Susan R. Takata, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
University of Wisconsin-Parkside
Kenosha, Wisconsin
This paper was prepared for invited presentation at the October 1993 symposium, "Youth Violence in Small Towns and Rural Areas: Research for Change," sponsored by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, the Midwest Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities, and the University of Wisconsin-Platteville.
I would like to express special thanks to the 24 undergraduate student researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside; Jeanne Curran, professor of sociology at California State University-Dominguez Hills; and the late Hans O. Mauksch, founder of the Undergraduate Teaching Section of the American Sociological Association. In addition, I would like to acknowledge Gordon Karim and the other reviewers for their helpful comments.
Nearly 70 years ago, W.I. Thomas proposed that reality is socially defined: If people define a situation as real, then it is real in its consequences. In a similar vein, Conklin (1975, p. 75) stated more recently that "People react to their perception of social problems rather than to the problems themselves." No social problem reflects this observation more than gang delinquency, an issue for which social constructions, definitions, and reactions to behavior have great significance.
Gangs can be defined in a variety of ways. A workable standard for identifying a street gang developed by Klein (1975, p. 75) is "any denotable group of adolescents or young adults who are (a) generally perceived as a distinct aggregation by others in their neighborhood, (b) recognize themselves as a denotable group, almost invariably with a group name, and (c) have been involved in a sufficient number of illegal activities to call forth a consistent response from neighborhood residents and/or law enforcement."
Gangs are a fact of life in today's American cities. Much attention already has been paid to gangs in large cities, but we are beginning to realize that many smaller cities also confront serious gang problems. While we understand some dimensions of group delinquency in large metropolitan areas, we still know very little about the extent and nature of this problem in smaller cities and rural areas. Important details about the nature, history, organizational structure, and activities of small-city delinquent groups are lacking.
Most gang researchers have focused on the law-violating youth groups of major metropolitan areas (Thrasher, 1927; Shaw & McKay, 1942; Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Short & Strodtbeck, 1965; Yablonsky, 1966; Klein, 1968; Krisberg, 1974; Moore, 1978; Spergel, 1984). Some rare exceptions are the occasional studies of suburban delinquent gangs (Myerhoff & Myerhoff, 1964; Johnstone, 1983). And the few studies that examine gangs in nonmetropolitan areas tend to interpret their findings within a framework derived from large-city gang research (Burgess, 1916; Lagey, 1957; Maxson et al., 1987). As a result, smaller-city gang research risks overlooking important differences that may exist in the organizational structures and activities of youth gangs in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan settings. These studies also may overestimate the kinship and loose drug-dealing ties between smaller-city and metropolitan gangs.
Hagedorn's (1988) study of youth gangs in Milwaukee reveals little similarity between the gangs that operate there and the supergangs of larger metropolitan areas described in the research literature. Although acknowledging that Milwaukee gangs assume some of the cultural trappings of their bigger-city counterparts in Chicago 90 miles to the south, Hagedorn found no proof of "structural ties" between the gangs in his study and Chicago gangs.
In view of these findings, it is useful to determine the influence of metropolitan street gangs on emergent youth gangs in smaller communities located nearby. Recently, researchers have focused some of their attention on gangs in communities with populations of 100,000 or less (Fuhrmann, 1992; Maxson, 1993). In southeastern Wisconsin, one unique aspect of gang research in small cities (Takata & Zevitz, 1987; Takata & Zevitz, 1990; Zevitz & Takata, 1992; Zevitz, 1993) has been the direct involvement of undergraduate students from the University of Wisconsin-Parkside (UWP), a small university of 5,300 undergraduates emphasizing a "teacher-scholar" philosophy among its faculty. Until 1986, when the first residence halls opened, UWP was basically a commuter campus.
For today's undergraduate student, neither the liberal arts nor technical-vocational models satisfactorily bridge the gap between theory and practice. Real learning takes place when students apply their knowledge by putting theory into practice. "Learning by doing" is not a new idea (Dewey, 1938; Bruner, 1966). At UWP, such a student-operated research center is part of an ongoing learning and teaching experiment that began in the 1970s at California State University-Dominguez Hills (Curran & Telesky, 1975; Curran, 1977; Takata, 1991a; Takata, 1991b). Unlike the more traditional research assistantship model, in a student-operated research center, students take full responsibility for all phases of the research process - from developing the research design to presenting the final report. Students are challenged by a genuine community problem. "Hands-on" research consists of very real dilemmas, decisions, pressures, politics, and personalities.
The purpose of the research described here was to increase understanding of the scope and nature of small-city gangs, possible links between small-city gangs and those of larger cities, and community perceptions of small-city gangs. In addition, this paper presents important details on the development of a community/university-based approach to prevention and intervention planning for medium- and small-sized cities and for rural areas. It is hoped that the knowledge generated from this action research can be used to benefit local prevention and intervention initiatives.
This paper discusses how two small Midwestern cities responded to the emergence of youth gangs and how a local university became a community resource in addressing the problem. Between 1986 and 1988, University of Wisconsin-Parkside (UWP) students conducted research projects in Racine and Kenosha, two cities neighboring the university. Several similarities exist between Kenosha and Racine. Both cities have approximately the same population and both saw gangs emerging in the 1980s. Some of the same gangs - Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Latin Kings - were identified in both cities. During this period, both cities were experiencing a deindustrialized local economy that resulted in all-time high unemployment rates. Major industries were closing down or moving away, and it sometimes appeared that the area was becoming a "rust belt."
City officials and residents believed that gangs were coming from Chicago; Kenosha believed almost exclusively in the "welfare magnet" explanation. As an immediate response to the emerging gang situation, both Kenosha and Racine formed citywide task forces and their police departments established specialized gang units. Both task forces commissioned studies to be conducted by UWP, and the results of these studies are included in this paper.
Mindful of Glaser and Strauss's (1967, p. 67) warning that "different people in different positions may offer as 'the facts' very different information about the same subject," the researchers employed a strategy using multiple methods to test the validity and reliability of the data that they received. This multiple-method approach is called triangulation (Denzin, 1970). Each research project used survey research, interviews, field observation, and content analysis of written documents to understand more clearly the differing perceptions of gang problems in Racine and Kenosha.
Through triangulation (Webb et al., 1966), students worked with a variety of research methodologies. Schutt et al. (1984, p. 248) state that "the multimethod strategy is well suited to enhance student recognition of the gap between ideas and reality." Each subgroup was responsible for all phases of its particular research method - planning, designing, constructing, and testing the research instrument; selecting, administering, and collecting the data; processing, coding, and analyzing the findings; and writing and presenting the final report.
Students spent most of their time outside of the classroom. In addition to doing research, they attended community meetings, became involved with local issues, networked throughout the community, and gave presentations at professional sociology and criminology conferences. Throughout this process, students confronted numerous theoretical, political, ethical, and practical issues.
According to Polkinghorne (1988, p. 36), "narrative is a form of 'meaning making.'" Connelly and Clandinin (1990, p. 4) discuss the use of narrative research in the following terms: "The central task is evident when it is grasped that people are both living their stories in words as they reflect upon life and explain themselves to others." This paper is a demonstration of "living the story." Participant observation and content analysis of written documents were combined to form this narrative. The author, as research director, shares her observations of undergraduate research projects at UWP. Using "remembered" narrative, this paper tells a "story of experience" about the university's role in gang prevention strategies in two small cities in southeastern Wisconsin.
Between 1986 and 1988, UWP students conducted research projects in Racine and Kenosha, two cities located in the southeastern corner of Wisconsin, between the metropolitan centers of Milwaukee and Chicago. This proximity exposes the two smaller cities to many big-city problems.
Kenosha, known as the "Gateway to Wisconsin," is located just north of the Illinois border. Its present population is 80,375. According to the 1990 census, the vast majority of the population is white. African-Americans constitute 6.3 percent (5,070) of Kenosha's population, Hispanics are 5.7 percent (4,611) of the population, and other ethnic groups represent a small percentage of the total population. The auto industry is the focal point of Kenosha's economy. When the local Chrysler Jeep/Eagle plant permanently closed in December 1988, more than 5,000 workers lost their jobs.
Racine is located just north of Kenosha along the shore of Lake Michigan. This city, with a present population of 84,298, is an important manufacturing community, making tractors and farm implements, wax products, and automobile equipment and accessories; casting metal; and producing lithographed materials and other products. In Racine, as in Kenosha, the majority of the population is white, with persons of Danish descent accounting for approximately one-third of this racial category. African-Americans number 15,592, or 18.5 percent of the population, while Hispanics are a growing minority, estimated to be 7.7 percent (6,484) of Racine's population.
The Emergence of Gangs
During the early 1980s in Racine, a major regional shopping mall opened, displacing local businesses; factories were failing or moving out of the area; community agencies, schools, and government were experiencing budgetary cutbacks; and unemployment was at a high point. To put it simply, things were getting tougher. Symptoms of gang activity began to be observed (e.g., drugs, group fights, and an increasing school dropout rate). Initially, some members of the local police department and others were skeptical about the existence of gangs in Racine. The local police department officially acknowledged the presence of youth gangs in 1980 when gang graffiti first appeared.
One significant reaction to the rise of youth crime and the activity of gangs was expressed by the citizens of Georgetown, many of whom objected to seeing teenagers loitering in their neighborhood. Georgetown is a "transitional neighborhood" of apartments and older homes. Because of its changing population, Georgetown lacked an organized political voice, and as a result no recreational parks and/or activities had been planned in this Racine neighborhood. As concerns intensified, Georgetown residents called upon city officials to respond to the gang situation. On February 22, 1984, Resolution 9376 called for the establishment of the Mayor's Task Force Commission on Gangs and Juvenile Delinquency.
The Racine Gang Project
In November 1985, I was asked by the chairman of the Task Force Commission on Gangs and Juvenile Delinquency to conduct an exploratory study of the local gang situation. The Racine Gang Project (RGP) began in January 1986 and ended in August 1986. Its objectives were to develop a comprehensive understanding of the gang situation in Racine and to provide program and policy recommendations for community agencies to address the problem of youth gangs more effectively.
Survey research, field observation, interviews, and content analysis of written documents were some of the research methods used in this study. More than 500 adults participated in the community survey, and another 500 students were surveyed in the local public middle and high schools.[1] (See Table 1.)
TABLE 1: Does Racine Have a Gang Problem?
Adults Youth
Yes 416 (80.5%) 336 (73.4%)
No 29 (5.6%) 42 (9.2%)
Not sure 72 (13.9%) 80 (17.5%)
The community and youth surveys show overwhelmingly that residents perceive a gang problem in Racine. People who work with the community's youth agree that a gang problem exists. For example, an individual who works in juvenile corrections says that the gang situation in Racine is a serious one, noting, "Our crime rate is high considering our total population." Moreover, data from these surveys indicate that the problem is not perceived as a small one, but as an "average" to "large" problem. (See Table 2.)
Community (N=426) Youth (N=362)
Large 136 (28.3%) 90 (20.6%)
Average 210 (42.7%) 207 (47.4%)
Small 77 (15.7%) 65 (14.9%)
But the problem is not merely one of perception. According to the middle and high school survey, 59 percent of the respondents have been in direct contact with a gang member. Indeed, 6.5 percent of the high school students and 5.2 percent of the middle school students surveyed said that they belonged to a gang. (See Table 3.0.) The respondents who replied that they were gang members were then asked why they had joined a gang. They provided the following range of answers: (1) have nothing else to do, (2) want to have more friends, (3) want people to look up to them, and (4) want to protect themselves from other gangs. At that time, estimates indicated 700 gang members in Racine, with an additional 500 youths expressing an interest in gangs.
Adults (N=534) Youth (N=448)
Yes 126 (23.6%) 270 (60.3%)
No 348 (65.2%) 143 (31.9%)
Don't Know 60 (11.2%) 35 (7.8%)
Teachers, counselors, police officers, community leaders, and gang members participated in structured interviews. These interviews provided some insights into the variety of perceptions on the gang question. For example, one school principal whose school is in the inner city did not believe that his school had a gang problem. However, at the same school a teacher described the gang situation as serious, listing the following gangs as being visible at his school: S.O.S. (Sons of Satan), Vice Lords, Latin Kings, and Black Gangster Disciples.
The Racine Community Collaboration Project
According to the Racine Gang Project's final report, Racine had a definite need for improved coordination among the social institutions that deal with the community's youth. UWP provided the bulk of the writing and technical assistance needed to develop a proposal to the Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice for addressing the needs and problems of youth in Racine. The proposal was successful, and the City of Racine received $47,645 in funding. The City used these funds to establish the Racine Community Collaboration Project (RCCP). The RCCP, which ran from January 1, 1987, to June 30, 1988, sought to integrate efforts focusing on youth by community centers, schools, police, churches, and so forth. It enabled members of the collaboration project to participate in UWP workshops designed to build collaboration between social service agencies. It also allowed community members to meet on a regular basis and to share information across agencies.
The RCCP was divided into three components: (1) youth resources coordination, (2) youth employment opportunities, and (3) research and evaluation. The goals of the youth resources coordination office were to address more effectively the immediate needs of Racine's youth by improving the coordination of services and programs, to minimize the duplication and overlapping of services, and to improve efforts to use existing resources in the community. RCCP accomplished its short-term goals by employing several youths who worked at community centers and at UWP. The research and evaluation component focused on the effectiveness of the youth resources coordinator position to determine whether the position was effective and worthy of continued funding. In addition, the UWP students conducted a brief study of the local juvenile justice system and attempted to interview more self-identified gang members. This study provided important information concerning the development of alternative activities to gang involvement.
The Racine Youth Needs Assessment
Continued efforts suggested by the Racine Gang Project and the Racine Community Collaboration Project inspired a third project in Racine. UWP obtained a grant from a local private foundation to conduct a Racine Youth Needs Assessment (RYNA). The purpose of the RYNA was to develop a comprehensive evaluation of youth programs, organizations, and facilities. The research staff of the RYNA developed three evaluative instruments in order to examine Racine's youth programs: the agency director survey, the staff interview questionnaire, and the youth clientele survey. Eighty-five youth programs were identified, and 66 percent of these programs participated in the needs assessment study. The youth programs were divided into six areas: education and employment, health and welfare, counseling/referral, sports and cultural activities, community centers, and juvenile justice.
Some of the common themes that emerged from the Racine Youth Needs Assessment were that youth programs: (1) are competing for scarce resources, (2) experience a lack of interagency collaboration, (3) demonstrate limited vision in their approaches to obtaining funding, (4) take an intervention approach rather than a preventive approach, and (5) need new, creative, and imaginative innovations.
Emergence of Gangs
In Kenosha, rivalries among groups of juveniles from different schools and neighborhoods had long existed, but authorities made no connection between the graffiti and the neighborhood youths congregating on the streets. From time to time, individual youths or groups of youths committed minor delinquent acts. Police and juvenile authorities seemed satisfied to deal with these incidents as they occurred and generally were not alarmed by them.
However, beginning in late 1984, a series of events made authorities take notice. Starting with the new academic year, school officials reported a dramatic increase in ordinary discipline problems. Many of the students involved in these incidents wore clothing, made hand signals, and displayed insignia identical to those used by Chicago gang members.
Meanwhile, Kenosha police recorded a 25 percent increase in criminal and ordinance violations by juveniles during 1984; the rate had risen by no more than 9 percent annually during the previous four years (Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice, 1985). Although neither the police department nor the school district kept statistics on the percentage of problem youth who recently had moved to Kenosha from out of state, police and school officials expressed little doubt that those responsible were recent arrivals from the Chicago area.
The notion that Wisconsin's public assistance program had attracted "welfare immigrants" from Chicago and elsewhere emerged as a key element in the official perception of gangs in Kenosha. Many perceived a "welfare migration" from Chicago to Kenosha because welfare benefits are about 30 percent higher in Wisconsin than in Illinois. Of the 684 former Illinois families receiving AFDC payments in 1984, half had moved to Wisconsin within six months of the date when they had applied for such assistance (Kennedy, 1985). However, research by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found little support for the hypothesis that Wisconsin's higher benefit payments were acting as a magnet (Stumbras, 1985).
The first official recognition of a gang presence in Kenosha occurred during a Kenosha County Public Welfare Board meeting on June 5, 1985. The director of the Kenosha County Department of Social Services was quoted in the local press as saying that "an influx of Chicagoans into Kenosha has encouraged gang growth" ("Does City Have Gang Problems?," 1985). Other city officials, including the public school superintendent and police chief, agreed with the report. A month and a half later, the police department formally announced that it had established a gang crimes unit to curb the influence of street gangs in the city ("Joint effort urged," 1985). Within three months, the Kenosha police gang squad had handled 93 gang-related cases.
For the remainder of 1985 and throughout 1986, the news media continued to publicize Kenosha's gang problem. Repeatedly, the message was communicated that neighborhood street gangs were on the rise in Kenosha and that the children of former Illinois residents were to blame. Eventually, the notion that Chicago street gangs had branched into Kenosha was firmly planted in the public consciousness. The mayor responded by creating a task force to study the city's gang problem rather than supporting the police chief's budget request for more officers. The Kenosha gang task force was instructed to find the causes of the gang problem in Kenosha and to recommend policies for its abatement.
The Kenosha Gang Project
In August 1986, UWP students took the initiative by approaching the mayor of Kenosha with an offer to study the gang situation. By December 1986, the task force had commissioned UWP to conduct a local gang study with $3,000 of city funds. The main components of this study were the tabulation and analysis of existing agency data from the Kenosha Police Department, the Kenosha County Department of Social Services, and the Kenosha Unified School District. The content analysis of these records provided members of the Task Force on Gangs with the documentation needed for their policy and program recommendations. Key individuals, such as task force members, community leaders, and juvenile justice personnel, participated in interviews in order to provide their perceptions of the gang situation. In addition, group interviews with self-identified gang members provided further data. The research team described and documented the phenomenon of gangs in Kenosha, identified the needs of youth, and determined constructive alternatives to gang involvement.
Agency Data
The quality of the data depends on accurate record keeping by the agency. Most of the records containing "don't know" and "missing data" occurred when the agencies did not know or did not record such information. The source of the data shows that the police department provided 62.3 percent of the case files for this study. (See Table 4.) Some of this data was compiled in conjunction with local schools and social service agencies. Only 8 percent of the existing files on street gangs in Kenosha overlap among the three agencies. Data derived from agency records may reflect more about agency policies and practices than about the gang problem itself. A careful analysis of agency data identified 530 gang members in Kenosha. The purpose of this analysis was to eliminate duplication, as much as possible, in counting gang members.[2] Of 530 gang members identified, 305 (57.5%) are adults, 203 (38.3%) are juveniles, and the remaining 22 (4.2%) are "false flaggers."[3]
Number of Gang Members in Kenosha
Police Department 275 (46.9%)
County Department of Social Services 148 (25.3%)
Unified School District --- -------
Police and Social Services 42 (7.2%)
Police and Schools 48 (8.2%)
Schools and Social Services 26 (4.4%)
Police, Schools and Social Services 47 (8.0%)
Total 586
(100.0%)
Demographic Overview
Based on the agency data, 83.6 percent (490) of the gang members in Kenosha were identified as males, while 4.6 percent (27) were identified as females. The remaining 11.8% (69) could not be identified as male or female.
The largest concentration of gang members are between the ages of 17 and 19 (34%). Approximately 16.4 percent are 16 years old or younger.
African-Americans constitute 54.7 percent (321) of the total gang population, followed by Hispanics, representing 17.7 percent (104) of the gang population, and whites, who are 13.5 percent (79) of the gang population. The ethnicity of the remaining 14.1 percent could not be determined.
One hundred and twenty-six (23.7%) of the gang members were born in Kenosha, 101 (19.0%) were born outside of Wisconsin and Illinois, and 59 (11.1%) were born in Chicago. The majority of gang members, 54.3 percent, came from Wisconsin and Illinois, but from areas outside of Kenosha and Chicago.
Gangs have 232 (40.0%) regular members, 133 (22.9%) hard-core members, 84 (14.5%) marginal members, 36 (6.2%) false flaggers, 33 (5.7%) on the fringe, and 9 (1.6%) leaders. A marginal member is one who does not participate in all gang activities - participation is confined to nonviolent activities. An "on the fringe" member is someone who associates with gang members but does not participate in gang activity and is not viewed by gang members as being part of the gang. Most gang members belong to the Black Gangster Disciples (376 or 64.2%), followed by the Latin Kings (39 or 6.7%), the Vikings (36 or 6.2%), and the Vice Lords (25 or 4.3%). The remaining gang members belong to other gangs, such as the White Opals.
Three gang leaders are from Kenosha, four are from Illinois, and two are from outside of Wisconsin and Illinois. One gang leader is white and eight are African-American. Six of the gang leaders are under age 17, and three gang leaders are 18 years old or older.
Findings
Ninety-three percent of the juvenile gang members and 90 percent of the adult gang members have prior police records. The agency data reveal that eight (1.3%) persons in the sample had committed murder. The most frequent offenses committed overall were battery and burglary. The most frequently committed status offense was running away from home.
No gang leaders have been on juvenile probation. Of the marginal members, 39.1 percent have been on probation, followed by 25.2 percent of the regular members, 10.5 percent of the hard-core members, 3.2 percent of the fringe members, and 2.8 percent of the false flaggers. According to the agency data, 3.5 percent of the gang members in Kenosha have been in juvenile foster homes.
Interview Data
Interviews with task force members, juvenile justice personnel, and community leaders reveal that these individuals perceive the gang problem in Kenosha to be minimal and controllable, while others believe that the problem is escalating and can become potentially dangerous. According to interviews with individuals who do not belong to gangs, higher welfare benefits are attracting gang members and/or their families to Kenosha. This perception does not hold true, however, according to recent research. Family connections, safe environment, and other quality-of-life indicators were cited as reasons that individuals and families relocate to Wisconsin from nearby states (Stumbras, 1985; Takata & Baskin, 1988).
Kenosha gang members who were interviewed said that they joined gangs because: (1) they wanted to make money, (2) they had nothing else to do, and (3) they had family problems. Gang members also said that they needed more things to do in their community - more organized sports activities and events, more community centers, and more jobs. Gang members carry weapons (e.g., knives, pipes, and guns) for protection. Gang members indicate that they are using alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine, which are easily obtainable.
Researchers verified the existence of six gangs: Black Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, Vikings, Vice Lords, Ku Klux Klan, and White Opals. Still, gang members said that "a lot of kids run around acting like gang members but they are not really in gangs."
According to gang members, Kenosha gangs are hierarchically structured but poorly organized compared to Chicago gangs. Indeed, by most accounts, Kenosha youth gangs are far from being cohesive entities. This characteristic of Kenosha gangs probably reflects their amorphous beginnings (Zevitz, 1993). The typical gang was formed spontaneously as an amalgamation of young neighborhood males - and, in at least one case, females - of about the same age.
The Kenosha Gang Project underscores the difference in official versus neighborhood youth perceptions of "the big-city gang connection" and its significance for youth gangs in this smaller sized community. Based on content analysis of newspaper articles and interview data, the findings strongly suggest that when the presence of gangs in Kenosha could no longer be denied, police, school, and other local officials used the convergence of a set of factors to impose on the community an interpretation of the gang situation consistent with their vested interests (Zatz, 1987). Local officials used Kenosha's proximity to Chicago to generate fear that Chicago street gangs were branching out across the Illinois-Wisconsin border. This perception enabled them to minimize and contain the potential damage to the image of their agencies and the city, which was threatened by the realization that Kenosha street gangs consisted of "home-grown" neighborhood youths.
The critical factors that converged in the public consciousness were: (1) the long-standing belief by local middle-class whites that a "welfare magnet" created by higher AFDC benefits in Wisconsin was drawing people from inner-city Chicago; (2) the impression that these welfare recipients where mostly African-American and Hispanic; (3) related misgivings over the rapid numerical growth of racial and ethnic minorities within Kenosha and the perceived social and economic impact of this growth on the "quality of life" in this small city; and (4) renewed concern over deteriorating labor market conditions within Kenosha and the surrounding communities, fueled by the disintegration of Kenosha's automobile manufacturing industry - the single largest employer in the area. Because the media adopted the official explanation for Kenosha's gang problems, an already marginal group of poor and minority youth in the community came to be defined as "problematic" and was blamed for many of the community's perceived problems (Zevitz & Takata, 1992, p. 104).
The inability of the traditional community institutions of socialization to reach these low-income adolescents left a void that gangs have filled. Rather than confirming this reality, it is more politically expedient to say, as one elected official said, "The children who have been born and raised in Kenosha basically are not involved in gangs. It's been an import."
As Zatz (1987, p. 131) points out, the social imagery connected with the notion of a gang is useful in "drawing attention to external factors beyond the control" of local government officials. Blaming drug-dealing gang members from Chicago for a variety of social ills - increasing juvenile crime, drug abuse, school disciplinary problems, and rising welfare costs - is easier than seeking explanations and solutions within the context of the community itself.
Prior research (Zatz, 1987) on youth gangs reveals that the label "gang member" is a social status that defines the way a community, including members of the legal system, perceives and deals with certain youth. The interview and survey data support this interactionist interpretation of the gang phenomenon. Gangs exist in both Racine and Kenosha, but in both communities adults and youth reveal very important differences in their perceptions of the threat, location, contact point, and characteristics of these gangs. Interviews with adults who work with the community's youth generally substantiate the perception that a gang problem exists, but the extent of the problem is very much at issue.
The data also illustrate that most youth perceive collective delinquent behavior as a "near group" occurrence - that is, less serious and less threatening than other, more organized criminal enterprises. In comparison, most adults view gang behavior as very serious and perceive the gang itself as a more formalized, "group-like" entity. Adults are more likely than youth to be influenced almost exclusively by the media (Takata, 1986). Consequently, adults are more easily persuaded by "official" assessments of youth gangs. On the other hand, youth may find it easier to recognize certain activities as gang-related because, unlike adults who identify the gang as a well-integrated and -maintained collection of delinquents, youth see the gang as an ephemeral group.
In general, youth have a much more amorphous perception of gang members than adults, whereas adults have a much clearer image - an image that tends to reflect stereotypical notions derived from "official" definitions. A youth who has contact with a gang does not encounter a well-integrated group - i.e., one that is sustained and integrated by group norms and stable membership. The relatively few youth who admitted being gang members defined themselves as "friends having nothing to do" or just "a bunch of people" who "do things together and look out for each other."
In essence, youth are more likely than adults to perceive the existence of gangs in Racine and Kenosha, but are less likely to perceive them as a problem. Youth perceptions seem closely related to Yablonsky's "near-group" analysis. In other words, on the level at which youth interact with other youth, street gangs in Racine and Kenosha are not "the highly organized, cohesive collection of individuals" seen by most adults, but a "near-group" assemblage of individuals characterized by "diffuse role definition," "limited cohesion," "impermanence," and "shifting membership" (1959, p. 109). These perceptions of youth gangs are quite different from the "official" perceptions of law enforcement, social workers, and the media, who tend to see a more integrated and formalized version of gang activity - a version that generally serves as the source of adult perceptions of gangs.
Kenosha and Racine are not isolated cases. Their experiences are being repeated in one regional community after another, where minority youth gangs are defined by and their existence attributed to metropolitan gang connections. Media sensationalism and gang squad development abound. Age-graded corner groups of African-American and Hispanic youths are being labeled and dealt with as gang members. The findings from undergraduate student research at UWP add to the growing body of literature (Moore, 1978; Zatz, 1985; Vigil, 1988; Hagedorn, 1988) that identifies wide variation in the way in which the gang phenomenon is interpreted. The literature suggests that this variation may be related to vested interests as well as the sources of information from which these interpretations derive.
In response to gangs, a collaborative approach between the university and the community is extremely effective in small cities and rural areas. Such action research is a labor-intensive learning and teaching process, but having community and university support at all levels helps tremendously. The benefits derived from this type of action research include the following:
The university remains one of the most underused community resources in many small cities and rural areas. These four undergraduate research projects demonstrate that much work can be accomplished through a close working relationship between the university and the community. Thus, in an age of scarcity, such partnerships between the university and the community can provide a crucial resource to local jurisdictions.
Brudvig, S., Takata, S.R., & Nommensen, T. (1988). The Racine youth needs assessment. Kenosha, WI: University of Wisconsin-Parkside.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.
Burgess, E.W. (1916). Juvenile delinquency in a small city. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 6(3), 724-728.
Cloward, R.A., & Ohlin, L.E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Cohen, A.K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Conklin, J.E. (1975). The impact of crime. New York: Macmillan.
Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.
Curran, J. (1977). The social systems research center. Unpublished manuscript.
Curran, J., & Telesky, C. (1975). A student-operated research center: A new climate of learning. Unpublished manuscript.
Denzin, N. (1970). Sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Does city have gang problems? (1985, June 6). Kenosha News, p. 1.
Fuhrmann, V. (1992, May). Youth gangs hit the small time. Governing, pp. 28-29.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Hagedorn, J. (1988). People and folks. Chicago: Lakeview Press.
Huff, C.R. (1990). Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnstone, J.W. (1983). Recruitment to a youth gang. Youth and Society, 14, 281-300.
Joint effort urged to combat gangs. (1985, July 26). Kenosha News, p. 1.
Kennedy, J. (1985). The impact of Wisconsin's AFDC benefits levels on Kenosha County in-migration. Kenosha, WI: Kenosha County Department of Social Services and Carthage College.
Klein, M.W. (1968). Impressions of juvenile gang members. Adolescence, 3(9), 53-78.
Klein, M.W. (1975). Juvenile gangs in context. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Klein, M.W., & Maxson, C. (1987). Street gang violence. In M.E. Wolfgang & N. Weiner (Eds.), Violent crime, violent criminals. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Krisberg, B.A. (1974). Gang youth and hustling: The psychology of survival. Issues in Criminology, 9(1), 115-129.
Lagey, J.C. (1957). The ecology of juvenile delinquency in the small city and rural hinterland. Rural Sociology, 22, 230-234.
Leonard, G. (1968). Education and ecstasy. New York: Dell.
Maxson, C. (1993). Investigating gang migration: Contextual issues for intervention. The Gang Journal, 1, 1-8.
Maxson, C., Klein, M.W., & Gordon, M.A. (1987). Gangs in smaller cities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.
Miller, W.B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14(3), 5-19.
Miller, W.B. (1980). Gangs, groups and serious youth crime. In D. Shichor & D.H. Kelly (Eds.), Critical issues in juvenile delinquency. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Miller, W.B. (1981). Crime by youth gangs and groups in the United States. (Preliminary draft.) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Moore, J.W. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, drugs and prison in the barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Myerhoff, H.L., & Myerhoff, B.G. (1964). Field observations of middle class "gangs." Social Forces, 42, 328-336.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Rivera, R.J., Green, L., & Seng, M. (1973). Juvenile delinquency in Illinois. Chicago: Institute for Juvenile Research.
Rosenbaum, D.P., & Grant, J.A. (1983). Gangs and youth problems in Evanston: Research findings and policy options. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Schutt, R., Blalock, H., Jr., & Wagenaar, T. (1984). Goals and means for research methods courses. Teaching Sociology, 11, 235-258.
Shaw, C., & McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Short, J.F., & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spergel, I.A. (1984). Violent gangs in Chicago: In search of social policy. Social Science Review, 58, 199-225.
Stumbras, B. (1985). Migration as an issue in the Wisconsin AFDC program. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.
Takata, S.R. (1986). The Racine gang project: Preliminary report. Racine, WI: Task Force Commission on Gangs and Juvenile Delinquency.
Takata, S.R. (1988). The Racine community collaboration project: Final report. Kenosha, WI: University of Wisconsin-Parkside.
Takata, S.R. (1991a). The importance of integrating research experiences in today's criminal justice curriculum. Journal of Crime and Justice, 14(1), 77-98.
Takata, S.R. (1991b). Who is empowering whom? The social construction of empowerment. In C. Sleeter (Ed.), Empowerment through multicultural education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Takata, S.R., & Baskin, S. (1988). The Kenosha gang project: Preliminary report. Kenosha, WI: Task Force on Gangs.
Takata, S.R., & Leiting, W. (1987). Learning by doing: The teaching of sociological research methods. Teaching Sociology, 15, 144-150.
Takata, S.R., & Tyler, C. (in press). A community-university based approach to gang intervention and delinquency prevention: Racine's innovative model for small cities. The Gang Journal.
Takata, S.R., & Zevitz, R.G. (1987). Youth gangs in Racine: An examination of community perceptions. Wisconsin Sociologist, 24(4), 142-151.
Takata, S.R., & Zevitz, R.G. (1990). Divergent perceptions of group delinquency in a Midwestern community: Racine's gang problem. Youth and Society, 21, 282-305.
Thrasher, F.M. (1927). The gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Census of population and housing. General social and economic characteristics: Wisconsin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vigil, J.D. (1988). Barrio gangs. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice. (1985). Crime and arrests 1985. Madison, WI: Author.
Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice. (1989). Crime and arrests. Madison, WI: Author.
Yablonsky, L. (1959). The delinquent gang as a near-group. Social Problems, 7, 108-117.
Yablonsky, L. (1966). The violent gang. New York: Macmillan.
Zatz, M.S. (1985). Los cholos: Legal processing of Chicano gang members. Social Problems, 33, 13-30.
Zatz, M.S. (1987). Chicano youth gangs and crime: The creation of a moral panic. Contemporary Crisis, 2, 129-158.
Zevitz, R. (1993). Youth gangs in a small Midwestern city: Insiders' perspectives. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16(1), 149-165.
Zevitz, R., & Takata, S.R. (1992). Metropolitan gang influence and the emergence of group delinquency in a regional community. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 93-106.
Copyright © 1994:
Midwest Regional Center for
Drug-Free Schools & Communities
North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory
Contact: info@ncrel.org
Posted on March 31, 1995
URL: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/v1takata.htm