Street then made the same suggestion with El Rio, and
they also refused. El Rio then joined forces with Calle A to engage Colonia. In
1987, Paula Street broke apart and the members went their own way (p. 66).
Two additional gangs formed in 1977 and 1978, the Loma Flats gang and
Lemonwood Chiques. The Loma Flats gang was several students who attended
Haydock Junior High School. Their whole existence was based on the fact that
they needed to protect themselves from Colonia Chiques and Paula Street. Loma
Flats engaged in violent behavior such as a drive by which resulted in a baby being
killed. Scalon referred to them as Hill Street Baby Killers. In the 1980s, their
name officially changed to Loma Flats. In 1978, Lemonwood Chiques was
established in a small eastern community known as Lemonwood. The people that
came to this neighborhood were from Colonia housing projects. These people
70
continued to claim Colonia and called themselves Little Colonia. In the 1980s they
became their own, took the name Lemonwood Chiques, and engaged Colonia
Chiques (p. 67).
3.5 Deterioration of Gang Code of Conduct
In the 1960s, whoever claimed Colonia lived in the Colonia neighborhood
and was raised there. There was no “jumping into” a gang at that time, but this
evolved later in the gang culture. Many individuals wanted to claim Colonia but
were attacked by the Colonia members who lived there. If a person wanted to
claim Colonia and did not live or was not raised in the Colonia, he had to do extra
work for the gang, such as commit additional crimes to show loyalty. Furthermore,
certain values existed among gang members. They did not attack women or harass
Christians, churches, or old people. Additionally, gang members did not attack
other gang members who were with non-gang members. One example of this was
seen with a Scalon gang member who was trying to avenge his brother’s death. He
saw a rival gang member but refused to avenge his brother’s death because the rival
gang member was with his mother. Mr. Blue did not agree with this value and
advised the gang it was important to attack the whole family because nothing was
sacred (Holland, 2004, p. 67).
Colonia Chiques gang members were the first to attend prison. This
statement is sarcastic because, when these individuals go to prison, it is like going
to college. They learn how to commit crimes and not be detected. Since Colonia
71
gang members were the first ones to go to prison, they were the ones who taught
other gang members how to be better criminals. The veteranos have always
schooled the younger gang members, teaching them it was easier to sell drugs than
to work a real job. Today, one sees veteranos drug addicted (mainly heroin) and
their bodies full of tattoos. Recently, due to stiffer penalties, many of these
veteranos have been in prison longer or are incarcerated for life, not allowing them
the ability to teach the younger gang members the values and culture of the gang.
Guns, “gangsta rap,” and movies that praise gangs changed the values of the gangs
today. The new generation of gang members does not listen to the veteranos (p.
68).
Due to the gang violence in Colonia, many citizens chose to move to
different neighborhoods in Oxnard. The whole reason behind this was an attempt
by parents to get their children out of the gang. This migration spread Colonia
Chiques throughout the city, making them targets by rival gangs because they were
still claiming Colonia but lived in the rival gang’s neighborhood. Many drive-by
shootings occurred because of this migration (pp. 68–69).
In the beginning, racism between Mexicans and African-Americans was
almost non-existent. It developed later in the Colonia when they were getting out
of prison where they learned to hate each other. Many believe racism is worse now
than ever before among Mexican and African-American gang members. Another
theory has died over the years. In the past, when a gang member fought a rival
72
gang member, it was a fair, one-on-one fight and nobody else got involved. The
rest of the gang members surrounded them to stop anyone who tried to get
involved. It is no longer a fair fight. Today, one sees a sole victim attacked by
numerous gang members. The rules of the past have gone, and there is no fear any
more. There used to be somebody in charge of a gang, but that concept too has
died. The rules have long gone. Both women and old people are attacked by gang
members today. It does not matter any more if victims are children, wives,
mothers, or fathers. They are attacked regardless, and the number of innocent
people who suffer is enormous. The gang code of conduct continues to deteriorate
(p. 69).
3.6 Gang Member Vehicles and Altercations among
Themselves
The Colonia Chiques gang has grown to more than one thousand members.
Some say it is two thousand members who fight among each other because they are
so large in numbers that they don’t know each other. There have been police-
documented incidents that Colonia gang members have stabbed other Colonia gang
members.
Lastly, the gangs have become mobile in recent years and prefer certain
types of cars. In the past, they drove Buick Regals and Old Cutlasses, the cars that
the car clubs used. They modified them to be low-riders. Colonia Chiques is
known for stealing cars so they can commit crimes and avoid detection. The above
73
mentioned cars are easy to “hotwire” and steal. Today, gang members drive all
types of cars. The traditional cars mentioned above are not as popular any more
(pp.71–72).
3.7 History of Oxnard Police Department Response to Gangs
According to Neail Holland, Colonia grew to be known as the
neighborhood on the other side of the tracks. There were not many roads in to
Colonia, and to magnify the problem the railroad track ran along Oxnard
Boulevard, making the police response take longer. Furthermore, with constant
fighting against police officers, officers were struck by rocks and bottles.
Eventually, a two-man car was assigned to Colonia and was there until the late
1990s. During these turbulent times gangs did not dislike police. Gangs fought
other gangs, and the police just got in the way (p. 1).
In 1975, the Oxnard Police department began to work on a new concept
called team policing. Officer Gene Thayer was the first Beat Coordinator who had
the distinct pleasure to be known as “Frankenstein” in the Colonia. He was
respected by all because he was fair. It was during this time that the Neighborhood
Car Plan was introduced (p. 1).
During the tenure of Chief Robert Owens, the gang problem was not
addressed. Some people were not interested in gangs and others believed that it
would just make the gang more powerful if gangs were brought to the forefront.
During this time Assistant Chief Cady made it a point to advise the public that all
74
the Oxnard Police Officers were gang officers and that is how the gang problem
was addressed. Crimes that involved gangs were handled like any others. In
September 1988 the Street Terrorism and Prevention Act was passed (p. 1).
Additionally, there were car clubs in the City of Oxnard; Officers Mike
Williamson, Frank Paramo, John Loredo, and Gary Lumas became the “go-to
officers reference” about activities of car club members. Some officers later
switched assignments or decided not to work with the car clubs because of the
negative stereotype. Some members of these car clubs believed the officers left
because of the negative connotations of being connected with the low rider cars (p.
1).
In 1988, gangs in the City of Oxnard increased. New gangs appeared on the
radar, including the infamous Bloods, Crips, and 18
th
Street gangs. It was also
during this time that sports attire was used by gang members for identification. The
gangs actually did the police a favor because sports attire made it easier for police
to identify gang members and to which gang they belonged. It also possibly
skewed the statistics on gang memberships because of all the gang plus others who
wanted to be gang members wore the same attire (pp. 1–2).
In 1989 the Oxnard Police Department assigned officers to local schools.
These officers made it a school rule that wearing baseball hats was unacceptable as
many of the gang members wore baseball hats to identify their allegiance to their
respective gangs. This action taken by the police department and schools made it
75
more desirable to attend school without the presence of gangs to intimidate other
students. Furthermore, in 1990 Chief Hurtt became the new Police Chief. He
viewed the prior enforcement of gangs to be less aggressive than it should be.
During his tenure he established a Gang Task Force, three officers assigned to gain
intelligence on the activities of Oxnard gangs. During this time, the Serious
Habitual Offender (SHO) program was implemented. The recruitment of gang
informants was important to the police department in order to reduce gang crimes
(p. 2).
In 1991, the gangs in the City of Oxnard decreased to just 12. Additionally,
Officer Jim O’Brien was the graffiti detective who developed the first program that
began the arrest and prosecution of taggers/graffiti vandals. In 1993 the homicide
rate increased to seventeen, doubled from the previous year. This was the first time
that the police department took the most aggressive approach. In 1995, Glen Velo
and Dennis McMaster were assigned as full-time gang detectives. The most
proactive in identifying gang members which made their selection the right fit for
the assignment, they were assigned to the Major Crime Unit and worked closely
with the new gang enforcement unit. Sgt. Dan Christian was the first supervisor of
the gang enforcement with six officers under his direct supervision. The unit
stayed together until the $250,000 grant was depleted. In 1995, Detective Glen
Velo was promoted and was replaced by Jeff Shelton. In 1996 the group received
some additional funding as it was now under the direction of Sgt. Gary Chennault,
76
a four-man unit which continued for about nine months. In 1997, Officer Shelton
left the gang unit and was replaced with Detective Terry Burr. This was a time of
change in the Oxnard Police Department in terms of establishing a new unit called
the Street Crimes. Sgt. Randy Coates was the supervisor for the plain-clothes unit,
and the uniformed gang unit was supervised by Sr. Officer Robert Coughlin. With
this new unit, 1997 yielded only four homicides, the lowest year since 1972 (p. 2).
Furthermore, in 1997 the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team
became a full-time unit. In 1998, part of their mission was to work closely with
gang detectives and patrol City of Oxnard areas infested with gangs. Another
significant event during the year was the demolition of the handball courts in
Colonia Park. This was the “hang out” place for many years of the Colonia
Chiques Gang. In 1999 the Federal Bureau of Investigation created and established
the Violent Crime Task Force (VCTF). The primary focus of the group was to
target the Colonia Chiques Gang and interrupt their gang activities. The Oxnard
Police Gang Detectives were assigned to this unit. In July 2001, the Oxnard Police
Department received federal money from the Gang Violence Suppression grant.
This assisted the Oxnard Police Departments’ efforts in the area of enforcement,
prevention and education. In September 2003, the Oxnard Police Department and
the District Attorney’s Office initiated the first steps towards a civil gang injunction
against the Colonia Chiques. In 2004 the gang injunction was made permanent in
the City of Oxnard (pp. 2–3). In order to be included into the Colonia Chiques
77
Gang Injunction, one must be identified by the following criteria: admission; gang
tattoos; gang clothing; committing/possessing gang graffiti; possessing gang
writings; at gang gatherings/areas; displaying gang hand signs; observed with a
gang member; assisting or arrested for gang crime; information from family,
informants, and other agencies. The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office and
the Oxnard Police Department researched and learned about the pitfalls in other
gang injunctions and had measures in place to protect the innocent. The following
pages provide the new rules of living for those who fall under the jurisdiction of the
Colonia Chiques Gang Injunction (Table 2, Oxnard Police Department’s Permanent
Colonia Chiques Injunction Prohibitions).
78
Table 2. Oxnard Police Department’s Permanent Colonia Chiques Injunction
Prohibitions
PERMANENT COLONIA CHIQUES INJUNCTION
PROHIBITIONS
a. No Witness Intimidation: Confronting, intimidating,
annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking,
assaulting or battering any person known to be a witness to or
victim of crime, or any person known to have complained about
the gang activities of COLONIA CHIQUES;
b. No Associating With Other Known COLONIA CHIQUES
Members: Standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or
appearing, anywhere in public view or anyplace accessible to
the public, with any known member of COLONIA CHIQUES
EXCEPT: (1) when all members are inside a school attending a
class or on school business; (2) when all members are inside a
church; and/or (3) when actively engaged in some business,
trade, profession or occupation which requires such presence,
provided the prohibition against associating shall apply to all
forms of travel (except in school buses) to or from any of the
locations described in (1)-(3) above;
c. No Guns, Imitation Firearms or Dangerous Weapons:
Anywhere in public view or anyplace accessible to the public:
(1) possessing any gun, ammunition, imitation firearm,
including, but not limited to replica guns, toy guns, water guns,
replica non guns or other imitation firearm [as defined in Penal
Code section 12550 and 15 USC 5001(c)] or dangerous
weapon, including but not limited to: knives (steak knives,
pocket knives or any other knives), clubs, concealed or loaded
firearms, BB guns, or any instrument that expels a projectile
Table continues next page
79
Table 2 (continued). Oxnard Police Department’s Permanent Colonia
Chiques Injunction Prohibitions
such as a BB or a pellet, through the force of air pressure, CO2
pressure, or spring action, or any spot marker gun, baseball bats
(unless participating in a baseball or softball game sanctioned
by a governmental, religious or non-profit entity), glass bottles,
replica firearms (plastic, toy or otherwise), or any other
instrument that is prohibited in Penal Code section 12020, (2)
knowingly remaining in the presence of someone who is in
possession of such gun, ammunition or weapons, or (3)
knowingly remaining in the presence of such gun, ammunition
or weapons;
d. No Engaging in Fighting: Fighting anywhere in public view
or anyplace accessible to the public, including public streets,
alleys, and/or public and private property;
e. No Using Gang Gestures: Using words, phrases, physical
gestures, or symbols commonly known as hand signs which
describe or refer to the gang known as COLONIA CHIQUES;
such as: placing the thumb and any other finger together to
form a “C” “O” “L” “O” “N” “I” “A,” “CO,” “CH,” “X,” “3,”
or “E,” and “S,” or any other gang hand sign or gang gesture;
f. No Wearing Gang Clothing: Wearing clothing that bears the
name or letters that spell out the name of the gang known as
COLONIA CHIQUES and/or represents the gang, such as but
not limited to: Dallas Cowboy clothing, Colts clothing, and any
variations or combinations of “CO,” “CH,” “COCH,”
“COXCA,” “13,” “CEO,” “COLTS,” “CO Boys,” “Chiques,”
California Cowboys, “Colonia,” “La Colonia,” “East,” “Side,”
“Eastside,” “Evil Side” or any five-pointed star, i.e., ;
Table continues next page
80
Table 2 (continued). Oxnard Police Department’s Permanent Colonia
Chiques Injunction Prohibitions
g. No Illegal Drugs or Controlled Substances: Without a
prescription, (1) selling, possessing or using any controlled
substance including but not limited to marijuana, hashish,
cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or any other controlled
substance (as defined by the Health & Safety Code) without a
prescription, and pipes or bongs (and any other paraphernalia as
defined in Health & Safety Code section 11364 and Business
and Professions Code Section 4060) used for illegal drug use;
(2) knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone selling,
possessing or using any controlled substance (as defined by the
Health & Safety Code) or such related paraphernalia;
h. No Public Consumption of Alcohol: Anywhere in public
view or anyplace accessible to the public, (1) possessing an
open container of an alcoholic beverage; or (2) knowingly
remaining in the presence of anyone possessing an open
container of an alcoholic beverage; or (3) knowingly remaining
in the presence of an open container of an alcoholic beverage;
i. No Graffiti: Spray painting or otherwise applying graffiti on
any public or private property, including but not limited to: the
street, alley, residences, block walls, vehicles, and/or any other
real or personal property open to public or private view;
j. No Possession of Graffiti Tools: Unless going to or from an
art class given by a public or private school during the day time
hours, using or possessing any tool, object or paraphernalia,
including but not limited to: solidified paint markers,
permanent markers, etching tools, aerosol paint, whiteout pens,
acrylic paint tubes, various paint can tips, razor blades, or other
graffiti tool;
Table continues next page
81
Table 2 (continued). Oxnard Police Department’s Permanent Colonia
Chiques Injunction Prohibitions
k. No Trespassing: Being present on any real property not open
to the general public which is not owned or legally possessed
by a parent or guardian, except with (1) the prior written
consent of the owner, owner’s agent, or the person in lawful
possession of the property; or (2) in the presence of and with
the voluntary consent of the owner, owner’s agent, or the
person in lawful possession of the property;
l. No Violation of Curfew: Being outside between the hours of
10:00 p.m. on any day and sunrise the following day, unless
(1) going to or from a legitimate meeting or entertainment
activity (specifically excluding activities where other gang
members are present); (2) actively engaging in some business,
trade, profession or occupation which requires such presence
(including directly driving to or from work); or (3) being
involved in a legitimate emergency situation that requires
immediate attention;
m. No Acting as a Lookout: Acting as a lookout, whistling,
yelling or otherwise signaling another person to warn of the
approach or presence of a law enforcement officer; and
n. No Violation of Laws: Failing to obey all laws (1) which
prohibit violence and threatened violence including murder,
rape, robbery by force or fear, assault and battery; (2) which
prohibit interference with the property rights of others
including trespass, theft, vandalism and driving without the
owner’s consent; and (3) which prohibit the commission of
acts which create a public nuisance, including the illegal sale
and/or purchase of controlled substances (as defined by the
Health & Safety Code) and blocking the sidewalk.
Source: “Oxnard Police Department Permanent Colonia Chiques Injunction
Prohibitions” (Oxnard, Calif.: Oxnard Police Department, 2007).
82
3.8 Gang Injunction Statistics
When the gang injunction was announced and filed, there was an immediate
decrease of crime. Before being served, many gang members went into hiding.
Detective Neail Holland gathered statistics of Penal Code 245 (Assault with a
Deadly Weapon and Penal Code 664/187, Attempted Homicide). These are crimes
the Oxnard Police Gang Investigators investigate. From 2001 to present, Holland
found Colonia was the main perpetrator of the mentioned crimes. Holland’s
investigation of statistics showed that in 2001 Colonia Chiques had been the
architect of 29 of those crimes and 34 in 2002. This was the highest number of
incidents by Colonia Chiques during the six-year period studied by Detective
Holland. In 2003, there were ten assaults attributed to the Colonia Chiques gang.
During this time Oxnard Police Department committed many resources to fight the
spike in gang crimes. There was an economic factor involved in this type of
deployment. It could only be sustained for a partial time period because it came
down to financial constraints: officers working more than forty hours a week
during this time with no overtime compensation. This deployment of officers
reduced the gang crime about half compared to the previous year (Holland, 2004,
August 10, p. 9). In 2004, Colonia Chiques was responsible for twelve assaults, for
nineteen in 2005, and for eight in 2006 (Figure 1). When one looks at the statistics,
he sees an eighty percent reduction in crime compared to the two highest years of
83
2001 and 2002. All of this reduction alleviated pressure on the District Attorney’s
Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and local law enforcement. What is most
significant is the fact that the citizens of Oxnard can live a safe and productive
environment like many other communities in the United States.
Figure 1. Colonia Chiques gang crimes (felony assaults and attempted murders)
from 2001 to 2006.
Colonia Chiques Gang Crimes
29
34
10
12
8
19
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
245 PC (Felony Assaults) & 664/187 PC (Attempt Murders)
Oxnard Police Department Crime Analysis Unit 2006
Crimes Per Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
84
3.9 Broderick Boys Gang Injunction
The Broderick Boys Gang Injunction is a good example of how not to
implement a gang injunction. According to the Yolo County District Attorney’s
Office, they attempted to implement an injunction against a West Sacramento Gang
known as the Broderick Boys. The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office
obtained the injunction in 2005. After years of legal battle, the Broderick Boys
Gang won a reversal of the gang injunction on April 24, 2007 (“West Sacramento
Abuzz over Gang,” 25 April 2007).
The state appeals court reversed the decision based on the following:
While evidence reveals a level of street gang criminality
plaguing West Sacramento which might well justify
injunction relief, the injunction cannot stand because, Yolo
County District Attorney Jeff Reisig failed to show that the
Broderick Boys is an “unincorporated association for the
purpose of service,” decided the three justices Arthur
Scotland, Fred Morrison and George Nicholson. (“Court
Backs Broderick Boys,” 2007)
The key point to illustrate is that not all injunctions are permanent. The Broderick
Boys Gang Injunction clearly showed that the DA of Yolo County failed in
following the Civil Service process in order to serve each and every gang member.
They only served one gang member and attempted to argue the service was valid
for the entire gang because it fell under the umbrella of the California Corporations
code.
85
Throughout the case, the DA’s office relied on the
California corporations code to try to argue that the
Broderick Boys were some type of unincorporated
association capable of being sued as an entity, and that
Wolfington was the agent for service of process. (“Court
Backs Broderick Boys,” 2007)
In closing, the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office and the Oxnard
Police Department reviewed the successes and failures of other injunctions. After
conducting thorough research on gang injunctions, they made certain that the
Colonia Chiques Gang Injunction was carefully crafted to avoid litigation in the
Courts at a later time.
86
Chapter 4
___________________________________________________________________
PERSPECTIVES AND OPINIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of comments made by community members, police
officers, educators, business executives, and political advisors, et cetera. These
reports show how people’s perspectives have changed since the implementation of
the Colonia Chiques Gang Injunction. Whether one agrees or disagrees with these
comments, it is important that they are shared. Part of understating social urban
policy is being able to hear everybody’s opinion, whether one agrees or not. Once
one has listened to other people’s opinions, it is possible to make a more informed
decision when implementing a social urban policy.
4.2 Interviews
Police Officer #1
My opinion on the Colonia Chiques Gang Injunction is based on
several prospectives. I believe the injunction was a cheap way of
trying to solve a deteriorating social, economical, and dysfunctional
family problem. The money used to write, research, and implement
the injunction was a cost saving plan by the Oxnard Police
Department. Instead of paying and depleting patrol resources, a
small team accomplished the destabilization of the Colonia Chiques
criminal street gang.
87
The long lasting effect of the gang injunction will only be known in
years to come. By displacing these thugs into other communities
they have grown in sophistication and are spreading their type of
street terrorism in communities that never expected it.
The Oxnard Police Department failed to pinpoint the root cause of
what leads a young man or woman into the gang life, and instead
took the advice of Anglo, white police officers, politicians seeking
reelection, and non-Oxnard residents and made a choice that for the
moment only address the surface problems.
Deputy Sheriff #1
I am all for the injunction and any other avenues to stop gang
violence (which include “taggers”) and to protect the citizens and
our children from their unlawful activities. It is time for the good
people to take back the feeling of being safe and have a good quality
of life in any neighborhood. This is everybody's job, not just the
police or the legal system.
I know there are some opponents to the injunction, but it's my
opinion they have not had the taste of being victimized by this evil.
They have not seen the torment and fear the gangs have placed on
the victim's family’s faces that law enforcement officers have had to
witness. However, I am sure if they are ever victim of such
violence, they would immediately request our services or state,
“where are the police when I need them.”
Therefore, I am a strong supporter of the injunction and any future
injunctions.
Community Member #1
Once the gang injunction against Colonia Chiques was announced, I
wholeheartedly supported the strategy. The reason I supported it
was because of raw emotion as a result of one of our family
members killed around that time and a sense of hopelessness
because it seemed that whatever was being done at the time, it was
not enough. Looking back, what I see was that we (residents) did
not know what was being done to address these issues other than
police overtime and a proposed overhaul of the internal structure
88
within the police department. On either issue, we were not invited
to the table to provide input.
As a long time volunteer for the police department, I also saw a
break down in the command structure that did not support strategies
that were creative to address gang issues and did not foster an
environment that was inclusive of the community as in the past.
What I felt at the time was that the police department in relation to
the gang injunction was using a “steamroller strategy” to influence
residents of the city of Oxnard it’s okay to sanction a portion of the
population and that this “strategy” was innovative and would
immediately put an end to gang violence, because of the perception
that the injunction would in essence put all the Colonia Boys in jail
in one quick sweep. As time went on I started to ask myself
questions. I would reflect back to time at the Colonia storefront and
the Weed and Seed program. The officers assigned to the storefront
during that time employed basic measures to keep tabs on
troublemakers and when things heated up they were dealt with
swiftly-with great success. They also dealt with quality of life
issues that fostered these environments that a gang member can only
thrive in, such as abuses in public housing. Of course there were
grant funds involved to pay overtime, but I’m sure that is less than
what is currently expended on overtime cost. I also see the lack of
collaboration between agencies, such as probation and parole. Back
in the days, there were weekly joint efforts to keep problem subjects
at bay. What I felt what was missing other than participation from
residents was looking back to the past to see what strategies have
worked and what strategies have failed to address gang violence and
its outlining issues. The police department has about four or five
generations of “research” (strategies) that they could have reflected
on due to the long history of the gang and police efforts to abolish
them.
Having been in what I feel is “in the know,” particularly to issues in
La Colonia, the Oxnard Police department revolved from a strong
community-policing agency to an a police agency from a past era,
seeking quick and easy solutions to address these problems. I also
feel that many of the programs that were grant-funded such as the
La Colonia Weed and Seed program were left up to the community
to sustain as a result of changing policing philosophies among the
police administration—that police should not be engaging in
“community stuff” just enforcement. I see now that officers are
89
expected to be “accountable” in a manner that I feel is draconian. I
also feel that before such a drastic action such as a gang injunction
can come to fruition that every strategy in the fields of prevention,
intervention, education and treatment is convened in a collaborative
manner to pool resources to assist the police with issues. In
conclusion, the Colonia gang injunction was the LAZY way out!
Police Officer #2
The injunction has helped lower the level of gang activity (crime
and nuisance activity) within the city. We have been careful who
we have served and how it is enforced. This type of tool needs to be
used carefully, making sure it is not over broad in its application. If
it is, we risk the chance of losing community support and we also
run the risk of bringing some of our youths into the criminal justice
system that don’t belong in it.
Police Officer #3
I wholeheartedly agree with the Injunction. I believe the citizens of
Oxnard have the right to live free from fear. With that said, with the
Injunction in place, several gang members have relocated in Ventura
County out of the safety zone. I personally know of a Port Hueneme
resident who felt forced to move due to the volume of Colonia gang
members that moved into his neighborhood. So in some instances
the problem just gets relocated. The problem Law Enforcement
faces is getting the courts to enlarge the safety zone. The safety
zone should be county wide as far as I’m concerned.”
Police Officer #4
It is a temporary solution for a long-term problem. For those who
are under the injunction and “can’t do anything illegal” all they have
to do is pass the torch onto the next generation of future gang-
members that are more than willing to make a name for themselves.
To curb this you need to get the parents “appropriately” involved
with their kids at a very early age in their lives and continue on this
involvement with their kids’ school activities, after-school activities,
etc., in order to have a positive influence on their kids. Parents
need to stop being lazy in thinking it is the responsibility of others to
90
raise their children for them. You need to create outlets in low-
income/high-crime areas for kids such as libraries, basketball courts,
soccer fields, baseball fields, etc., to allow kids areas where they can
be socially and physically active and also allow for parents to be
involved, i.e., coaching, tutoring. Teach kids at an early age what
other Hispanics have done historically to make this and other
countries better. Show kids that Hispanics have been a positive
factor in developing and contributing to the U.S and other countries.
Let kids know that Hispanics are not just the bad guys that are
portrayed on T.V.
Businessman #1
I’m in favor of the gang injunction as the most effective way of
keeping PROVEN gang members off the street. There needs to be,
however, some review process in place to protect against civil rights
violations against those that have been served. There also needs to
be some way to protect those that file complaints against future
police repercussions.
Probation Officer #1
I totally support the gang injunction in Oxnard as I feel it has helped
reduce the crime rate in that area. I also feel that it has allowed the
city of Oxnard to have a little more control over the largest and most
visible of the gangs in the city. On the state level, the Department of
Corrections has even gone so far as to note that the members of the
Oxnard Colonia gang dominate many of their So. Cal. prisons.
Having spoken to a few residents in the Colonia area, I think the
general feeling is that their “communit” has been restored.
Although I am unsure if any statistics have been kept on the number
of crimes that have occurred since the injunction, there is no doubt
that it has played a big role in preventing potential incidents from
happening. The next step in this process is to follow-up with a gang
injunction on the south end of Oxnard.
91
Computer Software Engineer #1
The gang injunction is a law enforcement response to problems that
are plaguing a particular community. Such a response usually
reflects a more profound quandary within the affected community’s
social dynamic. It would behoove anybody attempting to
understand the reasons for any injunction to begin an honest
reflection on the causes behind the needed police actions of
enforcement. Although it is true that the response is to a large
degree a cry from the rest of the community to crack down on
particular illegal activities that threaten life and property within the
community, these illicit activities most likely reflect deeper social
ills that have spawned this activity in the first place. Society is
complex and layered at many different levels. While there are
different levels of economic and social success within each
community, there are different levels of economic and social failures
as well. Instead of solely focusing on the particular individuals or
groups that need correction at the hand of the law, one has to
honestly look at why this cycle of violence and illegality continues
to perpetuate itself.
Water finds its crack. The challenge within the Oxnard community
is whether to address the crack or the water. I believe both sides
need to be examined. The crack or deficiency exists because of
many years of neglect, established tradition and rooted culture, and
lower economic opportunities that don’t compete on equal footing
with the lure of gang life. At the same time, the water or the
instigator finds it easy to prey upon these social deficiencies that
characterize this particular community. They fill a void that isn’t
filled with the current status quo. Unfortunately, gang injunctions
are needed to ameliorate this problem. They serve to interrupt this
natural process. At the same time, these injunctions don’t solve it.
They keep it in check and prevent it from becoming worse. As a
result, as the population grows, the problem worsens and then it
becomes an arms race where the community struggles to find ways
of employing more police officers in order to rectify a problem that
is never truly eliminated.
It’s the responsibility of the entire community, meaning all the
different neighborhoods in Oxnard as well as the surrounding cities
and neighborhoods to address the deficiencies that exist within the
social fabric of the affected communities in order to lessen the lure
92
of gang life so that the enforcement approach to eradicating these
problems actually makes a difference. Law enforcement is needed
to disrupt the activity and to minimize its attraction by handing out
in clear steps the consequences of such actions. Likewise, in order
to alter the long-term prospects of future gang life, social and
economic alternatives need to be actuated within this community to
offer stopgap measures that can prevent future transgressions as well
as end the current culture and tradition that sustains this activity.
Ignoring the problem or relegating it entirely to the police will at
best be an attempt to control a festering menace that will impact an
entire community at will.
Deputy Sheriff #2
“I am 100% for the gang injunction.”
Community Member #2
I think the injunctions are a good tool for law enforcement because
they allow the police to be proactive rather than reactionary. Police
don’t have to wait for a serious crime to be committed in order to
take action against an identified and served gang members
performing actions that have also been identified as being related to
gangs and/or gang crimes. By making certain activities illegal within
defined areas, the very nature of gang activity is restricted.
And, the ability to break up the ability of gang members to identify
each other, or communicate with each other or even restrict the
congregating of known and served gang members ought to put a
damper on their ability to work together to commit crimes.
You know, a lot of people talk about the civil liberties of people in
the injunction areas being violated. I don’t think the average citizen
takes the time to find out exactly how an injunction works, but grabs
onto basic concept of “rights” and tries to apply it here. But I think
the police officers are well aware who the problem people are. They
know who is a gang member and who has been served. (After all,
there are a lot fewer of them than the general population.) I don’t
see how it can be a violation of civil liberties to restrict criminal
activity of known criminals! I also feel that the police have no
93
interest, much less the time and resources, to be bothering regular
citizens. This tool allows them to focus on the people that cause the
most crime.
Community Member/Police Officer #5
As a resident of Oxnard I believe the injunction was long overdue.
I love where I live and thank the OXPD for obtaining the
injunction. The injunction was the right tool to get gang members to
comply with the law.
As an officer for VPD, the injunction has pushed some of the gang
members to our city. Those gang members who don't want to deal
with OXPD simply move to our city and continue breaking the law.
Eventually we (VPD) will have to obtain our own injunction.
That's how well the injunction is working.
Do I believe it targets Hispanic youths? Yes it does, but only those
involved in gangs. My son and his friends have short hair, but they
don't get stopped by OXPD because they (my son and his friends)
are too busy with school and sports. The parents of those targeted
by the injunction should thank OXPD because now they can use this
as an excuse to get out of the gang. The injunction is going to force
gang members to make a decision: change or move out of Oxnard.
Parents will move their children because as a liberal society they
will be able to take their Section 8 vouchers, WIC and Welfare cards
to another city. And that's OK with me; spread the gang members
to other cities in the county. We all have to take a stand and say,
“No more gang members in Oxnard!!”
Businesswoman #1
My opinion is that there is great price to pay for the freedom we
enjoy in this “the land of opportunity.” Is it either freedom for all
or not? We cannot impose different set of rules for different kind of
people and run the risk of falling into Nazism. Our gang problems
will not end till each and every one of us takes our share of
responsibility as citizens of this community, as proud Hispanics /
Mexicanos, as parents as aunts uncles, as neighbors. As much as I
read on gangs all these kids are looking for is a place to belong, a
94
familia, someone to look up to, someone to be proud of calling my
friend, my tio, a role model. Someone to accept us
unconditionally!!
Police Officer #6
I believe the injunction is a positive tool for OPD. It allows us to
actively enforce the law on gang members who cause civil unrest in
this community.
Police Officer #7
I feel that the Colonia Chiques Gang Injunction has given Law
Enforcement an additional tool to help lower gang crimes in the city
of Oxnard. Ever since the Gang Injunction started, I noticed a
decrease of gang activity within the safe zone and feel that it is
working. Plus, it gives the rest of the community a feeling of “Law
Enforcement really cares about our safety.”
Police Officer #8
I have been an officer for over a decade. As an officer who has
worked the Colonia area of Oxnard, I have seen a dramatic
difference in the neighborhood since the implementation of the
Colonia Chiques gang injunction. In the past, good people in the
neighborhood had been terrorized and intimidated by the gang
members in the community. Families were scared to use the parks
and afraid to gather in front of their own homes. They were holed
up inside their homes due to the fear of being harmed or having their
children harmed. Now the fear of crime has been dramatically
reduced. Citizens now feel safer and use the parks for family
functions without fear of groups of gang members roving through
the area. The gang problem is still there, but no where near the
previous levels.
95
Police Officer #9
As a police officer and as a previous resident of the city of Oxnard, I
feel that the injunction is not just simply a tool but it is more of
message to the Colonia Chiques that states that they are not
welcome. The gang injunction when it was first presented to the
city it conjured up some unknown activists that opposed the
injunction. The activists wanted the public to believe that the police
department was using the injunction as a tool to violate the civil
rights of Hispanics. In my opinion the activists were trying to find
sympathizers to join their unpopular organization.
The activists had a laundry list of problems that injunction was
going to cause, but none of these items have surfaced. Needless to
say that activities have put more than a foot in their mouths and the
police department has remained professional throughout the entire
process.
As a member of the community and as a police officer who has
dedicated himself to the Colonia neighborhood, I have not received
a complaint in regards to the injunction. The complaints that I
received before were from sympathizers who turned out to be gang
members and family of gang members. The fears that that the
activist attempted to instill in the community have never surfaced
and the outspoken activists have more than a foot to put in their
mouths.
The community needs the injunction and it works.
Police Officer #10
Although I don’t have any empirical data available, I do have an
opinion about the Gang Injunctions. In my opinion, the injunctions
have sent a strong message to the gang members about Oxnard’s
tolerance to gang members. The gang members that terrorize this
city represent an extremely small percentage of Oxnard’s
population, yet they are responsible for a disproportionately large
part of the crimes being committed. I am happy that the city’s
officials have listened to the “silent majority” who favor the
Injunctions yet fear speaking out in fear of retaliation.
96
Oxnard’s citizens have tolerated the gang activity for several
decades and it should be expected that it will take several years to
clean up the mess. Hopefully the Gang Injunctions will evolve into
city-wide restraining orders that will not allow these documented
gang members to set foot in Oxnard without getting arrested.
I am proud to work for such an aggressive Police Department that
honors tradition yet encourages creativity in enforcement and
prevention procedures.
Community Member #3
I believe it is long overdue. I believe it sends a message to the gang
members as well as to the community that we (OPD) are taking a
proactive stance in combating this growing problem. It gives us an
extra tool to deal with these criminals and we need every tool
possible. I also believe that the rights of these criminals often
trump the rights of law-abiding residents.
In my contacts with the community I have personally spoken with
hundreds of people about the injunction. I can only think of 2
people who were opposed to it. The overwhelming majority of our
residents are in favor of this action. The only ones opposed tend to
be outspoken civil libertarians who live outside the city of Oxnard.
I also have heard many, many times from residents here in Oxnard
that they resent those who are so opposed to the injunction and that
they really resent that they don't even live here.
Police Officer #11
I am PRO Colonia gang injunction. I’m PRO any injunction that
helps fight crime. I believe these injunctions do help reduce gang
crime because it allows officers to contact and arrest these gang
members for minor violations before they are allowed to commit
serious ones. For example, gang members have a habit of
congregating, using drugs or alcohol, and then committing their
gang crime. The injunction allows officers to nip the problem in
the bud before it even starts! Officers can arrest gang members for
associating with each other and being around alcohol or drugs.
97
Police Officer #12
I think the gang injunction is just one of the tools that can be used to
help relieve one of the biggest problems in our city. The sole design
is to create an area in our city where we can all be safe from gang
activities. This does not impede the life of anyone that is not a gang
member. The injunction prohibits behavior such as weapons, drugs,
violence, and alcohol, which most of us are against anyway. I wish
we could have gang injunctions against all criminal organizations so
that those of us who choose to obey laws can raise our families.
Community Member #4
Gang injunctions represent the worst form of institutional racism
and are contradictory to most of our constitutional principles of due
process and fair play. While presently supported by the courts, they
are unconstitutional, though typically Euro-American in their smug
historical and contemporary treatment of minorities or peoples of
color.
The gang injunctions legalize prejudices and stereotypes by
prejudicing entire communities as being “gang land.” This tilts an
already tilted field (in terms of resources) in favor of prosecutors
and police.
Pseudo gang experts, appointed by the police departments, decide
who are the gang members, and make their case to a judge, who is
oftentimes clueless about the community.
In concept, a gang injunction might work well in a gang-infested
area. However, the gang problem in Oxnard has been grossly
exaggerated by police, at least tenfold. This is of course self-
serving, since there is an obvious nexus between the alleged number
of gang members and the police funding level. The exaggeration in
the number of gang members is evident when the actual injunction
papers are served to a considerably smaller number of individuals,
and it is questionable whether even all of those are actual gang
members.
At the crux of the matter is the fact that it is not a crime to be a gang
member. It is a crime to do something that is illegal. Gang
98
injunctions criminalize things that are normally guaranteed to us as
rights under the constitution. Once an injunction is passed, these
rights are trampled on for many individuals.
Apart from the fact that it is not a crime to be in a “gang,” since
there are many gangs that operate with impunity and without gang
injunctions, such as the Minutemen, the Ku Klux Klan or the
American Rifle Association, the police have equated complete
neighborhoods with gangs. Youths, as a matter of course, identify
with the area in which they live. They like to belong to something.
It does not make them a criminal or “a street terrorists,” as some un-
initiated police officers like to call them. It should not be a crime to
be in somebody’s definition of a gang: it should be a crime only to
do something illegal.
It is completely ridiculous to elevate the use of certain sports wear to
the level of a misdemeanor crime. Ineffective prosecutors and
police officers do not have to make a case; injunctions are inherently
stereotypical and racist.
Police Officer #13
Having written a paper on our injunction for my Master’s course I
believe in them. I found that they are an effective tool for law
enforcement to use to combat gang violence and crimes. Although
we as law enforcement officers don’t need much to sell us on the
concept, it is the community that needs to be educated on our Gang
Injunctions.
Police Officer #14
As the old adage goes, “Perception is reality,” and I believe gang
members perceive the injunction to be more than what it really is.
Mainly I attribute this to a lack of understanding. There is a
perception on the part of the gang members that people (gang
members) are going to prison for injunction violations when in
reality the injunction violation is just one misdemeanor charge in a
larger felony gang case. The use of the STEP Act (186.22) has
much to do with large sentences given to gang members and the
gang members don’t understand or differentiate between the two.
99
The bottom line, the injunction is just another tool to assist law
enforcement in combating the problems associated with gangs. The
perception the gang members have of it is a greater tool than the
injunction itself.
Police Officer #15
I believe it gives officers more of an opportunity to contact and/or
arrest a percentage of the population which has proven itself to
cause others loss of freedom, property, and/or safety.
Community Member #5
I think the gang injunction is a great thing for all of the community.
In my opinion it doesn’t infringe on the gang members’ civil rights
when they are breaking the law to begin with. What gives them the
right to steal from, beat, shoot, or kill other people? The citizens of
the community have the right to not live in fear of gang members or
retaliation. The injunction gives the police even more authority to
stop gang members from doing what they do. If you look at the
crime stats, it seems to be working here as well as other counties
such as LA.
Police Officer #16
My opinion/perspective on the Colonia Gang Injunction is [that] it is
a great tool for identifying those people who are actively in the gang
and their associates. The injunction gives us an additional tool in
regards to crimes that gang members commit with the gang
enhancement charge. Although the fore mentioned aspects of the
injunction are great, it does not address the problem of gangs or
membership prevention (for lack of a better term). I believe that the
problems that gangs cause are much larger and more pervasive than
the general public/citizens realize. Gang influence and gang crime
are so prevalent, it reminds me of drug users and the crimes that
they commit to feed their habit. Between the two, I feel that nothing
is safe or sacred. You are always thinking about where you go, if
your house or vehicle is safe and as a parent of a black male, I
wonder if my son will be mistaken for (in Oxnard) a BMG gang
100
member, because of his skin. As a police officer, I find that I am
always looking at young Hispanic males, who wear their hair shaved
or have tattoos or who wear certain clothing or shoes, wondering if
they are gang members. Sometimes, that is not even the case,
because that look or clothing choice has become the “in” thing to
wear. I truly feel that the tagging crews have taken a page out of
the “gang” book and that is the reason that our taggers are now
carrying weapons and shooting each other. The influence of the
“gang” rules/regulations, lifestyle, clothing and crime is far reaching
and will only get worse. I know that gangs have been around for
years and the effect on society has not changed. I hurt for all of the
young men and women (Black, White Hispanic, Asian, etc.), whose
lives are lost under the guise of property or turf that they do not own
or control.
Community Member #6
In my view, the injunction serves as merely one of the “tools” in
Oxnard PD’s toolbox in dealing with the city’s gang problem.
Make no mistake that it is a very, very important tool, but in none of
the PD’s press releases have they implied that it is the “be all, end
all” to addressing the gang problem. What it does show is that
Oxnard PD (say compared to neighboring Ventura PD) is serving its
citizens by taking a pro-active stance to gang-related crime. It
certainly appears the PD “did their homework” in drafting a legal
document that has withstood legal challenges. Also, by soliciting
citizen input, the PD has been able to adequately address concerns
people have about the injunction. Granted some of the more radical
Hispanic groups/individuals have tried to malign the intent of, and
the injunction itself, by “playing the race card”; that argument seems
to have fallen on deaf ears of more realistic Hispanic
groups/individuals who prefer to promote their race with a more
positive image. Clearly the PD seems to understand the importance
of not abusing this tool given to them. From top to bottom,
Departmental members are aware that abuse would lead to loss of
the injunction and more over, loss of public support. What I hope is
being done is “tracking” of statistics in order to determine the
effectiveness of the injunction; continuing citizen involvement
(especially Hispanic); encouragement of individuals to “opt out” of
the gang; prosecution of those violating the injunction; and seeking
a concerted effort by Hispanic groups, churches, and individuals to
101
do their part in healing this parasite gang on their race. These
organizations, churches and individuals need to “step up to the
plate” and work to prevent young Hispanics from joining the
Chiques and if they have family members who are members, the
same strong effort must be made to get them to opt out of the gang.
Most of all, the police department must “do it right” and not mess up
something (the injunction) which so many have worked so hard for.
Police Officer #17
I think the Gang Injunction is a worthwhile investment for the City
of Oxnard as well as the citizens of Oxnard. Once the injunction is
in place and enforceable it gives the citizens a feeling of confidence
and a feeling that we are actively doing something about the gang
problem. The injunction is just another tool for us (law
enforcement) to deal with the gang problem. From reading a lot of
comments on the Star’s Web site about the injunction, it seemed that
most people were/are in favor of the injunction and even want one
issued county wide. A concern with the injunction is the impact that
funding and staffing levels maybe be compromised due to additional
arrests and bookings.
One problem that I see with the injunction is, that once the gang
member is arrested, we have to rely on the court system to do their
job (prosecute, convict, sentence, and then confine) which in some
cases takes months to do. This gives the gang member the
opportunity to get back out on the street and re-offend even before
the other case is dealt with. This also adds/impacts funding and
staffing levels on the court system.
But, having said all of this, I feel the injunction is worth its weight
in gold, because the injunction can and does curtail some of the gang
member’s activities, which lowers calls for service and time and
energy that are spent dealing with them. It also puts to some
degree, a level of fear in the gang members, whether real or
imagined, that at anytime they are within the confines of the safety
zone, that they could be arrested. This in turn costs them time,
energy, money, and confinement time (loss of freedom, time spent
with family and so on). Because of the injunction the number of
gang-related crimes has dropped to an unprecedented level in recent
years, which is a direct reflection that the injunction does work.
102
Police Officer #18
I support the Colonia gang injunction. To abate the nuisance of
criminal street gang activities in this manner is a unique and
innovative way for law enforcement and a community to address a
long-standing crime problem that has transcended generations of
families. While more traditional methods have been used and
continue to be used by police (police patrols, citations, arrest,
interventions, CPTED, etc.) to address the gang’s activities,
oftentimes we need to think “outside the box” and look to solving
problems in unconventional ways. I believe that law enforcement
has well established the gang-involvement of those gang members
who are included in the gang injunction and there are measures in
place to allow an opt-out for those who actually turn their lives
around and can show that they are no longer involved with gangs, so
I have little or no concern for any issues of unfairness in the
application of the injunction.
Gang members have no constitutional right to engage in activities
that help to degrade the quality of life for our residents; it’s their
own previous criminal activities that have established their
association and involvement with a criminal street gang; and I
believe it is entirely appropriate to use both the criminal process
(arrests) together with the civil process (injunction) to suppress the
criminal activities of gang members and to hold them accountable
for their actions.
Police Officer #19
I've been contacted by Non-English speakers in the community, who
have thanked me and OXPD in Spanish for the injunction and how
the change has been positive thus far.
Mind you, these are people that don't have a voice or report crimes.
Since, I’ve not seen one victim, who has been found barefoot and
211'ed. Usually, since they do not have a way of placing their
money in a bank account, they keep it in their sox.
103
Bi-weekly, I would find a victim with the circumstances above.
I’ve not been to one since.
Police Officer #20
I think the gang injunction is good and much needed. It is a useful
tool for law enforcement to deal with habitual nuisance problems
related to the Colonia Chiques. It is not the only solution, nor will it
prevent all crimes committed by this specific gang, but it is another
way that law enforcement can proactively address problem people
who don’t have terms and commit continuing minor offences.
These minor offences generally lead up to much larger things.
Gang Member #1
“I don’t want to say anything.”
Gang Member #2
“I do not want to talk about that.”
Gang Member #3
“I am not going to discuss that because my case is still going on.”
Gang Member #4
“I will not say anything about that.”
Gang Member #5
Well, I think the Colonia gang injunction has unfairly targeted young
Hispanic males, and I sort of, like, criminalize them in a way in that
once they’re labeled as an injunctive member, a Colonia Chiques
gang member, they have to conform to that label.
104
Well, I think the Colonia gang injunction has unfairly targeted young
Hispanic males and has given the Oxnard P.D. too much power and
that police officers go out into the streets, looking for young
Hispanics to target whether they may not be gang members or not.
You know, they stop them and harass them, thinking that oh, well,
maybe this might be a gang member. So, you know, they just go out
and harass them.
All right, I don’t think the Colonia Chiques gang injunction—we
really needed it ever in the first place. I mean, law enforcement
already has the tools to pipe down on gangs since the early 90s when
they came out with the “Weed and Seed Program.” And then they
created the substation in La Colonia. But what I think is that it
unfairly targeted young Hispanic males that have had nothing to do
with being involved in the injunction. And I think personally that if
I violated the due process, you know, in the sense that they could be
five years old at the time the injunction came out, and then once they
turn 15, they could possibly get injuncted. It just depends on where
they live and who they associate with. It has nothing really to do
with the injunction that happened so many years ago. So I think it
unfairly targeted the young Hispanic males, and it gives Oxnard P.D.
too much power in the sense that they go out into the community just
looking for young Hispanic males to unfairly target. And then
they’re just trying to bust them for the injunction and try to earn
brownie points. And then at the same time, these officers get
overzealous with their actions, and a lot of times they violate
people’s civil rights. It’s known in the City of Oxnard that Oxnard
P.D. is crooked. They’ll set you up. So Colonia has been their
number one target since who knows how many years. So they’ve
been violating their rights for a long time. And me, personally, I’d
rather get arrested by a sheriff. At least, I’m going to get arrested for
what actually happened instead of Oxnard P.D. where my personal
experience is they’ve actually made things up in their reports.
They’ve lied on the stand against me. I can’t really prove it, you
know, besides that I know what happened. But it’s just that from my
personal experiences, you know, Oxnard P.D.’s corrupt. They just
use that injunction to get a little more power just to unfairly target
the Hispanic community.
105
Gang Member #6
Yeah, I’m an old Colonia Chiques gang member for about maybe, I
guess, 17, 18 years already. And I think things about the injunction,
if you know a little bit about it, is unfair because not everybody is
out there trying to benefit for the street gangs and everything. But
there’s some rights and there’s some wrongs about it. But those who
haven’t been served with injunctions are still getting harassed. You
know, there shouldn’t be an arrest. I just think, you know, a little bit
is unfair too. Some of those who haven’t been on the injunction.
Gang Member #7
Like I told you, these two deputies, I read this question that you’re
asking me, and me myself, I was never jumped in to be part of this
Colonia gang. But I grew up there all my life. I’m 48 years old.
I’ve lived there for practically 45 years of my life. And as far as this
injunction goes, me myself I mean, if you have the tattoos on, if the
cops see you, you can’t even walk to your mom’s house if they’re
still living there. So actually, me myself, like I said, I think it’s all
crap. But they got to do their job too. I don’t have nothing against
nobody. I’m too old for this stuff. Like I said, these deputies
explained to me why they were there, to ask me this question that
you are looking for answers or output, let me put it that way, output
on your question.
Gang Member #8
I’m an ex-gang member. I think about this injunction. There should
be more ways to help people who are still involved, who are still
active, more programs, more jobs. Instead of trying to put people
behind bars all the time.
Gang Member #9
To me, in a way, with that I think it’s a good idea because there’s
just too much going on with those kind of people in Oxnard,
especially for the community. It’s just—they really seem to just
kind of put a grip on the community. I mean, just people in general,
you know what I mean? It’s just innocent people who mind their
106
own business. You know what I mean? They make it hard for
people who have nothing to do with them and who go about their
own ways and try to stay away. I mean, I think I talked to them
maybe about a month ago. And I told you I got in this—I mean, to
me, it was as if. For me living in Oxnard, man, I try to mind my
own business. And I’ve tried to with everybody; you know what I
mean? But it’s like, there are usually people who whether you don’t
want problems or not, they give you the problems, whether you
don’t want them. You know what I mean? I mean, they’ll come up
to you and be, like, you know, you want to fight me? There was an
incident with me, like four years ago, man. It was me and a friend. I
was just dressed in blue Levi’s, Nike cross trainers, and a sweatshirt.
And it was me and a friend. And we were just buying—you know,
we were going to barbecue and stuff. They come and ask me,
“Where you from?” And they were like, yeah, whatever, man, you
know what I mean? I won’t go outside, whatever, man; you know
what I mean? I don’t care. And I went outside and was beaten with
a baseball bat and stabbed, man, four times. And I was trying to
walk away from it, telling him, whatever, man. So to me, I mean, I
think it’s just there to add control, man. I think it was a good idea
for the county to deal with it, man, especially for the community.
Gang Member #10
I think the Colonia gang injunction is a good thing for society, you
know, for the neighborhood ‘cause…Me personally, I grew up in
Colonia, and I was a member one time. And even the youngsters,
that’s what they need. They need some kind of law because
nowadays they get too crazy. And all they want to do is shoot and
stab people. My personal opinion of being an ex-gang member from
Colonia, I think it’s a good thing for the youngsters, you know.
That’s how I feel about it. ‘Cause I don’t bang. I think it’s good,
though, I think it was a law that came into effect for the youngsters,
you know, for people who still—not only the youngsters, but people
that are still—their daddies.
107
4.3 Conclusion
In closing, it is evident that many people shared the same perspective and
opinion. Some others did not. The purpose of this chapter was to demonstrate that
people have different understandings and beliefs when it comes to social urban
policies. I have shown in this research and in my past police practices that
participatory processes are needed in order to understand all points of view. While
people might often not agree with each other, at least they can come to the table
and work together to make positive changes in their communities.
108
Chapter 5
___________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Community Participation
As explained early on in this analysis, it is important for all law
enforcement agencies to make a strong effort to engage the community in their
policies and programs from the beginning. Such involvement at least minimizes
differences in perceptions about gang injunctions that officials seek to implement.
The community must contribute to the declaration that the police department and
the district attorney are submitting to the Court. This gives the DA’s Office added
support when the Court assesses the declaration. Community members who are not
afraid of voicing their support for the injunction should, with the help of the district
attorney, be part of all public forums. This encourages the silent majority who are
for the gang injunction to voice their opinion.
5.2 Study Other Injunctions
It is also important to examine other successful and unsuccessful
injunctions. We can learn from other injunctions, especially when it comes to
community involvement. For instance, in Edward L. Allan’s book Civil Gang
109
Abatement: The Effectiveness and Implications of Policing by Injunction, he
claimed community involvement can be critical. Consequently, community
members who voice strong opinions may become targets. A good example of this
was James Richards, who was gunned down in his driveway on October 18, 2000.
James was the Neighborhood Watch captain of his block and on the Community
Police Advisory Board. He also was involved in publishing an online
neighborhood newsletter that focused on neighborhood crime and sometimes
named offenders with their photos. This is why sometimes prosecutors do not want
community involvement in gang injunctions, to minimize the risk that outspoken
citizens will become targets. They especially do not want individuals to give
declarations on gang injunctions, fearing for their safety (Allan, 2004, p. 226).
5.3 Systemic Issues
Evidence shows that, when the community is not made part of the process,
there is an exclusionary effect of the system. This means the system will not work
as designed. With community policing, the community is a major part of the
system that must be included in everyday decisions. Active members of the
community work with the police departments to solve a wide range of problems. It
is with their input and contacts that many positive changes are seen daily in crime-
ridden areas. The community members are truly heroes when it comes to reducing
crime. Their ideas, suggestions, and constant support to law enforcement make the
work of police officers so much easier. This is an excellent reason for supporting
110
community participation in the civil injunction process. If a police department is
going to reduce gang crime, it is important to solicit community solutions and
recommendations. People might not want a gang injunction. They may favor other
conventional police tactics such as probation, parole searches, and community
programs for youth offenders so that they can transition back into society along
with effective community patrols to reduce gang violence. They may agree with
their local police department, as in the case of the gang injunction in Redondo
Beach, which received overwhelming support. The Redondo Beach Police
Department pitched the idea to the community before it was implemented. As C.
West Churchman’s (1968) wrote in his book The Systems Approach, “An animal,
for example, is a system, a marvelously contrived one, with many different parts
which contribute in various ways to the sustaining of its life, to its reproductive
pattern, and to its play” (p. 29). If one examines community policing, one can see
that a community is a part of the law enforcement system. If the community is
excluded in any part of the process, the system will not work properly. In terms of
civil injunctions, community exclusion from this process leads to differences in
perception that could have been addressed in the beginning to avoid having them
blown out of proportion. Many concerns can be addressed and clarified. It is not
that an injunction will not work without community support. However, if police
and a DA desire a successful and well thought out injunction, they should seriously
consider involving the community directly and in advance. This makes the process
111
run more smoothly, and permits the discussion of options. What has emerged in
the City of Oxnard are attempts to talk about other alternatives to gang injunctions
when a preliminary injunction has already been implemented. Such involvement
should have occurred prior to implementation.
5.4 History Repeats Itself
Furthermore, a long-time member of the Oxnard Police Department
explained that a rise in gang violence occurred during Chief Harold Hurtt’s tenure
in the early 1990s. Oxnard experienced an influx of Los Angeles gangs coming to
the City of Oxnard to sell rock cocaine, especially the Bloods and the Crips, who
sold their rock cocaine for twenty dollars (usually a “dime bag”) instead of ten
dollars as in Los Angeles. These gang members would hook up with a person in
the City of Oxnard, usually a female, in a local hotel. They would run their
business from this location until all the rock cocaine was sold. They would then
return to Los Angeles to re-stock. During this turbulent time, there were many
homicides, and eventually the Oxnard Police Department experienced the first
drive-by shootings.
Chief Hurtt decided to hold a public forum at the Oxnard Performing Arts
Center to involve the community. Attending these meetings were religious leaders
and other members of the community from all different racial and cultural lines.
Chief Hurtt wanted the community’s input to solve this problem. The community
people voiced their opinions, but what happened after the second meeting surprised
112
the police department. Nobody showed up for the third meeting to continue finding
solutions to the gang problem. Chief Hurtt decided to have a full-time gang task
force and use high visibility and aggressive enforcement tactics. He also directed
the Beat Coordinators to contact the families of the gang members arrested or
conduct field interviews to let relatives know about their family member’s
involvement in gangs. This was well received by the community. He also
established GOCAP (Gang Offender Comprehensive Action Program). Through
his efforts and community involvement, he reduced the gang problem with normal
community policing tactics. During his time a civil injunction was not the option.
5.5 Opinion
Had the subsequent Chief, Art Lopez, brought up this civil gang injunction
in a public forum, as did Chief Harold Hurtt, Oxnard would probably have had a
different community response. Based on current statistics, the injunction has been
effective in some places. Grogger (2002, p. 69) stated, “In the first year after the
injunctions are imposed, they show the level of violent crime to decrease by 5–10
percent.” It remains to be seen in the next couple of years what effect the gang
injunction has in the City of Oxnard. Commenting on the views of Mayor Tom
Holden, a local editorial stated,
He supports the gang injunction, but, for the long term, he
said he would like to steer the city back to the community-
policing concept that proved so successful in reducing
crime in the 1990s. In addition he favors implementing
more after-school and weekend programs for youth in
113
every neighborhood. (“Experience New Ideas for Oxnard,”
Ventura County Star, 2004)
Experience supports Mr. Holden that the police department needs to go
back to community policing like that in the early 1990s. By involving police
officers in the community, many negative perceptions about the injunctions and
other issues can be remedied. Communities will always have those who do not
agree with police tactics. If people can be involved during the planning phase, they
can help search for compromise solutions.
Decker (2004) referred to the Spergel model which discussed (1)
community mobilization, (2) social intervention, including outreach, (3) provision
of opportunities, (4) suppression, social control, and accountability, and (5)
organizational change and development. Items (2) and (3) are not usually
mentioned when it comes to gang injunctions. Whitt (1995) suggested that
Spergel’s research showed diverse groups working together to solve constant gang
problems and emerging ones. “Spergel’s intervention programs require
coordinated efforts by schools, youth employment agencies, grass-roots
organizations, community-based youth agencies, community mobilization groups,
police, prosecutors, judges, parole and correction agencies, and former gang
members” (Whitt, p. 2).
In order to minimize differences in perception about civil gang injunctions,
the community must be part of the planning and participatory process, thus playing
an integral part of the law enforcement system. Lastly, the goal for any police
114
department is to understand how it can better pool and manage its limited resources
in order to serve the wider community in a constructive and culturally respectful
manner. Ultimately, the community is responsible for law enforcement, and it is
through community reaction that law enforcement must measure its effectiveness.
115
BIBLIOGRAPHY
___________________________________________________________________
Allan, Edward L. Civil Gang Abatement: The Effectiveness and Implications of
Policing by Injunction. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2004.
Alvarez, Fred. “Expert Says Mean Streets Lead to Unhealthy Children.” Los
Angeles Times, 15 August 2004.
“Anti-Social Behaviour Order.” 1 August 2006 [online]. Available from
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order (accessed
on 2 December 2006).
Asbury, Herbert. The Gangs of New York. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press,
2001.
Bard, Sharon R. “Treat Gang Members as Human Beings to Reform Them.” In
Gangs: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by David Bender, Charles P. Cozic,
and Bruno Leone, 98–103. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996.
Churchman, C. West. The Systems Approach. New York: Dell Publishing
Company, 1968.
Coles, Catherine M., and George L. Kelling. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring
Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York, New York:
Touchstone, 1996.
“Court Backs Broderick Boys.” Daily Democrat, 24 April 2007.
Crisosto, Nicolas M. “Information Distorted to Promote Injunction,” Ventura
County Star, 1 August 2004, editorial section.
Crowe, Timothy D. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Boston:
National Crime Prevention Institute, 2000.
Decker, Scott H., ed. Policing Gangs and Youth Violence. University of Missouri-
St Louis: Thomson & Wadsworth, 2004.
116
Decker, Scott H., and Winifred Reed, eds. Responding to Gangs: Evaluation and
Research. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute
of Justice, July 2002.
Decker, Scott H., and Barrik Van Winkle. “The History of Gang Research.” In
The Modern Gang Reader, edited by Malcolm W. Klein, Cheryl L. Maxson,
and Jody Miller, 15–21. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2001.
Douglas, Laron. “Gangs Seek Progress Bender.” In Gangs: Opposing Viewpoints,
edited by David Bender, Charles P. Cozic, and Bruno Leone, 161–163. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996.
“Experience, New Ideas for Oxnard.” Editorial. Ventura County Star, 12 October
2004.
Fleissner, Dan, and Fred Heinselmann. Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design and Community Policing. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice, August 1996.
“Gang Injunctions & Civil Abatement in Los Angeles.” 22 September 2004
[online]. Available from http://www.streetgangs.com (accessed on 30
October 2005).
Gans, Herbert J. The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-
Americans. New York: The Free Press, 1992.
Gardiner, R. A. Environmental Security Planning: Redesign for Safe
Neighborhoods. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Richard Gardiner and
Associates, 1977.
Gil, Efraim, and Enid Lucchesi. “Citizen Participation in Planning.” In The
Practice of Local Government Planning, edited by Frank S. So, 552–574.
Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, 1979.
Goodman, Douglas J., and George Ritzer. Sociological Theory. 6th ed. New York:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2004.
Grogger, Jeffrey. “The effects of Civil Gang Injunctions on Reported Violent
Crime: Evidence from Los Angeles County.” The Journal of Law &
Economics XLV (1) (April 2002): 69–90.
117
Holland, Neail. “The History of Disruptive Groups in Oxnard and Crime
Organizations.” Oxnard, Calif.: Oxnard Police Department, 2000.
—————. “Gang Injunctions,” memo to Oxnard Police Chiefs. Oxnard, Calif.:
Oxnard Police Department, 2003.
—————. “Declaration in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”
Ventura, Calif.: Ventura County Superior Court, 2004.
—————. “Declaration by Oxnard P.D. Detective Holland on August 10.”
Ventura, Calif.: Ventura County Superior Court, 2004.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random
House, Inc., 1993.
Jeffrey, C. R. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. 2
nd
ed. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1977.
Keating, Jessica. “Public Defender to Enter Injunction Fight, Judge Says Four
People Can Get Their Arguments Heard in Court.” Ventura County Star, 9
July 2004.
—————. “Judge Sets Scope for Injunction Mediation.” Ventura County Star,
21 September 2004.
Kelley, Daryl. “Ventura County Builds Case against Gang.” Los Angeles Times, 23
May 2004.
Klein, Malcolm, W. The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence, and
Control. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Klein, Malcolm, W., Cheryl L. Maxson, and Jody Miller. The Modern Gang
Reader. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2001.
Loseke, Donileen R. Thinking about Social Problems. New York: Walter De
Gruyter, 2003.
Maxson, Cheryl L., Karen Hennigan, and David C. Sloane. “For the Sake of the
Neighborhood? Civil Gang Injunctions as a Gang Intervention Tool in
Southern California.” In Policing Gangs and Youth Violence, edited by
Scott H. Decker, 239–266. University of Missouri-St Louis: Thomson &
Wadsworth, 2004.
118
Mayer, Jeffrey J. “Many Street Gangs Are Not Dangerous Criminal Enterprises.”
In Gangs: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by David Bender, Charles P. Cozic,
and Bruno Leone, 70–76. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996.
Meyers, Bakari. Letter. Ventura County Star, August 3, 2004, section: Your
Letters: Oxnard Gang Injunction.
Miranda, Eduardo M. “Lack of Community Involvement Leads to Perceptual
Differences Reference Gang Injunctions.” DPDS PLUS 603 Paper. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California, 2004.
Murray, Charles. “The Physical Environment.” In Crime, edited by Joan Petersilia
and James Q. Wilson, 349–361. Los Angeles: ICS Press, 1995.
“Nuisance Abatement Programs.” 7 July 2005 [online]. Available from http://
www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/city prosecutor/cpag.asp (accessed on 25 November
2006).
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New
York: Public Affairs, 2004.
“Oxnard Police Department Permanent Colonia Chiques Injunction Prohibitions.”
Oxnard, Calif.: Oxnard Police Department, 2007.
Petersilia, Joan, and James Q. Wilson, eds. Crime. Los Angeles: ICS Press, 1995.
Piskorowski, Alex. Letter. Ventura County Star, August 3, 2004, section: Your
Letters: Oxnard Gang Injunction.
Pontell, Henry N. Social Deviance: Readings in Theory and Research. Upper
Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education, 2005.
Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Sampson, Robert J. Disorder in Urban
Neighborhoods: Does It Lead to Crime? Washington, D.C.: Office of
Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, July 2001.
“Redondo Beach Gang Project Combating a Gang through Civil Injunction.”
Redondo Beach, Calif.: Redondo Beach Police Department, 1996.
119
Sampson, Robert J. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New
Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” The American Journal of
Sociology 105(3) (November 1999): 603–651.
Saxton, Gregory D. “The Rise of Participatory Society: Challenges for Public
Administration.” PA Times, November 2004, pp. 5–6.
Sharfstein, Daniel. “Special Report: The Crime Debate.” The American Prospect
32 (May 1, 1997–June 1, 1997).
Sills, David L., ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 4, 14,
16. New York: The MacMillan Company and The Free Press, 1968.
Skogan, Wesley G. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in
American Neighborhoods. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1990.
So, Frank S., ed. The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington, D.C.:
International City Management Association, 1979.
“Social Control,” 30 May 2005 [online]. Available from http://www.
sociologyindex.com (accessed on 7 December 2005).
“Sociology at Hewett…Functionalism as a Sociological Perspective.” 30 May
2005 [online]. Available from http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk (accessed
on 7 August 2005).
Taylor, Ralph B. “Neighborhood Responses to Disorder and Local Attachments:
The Systemic Model of Attachment, Social Disorganization, and
Neighborhood Use Value.” Sociological Forum 11(4) (March 1996): 41–
74.
—————. Breaking Away from Broken Windows: Baltimore Neighborhoods
and the Nationwide Fight against Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline.
Colorado: Westview Press, 2001.
Thrasher, Fredrick. The Gang. Chicago: Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1927.
U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000. November 11, 2005 [online]. Available from
http://www.census.gov (accessed on 1 February 2006).
120
Villa, Dolly. “Civil Right Coalitions Organized to Fight Injunction.” Ventura
County Star, 1 August 2004.
“Your Letters: Oxnard Gang Injunction.” Ventura County Star, 3 August 2004.
“West Sacramento Abuzz over Gang.” Sacramento Bee, 25 April 2007.
Whitt, Charles. “New Hope for Communities in Fight to Control Gangs.” The
University of Chicago Chronicle 15(1) (August 17, 1995): 1–2.
Wolcott, Holly J. “Official’s Seeking Injunction against Oxnard Gang.” Los
Angeles Times, 25 March 2004.
—————. “Many Unconvinced on Need for Injunction,” Los Angeles Times, 23
May 2004.
Yablonsky, Lewis. The Violent Gang. Baltimore: Penguin, 1962 (1973).
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Civil Gang Injunctions have existed since 1987. The City of Oxnard recently implemented a spatially extensive one. The majority of the residents approved the injunction but regretted not being part of the process before the District Attorney's Office and the Oxnard Police Department obtained a court order against the La Colonia Chiques Gang. A small minority of the population completely opposed the injunction and its implementation.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Legislative term limits in California and the faces of change
PDF
Gangs beyond borders: California and the fight against transnational crime - have recommendations become reality?
PDF
A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning
PDF
Civic expression in Little Tokyo: how art and culture empowers communities and transforms public participation
Asset Metadata
Creator
Miranda, Eduardo Mendoza
(author)
Core Title
Gang injunctions and community participation
School
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
Degree
Doctor of Planning and Development Studies
Degree Program
Planning
Publication Date
07/09/2007
Defense Date
05/03/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Colonia Chiques,community participation,district attorney,gang injunctions,OAI-PMH Harvest,Police
Place Name
California
(states),
Oxnard
(city or populated place),
USA
(countries),
Ventura
(counties)
Language
English
Advisor
Richardson, Harry W. (
committee chair
), Baca, Leroy, Sheriff (
committee member
), Capune, Garrett (
committee member
), Moore, James, II (
committee member
), Newland, Chester A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
eduardomiranda4900@hotmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m595
Unique identifier
UC1276032
Identifier
etd-Miranda-20070709 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-527825 (legacy record id),usctheses-m595 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Miranda-20070709-0.pdf
Dmrecord
527825
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Miranda, Eduardo Mendoza
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Colonia Chiques
community participation
district attorney
gang injunctions