Department of Geography

University of Southern California

PO Box 18238

Los Angeles, CA 90018

(213) 740-5298 office

(213) 740-0056 fax

(310) 287-8303 Voice Mail

Email: aalonso@usc.edu

"This is Los Angeles, a city of many claims including this one, it is now the gang capital of the nation. Last year alone there were 452 gang related homicides in the greater Los Angeles area. Tonight we will see if t here is anything that can be done about all this."

In Los Angeles and other urban areas in the United States the formation of street gangs has been increasing. Research conducted by sociologist, Malcolm Klein showed that there were 100 cities reporting gang activity in the US in 1970 (Figure 1) and that there was a significant number of cities in Southern California reporting street gang activity. By 1992, Klein’s survey concluded that 769 cities in the US were reporting street gang activity (Figure 2) (See Klein 1995:193-195).

Research by Walter Miller showed that by the mid 1970s, Los Angeles was already on pace of becoming the gang capital of the nation, with a estimated national leading 580 gangs being reported in Los Angeles. New York led the nation in gang membership with 24,000, and Los Angeles was second in the country with 13,500 estimated gang members (Figure 3). Today however there is an estimated 650,000 gang members in the United States (US Department of Justice 1997), including 150,000 in Los Angeles County (Figure 4). The Bloods and Crips, the most well known gangs of Los Angeles, are 95% African-American and they have been increasing in numbers since their beginnings in 1969. And in 1996 there are over 600 Hispanic gangs in Los Angeles County. Not only has the number of gangs and gang members in Los Angeles been increasing, but throughout the 1980s so had the level of violence. Evidence of this violent surge of activity can be seen in the increase of gang related homicides in Los

Angeles from 1985 to 1992 (Table 1). After reaching a record high 355 murders in 1980, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and the Hard Core Gang Unit began to focus their resources on prosecuting gang related offenses in the early 1980s shortly after this special unit was created in 1979 (Collier & Horowitz 1983: 94). The area of the Sports Arena, Coliseum, and University of Southern California where the Summer Olympics of 1984 were scheduled to arrive became a prime area of concern for law enforcement. An ex-gang member from Compton describe the changes when the early 1980s arrived:

Before, if you shot somebody, you got six months;

At the conclusion of 1981 there were 292 gang related murders reported, a 21% decrease from 1980, and by 1982 the 205 murders reported was a 43% decrease from 1980. During the three years from 1982-1984, gang related murders remained relatively stable, but the following year after the summer Olympics concluded, gang related murders began to rise again. The 271 murders reported in 1985 was a 28% increase from the previous Olympiad year, matching the highest previous increase from 1979 to 1980. Since 1985-1992, gang related homicides had increased in each of the eight consecutive years (Figure 5). However the year following the Los Angeles Civil Unrest of 1992, there was a significant drop in homicides, the first reduction in gang related homicides in Los Angeles since 1984. This was possible through a gang truce organized in part by Tony Bogart and implemented by the four largest gangs in Watts (Bounty Hunters, Grape

Street, Hacienda Village and PJ Watts). As of last year we are seeing the lowest figures reported in ten years despite the increasing number of gang members over the same time. It is not known if the gang truce of 1992 is still responsible for the low numbers of homicides or if some other factors in policing efforts and/or youth programs have had an influence on the reduction of gang related murders.

The purpose of my research is to identify the proliferation of gangs in Los Angeles County from 1960 to 1996 by examining gang territories through field work, and to link some key historical events to the development of Black gangs in Los Angeles (i.e.

Crips and Bloods). Surprisingly there has been very little research done on territoriality of street gangs. In 1974, geographers David Ley & Roman Cybriwsky published a study on street gangs in a Philadelphia neighborhood, and they examined how graffiti was used as a way to identify gang territories and boundaries, and how gangs communicated via messages through graffiti. Ley and Cybriwsky were able to draw territories of Philadelphia gangs through an analysis of graffiti. In 1983 Joan Moore and anthropologist Diego Vigil, published a study on Hispanic gangs of East Los Angeles; they specifically examined

the territoriality of the gang, and the residences of several gang members to determine if there was a significant relationship. Through data collected in the mid 1970s, they concluded that gangs in East Los Angeles relied on the recruitment of potential gang members from outside of the territorial limits of the gang. In 1996 Mark Goodman, a geography student, examined territories of several gangs in Fresno, and through a survey he uncovered the perceptions of the residents regarding gangs and their territories. This previous research always looked at gang territories for only a specific time but the purpose of this research is to examine gang territories of Black Los Angeles gangs for four time periods.

There is not much geographical information available on gangs in Los Angeles County. Most information on gang territories is available from either the Los Angeles Police Department or the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Community organizations, non-profit organizations, researchers, or neighborhood watch groups have not kept current data on territorial information of local gangs. The Los Angeles police department’s 18 divisions are each only concerned with the gangs in their jurisdictional area. Most maps produced only show local gangs to the division. Also gang units between the City and the County do not often work together on investigative efforts, so the sharing of spatial data between the various units are rare.

Rather than trying to gather data from over 30 police units to construct a Los Angeles County gang map, the information on current gang territories was gathered through intensive field work to create not only a current gang territory map but a very accurate map. For the 1996 map, the field was visited to uncover the most accurate boundaries of all the Black gangs in Los Angeles, by interviewing gang members and residents, and analyzing graffiti. Over a three month period, the County of Los Angeles was surveyed and fifteen cities were found to have gang activity among Black youths. While driving and walking through several neighborhoods, all the streets where gang activity was identified had been recorded. On many occasions photographs of the graffiti were captured where territorial claims where evident. The majority of the gangs in Los Angeles County were within the City of Los Angeles, but other cities visited where Black gang activity was observed were in Altadena, Carson, Compton, Duarte, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Long Beach, Lynwood, Pomona, Paramount, Pasadena, Santa Monica, and West Covina. Unincorporated areas within Los Angeles County where Black gang activity was observed were in Athens, Florence, Lennox, Rosewood and Willowbrook. Places in the of City Los Angeles where gangs were observed outside of the South-Central area were in Mid-City, Venice, San Pedro, Watts, and Wilmington.

To construct gang territory maps for my other three periods (1960, 1972, and 1978), going into the field was not possible, because over time the spatial arrangement of gangs have changed significantly. To accomplish this I had to utilize the interview method of data collection to gather the historical information on gangs in Los Angeles to construct the most accurate maps that reflect those time periods.

The data collected to construct the 1960 gang territory map came from information collected through oral histories and from interviews with members of these groups that were active in the 1950s and 1960s. The first step was to come into contact with several people who were either active gang members during the 1950s and 1960s, or who lived in these communities during this time who had information relevant to my research. It was important to make contacts and communicate the purpose of my inquiries to establish positive relationships with those who would be able to contribute to the summation of my data. After making numerous contacts with ex-gang members, I was invited to the first annual picnic sponsored by the Slauson Village Society in 1996 where over 500 hundred ex-gang members attended to come together in peace and to celebrate their history. This is where interviews were conducted about the places in the city were their gangs were most active, asking the following questions that were interwoven in a general conversation.

The answers to these questions motivated several other interesting topics on gangs during the 1950s and 1960s. The information gathered at this picnic in 1996 was extremely helpful but not comprehensive, because many of those that I spoke with could not remember detailed information about their territories. I was always pointed in the direction of someone else that was able to provide more information, but by the end of the day I had not gathered enough information to complete my research. This project was put on hold until the following year where I attended the second annual picnic in August of 1997. At this meeting I was subsequently was able to complete this research on 1960 gang territories.

The information collected to construct the 1972 gang territory map came from data provided by the Los Angeles Police Department’s 77^th Division that was published in the Los Angeles Times in December of 1972 (Rosenzweig 1972). It was a partial map of south Los Angeles gangs, so to make the map more accurate I integrated the information from that article along with interviews of several gang members of the time. The LAPD data did not include gangs north of Slauson Ave, an area outside the jurisdiction of 77^th Division, so the data collected from interviews was able to provide missing information to create the most accurate map available for 1972.

The data collected to construct the 1978 gang territory map came the California Youth Authority (CYA) and information I had collected through interviews. The CYA documentary data consisted of four maps that had gang territories highlighted with markers that covered all of Los Angeles County. They collected their data from youths that had been incarcerated in CYA, and after a careful examination of these maps, several errors in the data were identified. Again, reliance on information obtained from individuals that were active in 1978 were synthesized with the CYA data to create an accurate map.

The remainder of this paper will focus on three major periods of Los Angeles history relevant to Black gangs and the evolution of their territories. The first period was the era of the Black Clubs which where popular from the late 1940s until 1965. The second period was the political activist period from 1965-1969 where little to no Black street gang activity existed, and the third period is the resurgence of new gangs; the Crips and the Bloods which began in 1969.

The first major period of gangs in Los Angeles began in the late 1940s and ended in 1965. There were Black gangs present in Los Angeles prior to WWII, but they were small in numbers, and little is known on the activity of these groups. Some of the Black youth groups that existed in Los Angeles in the late 1920s and 1930s were the Boozies, Goodlows, Blogettes, and the Driver Brothers. Most of these groups were family oriented. Max Bond (1936), wrote briefly about a Black gang of fifteen year olds from the Central Avenue that mostly stole automobile accessories and bicycles (p 270). The first major Black gangs in Los Angeles surfaced on the Eastside in the late 1940s near Jefferson High School in the Central Avenue area and in the Watts area shortly after WWII (Map 1). By 1960 several Black gangs slowly began to emerge on the Westside of Los Angeles (Table 2).

Several of these gangs fought against each other for over ten years, but in 1965 after the Watts Rebellion and under the leadership of Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter, gang rivalry was successfully eradicated. Carter, a member of the notorious "Slausons," was able to redirect the energy of a majority of Black gang members and their affiliates towards being more politically aware and having greater concern for the social problems that plagued their community. Carter was prosperous in transforming the Black youths of south Los Angeles to revolutionary soldiers against police brutality (Hilliard & Cole p 218). The Rebellion of 1965 was considered "the Last Great Rumble," as members of these groups dismissed old rivalries and supported each other against the much unpopular Los Angeles Police Department (Davis 1990: 297).

The following year Carter was elected president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Black Panther Party (BBP), whose sole concern was monitoring the actions of the Los Angeles Police Department. Several members of the Black Panthers and US Organization, which were formed shortly after the Watts Rebellion, were at one time members of the Black gangs in Los Angeles during the 1950s and 1960s.

For nearly five years, from 1965, there were nearly no active Black street gangs in Los Angeles. Several reports that Black gang activity was on the decline began to circulate (Klein 1971: 22). As the Black power movement gained strength, Black youths from Los Angeles came to a unison that the common enemy in the community was law enforcement (Baker 1988:28). Ex-gang members such as Ron Wilkins, created the Community Action Patrol to monitor police abuses (Davis 1990:297) and William Sampson (ex-gang member of the Slausons) along with Gerald Aubry (ex-gang member of the Orientals), started the Sons of Watts whose key function was the "police the police" (Obtola 1972:7). The BBP organized the Black Student Union on several high schools campuses in Los Angeles and the Black Congress, a meeting place for Black residents concerning community issues was opened on Florence and Broadway.

But the efforts of the Black Panthers and other political and militant groups to organize young blacks against police brutality were stifled by the FBI because they specifically viewed the actions of the Panthers as subversive and a threat to the national security of the nation. By 1967, the Panthers were one of the strongest Black political groups in the nation and by November 1968, J. Edgar Hoover dispatched a memorandum calling his field agents to exploit all avenues of creating ...dissension within the ranks of

the BBP (Churchill and Wall 1990:63). The counterintelligence (COINTELPRO) program that the FBI used against the BBP, was also used in the 1940s and throughout the 1950s against the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Communist Party (CPUSA) (Churchill & Wall 1990:37). COINTELPRO are tactics designed to divide, conquer, weaken and to make ineffective the actions of a particular organization. From 1968-1971 these tactics were used against the BBP to "control and neutralize a dangerous Black political group." The most viscous and unrestrained application of COINTELPRO techniques during the late 1960s and early 1970s were clearly reserved for the BBP (Churchill & Wall 1990: 61).

In Los Angeles specific individuals were targeted and actions were taken to disrupt the activities of the BPP. Covert activity by the Criminal Conspiracy Section (CSS) of the Los Angeles Police Department, was to designed to "curtail the Panther’s growth, no matter what it cost" (Churchill & Wall 1990: 63). But there was also another political group headed by Ron Karenga known as the US organization gaining strength and J. Edgar Hoover wanted to capitalize on the differences between the Panthers and US, as well as exploit all avenues of creating further dissension within the ranks of the BBP. This was accomplished through the distribution of fabricated publications, leaflets, and cartoons, by CSS which was able to heighten tensions between both groups. Their disputes made its way to UCLA, where the two groups were fighting over control of the African-American studies department (Baker 1988:28). In January of 1969 Carter and John Huggins were murdered at Campbell Hall on the campus of UCLA (Drummond & Reich 1969). George "Ali" Steiner and Larry "Watani" Stiener of the US organization were arrested and sent to San Quentin prison for their involvement. It is believed today by many former Panthers that Carter and Huggins’ assailants were police infiltrators of US organization (Davis 1990:298, Churchill & Wall 1990:42). There is not doubt that both the BBP and US were infiltrated by police agents, and that the incident at UCLA was instigated by both federal and local agents, but evidence to suggest that the Steiner brothers were working for the government is inefficient. Many point to the fact that their escape from a maximum security prison several years later was assisted by government officials as a favor, which would assume some level of government connection. Little attention is given to how the two brothers were able to survive for several years in a Bay area prison populated with Panther sympathizers, and how Watani was involved with Inmate Radio continuing to promote Black nationalism. San Quentin inmates would not allowed Watani and Ali to be so active if they truly believed that they were responsible for the murder of Carter and Huggins. Some have even suggested that Watani and Ali were actually being attacked by both Carter and Huggins who were both armed, and that another individual was responsible for the two murders. The District Attorney’s report does indicate that one of the Steiner brothers was shot, but no investigation has been conducted that reveal the facts behind this incident.

In Los Angeles, 1969 was the end of any forward progress by Black political groups and I argue that this year marks the turning point away from positive Black identity in Los Angeles. When Geronimo Pratt became Carter’s successor as the new head of the BBP in 1969, he quickly became the target for "neutralization" by the FBI. Pratt, a soldier from Vietnam who earned 18 combat decorations including the Silver Star, Bronze Star for Valor and the Purple Heart, became the target of several investigations, arrests, and indictments under COINTELPRO tactics. This ultimately led to a 1972 murder conviction for which he served 27 years until his release in 1997. The following list is some of the harassment that Pratt endured by Los Angeles Police Department from 1969.

·April 4, 1969, arrested for possession of an explosive device, charges dropped

·April 23, 1969, arrested for kidnapping, acquitted

·June 15, 1969, questioned for suspicion of murder

·December 8, 1969, conspiracy to assault police officers, acquitted

·December 4,1970, Arrested for murder.

·July 28, 1972, convicted of murder

The attack on Black political leadership in Los Angeles, and the power vacuum that remained created a large void for young black youths. As many Black identity groups became ineffective, youths looking for a new identity began to mobilize as street gangs again as they did in the 1950s and early 60s. Raymond Washington, a 15 year old student at Freemont High School started the first Crip group in 1969, shortly after much of the Panther power base was eliminated and as other groups became futile in Los Angeles. This was the beginning of the third major period of Black gang activity in Los Angeles. Washington, who was too young to participate in the Panther movement but absorbed much of the Panther rhetoric of community control of neighborhoods (Baker 1988:28) modeled his quasi-political gang after the Panther’s militant style, sporting the popular black leather jackets of the time.

Because of immaturity and a lack of political leadership young Raymond Washington and the Crips where never able to develop an efficient political agenda for social change within the community. They became excessively concerned with imitating the Panther appearance and their first crimes were associated with stealing leather jackets from other youths. This led to the first Crip murder, when a 16 year old Los Angeles High School student was beaten to death by a small group of Crips at Hollywood Palladium after a concert in 1972. The media coverage of this event, plus continued assaults by the Crips attracted other youths to join the Crips for a variety of reasons. This also motivated several other youths to form other non-Crip gangs in response to continued Crip intimidation. In 1972, three years after the first Crip gang was formed, there were 18 Crip and Blood gangs in Los Angeles (Map 2). The data I collected for 1978 shows that this gang trend continued to grow with 60 Black gangs in Los Angeles identified, 15 Blood gangs and 45 Crip gangs (Map 3). By 1996 there was close to three hundred Black gangs: 76 Blood Gangs and 198 Crip Gangs (Map 4). The previous groups offered Black youths a vehicle that occupied the time and energy of many youngsters that might have been spent in gang activity (Cohen 1972:2), but after 1969, the only groups that young Black could identity with in Los Angeles quickly became gangs: the Crips and the Bloods.

The following research that will be included in the theoretical and analysis sections of my theses.

I. Through a careful examination of gang territories, and through an interpretation of gang graffiti to identify relationships between gangs, what can be concluded about the spatial arrangement of gangs in Los Angeles?

After analyzing gang graffiti to identify alliances and rivalries among gangs, we will discover that conflict between gangs is rooted in either geographic location or specific selection. Identifying specific social relationships among gangs through graffiti, may lead to stating that the aggression and violence perpetrated by gangs may be determined by spatial proximity as Ley (1975) theorized when examining conflict among Philadelphia gangs. This analysis will determine to what spatial extent does gang rivalry reach. Do gangs engage in conflict with neighboring gangs, or will we identify conflicts that are at greater distances?

Alliances are also important factors in the formation of gang networks, and we will be able to determine, through a cartographic analysis, if there is an identifiable pattern of how gangs form these alliances.

II. What types of features in the built and natural environment are influential in the production and maintenance of gang territories?

Graffiti may delineate space and define a gang’s territory, but does it create these socially claimed spaces, or are there other processes at work that assist in the production of gang territories? After a cartographic analysis of gang territories on a micro-scale, much of the built environment will appear to shape these turfs. What role do freeways/expressways, major thoroughfares, parks, commercial districts and other features of the built and natural environment play in the process of territory production and maintenance.

III. How does graffiti in and around gang boundaries, or "zones of conflict", differ from graffiti near the core of a territory, and what do these differences say about gang "representation"?

After analyzing graffiti throughout Los Angeles, the content should reveal different representations of the gang discernable through the graffiti from different parts of the territory. The graffiti found near the center should be closely associated with group identity and promoting the status of that gang, including memorials and other tributes. Graffiti near borders should be more aggressive with violent messages of disrespect towards gang rivals. The locations of these two types of graffiti will be mapped by a Geographic Information Systems along with gang territories to identify if there are spatial distinctions between the two types.

IV. What is the spatial distribution of the most aggressive graffiti, and is there a relationship between the locations of such graffiti and gang related violent crime, specifically homicides?

If the more aggressive graffiti is found to be concentrated in certain locations, this may be indicative of where violence between gang members would be likely to occur. Often gang members will cross out graffiti of rival gangs, which is usually followed by some sort of retaliation (Shelden et al. 1996:118). To test this hypothesis a study of gang graffiti in the West Adams and Exposition Park area will be surveyed, and aggressive graffiti will be identified and mapped. This survey will take an account all gang graffiti seen in the study area (1995-1997), and it will be identified as either hostile aggressive graffiti, which challenges gang rivals, or graffiti that is not challenging. Recent gang homicide (1993-1997) data from South Bureau Homicide Division of the Los Angeles Police Department will be mapped along with the most hostile locations of gang graffiti to determine if there is a relationship.

Baker, Bob. 1988. Modern Gangs Have Roots in Racial Turmoil of ‘60s. Los Angeles Times, June 26, p B28, 31

Bond, Max. 1936. The Negro in Los Angeles. Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California.

Churchill, Ward & Jim Vander Wall. 1990. Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Boston: South End Press.

Cohen, Jerry. 1972. Theories Vary on the Rise of Black Youth Gangs. Los Angeles Times March 19, p. B1-3.

Curry, G. David & Irving Spergel. 1988. Gang Homicide, Delinquency, and Community" Criminology 26: 381-405.

Davis, Mike. 1990. City of Quartz:Excavating Los Angeles’ Future. New York:Vintage.

Drummond, William J, & Kenneth Reich. 1969. Two Black Panthers Slain in UCLA Hall. Los Angeles Times, January 18, p. A1.

Goodman, Mark Alan. Perceptions of Gangs and Gang Territories in Fresno, California. Masters Thesis, California State University, Fresno, 1996.

Hilliard, David & Lewis Cole. 1993. This Side of Glory: The Autobiography of David Hilliard and the Story of the Black Panther Party. New York: Back Bay Books.

Huff, Ronald C. (Ed).1996. Gangs in America 2^nd Edition. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publication

Klein, Malcolm. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Klein, Malcolm. 1995. The American Street Gang: Its Nature Prevalence and Control. New York: Oxford.

Ley, David and Roman Cybriwsky. 1974. Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64:491-505.

Ley, David. 1975. The Street Gang and in its Milieu. In: The Social Economy of Cities 247-273, (Eds) Gappert, Gary and Harold M. Rose, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Moore, Joan, Diego Vigil and R. Garcia. 1983. Residence and Territoriality in Chicano Gangs. Social Problems 31:182-194.

Obtala, J.K. 1972. The Sons of Watts. Los Angeles Times, August 13, p. B6-9.

Sheldon, Randall G, Sharon K. Tracy and William B. Brown. 1996. Youth Gangs in American Society. Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Skolnick, Jerone. 1991. Gang Organization and Migration; Drugs, Gangs and Law Enforcement. State of California Department of Justice.

Rosenzweig, David. 1972. Gang Violence Linked to Desire for Notoriety. Los Angeles Times, December 12, p. B1-3.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1997. 1995 National Youth Gang Survey Washington D.C.