Offender Management Community Scoping of London Gang ...

Offender Management Community
Scoping of London Gang
Demographics
Final report
1

This research has been commissioned by London Probation as
part of the STARR European project, co-financed by the DG
Justice Liberty and Security.
2

Authors
Dr Alex Stevens
Dr Polly Radcliffe
Linda Pizani Williams MBA
Ben Gladstone MBA
The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Dr.
Marian FitzGerald and all of the interviewees that contributed to the
production of material for this report.
3

Table of contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
2. Literature review on gangs in Britain ........................................................................... 7
2.1 Recent trends .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Definitional Issues .................................................................................................. 8
2.3 The characteristics of the gang ............................................................................. 10
2.4 Intervening in gangs ............................................................................................. 10
3. Dynamics and Drivers of Serious Group Offending in London ................................. 13
3.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Factors underlying the formation of gangs in London ........................................ 14
3.2.1 The link between gang neighbourhoods and deprivation .............................. 15
3.3. The development of gangs in London ................................................................. 18
3.3.1 Gang culture, schools and colleges ............................................................... 18
3.3.2 Re-organisation of gangs into smaller units ................................................. 20
3.3.4 Economic changes and urban development .................................................. 21
3.3.5. Manipulation by older gang members of local youth ................................... 22
3.3.6. Conflict amongst the age ranks .................................................................... 23
3.3.7. Links built through the prison system .......................................................... 23
3.3.8 Age structure of gangs ................................................................................... 24
3.4 Changes in London gang culture in the recent past and implications for violent 26
3.4.1 Change in seriousness of conflict, triggers, and the age of those involved ... 26
3.4.2 Links between gangs formed over larger distances and how music groups
aligned with the gangs can promote this ................................................................ 27
3.4.3 Mobile phones ............................................................................................... 27
3.4.4 Adoption of American gang cultural definers ............................................... 28
3.4.5 Use of weapons .............................................................................................. 28
3.5. London gang alliances ......................................................................................... 28
3.5.1 Alliances as a result of gangs combining against common enemies ............. 28
3.5.2 Alliances formed through friend and familial links with different gangs ..... 29
3.5.3 Alliances built through gang associated music crews and illegitimate business
................................................................................................................................ 29
3.6. Dynamics of Gang Rivalries................................................................................ 30
3.6.1 Reputational Violence ................................................................................... 31
3.6.2 Long-standing feuds and retaliatory violence ............................................... 31
Table 3.3: Gang Rivalries ........................................................................................... 32
4. Interviews and case studies......................................................................................... 34
4.1 Sample .................................................................................................................. 34
4.1.2 General Observations .................................................................................... 34
4.1.3 Unpaid Work ................................................................................................. 35
4.1.4 Community Supervision ................................................................................ 35
4.1.5 Prison based practitioners .............................................................................. 36
4.1.6 Practitioner Concerns .................................................................................... 37
4.2 Thematic issues to consider .................................................................................. 37
4.2.1 Communication ............................................................................................. 37
4.2.2 Multi-agency cooperation .............................................................................. 38
4.2.3 Health and Safety........................................................................................... 40

4.2.4 Practice issues ................................................................................................ 41
5. Offender Management Models ................................................................................... 43
5.1 Holistic management of serious group offenders ................................................. 43
Figure 5.1: The internal model of offender management ....................................... 44
Figure 5.2: The multi-agency model of offender management .............................. 45
Figure 5.3: The holistic model of offender management ....................................... 46
........................................................................................................................................ 46
6. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 48
‣ 7. References .......................................................................................................... 49
5

1. Introduction
This is the final report of the community scoping of London gang demographics,
provided to London Probation by EISS at the University of Kent.
It includes:
‣ A literature review
‣ A discussion of the drivers and dynamics of serious group offending in
London.
‣ Initial findings from interviews with probation officers in the field.
‣ Thematic Issues arising from stakeholder consultations.
‣ A review of alternative models of offender management
‣ Recommendations for probation practice.
6

2. Literature review on gangs in Britain
We carried out a review of available British research on serious group offending,
and we summarise it here. Much of this research is about “gangs”. The vast
majority refers to gangs being associated with young people (as does much
governmental and local authority policy in this area). The literature reveals
ongoing debates about the usefulness of the term “gang” and the current lack of
empirical evidence on effective interventions with people who are involved in
serious group offending, especially with regard to adult offenders.
2.1 Recent trends
Much comment in recent years on youth and group crime has been concerned
to address the gap between common perceptions, media representation and
actual levels of violent crime. The picture is not helped by the apparent
ambiguity of official figures. While the British Crime Survey figures appear to
indicate that the number of knife victims has remained relatively stable for the
last 10 years (Kershaw, Nicholas, & Walker, 2008), FitzGerald (2008) has
argued that the BCS - a household survey that relies upon householders‟
willingness to talk to researchers who knock on their doors - under-represents
many socially excluded people as victims of crime. She argues that recorded
crime is a better measure of violent crime and that between the mid 1990s and
2002-2003, incidents of serious violent crime, recorded by police forces in
England, did indeed climb steeply. More recent figures suggest an increase in
knife crimes (such as robbery at knifepoint), even if gun crime and other
recorded violent crimes have fallen (Home Office, 2009).
For the age of homicide victims, recently available Home Office data shows that
there was a sharp, 467% increase in annually recorded murders of 12-17 year
olds in London between 2004/5 and 2007/8 (from 3 to 17 murders). Murders of
18-24 year olds have also been increasing, while murders of other age groups
have been stable. (Figure 2.1) What is clear too is that violent crime, whether
motivated by disputes over drug markets between rival „gangs‟ or by individual
jealousies, is overrepresented in the poorest and most socially deprived parts of
our cities. There is no clear distinction between victims and perpetrators of
youth crime in the inner cities. In the context of the increasing social exclusion
and what Hallsworth and Young (2006, 68) have described as the „extreme
marginalisation‟ and „structurally determined powerlessness‟ that provide the
conditions for young people to become involved in group offending it seems
inadequate simply to refer to anxieties about youth crime as 'moral panics'.
7

No. of murder victims
Murder victims in London by age, 1997-2007/8
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0-11
12-17
18-24
25-29
30-34
5
0
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
Figure 2.1
The vast majority of young people in inner cities are not involved in any sort of
crime, whether as individuals or in groups, but they may increasingly perceive
themselves as vulnerable to becoming victims of violent crime. The activities of
gangs or the fear of gangs may thus impact on young people in their locality
(Young, FitzGerald, Hallsworth and Joseph, 2007). Indeed young people report
that they carry knives to protect themselves from street robbery (Ibid) 1 .
Interviews with teachers indicate that one reason young people give for joining
gangs is self-protection (Broadhurst, Duffin, & Taylor, 2008). Such reports ought
to complicate recent calls for the criminalising (via automatic imposition of
custodial sentences) of all those found to be carrying knives. Fear of crime
amongst sections of young people in our inner cities – who may look
indistinguishable from perpetrators of crime - is clearly an important part of the
youth and group crime equation.
2.2 Definitional Issues
Research in this area raises the question as to whether targeting of „the gang‟
both in the media and for intervention may exaggerate the problem of violent
crime, stigmatise areas of cities and criminalise groups of, particularly, young
black men. The policy focus on „the gang‟ may actually exacerbate and inflate
the problem via a toxic cocktail of overly intrusive and discriminatory policing
(Aldridge & Medina, 2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005) and the inadvertent
glamorising of gang-like characteristics that groups of young people may seek
to adopt (Howell, 2007). Professionals interviewed for the Youth Justice Board
research on young people and gangs, were concerned that irresponsible use of
1 FitzGerald et al note that knives may also be the weapon of choice for violent, repeat
offenders.
8

the term „gang‟ by police or the media made the gang label and lifestyle more
appealing to gang „wannabes‟ leading them to emulate the „gangsta‟ lifestyle
(Young et al, 2007, 160). Claire Alexander (2008) has argued that the use of the
„the gang‟ in intervention strategies may, as has occurred in the US, create the
conditions that have promoted gang cohesion. She argues that to label groups
of young people as 'gangs' runs the risk of attributing coherence to transitional
and fluid groups.
The question of whether the word 'gang' is useful at all in addressing youth
crime has been addressed by several authors (Alexander, 2008; Brand &
Ollerearnshaw, 2008; Hallsworth & Young, 2008; Howell, 2007; Marshall, Webb,
& Tilley, 2005) who have argued that the focus should not be on „the gang‟ but
on problematic behaviour, in other words, the „prolific offending of various types
and seriousness amongst associated networks of individuals‟ (Marshall, Webb,
& Tilley, 2005,7). Hallsworth and Young‟s work has been important in
distinguishing gangs from organised criminal groups and peer groups. As
Marshall, Webb and Tilley have commented: “Certainly not all groups of young
people are violent, gun carrying drug dealers”. The value of Hallsworth and
Young‟s work is the specification of the relationship between the gang, crime
and violence:
„The gang we define as a relatively durable, predominantly street-based
group of young people who see themselves (and are recognised by
others) as a discernible group for whom crime and violence is intrinsic to
identity and practice. The minimal characteristic features of the gang
then are that it has a) a name, b) a propensity to inflict violence and
engage in crime where c) violence and delinquency performs a functional
role in promoting group identity and solidarity‟ (Hallsworth & Young,
2006,68)
The self-identity and violence associated with this definition of gang is
significant since as the recent report by Young et al for the Youth Justice Board
indicates, much youth crime has always been carried out in groups. However,
the authors argue, such groups may not consider themselves to be „gangs‟
(Young et al., 2007). All groups of young people are therefore not necessarily
offenders and all those who offend in groups are not necessarily members of
durable gangs. Young et al coin the term „serious group offending‟. The authors
argue that group related activities amongst adolescents are usefully thought of
in terms of a continuum from those that are purely social to those linked to
serious and premeditated offending. All such group based activities - including
serious offending - have, it is argued, a strong social underpinning:
„The group is likely to exist primarily as a social entity but its members and in
particular, the dynamics between them strongly influence whether the norms
which prevail within the group tend to be pro or anti-social‟ (Young et al, 2007,
162)
9

2.3 The characteristics of the gang
Although Brand and Ollerearnshaw have emphasised that gangs have a
„hierarchical structure‟ (2008), other authors argue that the structure of gangs as
more fluid and transitional, and will vary by age group and geographical area
(Aldridge & Medina, 2007; Alexander, 2008; Howell, 2007). Indeed Aldridge and
Medina consider that the assumption of the hierarchical structure of gangs is
one reason why attempts to intervene in gang activity have failed in the past.
Aldridge and Medina‟s study of gangs in an English city is based on several
months of ethnographic work including interviews with gang members, families
and youth workers. They are tentative in referring to „membership‟ of a gang,
since the gangs they studied more closely resembled loose networks of
individuals. Becoming a „member‟ of the gang, involved a change in a
relationship with a gang member who had previously been known to them,
rather than taking part in a formal initiation ritual. Gang „members‟ engaged in
legal as well as illegal work, and associated with non-gang in addition to gang
members. This study echoes both American research and British findings that
the gang is a derivative of the peer group, the primary motivation for joining the
gang is social and that a frequent first contact with the gang is a family member
(Young et al., 2007; Hallsworth & Young, 2004, 2006; Howell, 2007; Youth
Justice Board, 2007).
Researchers have found consistently that gangs are based on territory rather
than ethnicity (Aldridge & Medina, 2007; Howell, 2007; Marshall, Webb, & Tilley,
2005). Despite the 'racialisation' of group and youth crime via tabloid
newspapers and via the criminal justice system 2 in which young black people
are overrepresented as perpetrators of violent crime; the ethnic composition of
gangs in British cities tend to reflect the neighbourhoods in which young people
live. A recent research project focused on “territoriality”, rather than gang
membership (Bannister, 2008). It found that the young people interviewed
created peer groups that attempt to control areas so that they could gain
respect, engage in recreational violence and be protected from other groups
(e.g. from outside their area). At least among the under 18s, it seems that
membership of an offending peer group is not usually a means to gain income
from illegal activities (e.g. drug dealing), but an end in itself for young people
who have few alternative sources of attachment, leisure and self-esteem. Of
course, these young people are then vulnerable to exploitation by older people
in their neighbourhood and family networks who may enlist them into more
serious criminal endeavours.
2.4 Intervening in gangs
The finding that the structure of gangs in the UK are looser and less well
organised than may have been assumed, and indeed that youth crime is
considered by researchers and young people alike to be a transitional stage
2 Evidence presented to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the Nature and Extent of
Young Black People's Overrepresentation in the Youth Justice System included the fact that
'Young black people are disproportionately likely to be arrested, remanded in custody convicted
and imprisoned' httpp//www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff.181/
accessed 24th June 2008.
10

that they will mature out of, does suggest that given alternative, pro-social
opportunities and life chances young people will move out of their involvement
with gangs (Aldridge & Medina, 2007). The young women who had had contact
with Youth Offending Teams interviewed for the YJB report by Young et al, had
moved out of group offending because it had ceased to be an attractive or
sustainable way of life. The question for policy makers becomes how „moving
on‟ can be encouraged.
Hallsworth and Young argue that in terms of intervention, the focus should be
on problematic behaviour rather than the suppression of groups (2006, 85).
They argue against the American model of criminalising groups of young people
while acknowledging that criminal justice measures should be applied to those
individuals and groups who carry out the most serious crimes. Further they
argue that effective intervention strategies need to be accompanied by
measures to address social exclusion. Similarly Young et al maintain that the
response to serious group offending cannot only be based on criminal justice
measures and must include a range of preventive services and opportunities for
young people at risk, as well as targeted interventions for those who have
already offended.
One preventive intervention in one of the most deprived wards in the UK is
described by Jenny Lynn in her evaluation of the United Estates of
Wythenshawe (UEW) group in South Manchester that was set up to divert
young people from street crime (Lynn, 2008). Lynn's caution against importing
successful models from one setting to another is also highlighted in another
recent study by Brand and Ollerearnshaw (2008) that emphasises the need for
effective partnerships and local solutions in their survey of youth crime projects
around the UK. This echoes Aldridge and Medina‟s (2007) finding of local
variations in gang formation and activities, again implying the need for locally
specific solutions.
The emphasis on local solutions to youth crime is consistent with Hallsworth
and Young's injunction that intervention must be 'bottom-up' as well as
coordinated so as to avoid target-driven policing. Young et al argue that
preventative and targeted interventions need the support of, as well as to
support the endeavours of the local community in addressing group offending.
Overall the literature endorses the need for interventions that are based on
empirical evidence of the local gang problem. There remain large gaps in the
literature. These gaps include:
‣ How young people negotiate the transition from membership of serious
offending groups from adolescence into adulthood.
‣ The role of women in serious group offending. The young women
interviewed for the Youth Justice Board who had a history of group offending,
had lives in which violence was endemic. There are some reports that
women are sexually exploited by gang „members‟ (Pitts, 2007), but more
research is needed on this and on young women‟s direct involvement in
serious group offending. Aldridge and Medina found higher involvement of
women in gangs than was reported by the local police. But in only one
11

(Sunderland) of the six areas studied by Bannister (2008) were females
thought to have a significant role in forming territorial groups.
‣ The dynamic factors that affect the formation and shifting rivalries of serious
offending groups.
‣ The link between gang membership, imprisonment and violent radicalisation.
‣ Effective interventions with young people and adults who are engaged in
serious group offending. What evidence there is tends to originate in the
USA (which has a dramatically different context and pattern of group
offending), and focuses on people under 18.
12

3. Dynamics and Drivers of Serious Group Offending in
London
3.1 Methodology
The information in this section has been drawn from structured ethnographic
research. This has involved speaking with predominantly older gang members
from a dozen locations across London. Furthermore, the use of an open source
chat forum created specifically for gang discussion in England 3 , especially
London, has been useful in providing a written source of opinions and
comments from people of all ages, including gang members and social workers
and like-minded people with an interest in gangs. Finally, in more recent years
e-mail communication with gang members, affiliates and associates as
identified through “gang” websites on Myspace has helped to acquire a number
of written descriptions on issues of gang names, territories and reasoning
behind rivalries and alliances.
The report therefore relies on multiple formal and informal interviews with 66
key informants who are current and former gang members predominantly aged
over 20 from 21 London Boroughs. Further information has been drawn from 55
regular contributors to the England Gangs discussion forum and also from a
further 40 less frequent contributors. There have been e-mail exchanges with
32 individuals from some of the more established and older gangs as identified
by their MySpace accounts. Finally, 200 individual submissions made via the
London gangs website have been made by people wishing to discuss gangs in
their local areas – these submissions cover details of gang names and locations
on almost every postal district within Greater London. This is only what is
quantifiable, there have also been many conversations with professionals, youth
workers, youth offending service workers, crime analysts, local residents and
young people who live and work in the affected areas.
Triangulation has been attempted by linking up intelligence on serious incidents
and crimes as told by informants through media sources such as MySpace,
YouTube, NexisUK newspaper archive, local London newspapers (London24
and Thisislocallondon websites), listening to lyrics in gang music, visiting
estates to observe graffiti and speaking with other crime analysts.
The internet is used by groups to advertise their reputation and seriousness.
Through the internet the gangs can exaggerate their fierceness as well as their
numbers to intimidate other gangs. This is what Alexander (2008, 8) refers to as
„mythmaking‟ something, which has become an integral part of youth gangs in
London over the past couple of years. Howell (2007, 39) notes that „gangs
themselves create myths‟ around what has been known to become the „Big
Gang Theory‟ in which “gang members exaggerate their strength, numbers and
cohesion either for self defence or to enhance their reputation” (Alexander,
3 England Gangs discussion forum, created in January 2006
http://www.setbb.com/englandgangforu
13

2008, 11). Katz and Jackson-Jacobs describe „mythmaking‟ as “one of the
central activities of males in gangs…The central myth is that the gang exists”
(Katz & Jackson-Jacobs, 2004, 92).
Mythmaking is the predominant activity of many peer groups and wannabes.
This report focuses (following the Halls worth and Young typology) on groups
which have a durable identity and a commitment to offending behaviour. They
have been identified as gangs based on offending patterns and information from
well-placed sources. Dissemination and exaggeration of the more easily
accessible details of such gangs and gang incidents in open source websites
has become more apparent. This is a result of more peripheral and younger
members who display images and videos of their gang via media such as My
Space and You Tube. However, the existence of mythmaking should not
distract us from the fact that the gangs in this report do exist outside the world
of adolescent mythmaking. They are recognised by their members and others
as being real. They play a part in structuring the attitudes, fears and offending
behaviours of these people.
This section draws data from several sources together in an attempt to explain
specific issues, for example, how gangs migrate to other areas, why alliances
and rivalries form and what effect schools and specific communities have on
gangs and gang formation. With regard to the actual mapping of gang territories,
again this has been drawn from numerous sources including person to person
interviews, open source websites and discussion forums and more recently
gang websites whereby young people attempt to map out what they perceive to
be their boundaries. In some cases, the territories have been assumed on the
basis of the gang name. For example, many gangs take their name from the
housing estates which they are local to or operating in and therefore a
reasonable assumption is made that the estate is the gang territory. However,
gang members sometimes perceive their area to be much larger (for instance
an entire postcode) but nonetheless are still geographically based around their
estate.
3.2 Factors underlying the formation of gangs in London
Firstly, it is important to note that most gangs currently in existence in London
are located in areas that have been home to gangs since the mid-1990s, and in
many cases as far back as the 1970s and 1980s. There are particular
geographical locales in London which are more susceptible to the formation of
gangs. Some of those areas have been the focus of a small number of long
lasting gangs. Other areas have had frequent gang formations periodically
replacing older gangs. In some cases they have continued with the same gang
name, even following the turnover of all original members. Since the 1970s
gangs in London have formed for a number of reasons. These include:
‣ Racial conflicts:
“Ten, fifteen years ago, nobody used to bother defending themselves
from racist attacks, they just used to take it,” says Ranu. “It‟s not that way
14

anymore. We are prepared to defend ourselves now” (Thompson, 1995,
118).
‣ Unemployment and poor economic conditions:
“At eighteen I was made redundant from a garage job. I was going for
jobs which white youths were getting with far fewer qualifications…one
evening, coming home…my friend took his wallet. We had about £200 off
him, and he (his friend) gave me fifty quid. From there it escalated. I had
a choice and I chose to hang with them” (McLagan, 2006, 18).
‣ The desire to acquire material items, money and status:
“I was sick of wearing black pumps to school, just because they‟re gonna
last long. No. I wanted the latest Adidas or Air Max trainers. On the street
you needed to look good to get any sort of respect. You needed smart
clothes and nice jewellery” (Pritchard, 2008, 140).
‣ Transmission of subcultural norms in established gang neighbourhoods:
“We learnt about the gang and its values from the olders, I think they
enforced them in us” Quote from a member of Money Respect Power-
Terror), 17, Edmonton 2008.
“I believe we are responsible for the youngers, like the stories and our
expectations, like what we tell the youngers is anti-social, get me We
wind them up and thing saying yeah are you a badman, you wanna be in
the gang and some of them are like yeah yeah blood I wanna hang with
you guys. Most times they don‟t know why, they just wanna be seen with
us, its like a fad until some madness pops off and someone gets injured
then its serious” Quote from a member of GCY (Grey City Youngers
Young Terror), 24, Edmonton 2008 4 .
This is not to suggest that youths no longer join gangs because of racial and
societal prejudice, poor economic conditions and the desire to acquire material
items, money and status. These are all still factors in why youths join gangs
alongside victimisation, safety in numbers and protection from other gangs as
well as the result of peer influence. However, as will be discussed, the
continuation and development of gangs is fundamentally affected by growing up
in deprived neighbourhoods where the sub-cultural norms of such offending
have become established. John Pitts (2008) has described these
neighbourhoods as “gangland”.
3.2.1 The link between gang neighbourhoods and deprivation
Specific geographical locales in London are more susceptible to gang formation
than others. Here, we explore some of the common factors underlying the
4 Quotes following informal discussion on the More Way estate, Caribbean Carnival Hut, with
members of local gang following the murder of Ofiyke Nmezu in Edmonton.
15

formation of gangs and how this translates to London. It would appear that gang
formation occurs in areas dominated by poverty and deprivation. Suttles (1968)
and Whyte (1993) proposed that gangs were an integral part of the poor
communities‟ structure rather than an outcome of its disorder whilst Wilson
(1996) concluded that specific neighbourhoods suffering extreme deprivation
were more likely to spawn, among other deviant behaviours, the rise of
predatory groups like gangs. As can be seen from Figure 3.1 5 , the correlation
between gang locations and levels of deprivation in London would highly
support these ideas. All identified gang locations within London fall in
government lower level super output areas which are amongst the 30% most
deprived in England. The majority are amongst the most deprived 20%.
Figure 3.1 Gang territories mapped against local indices of deprivation
5 Produced with the aid of MapInfo GIS, Ordnance Survey Maps and the Indices of Multiple
Deprivation scores 2007 from http://www.statistics.gov.uk
16

The scores used to calculate deprivation in England are devised using data on
income, employment, access to housing and services, education and crime. It
was recognised in a Lambeth study, a borough with one of the highest numbers
of gangs, in 2008 that in “multiply deprived neighbourhoods, children and young
people, irrespective of individual and familial risk factors, are at heightened risk
[of both] gang involvement and gang victimisation” (London Borough of
Lambeth, 2008).
Throughout London over the past 20 years, gangs have formed in deprived
areas. In such deprived settings local residents are more likely to be excluded
from mainstream society and less likely to have adequate access to legitimate
opportunities such as educational or vocational programmes. London is a city of
extreme social polarisation. There are many areas and streets where you can
stand amongst the country‟s wealthiest and poorest simultaneously. Living in
deprived areas of London whilst at the same time being in such close proximity
to prosperity leads to an intense feeling of relative deprivation and a desire to
consume at the level that is evident in the wealthiest areas of the city. As the
“gap between rich and poor widens, for some members of the poorest
communities this only seems achievable via illegal means” (Bowling, 1999, 537).
17

Gangs in London in the mid to late 1990s were from areas suffering social
exclusion. These groups were to some extent territorial in that they identified
with particular localities with members being drawn from various deprived
estates in their towns and postal districts. People from Tottenham and
Edmonton were together, Wood Green and Hornsey, Harlesden and
Stonebridge and New Cross, Deptford and Lewisham tended to identify
themselves with one large group representative of their borough.
3.3. The development of gangs in London
In the mid-late 1990‟s many young people in areas with older gangs became
„youngers‟ of their local gang. After the olders had moved on, the youngers
became independent as their own gang and several years later would influence
a new set of youngers that contributed to a continued presence of gangs or
gang like groups in the area. The continued cycle of „youngers‟ growing into
olders and influencing the next cohort of „youngers‟ has meant that many
neighbourhoods have come to be identified as gang areas 6 . Some of the best
examples of this can be found in the Asian communities of Tower Hamlets,
Newham and Southall where certain gang names have been in existence for
decades, yet the current members often have little or no connection to those
originally involved nor any knowledge of where it began.
Violence between groups in different areas is nothing new. However, with this
1990s generation brought up on gangsta rap and American gang culture more
emphasis by the youngers was placed on the style, demeanour and argot of
their group and most distinctively a name for their group. Music is closely
intertwined with these group identities (as it has been historically for many
British youth subcultures). Many of the original gangs were also part of urban
music collectives who would face off lyrically and musically at garage and rave
events. The role of schools and college is important because students living in
areas previously unaffected by gangs were being exposed to this developing
sub-culture and as a result were being drawn into gangs, or into imitating this
culture and forming their own, or finally they grouped together to protect
themselves from victimisation by these gangs 7 .
3.3.1 Gang culture, schools and colleges
In London, children have increasingly had to travel out of their own boroughs
and localities to attend school. Because many of the areas where gangs are
present are high density and highly populated areas with a youthful age
structure the school provision is often inadequate for the surrounding population
and so it is common to have to travel elsewhere. If you are gang involved and
you are travelling to a school with no gangs you are likely to influence and
interest vulnerable youths who may become wannabes and create new groups or
6 All older gang members spoken to regardless of their location in London described this process of
youngers periodically replacing olders.
7 As described during numerous discussions with older gang members. Also, two topics of discussion
created at the England Gang Forum regarding gangs in London Secondary Schools.
18

ecome involved with those who have influenced them 8 . In contrast if you attend
schools with multiple gang representation there are limitations as to whom you
can associate with. For example, the Kingsdale School (on the border of
Norwood and Dulwich) used to take a number of Brixton and Peckham youths
who did not get on. As a result, it became the venue for fights between them 9 .
“To avoid getting robbed or beaten up you would join either side whilst at
school, but out of school was different. When I got back to my area I
wasn‟t a Brixton Boy, I was from Kennington so even though we was
reppin‟ Brixton or Lambeth at school we was Kennington Boys out of it,
we became our own street team” 10 .
Whilst the impact of victimisation on gang formation is certainly not confined to
secondary schools, the schools themselves are where many young people are
victims of crime. Young gang members see schools as a place to enhance their
individual and gang reputation through threats, intimidation and robbery.
However, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of the problem as schools tend to
deal with such issues internally for fear of gaining a bad reputation. In Bexley, a
gang known as RA (Racist Attack) often assaulted and intimidated non-white
youths in and around schools they attended. In response to repeated bullying
and victimisation a number of the victims of Racist Attack joined together and
formed their own gang KDR (Kill Da Racists) 11 . In 2008 a study on the effect of
gangs in schools was commissioned by the NASUWT, based on research in
London and Birmingham. Amongst the findings it stated that teachers were
finding gang culture more noticeable and believed children were vulnerable to
gang-related activity on their way to and from school. Furthermore, those
members of staff interviewed believed that there was a clear hierarchical
structure, with older members (year 10 and year 11, or 15 and 16 year olds)
recruiting younger boys. It recommended that any gang problems associated
with schools should in future be acknowledged rather than concealed 12 .
In colleges the problem may be more acute. Gang members attend colleges
and sixth forms because “college and schools is full of people wanting drugs so
it makes sense, a good money earner” 13 . The independent dealers have been
forced out, or are protected by the gang members in some cases. Students
attending Sixth Form College are even more likely than school pupils to travel
out of borough, often into outer London boroughs where some of the larger and
better reputed colleges are located. Again it is these areas that are relatively
8 Almost all gang members, youngers and forum users who spoke about gangs in schools
described this process.
9 Former Kingsdale School pupil and older member of Firehouse Crew gang from Aylesbury
Estate Walworth.
10 Former Kingsdale School pupil and former peripheral gang member.
11 All quantifiable informants young and old talked about how gang youngers were powerful and
influential within their schools. A young former member of Racist Attack from Erith provided the
specific information around the gang and the formation of KDR.
12 Threat of gangs in schools, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7352977.stm
13 Quote obtained from England Gang Forum restricted access area (not obtainable publicly as
open source). A number of teen deaths described as gang related by the media in 2007-08
involved college pupils. The presence of gang members in colleges was mentioned by all
informants under the age of 25, whilst the majority of those also mentioned the use of college as
an easy drugs market.
19

untouched by the gangs and vulnerable students are often used to sell drugs
and connections are built by gangs in terms of extended membership, new
customers and new lower level members to do the “dirty work”. From this
different sets or cliques can develop.
3.3.2 Re-organisation of gangs into smaller units
The organisation of gangs into smaller cliques or sets is another reason for the
development of a larger number of named gangs. In recent years, gangs have
become increasingly smaller and more localised. This is not to say there has
been an increase in the number of gangs and gang involved individuals as
these sets or cliques may still come under the umbrella of the larger gang.
However, a gang that divides into individual sub-sets is more susceptible to
intra-gang conflict (see section on London gang rivalries and alliances). This
can result in cliques becoming their own gang.
Cliques or sets within a gang can arise for a number of reasons. For example,
south London was one of the first areas where a real noticeable age breakdown
of gangs had resulted in various named cliques. The Peckham Boys gang
divided into Young Peckham Boys, Younger Younger Peckham Boys and
Peckham Kids for example. Whilst there is still an age breakdown within the
Peckham Boys today the use of Young and Youngers is largely redundant and
has been replaced with more menacing acronyms such as DFA (Don‟t F**k
Around), PYG (Peckham Young Gunners) and SI (Shoot Instantly) 14 .
In other areas members formed their cliques around the area they lived, for
instance, Wood Green Firm (then became Wood Green MOB) divided into the
Commerce Road Boys, Junior Mafia Woods (Woodside Park), Shell Town
Soldiers (Sandlings Estate) and the Avenues Set (Noel Park – each street
within Noel Park is named as an Avenue) 15 . Today most gangs in London have
„youngers‟ and „tinies‟ and often the gang name is either preceded by “Y” or
followed by youngers, tinies or kids to denote the younger faction. Sometimes
cliques can arise because of conflicting interests amongst members. For
example, a large gang will have some members who engage in various forms of
illegal activity whilst those on the periphery who are less inclined to offend will
place their energy into more harmless activities. In one area there is a gang with
several sub-cliques one of which engages mainly in graffiti, one in music, one in
robbery and a handful who are involved in dealing drugs. Whilst these small
cliques exist - each with its own focus - everyone belongs to the same gang 16 .
14 This process was described by both younger and older Peckham Boy members and
associates as well as rival gang members from neighbouring Lewisham and Lambeth.
Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police, Southwark Community Safety, and media informants
have mentioned the age structure of the Peckham Boys. However, with regards to the newer
acronyms (for instance Young Peckham Boys becomes Peckham Young Gunners and Younger
Younger Peckham Boys becomes Don‟t F**k Around) this information on how Peckham Boys
have changed was only derivable from current gang members in south London. There was no
open source intelligence with regard to this although it was possible to find gang sites on Bebo
and MySpace and videos on YouTube.
15 As was described by several older Wood Green MOB members.
16 This was evident in many of the gangs whose membership exceeded 20, although these
separate offending cliques did not tend to have their own name and identity with the exception
of music groups within gangs. It is for this reason that the gang itself should not be thought of as
20

Aside from intra-gang conflict the most cited reason for gangs breaking up into
cliques was because of territoriality and sense of ownership where a faction of
the gang is located. Territoriality has become one of the most important aspects
for the younger generation. Many young people lack anything to call their own.
They become attached to their estate, their blocks or their endz.
“In the past you repped your town or your borough, then you repped your
postcode then your endz. I was reppin for Brent, Harlesden, NW10,
Church End – a lot of us south Brent boys stuck together. Today, the
youths deem flipped it so now you rep your ends first, then your postcode,
then your town or borough so some places you go there ain‟t that unity at
a larger area „cos crews from the same towns and postcodes are beefing
each other. Today some of these youngers can‟t see past their estate
and don‟t care about anything beyond that and that‟s where the new
beefs kick off” 17
Furthermore, “being older means walking more freely, definitely. Young peeps
are always saying how they can‟t move around the borough easily whether you
on it or not. Now it comes to the point that there are entire postcodes, estates,
streets and even buses that these youths will avoid unless they travelling with
numbers, back up” 18 . This also applies to older non-gang involved residents
although this would be dependent on individual circumstances. An older gang
member could potentially walk through other gang areas un-challenged, unless
he was actively being sought for a reprisal.
This increasing territoriality has led to the spread of gangs through the
confinement of groups of young people to their estate because of the perceived
threat of other areas where they know other gangs reside 19 . This can help to
explain the increasing number of smaller gangs covering smaller areas, which
in the past had been associated with one or two gangs. In some cases these
estate-based groups are allies with the gangs closest to and surrounding them
(e.g. Tottenham) whilst in others they are very disjointed, with frequent conflicts
with neighboring groups (e.g. Hackney).
3.3.4 Economic changes and urban development
a criminal entity as there are certain groups of individuals within the gang who offend more often
and more seriously than others. Although, their influence over other gang members could lead
peripheral and less serious members to become more serious offenders.
17 Church End gang member conversation at Movements takeaway, Willesden 2008. Every
gang member spoken to talked about the shift to smaller territory although olders also spoke of
the reasoning as to why, whereas youngers were less informed and seemed to suggest it was
more learned behaviour from the olders.
18 East London youth worker. Also described by all young people both gang and non-gang
involved living in affected neighbourhoods but rarely by those who were not living in affected
neighbourhoods.
19 The idea of containment due to fear was described by all young gang members in particular
locations with a high frequency of gangs within a small area (i.e. Hackney, Lambeth and Tower
Hamlets). This was not seen as a problem in boroughs with fewer gangs, mainly outer
boroughs, although was an emerging issue in certain postcodes such as CR0/CR7 in Croydon,
N9/N18 in Enfield.
21

The house price boom, urban redevelopment and gentrification in London have
also impacted on gang culture. Difficulties in finding affordable accommodation
have forced families from inner London, including gang-involved
neighbourhoods, to move further field. Hackney in particular has seen a number
of redevelopments. Two of the gangs in neighboring Islington are a result of
Hackney residents being re-housed from a widely-reputed gang neighbourhood.
They still maintain a close relationship with some Hackney gangs. The main
gang, or organized street firm, in Alford begun again with a well connected
„gang‟ family from Hackney. Another example of families with gang links can be
found in Hilling don, where a gang was set up by former residents of the
Stonebridge Estate in Brent. However, this does not just apply to cross borough
movement; gangs can also spread locally for the same reasons. In Lewisham,
the redevelopment of the Woodpecker or Milton Court Estate meant certain
families with gang members moved elsewhere in the borough, to Cat ford and
Rockley for example, where new crews or extended cliques arose 20 .
3.3.5. Manipulation by older gang members of local youth
These re-housed older members may use and manipulate young people in the
area for criminal purposes. This can include drug dealing, but also robbery.
They may generate a „gang of workers‟ around themselves. For example, in
2008 it was reported that a 21-year old was arrested for using children as young
as 13, recruited in McDonald‟s restaurants, to rob guards carrying boxes of
cash 21 . In a more interesting twist a Hackney born ex-pat who was a member of
the Miller Bloods gang in New York City was deported back to England where
he had pledged to fight gang crime in the borough.
“NYC Blood Miller Guns was doing some recruiting as I heard it, was
seen putting on a „talk‟ by peeps I know about turning kids away from
gang life but the youths with him were Redding up [color of Bloods gang]
with him. Feds were watching him and he got some time for sending little
youths out doing this and that and turns out he got caught with stolen
goods” 22
The police believed he had been organizing youths to commit robberies
although he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of handling stolen goods 23 .
20 These ideas were discussed by just a handful of the eldest gang members interviewed, all of
whom were connected to the examples of Stonebridge to Hillingdon, Hackney to Islington and
Hackney to Ilford. The detail on Lewisham was obtained from discussions with two older Ghetto
Boys who had themselves been moved from the Milton Court/Woodpecker Estate to Rushey
Green in Catford and Brockhill Crescent in Brockley.
21 „Children raided security vans headed by modern day Fagin‟,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036333/Children-young-13-raided-100-000-securityvans-directed-modern-day-Fagins.html
22 Quote obtained from England Gang Forum restricted access area (not obtainable publicly).
The quote was posted almost two weeks prior to this information being published in the
Hackney Gazette.
23 Hackney Gazette news article,
http://gangsinlondon.piczo.com/hackneyblood(nycdeportee)cr=2&linkvar=000044)
22

3.3.6. Conflict amongst the age ranks
More recently the younger generation in some groups has rebelled against their
olders. Often in circumstances where they have been „bayed‟ (teased or bullied),
conflict has arisen between the different generations and as a result one gang
has become two 24 .
There have been numerous cases in London in the past two years where older
teens and those in their early twenties have been murder victims to the younger
generation. For example those charged with the murders of Nicholas Clarke
(aka „ratty‟) and Rowan Durbar in Newham was secondary school aged.
However, there have also been incidents of violence against young teenagers
by older men.
“The Youngers got no respect for the elder‟s no-more in a lot of places.
They ready to put in work to leap frog you in the ranks, its no long ting to
them. Even the beef ting, us olders grew up knowing who our rivals and
enemies are but the youngers isn‟t got no respect for that they will link up
with longstanding rivals and start wars with long standing allies without
care for the olders, it‟s disrespectful” 25
3.3.7. Links built through the prison system
In some cases gangs link up together whilst in prison, with links commonly built
around the in-prison drugs trade. One of the better known gangs formed in
prisons is the “Northern Line”, a connection of gang members from north
London, mainly Haringey, Enfield and Islington. Members of Northern Line
come from gangs who are rivals outside prison. On release the connections are
used for business deals amongst gang members. Furthermore, criminals who
may not have been gang involved on entering prison sometimes associate with
gang members in prison and then join the gang after release. The street conflict
however remains as it is usually, spearheaded by the younger generation. Older
members also see the street conflict as a good tool for keeping police attention
24 This has been derived from just several examples in Haringey, Peckham, Lewisham and
Lambeth. However, the details on a number of the 2007-08 murder cases whereby there is a
distinct age difference between killer and victim of “gang-related” incidences could imply this is
more widespread. Furthermore, statistics on suspects of shootings has shown those aged in
their teens to have doubled since 2004-05 in both numbers and as a proportion –
http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs
25 Older Peckham boy talking about the younger generation and in particular a link up for the
Notting Hill Carnival of Peckham and Deptford youths, at Notting Hill Carnival, Golborne Road
2008. Many olders have spoke about the disrespect youngers show with regard to longstanding
rivalries and alliances and in some cases have solely blamed youngers for the fall out
of older gang members based on the actions of their younger relatives (a Brixton gang member
talked about the escalation on this basis between two SW9 gangs). The older members
explained that youngers are often unaware of the history and incidents that have happened
such as murders. However, in Tottenham, it was described how older and original gang
members oversee each “gang neighbourhood” in N15/N17 to ensure total co-operation and
unity between the cliques and sort out any younger conflict should it arise (as stated by several
older gang members from Tottenham during a meeting on the Stonebridge Estate N15 2007).
An older Peckham Boy also described a similar process in Peckham where unity in the local
area is promoted and conflict suppressed and hidden from rivals.
23

away from the olders and elders. Many olders recognize that gang members in
prison will group together with their own borough or side of London irrespective
of street conflicts (i.e. as mentioned „Northern Liners‟, or for west and northwest
London „Lifers‟) 26 .
“It‟s like affiliation to the nearest large gang concept to promote borough
or regional influence whilst inside”. 27
Conflict amongst gang members in prison and youth offending institutions
however is said to be more common than building bridges, especially for south
London gang members.
Other factors influencing the spread of gangs are new communities (for
example, refugees and immigrants from countries such as Somalia and the
Democratic Republic of Congo). In 2007-08, nine teenagers from these two
countries were murdered in London 28 . Many researchers have linked the study
of gangs with immigration. However, our analysis (and that of researchers who
have looked into this issue in Manchester and Glasgow) suggests that it is not
ethnicity that defines gang membership. Rather, young men who grow up in the
most deprived areas are those who are most likely to become involved in
serious group offending. In London, these deprived areas have relatively high
proportions of black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, with recent immigrants
being housed in the most deprived areas.
3.3.8 Age structure of gangs
Whilst the large majority of gangs are comprised of young people, there are
members as young as 10 and as old as 40. Offending types differ among the
ranks and the gangs. The diagram below shows the distribution, roles and
typical offences of gang-related offenders by age. It is based on analysis of
police recorded offending and reports from interviewees and other contributors
to this research. It is indicative and does not mean, for example, that older gang
members never get involved in fights. However, such conflicts are
predominantly associated with teenage gang members. Those who have risen
to the ranks of elders may have proved their commitment through such activities
when they were youngers, but would now tend to concentrate on more
profitable activities which have less chance of attracting police attention.
26 Information is reliant on just 8 older gang members from north London and three non-gang
members who attended prisons who were aware of gangs being present within HMP.
27 Quote obtained from England Gang Forum restricted access area (not obtainable publicly as
open source). All gang members spoken to who had served time in prison were supportive of
this concept, although there were different circumstances. For example, whilst many north
London gang members from various boroughs linked up members from south London boroughs
of Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark tended not to mix with out of borough gang members.
28 The list of teenage murder victims in 2007-8 from DR Congo and Somalia includes Henri
Bolombi, Louis Boduka, Shaarmaake Hassan, Kodjo Yenga, Abukar Mahumud, Biendi
Litembola, Nassirudeen Osawe, Fuad Buraleh, Oliver Kingonzila. Of these nine murders, six
were reported by the press to have been gang-related.
24

Figure 3.2: Typical age structure of gangs in London
25

The pyramid shape of the diagram in figure 3.2 indicates that the numbers
involved in gang-related offending tends to reduce significantly as people get
older. Of course, the peak age for many types of offending is in the mid-teenage
years. Most people “mature out” of adolescent offending, although more
troubled young people, with early onset of aggression and criminality, are less
likely to stop offending as they age (FitzGerald, Stevens, & Hale, 2004).
The criminal justice system also plays a role in whether people leave offending
behind as they age. The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime
compared young offenders (aged 14/15) who had been caught by the police
and had or had not had further action taken against them (i.e. being taken to a
children‟s hearing). It found that young offenders who did have further action
taken against them were more likely to report serious offending one year later,
at age 15/16 (McAra & McVie, 2007). It seems that some types of criminal
justice involvement prolong offending careers. This may apply particularly to
older serious group offenders, whose experience of imprisonment may have
both excluded them from mainstream employment and enhanced their skills
and contacts for use in criminal endeavours.
3.4 Changes in London gang culture in the recent past and
implications for violent conflict
In the past couple of years the most noticeable changes in the spread and
distribution of gangs have been the appearance of outer London gangs and the
breaking up of larger gangs into smaller cliques. Apart from the development of
gangs in a few outer London boroughs, the geographical distribution of gangs
has barely changed in terms between 2006 and 2008.
There are emerging indications of other developments, including:
‣ An increase in seriousness of conflict amongst the younger generation that
is likely to lead to future reprisals.
‣ Evidence of cross borough alliances.
‣ Increasing influence of American gang culture and symbolism.
‣ An increased willingness to use weapons, with easier access to firearms for
gang involved youths, the routine wearing of body amour .
‣ The spread of „mythmaking‟ and advertisement of gangs through the internet.
3.4.1 Change in seriousness of conflict, triggers, and the age of
those involved
Gangs, and in particular the „youngers‟, often see themselves as engaged in
„beef‟, although this is often very fluid and can be „squashed‟ (stopped) and
started any number of times. However, when something serious happens (such
as a murder) then it is highly likely that conflict will be prolonged until „justice‟ is
done.
In 2007-08 a number of the teenage murders that were related to gangs have
created conflicts that are very volatile, with the potential to result in further
26

murders in the future. There is no time limit as to when these will take place. In
the past, there have been periods of several years between a killing and its
revenge. There are murders that have occurred of young people not involved in
gangs but committed by gang members and so there is also a potential for
reprisals against these gang members.
3.4.2 Links between gangs formed over larger distances and how
music groups aligned with the gangs can promote this
Another of the major changes in the past two years has been the emergence of
cross border alliances. This has been largely as a result of the internet, gang
culture spreading through schools and family ties. Many youth gangs or peer
groups have „my space‟, „bebop‟ and „picot‟ profiles. In many cases something
as arbitrary as the colour the group associates with has been enough for an
alliance to form (for example, Hornsey Grey Gang, Priory Court Grey Gang in
Walthamstow and Grey City in Edmonton) 29 . When there are gang involved
relatives at different sides of the borough or area this can lead to links between
gangs. However, the main reason for the links is on the surface a result of the
music elements of the gangs. Many of the gangs in London are tied into urban
„grime‟ music groups such as PDC (Poverty Driven Children), Suspect Gang,
North star, Mash town and SN1 (Spare No-1). Many of the members of such
music groups are elder gang members who have left the street gang scene and
attempted to move into more legitimate business opportunities, although often
funded still by illegitimate sources.
Conflict is often integrated through the music with tracks being made to
disrespect rival gangs, often involving lyrics that refer to real life conflicts that
have involved robberies, fights and stabbings. The olders tend to tolerate these
signs of disrespect and instead respond with a song. Sometimes, however, the
Youngers cannot tolerate it and respond with violence. My space and You Tube
also provide an arena for displays of bravado and disrespect. A simple search
of just about any younger gang name in London brings back results of their
music videos and threats to rivals.
3.4.3 Mobile phones
Mobile phones play an instrumental part in setting up drug deals, and they can
also play a central part in conflict. Youths can become very fearful after seeing
a mobile phone in use after any kind of conflict. For example, a dispute between
two individuals can result in calls being made for back up and without any
warning a number of people can be called to an area ready for large scale
conflict 30 .
29 Information derived from e-mail communication with members of each gang and as described
on each individual gangs MySpace sites.
30 Information derived from two youth club workers in north London and a youth offending
service client manager in east London. Younger gang members have also described using
phones for back up although it was the adult workers who informed that young people had told
them of being fearful upon seeing phone calls being made following altercations.
27

3.4.4 Adoption of American gang cultural definers
One of the more visible changes of gangs of recent years has been the
adoption of gang colours, symbolism and graffiti that has heavily been
influenced by the American gang culture of Los Angeles Crips and Bloods.
Crips and Bloods are the two main street gang allegiances in Los Angeles.
There, gangs generally identify with either red (Bloods) or blue (Crips). In 2004,
gang colours were not visible in London. By 2007, the use of gang colours and
US gang names was spreading (e.g. Bloodset, Cripset, O-Tray-One Bloods,
Chrome Town Crips – all in southwest London). In some cases whole boroughs
identify with one colour, Lewisham is known as Blue Borough because of its
blue road signs, Greenwich as Green Borough and Southwark as Black
Borough. Wood Green and Edmonton Green are known as „Green City‟ whilst
the grey blocks of flats in Upper Edmonton have become known as „Grey City‟ 31 .
US slang (i.e. the use of blood, or cuz to refer to a fellow gang member, strap
as reference to a gun and shank as reference to a knife), US style, symbols and
graffiti have also become part of London subculture, making its appearance
ever more comparable to the images of Los Angeles street gang films.
3.4.5 Use of weapons
Fear of other gangs and conflict has also made carrying a knife and wearing
body armour more normal amongst gang members.
„There was a time when the knife and gun were specifically for protecting
one‟s money and drugs although it is now more common for it to be
carried for protecting one‟s life‟ 32 .
Not all gang members carry knives. They may get younger people to hold
weapons for them. So even if guns are no easier to obtain in general, young
gang members may have access to guns when they are trusted by the olders to
„hide this for me‟.
3.5. London gang alliances
Alliances between gangs occur for reasons such as the linking up of gangs
against a common enemy, prominent members having relatives who are part of
another gang, links of the music element to do joint songs together, sharing and
expanding drug dealing turfs and product, borough-wide or postal area wide
affiliation or because of something as arbitrary as the colour the gang
associates with.
3.5.1 Alliances as a result of gangs combining against common
enemies
31 Information derived from gang members and associates of each respective area and images
displayed on gang MySpaces and Bebos.
32 Older Hackney gang member.
28

When a gang or a number of gang youngers in a small area are constantly
under threat or attack from another gang someone within those gangs invariably
has links to one another to be able to suggest the linking up of groups as a
possibility. This happened in the case of a group that called itself Legends of
Stokey. Members of this group often committed robberies against other youths
in the area. Three of the gangs surrounding LOS decided they would „squash‟
their conflicts and instead group together against LOS. These three gangs were
L.O.R.D (Lordship), Manor House Boys and Stamford Hill Mandem. These
three groups still exist, while LOS has disappeared 33 .
Another reason for joining up against common rivals can be the turnover of
gang members. In late 2005 and into 2006 the London Field Boys membership
began to dwindle as members were arrested. At the same time their rivals the
Holly Street Boys were taking advantage of the smaller number of London Field
Boys and so the Field Boys decided they would join up with Haggerston
Mandem. What was created was a very large street gang which became known
as HFC – „Haggerston Fields Combined‟. The link up was short lived. When the
arrested Fields Boys were released and back into their gang they were not
happy with the link up and the extra support of Haggerston was no longer
necessary. So it ceased 34 . Alliances formed in this manner are more common
amongst the youngers.
3.5.2 Alliances formed through friend and familial links with different
gangs
Alliances between gangs may also arise from family ties. Often young gang
members will have gang affiliated brothers and cousins, although they do not
necessarily live in the same areas. Where these relatives are more prominent
gang members, they have the ability to create alliances with other gangs. This
is true at all stages of the gang from youngers to olders and to elders, although
the implications of this vary amongst the ranks. For the youngers, making these
links is usually confined to having extra back up when needed and getting
together to make music. For the olders and elders these links can also be used
for music links but also drug links and other illegitimate income (e.g. money
lending). In some circumstances the gangs are wholly family orientated and
often more reflective of an organised crime firm rather than a street gang.
Examples include CFR (Certified Riders or Corleone Family Riders) from
Brixton, or the families that together made up the original Tottenham Mandem.
3.5.3 Alliances built through gang associated music crews and
illegitimate business
Links are often made in the musical activities of group members. Music groups
such as Northstar (from Tottenham) and Mashtown (from Hackney) are often
made up of former and elder gang members alongside talented artists from the
neighbourhood. However, this is not always the case. Musical collectives do not
33 As was explained by an older Manor House gang member who had formerly been an original
younger of Legends of Stokey.
34 Information derived from Fellows Court (Haggerston) and London Fields gang members,
Hackney youth workers and a youth offending service client manager from Hackney.
29

have to consist of former gang members. Associates, affiliates or other people
who grew up in “gangland” may wish to express their life experience through a
specific type of music, often „UK grime‟ – popularly showcased on Channel U.
Often the music crews aligned with the gangs will link up together to make
music. Whilst the links between music crews are generally for the purpose of
the music, they can lead to links amongst the gangs because of the close
relationships the artists may have with the neighbourhood gang.
At the higher level of the gangs the olders and elders who are less active on the
street conflict often make links for business – to expand dealing turf and to
increase their pool of suppliers amongst other things. One gang is even said to
be working with permission under the name of a well known organised crime
group from Islington established since the 1970s 35 . Former London gangs,
including the Shadow Kings and African Crew, both specialising in drugs, were
said to have been supplied from organised Turkish criminals in north London
(Linnane, 2004). Grahame McLagan (2006) in his book „Gangs and Guns‟,
which heavily sources Operation Trident intelligence files, speaks of the links
that had been made by Mark Lambie leader of the Tottenham Mandem to
gangs in Brixton, Harlesden, Leyton and Shepherds Bush.
3.6. Dynamics of Gang Rivalries
Gang rivalries can occur for the same reasons as gang alliances, or following
alliances should the group members fall-out. Most gang rivalries appear to be a
result of the younger generation, whose activities revolve predominantly around
protecting their gang territory. They form their gang identities and reputation
through violence and earn their „stars‟ by committing robberies. Gangs are
organised around norms that support the use of violence to settle disputes,
achieve group goals and defend identity. Furthermore, “when a gang member‟s
identity is challenged, violence is often a result, especially if the challenger is a
stranger. If a gang member does not comply with gang role expectations when
they are challenged, the result may be a loss of respect” (Stretesky & Pogrebin,
2007, 89). The rivalries between the younger generations therefore are often
the result of very minor disputes and signs of disrespect, disputes involving
individual members of gangs and robberies.
Sometimes these routine conflicts may escalate and serious incidents, such as
a stabbing or a murder. When such an event occurs, the rivalry becomes more
permanent. The olders are less involved in the street conflict and their criminal
activities are focused to more profitable robberies, such as cash in transit, and
dealing or supply of drugs. More importance is given to making money and
avoiding police attention by the olders and conflict is less common, although
serious incidents can occur as a result of reprisals for past incidents.
Violence by serious group offenders can be placed in three categories, the first
two of which will tend to cause rivalries that lead to reprisal:
‣ Intra-gang violence. Conflict is internal to the group.
35 Source: an Islington “entrepreneur”
30

‣ Inter-gang violence. Conflict is between groups.
‣ Extra-group violence. Conflict between gang members and individuals with
no gang affiliations.
Reputation, feuds and retaliation are often involved in all three types of violence.
3.6.1 Reputational Violence
“The purpose of all gang members is to develop a reputation. You must
build the reputation of your name, you must build your name in
association with your gang – so when your name is spoken your gang is
also spoken of in the same breadth, for it is synonymous” (Shakur, 1993,
379).
Older gang members already have their reputation and therefore it is the
youngers who need to develop one. In the US context it has been found that
“much violence is not sanctioned by the olders, but rather arises because
particular cliques or youngers interested in moving up the hierarchy may have a
strong incentive to build a reputation for toughness and thus may engage in
violence even if such actions run counter to the best interests of the gang”
(Levitt & Venkatesh, 2000, 781).
Although violence may occur for a number of reasons, a common cause for
conflict is perceived disrespect – talking to someone‟s girlfriend, spilling a drink,
„screwfacing‟ (a disparaging way of looking someone in the eye), lyrics of a
song that „diss‟ someone or owing money to someone and not paying up on
time. With regard to intra-gang violence much of this is a result of „snaking‟
(dishonest business, i.e. setting someone up for a drugs robbery), „snitching‟,
fights over females and the fight for top spot when older members are
imprisoned. Inter-gang violence is often triggered by disagreements between
individual gang members, leading the entire group to back each of them up in
the “war”.
Part of building a reputation can include robbing rival gang members of their
coloured bandana - an act that can lead to reprisal fights between gangs and
gang members. Many beefs however are the result of “leisure activities for fun”
such as „rushing‟ rival areas and deliberately „rollin‟ through‟ rival areas in large
numbers, which would also be considered as disrespect.
Extra-group violence occurs when non-gang members are either robbed or
again show perceived signs of disrespect to a gang member. Extra-group
violence also puts young people at risk if they are perceived to be part of a rival
gang because of where they live.
3.6.2 Long-standing feuds and retaliatory violence
When gangs do clash there is always the possibility that someone is carrying a
weapon. When someone is shot, stabbed or killed, the rivalry between groups
31

ecomes far more serious and long-standing. This leads to the most common
form of gang violence, retaliatory violence. In London, many of the gangs have
rivals. Fights between them lead to periodical and cyclical violence between
rival estate youths. However, as youngers become olders and their reputation is
established, such conflicts play a lesser role in their gang careers. The conflict
is left to the new youngers, unless there are scores to be settled. The relatively
high number of teenage murder victims in the last two years has produced
many scores that are yet to be settled.
Table 3.3 shows some current rivalries that have reportedly led to serious
violence.
Table 3.3: Gang Rivalries
Serious rivalries that have resulted in death
Gang Area In conflict with… Area
All About Money
and Organised
Criminals
Lambeth
O31, Certified
Riders, G-Street
Lambeth
Beaumont Crew Waltham Forest Piff City Waltham Forest
Centric Crew /
North London
African Nations
Camden
Somalians / Young Haringey
Crew / The Money
Militant Somalians
Squad
Church Road
Soldiers
Brent Suspect Gang Brent
Croydon Tamils Croydon Tooting Tamils Wandsworth
Dem African /
EvaStrap and Red
Money Respect Enfield
Brick Thugs
Power
Enfield / Haringey
Drummond Street
Posse
Camden
Somers Town Boys Camden
E5TH / Pembury
Boys
Hackney Holly Street Boys Hackney
Ghetto Boys Lewisham Peckham Boys Southwark
Grey Gang Newham Asian Virus Newham
Lambeth Crips
Lambeth Bloods
(ALC, ABM,
(031, CFR, G- Lambeth
Cripset,
Street, RSG)
Murderzone, OC)
Lambeth
Leytonstone
Mandem / Cathall
Thugs
Waltham Forest
Thatched House
Thugs / FTK
Waltham Forest
London Field Boys Hackney Holly Street Boys Hackney
Love of Money Hackney London Field Boys Hackney
Make Paper
Regardless
Hammersmith and
Fulham
Ladbroke Grove
Olders
Money Power
Respect
Enfield Shankstarz Enfield
Muder Dem
Pussies
Ealing /
Hammersmith and
Fulham
Gritset
Kensington &
Chelsea
Ealing
32

Organised
K-Town Black
Lambeth
Criminals
Mobb
Lambeth
Portway Mandem Newham
Plashet Road
Asians
Lambeth
Poverty Driven
South Man
Lambeth
Children
Syndicate
Lambeth
Smalley Thugs Hackney
Stamford Hill
Mandem
Hackney
Stick Up Kids Wandsworth Terrorzone Merton
Stratford Mandem Newham Piff City Waltham Forest
Street Diplomats Westminster
Lisson Green
Mandem
Westminster
Tottenham
Mandem / Ida and Haringey Wood Green MOB Haringey
Tiverton cliques
Tottenham
Mandem /
Northstar
Woolwich
Somalians
Haringey
Hackney Mandem /
Mashtown
Hackney
Greenwich T-Block Greenwich
33

4. Interviews and case studies
It is important to note that these interviews took place prior to the series of half
day briefings which took place between January and March 2009.
4.1 Sample
There was a two stage process for the practitioner consultations, which involved
interviews with at total of 31 staff of London Probation Service. There was an
open invitation to London Probation staff to participate in the practitioner
perspective as part of this research project. The initial group of volunteers
included an Assistant Chief Officer, two Senior Probation Officers, three
Probation Officers and a Probation Service Officer. They covered quite different
geographic areas and across the range of probation work, including Unpaid
Work, MAPPA and field work. Following this, there was a series of
consultations with “case study” areas, including London Boroughs and prisons.
This group included a further 7 Senior Probation Officers (including 2 prison
based), 8 Probation Officers, 4 Trainee Probation Officers, 4 Probation Service
Officers and an Assistant Chief Officer. These case study meetings were
extremely useful in highlighting common concerns and issues and have made a
significant contribution to the recommendations in this report.
These consultations were informal, but structured around four main themes; the
role and experience of the interviewees, local knowledge, current local practice
and issues, and policy implications.
It should be noted that these interviews and consultations were undertaken prior
to the half day briefing sessions which focussed on the health and safety
aspects of working with serious group offenders.
4.1.2 General Observations
There was a lot of concern about the issue of serious group offending, but the
overwhelming aspect of this concern was about ensuring the safety of the
offenders whilst under the supervision of the London Probation, rather than risk
to staff. All the interviewees were impressive in their commitment to fulfilling
their statutory obligations without compromising their professional task of
reducing reoffending, in a very challenging environment.
There was considerable disparity between the geographic areas in terms of
inter-agency communication and co-operation, knowledge of local support
networks or community projects. In some areas there is close co-operation with
local police officers with very good information sharing, but in others it is
considered to be very poor. Generally, information sharing between YOTs and
Probation was considered to be inadequate.
34

The most significant differences in issues of concern are between Unpaid Work
and Community Supervision, although there are some common themes which
will be referred to later.
The single most common concern was the lack of knowledge about local groups
of serious offenders (“gangs”), who they were, how they could be recognized,
alliances and rivalries, and territories.
4.1.3 Unpaid Work
London Probation supervises 1400 young offenders (16 and 17 year olds) on
Unpaid Work, representing 10% of the caseload. These young offenders have
been sentenced on the basis of reports prepared by the Young Offender Teams.
A major criticism is the lack of prior information from the YOT‟s, including any
known association with serious group offending. This creates the risk of placing
young offenders from rival groups on the same project, or in a location which is
“enemy territory”. Sometimes the young offenders will volunteer information if
they feel vulnerable, but this is not necessarily reliable. Project managers try to
keep young offenders separate from adult “career” criminals, but this is not
always possible. Part of the induction process includes trying to identify if the
young offender is associated with serious group offending, by checking with
YOT‟s, Police and Offender Managers (if over 18 years old). Information and
intelligence is described as “patchy”.
The breach rate for young offenders is about 80%, much higher than for adult
offenders, which might reflect the level of exposure and vulnerability felt by this
group. Unpaid Work is intentionally highly visible to the public, and there have
been incidents of attacks taking place on projects, including a “drive by”
shooting.
There is a view among some practitioners that Unpaid Work is not appropriate
for serious group offenders because of the high visibility, risk of placing rival
group members together, lack of good information and intelligence and
vulnerability of non-group members to pressure and influence. One Unpaid
Work Manager has revoked some orders on a safety basis, rather than risk a
breach situation, but this reinforces the need for local Courts to recognise the
reality of the risk and not inadvertently escalate the sentencing “ladder”.
4.1.4 Community Supervision
There are many different areas of concern for practitioners working with
community orders. The rationalisation of London Probation premises with fewer
reporting centres can create a risky environment for some serious group
offenders. Where offenders are known to be part of a serious offending group
and the alliances and rivalries are known, office managers are trying to
schedule appointments to avoid confrontations. However, offenders do not
always report when requested. It was reported that one offender was seen
outside an office at his appointment time, but disappeared when a rival group
member appeared. The offender was breached for non-compliance for failing to
report to his supervising officer at the appointed time.
35

Offender Managers felt it was very difficult to maintain the motivation of serious
group offenders to change their lifestyle, when membership of the group offered
them status, “family” and protection. It was felt that probation was not the right
agency and that specialist services were needed to offer preventative activities
and help these offenders to exit the groups. Overall, there was little knowledge
of local support services but there was also some concern about the quality of
some of the local projects.
The perceived risks expressed by offenders have a significant impact on the
type and level of appropriate interventions by the Offender Manager. For
example, a suitable training course may be held in unsuitable/risky locations;
choice of accommodation for homeless offenders is restricted and groupwork
programmes need to be carefully screened. This inevitably affects the
potential for a successful completion and outcome in terms of reducing
reoffending.
It was felt that waiting areas in probation premises were potentially very risky,
as some offenders brought friends with them, possibly carrying weapons.
Offender Managers and other practitioners feel the need to protect colleagues
and share intelligence from offenders on their caseload. However, the reliability
of this intelligence is uncertain, and often “street” names are used instead of
recorded names.
Practitioners believe that gang affiliations start at a very young age, often
through siblings and school friends. Girls are increasingly involved, either by
association with an existing male group or by creating their own offending group.
There was serious concern that as gun and knife crime levels were reducing,
abducting and raping girls from rival groups were becoming the “weapon” to
resolve grievances. (For example, the recent Brixton and „Kingshold Boys‟
convictions)
Specific training in respect of the psychology of serious group offenders and
desistence theories would be welcomed. The current briefing paper was
considered very good, but more information on language, symbols, allegiances
and rivalries which was regularly updated would also be valuable.
4.1.5 Prison based practitioners
This was a more difficult environment to explore, partly due to some
sensationalised media reporting of “gang” issues in prisons which in turn
created a reticence to discuss anything which might be perceived as “gang”
related. However, it seems that there is little communication between the prison
resettlement team and the home probation area concerning release plans,
unless the offender has given a clear indication that he/she wants to exit their
offending group, which may mean moving to another area.
Within most of the prisons that participated in the consultation, “gang” issues
were not perceived as significantly different to other security issues and were
usually dealt with by moving prisoners to a different wing. Any escalation of
inter group conflict was quickly identified by vigilant prison officers and deflected.
36

The exception was HMP Belmarsh which faces different issues as a result of
the high proportion of Muslim prisoners held and the risk of conversion and
radicalisation of non-Muslim prisoners.
4.1.6 Practitioner Concerns
‣ The need for agencies to share intelligence and information about individual
offenders and known associations with serious group offending.
‣ The need for agencies to share intelligence about known alliances and
rivalries between groups of offenders.
‣ The need for an Action Plan for working with 16/17 yr olds in partnership
with Police (Unpaid Work)
‣ The need for sentencers to understand and recognise the risk of harm to
offenders in certain situations and take this into account when sentencing.
‣ Good information can create a “safe” situation for offenders and increase the
likelihood of success/compliance.
‣ Need to “quality assure” local support projects before making referrals
‣ Need for accurate risk assessments (risk of labelling/stereotyping)
‣ Managing the risk – knowing what is true and what is fantasy
‣ The need for flexibility in breach procedures
‣ The need for flexibility in reporting venues – taking account of confidentiality
issues
‣ The need for specialist local services
‣ The need for “safe” accommodation for offenders trying to exit a group
‣ The need for regular updates on current groups, alliances and rivalries,
identifying characteristics etc.
‣ The issue of hostel referrals was raised as a potential for high risk situations
if all the information/intelligence was not taken into account, including
location of hostel, local serious offending groups, other residents‟
allegiances etc.
‣ In terms of Unpaid Work, there are serious concerns about protecting
offenders, staff and members of the public in exposed projects.
‣ Offender Managers and other practitioners in local area offices feel that staff
and offenders are vulnerable, mainly due to the location of the offices, poor
communication and the unreliability of offenders to keep strictly to
appointment times.
4.2 Thematic issues to consider
4.2.1 Communication
a. Internal
London Probation staff at all levels felt that communication was poor, both
laterally between colleagues and vertically through the management structures
of the service. All staff members were concerned about the issue of working
with serious group offenders, but many were unaware that the issue was being
addressed by London Probation management. However, the meetings with
37

orough teams highlighted the poor communication between colleagues even at
a local level, partly because of the geographical and/or functional split within
borough teams. There were some examples of where teams had sought to
address this issue by, for example, attempting to co-ordinate appointments to
avoid rival gang members reporting at the same time and risking confrontation
in the waiting areas.
There was some recognition that valuable information was lost due to poor
internal communications. For example, reception staff were the most likely to
observe actions or behaviour which might indicate association with serious
group offending, but this was not routinely shared with colleagues.
b. External
Communication with external agencies, both statutory and voluntary sector
varied considerably across the different boroughs. In some areas
communication with local police officers was excellent, although less so with
Trident officers. Another area of particular difficulty was the transfer of
supervision from YOTs to Probation, either on release from a Young Offender
Institution or on Unpaid Work.
There was generally very little knowledge of any community based
organisations which were working with serious group offenders and therefore no
communication with them.
Uamu Seshi, Director of the Boyhood to Manhood Foundation in LB Southwark
reported that other agencies were not trusting of long standing organisations
willing to work with young people. “They think that they can provide all services
themselves but in reality can‟t engage in the same way with the young boys”.
Interestingly, he reported a positive relationship with the Police when compared
to either Probation or YOT teams. He feels that both the latter are punitive
organizations in their approach to young people and are therefore not the most
appropriate bodies to work with.
4.2.2 Multi-agency cooperation
a. Intelligence/information sharing
Generally, practitioners felt that there was a lack of coherent intelligence
sharing between local agencies, even where multi-agency fora had been
established. Although there was Probation representation on these groups,
attendance was poor and intelligence was not disseminated routinely to
colleagues.
In all areas, practitioners felt that they had very little knowledge of the “gangs”
operating in their area and they were dependent on self disclosure by offenders.
This lack of knowledge about alliances and rivalries, identifiers and territories,
made it more difficult to both challenge behaviour and create a safe
environment. There was an awareness that some serious group offenders were
38

associated with certain Further Education Colleges which might have an impact
on ETE referrals.
Paula Doherty, Gangs Coordinator, LB Croydon has established a practitioner
forum and intelligence group to share expertise and information regarding
young people known to be „at risk‟. She has secured London Probation
involvement but has found it difficult to get them involved and to participate in
meetings to date.
The Off the Streets, Less Heat project was established in 2007 led by the
neighbourhood management and recreation team at LB Haringey and with
active participation of the local YOT team, faith and voluntary groups, local
residents associations and schools.
The project recruits young people „at risk‟ in 5 target areas based on police
reports and data sharing. The Safer Neighbourhoods team work together to
share data with the Met Police.
b. Release planning
There was little communication between prison based probation staff and
community based staff in respect of resettlement planning. This was a
particular issue if a young offender was previously known to a YOT, but being
released on license to the Probation Area. However, prison based probation
practitioners may only be aware that a prisoner is a serious group offender if it
has been identified in the pre-sentence report, or the internal Security
Information Report undertaken by prison officers.
The safe management of serious group offenders in prison relies heavily on
good observation by prison officers during association and/or football matches,
where teams tend to be area or race based. The view was expressed that
some nationalities form “gangs” and can cause problems in prison because they
are subject to deportation orders and therefore have “nothing to lose”.
c. Exit routes
There was very little knowledge of local organisations which would help serious
group offenders to exit from “gangs”, although practitioners felt that SGO‟s were
most susceptible to change and exiting their “gang” at the point of release from
prison and that more investment was needed to support families and social
support networks to maximise this opportunity. One team was aware of a police
initiative (the Lambeth Strategy) which supported offenders who wanted to exit,
but would target those who did not – modelled on the Boston and Glasgow
experiments.
Several practitioners wanted more information about local support groups and
thought that joint training and better liaison would improve opportunities to
enable offenders to exit their offending group. They proposed a MAPPA or
PPO model of multi-agency working might prove more effective.
39

4.2.3 Health and Safety
a. Staff
Probation practitioners generally did not feel at risk of violence from serious
group offenders, any more than any other type of offender. They were aware
that some offenders might attend probation premises carrying weapons, but felt
that generally health and safety precautions in offices were adequate to protect
staff. There was concern expressed about the vulnerability of reception staff if
rival group members had a confrontation in the waiting area and this was a
good reason to ensure that information about local “gangs” was kept up to date
and made available to all staff. Particular reference was made to graffiti “tags”
on waiting room walls, colours, tattoos, brands of clothing etc which were
identifiers. Only one office thought that a security arch (airport style) might be
worth considering, although several expressed concern about the effectiveness
of uniformed security officers who had no means of summoning back-up if
needed.
The Health and Safety Incident Forms, which were intended to monitor risky
situations as well as actual incidents, were not considered to be relevant to
these situations because they were not well designed. It might be worth
considering a specific form to highlight indicators of potential risks.
It was felt that staff in approved premises might be at greater risk of harm, due
to the working environment. However, following some discussion the risk was
considered to be no greater than that from other residents who were frequently
in conflict with each other.
b. Offenders
Practitioners were particularly concerned about the safety of the offenders they
were supervising in all aspects of their work. Lack of good and current
intelligence made it more difficult to ensure the safety of offenders, but also
communication between colleagues was seen as critical. Referral to
groupwork programmes, ETE specialist advisors, external service providers or
Unpaid Work, was considered to create the greatest potential for high risk
situations. It was felt that known serious group offenders should have some
form of identifier on their case file to ensure this information was passed on to
other colleagues when relevant and appropriate. The biggest problem was
when an offender was not known to be a member of a “gang” and therefore
potentially at risk, or a risk to others.
The rationalisation of probation premises created the risk of requiring offenders
to report to premises in rival areas and waiting areas were also considered to
be potential “hotspots”. Similarly, approved premises could be considered to be
at high risk of confrontation between rival groups, either between residents or
because of the location of the premises.
There was some question about whether Unpaid Work was appropriate for
known serious group offenders, particularly in highly visible projects and the risk
40

of placing rival group members together or on “enemy territory”. Particular
concern was expressed in the case of young offenders on Unpaid Work, as the
information available from the YOT is described as “patchy”.
c. Public
The health and safety risk to the public was considered minimal, unless a
confrontation happened in the immediate vicinity of probation premises, or at an
Unpaid Work location. If an offender on Unpaid Work was known to be a
serious group offender, then this should be taken into account in terms of risk
management at the induction meeting.
4.2.4 Practice issues
a. Group work
Group work managers were concerned that they did not receive complete
information from referring colleagues which made it difficult for them to manage
the risk of confrontations in group sessions. However, sometimes it only
became apparent that an offender was a member of a “gang” as a consequence
of inadvertently being placed in a group with a member of a rival “gang”.
There was a small minority view that group work offered the opportunity for rival
“gang” members to resolve differences and that accommodating gang rivalries
could be seen as collusion with the “gang” culture. Such an approach would
require skilled practitioners in mediation or restorative justice.
b. Unpaid work
There was general concern about the potential risks of placing known serious
group offenders on Unpaid Work projects, partly because of their vulnerability to
attack but also because of the public visibility. It was felt that young offenders
were particularly at risk in this environment, even if they were not serious group
offenders as they were vulnerable to pressure and influence from “gang”
members.
c. One-to-one supervision
Practitioners engaged in one to one supervision questioned the effectiveness of
any intervention with serious group offenders as they had to compete with
significant peer pressure and/or the status conferred on the offender by being a
member of a “gang”. Some consideration could be given to adapting the Think
First or other cognitive behavioural programme to address the particular issues
of serious group offenders. This led to a proposal that perhaps serious group
offenders should be referred to specialist officers or teams in a similar way to
PPO‟s and sex offenders.
41

One of the biggest issues for probation supervisors was the lack of intelligence
about serious group offenders in their area, knowing which offenders were
members of which groups and the poor reliability of disclosed information by
offenders themselves.
d. Approved premises
The practice issues for staff working in approved premises are very similar to
those in Unpaid Work. In addition, referrals to approved premises come from a
wide geographical area, as well as prisons and courts, which made the quality
of the information even more critical.
42

5. Offender Management Models
5.1 Holistic management of serious group offenders
Many of the problems and solutions identified in this report can be summarised
by integrating suggestions made by some of the interviewees that are
congruent with the research literature and with our scoping of gang dynamics.
These sources lead us to suggest a “holistic model” of offender management,
which can be differentiated from both the “internal model” and the “multi-agency
model”.
These models represent ideal types and inevitably miss out some of the
complexities of everyday practice. We present them here as ways to think about
the process of working with serious group offenders under probation
supervision. They recognise the wide variety of needs that serious group
offenders are likely to have. These include needs for housing, education,
employment, welfare advice, legal advice, and also less easily assessed needs
for emotional and spiritual support.
The internal model is represented by the diagram in figure 5.1 below. This
shows a way of working that restricts contacts to those within the probation
service. The offender manager may refer the offender to specific interventions
(such as offending behaviour programmes) or to support around issues of
employment, training and education. But there is no systematic attempt to link
the offender to services and agencies outside probation provision. This restricts
opportunities to gain more information from outside probation that will help the
offender manager to work safely and effectively with the offender. It limits the
services provided to the offender to those that are currently provided by the
probation service. And it means that no relationships are developed that can
help offenders to exit and desist from serious group and other offending when
they are no longer under probation supervision.
43

Figure 5.1: The internal model of offender management
Internal
model
Offender
manager
ETE
Intervention
team
Offender
The multi-agency model is represented in figure 5.2 below. It shows a type of
supervision where the offender manager creates links with both internal
probation and external agencies to support the work with the offender. This
means that information can be gathered to support effective work. And it goes
some way towards creating a wider, more sustainable set of relationships to
support the offender. However, in this model, the links with other agencies run
primarily through the offender manager, to the offender. The offender manager
brings in other agencies as and when they consider that they are needed, but
the offender is not supported and encouraged to become responsible for the
maintenance and development of these links.
44

Figure 5.2: The multi-agency model of offender management
Multi-agency model
External
agency
External
agency
ETE
Offender
manager
Intervention
team
Offender
The final, holistic model is represented in figure 5.3 below. This shows a way of
working where the offender is placed at the centre of a web of relationships with
other agencies that can support a variety of needs (criminogenic needs, as well
as other needs that are important to the offender). This may be achieved with
the support of a community agency that can develop a positive and supportive
relationship with the offender during his/her period of supervision and beyond.
The crucial difference with the multi-agency model is that the offender manager
takes a step back from the day-to-day coordination of multi-agency work with
the offender. Instead, the OM initially assesses the offender, identifies need and
finds an agency that can support him/her in meeting these needs, while also
fulfilling the other requirements of their supervision.
The aim of this way of working is to support the offender to create relationships
- which are eventually independent of probation support - with agencies and
individuals that can support them in exiting and desisting from serious group
offending in the longer term. It recognises that, for many such offenders, their
offending peers have been a main source of financial, practical and emotional
support. It aims to help the offender to create an alternative social network that
can reduce the need for involvement in offending. This type of social support is
vital in order to increase the likelihood that they will create more positive ways
of living, for themselves and the surrounding community.
45

Figure 5.3: The holistic model of offender management
Holistic model
Offender
manager
ETE
Offender &
community
agency
Intervention
team
External
agency
External
agency
The potential advantages of using the holistic model of offender management,
as opposed to the internal model, are:
‣ It enables a wide range of criminogenic and other needs of the offender to
be met.
‣ It supports the reintegration (or integration) of the offender into a social
network that can provide both individualised support and informal social
control.
‣ It enables these social relationships to go beyond formal relationships with
agencies whose involvement is necessarily time-limited to more flexible,
long lasting relationships with a range of individuals and agencies.
‣ It enables the offender to take an increasing responsibility for their own
integration and desistance from crime.
46

The potential disadvantages are:
‣ It depends on initial investment in gathering information and developing
relationships with external agencies that can provide individualised,
professional support to the offender.
‣ It contains the risk that partners who are working with probation, but are not
under the control of probation, will act in ways that undermine public
protection.
‣ It depends on offender managers being skilled in supporting the
development of links between the offender and other agencies/individuals,
without interfering unduly in these relationships, but while maintaining a
positive, professional supervisory relationship with the offender.
Therefore, in order to work, extending the use of the holistic model for
supervision of serious group offenders will require:
‣ Gathering dynamic information on the agencies that are available in the local
community who can work with offenders in this model. This information will
need to be updated regularly, as the community sector is notoriously
unstable (with rapid turnover of organisations, personnel and funding
contracts).
‣ Consideration of providing project funding to such agencies to help them
work with offenders, and core funding to enable them to become more
stable and sustainable.
‣ Training for offender managers in person-centred, holistic work with external
agencies, including
o Assessment for a variety of needs (not just those included in OASYS,
but including emotional and spiritual needs).
o Methods for motivating offenders to engage with agencies and
individuals who can offer support.
‣ Encouragement of offender managers to work holistically through attention
to their professional motivations and development.
o In what ways can performance management support holistic working
o Is there a case for enabling some offender managers to become
specialist in the holistic supervision of serious group offenders,
through training and professional development
o Use of induction, training and professional supervision procedures to
encourage more use of the holistic model.
‣ Creating and implementing protocols for the assessment and management
of risk when working with external agencies. These should pay special
attention to:
o Cases where supervision takes place outside probation offices.
o Working with organisations that employ ex-offenders to work with
people who are currently under probation supervision.
o The sharing of information that may be sensitive to the individual
and/or for public protection with other agencies, within and without the
criminal justice system.
47

6. Recommendations
These recommendations arise from the evidence of this research and reflect the
indicators of effective practice and promising practice.
‣ 6.1 Local and current intelligence is critical. There should be a dedicated
member of each team who is responsible for gathering information about
“gangs” operating in the local area. This should include identifiers,
alliances and rivalries.
‣ 6.2 This team member should build up a constructive dialogue with local
police teams, YOTs, councils and voluntary agencies to ensure that
intelligence is kept up to date.
‣ 6.3 This team member would be responsible for ensuring that all
colleagues were kept informed of current issues, perhaps with a weekly
bulletin which would include identifiers and “beefs”.
‣ 6.4 There should be a critical incident protocol, which ensures that
intelligence is proactively gathered following a serious violent incident
(e.g. fatality, shooting or “gang” rape), as this may impact on offenders
being supervised.
‣ 6.5 A holistic offender management model should be adopted (as
described above), which would be informed by the local knowledge and
expertise provided by the specialist team member.
‣ 6.6 Communication at all levels should be improved. Dedicated team
members should meet each other regularly as “gang” issues cross
borough boundaries and this information needs to be shared. Perhaps
there could be a dedicated intelligence page on the London Probation
intranet to ensure that all practitioners had access to it, with “alerts” when
new information was added.
‣ 6.7 There should be joint training and briefing sessions with local
statutory and voluntary agencies to build trust, knowledge and mutual
confidence and respect.
‣ 6.8 There should be specific training for practitioners who choose to
specialise in supervising serious group offenders.
‣ 6.9 There should be an enhanced risk assessment for serious group
offenders before referral to any intervention, both internal and external.
‣ 6.10 There should be an enhanced risk assessment for any referral to
Unpaid Work, with particular attention to referrals from Young Offender
Teams.
‣ 6.11 Area Managers should consider regular briefings with sentencers to
ensure they are aware of local issues and implications.
‣ 6.12 There should be good communication between prison resettlement
teams and community supervision teams when a known serious group
offender is sentenced to imprisonment and/or due for release.
‣ 6.13 The dedicated team member should ensure that s/he is aware of
local support networks for offenders wishing to exit the “gang” culture.
48

7. References
Aldridge, J., & Medina, J. (2007). Youth Gangs in an English City: Social
Exclusion, Drugs and Violence: Full Research Report ESRC End of
Award Report, RES-000-23-0615 Swindon: ESRC
Alexander, C. (2008). (Re)thinking Gangs London: Runnymede Trust
Bannister, J. (2008). Presentation: It's an area - we all represent it, Conference
of the European Society of Criminology. Edinburgh.
Bowling, B. (1999). The Rise and Fall of New York Murder: Zero Tolerance or
Crack's Decline British Journal of Criminology, 39(4), 531-554.
Brand, A., & Ollerearnshaw, R. (2008). Gangs at the grassroots. New local
solutions to street violence. . London: New Local Government Network.
Broadhurst, K., Duffin, M., & Taylor, E. (2008). Gangs and Schools: Interim
Report. An interim report for the NASUWT. Birmingham: NASUWT.
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. (2005). Legal Socialization of Children and Adolescents.
Social Justice Research, 18(3), 217-242.
FitzGerald, M. (2008). Violence, but no magic bullet, New Statesman, Violence
Special Supplement pp. 18-19).
FitzGerald, M., Stevens, A., & Hale, C. (2004). A review of trends, policy and
responses to youth violence in Europe. Canterbury: University of Kent.
Young, T., FitzGerald, M., Hallsworth, S., Joseph, I., (2007). Groups, Gangs
and Weapons. Full Report London: Youth Justice Board.
Hallsworth, S., & Young, T. (2004). Getting Real About Gangs. Criminal Justice
Matters(55), 12-13.
Hallsworth, S., & Young, T. (2006). Urban Collectives: Gangs and other
Groups.A Report prepared for the Metropolitan Police Service and
Government Office for London. London: Centre for Social and Evaluation
Research at the London Metropolitan University
Hallsworth, S., & Young, T. (2008). Gang talk and gang talkers: A critique.
Crime Media Culture, 4(2), 175-195.
Home Office (2009). Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to
September 2008. Second Edition London: Home Office
Howell, J.C. (2007). Menacing or Mimicking. Realities of Youth Gangs. Juvenile
and Family Court Journal, 58(2), 39-50.
Katz, J., & Jackson-Jacobs, C. (2004). The criminologist's gang. In C. Sumner
(Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Criminology (pp. 91-124). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Kershaw, C., Nicholas, S., & Walker, A. (2008). Crime in England and Wales
2007/08. Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded
crime, Home Office Statistical Bulletin London: Home Office.
Levitt, S.D., & Venkatesh, S.A. (2000). An Economic Analysis Of A Drug-Selling
Gang's Finances. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 755-789.
Linnane, F. (2004). Three centuries of vice and crime: London’s Underworld
London: Chrysalis Books
London Borough of Lambeth (2008). Chair's Report: Executive Commission –
Gangs 2008 London: London Borough of Lambeth
Lynn, J. (2008). Community leadership approaches to tackling street crime.
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
49

Marshall, B., Webb, B., & Tilley, N. (2005). Rationalisation of current research
on guns, gangs and other weapons: Phase 1 London: Jill Dando Institute
of Crime Science, University College London
McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). Youth Justice: The Impact of System Contact
on Patterns of Desistance from Offending. European Journal of
Criminology, 4(3), 315-345.
McLagan, G. (2006). Gangs and Guns: The inside story of the war on our
streets. London: Allison & Busby
Pitts, J. (2007). Reluctant Gangsters: Youth Gangs in Waltham Forest Luton:
University of Bedfordshire
Pritchard, T. (2008). Street Boys: 7 kids. 1 estate. No way out. A true story
London: Harper & Collins
Shakur, S. (1993). Monster: The autobiography of an L.A. gang member New
York: Grove Press
Stretesky, P.B., & Pogrebin, M.R. (2007). Gang Related Gun Violence:
Socialisation, Identity and Self. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
36, 85-114.
Suttles, G. (1968). The Social Order of the Slum: Territoriality and Ethnicity in
the Inner City Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Thompson, T. (1995). Gangland Britain London: Hodder & Stoughton
Whyte, W.F. (1993). Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian
Slum Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Wilson, W.J. (1996). When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban
Poor New York: Knopf
Youth Justice Board (2007). Groups, gangs and weapons. A summary of
research into the nature and prevalence of young people's involvement
in group offending, gangs and weapons. London: Youth Justice Board.
50