Summary of Selected CalGang Survey Responses
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee requested that we survey local agencies for information about their CalGang use. We surveyed 329 agencies statewide, which we selected without regard to whether they used CalGang. As shown in Figure A, we surveyed a wide variety of law enforcement and related agencies. For example, we surveyed police departments, sheriff’s offices, probation departments, and school district police departments. We generally selected police departments based on the number of identified gang members or gangs in the counties in which they were located. Finally, we surveyed three state agencies: the California Department of Justice, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the California Highway Patrol. Our survey population encompassed all the agencies the California Gang Node Advisory Committee identified as participating in maintaining CalGang nodes as of September 2015, two of which were district attorney’s offices. Figure A summarizes the response rate by agency type for the agencies we surveyed.
We received 252 responses (77 percent) to the 329 surveys we sent. Seventy‑seven agencies we surveyed did not respond. Table A.1 lists those agencies.
Summary of Survey Results Related to Adults’ Requests for Removal From CalGang
In our survey, we asked the agencies how many requests by adults for removal from CalGang they had received from 2010 through 2014 and how they had handled these requests. Currently no requirement exists that agencies remove adults from CalGang upon their request. Of the 191 agencies that answered this question, only six reported having received requests from adults who believed they were in CalGang. Those six agencies estimated that they had received a total of between seven and eight requests each year from adults asking to be removed from CalGang. However, they stated that none of these requests resulted in removals.
Rate of Survey Response by Agency Type
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of agencies that responded to the survey.
* We surveyed two district attorney’s offices because each participated in maintaining a CalGang node.
† We surveyed the California Highway Patrol’s headquarters and its eight divisions as well as the California Department of Justice and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We also asked the agencies that we surveyed if they notified adults when they removed them from CalGang. Although CalGang policy does not require such notifications, a number of agencies responded that they provide them. Table A.2 summarizes the survey questions and the responses. The Table shows that at least 188 agencies responded to each of the three questions about notifying adults, and between 4 percent and 11 percent of respondents indicated that they notify adults regarding various actions that they take to remove the adults from CalGang. As shown in the Table, 21 agencies responded that they notify adults when they remove them from CalGang in response to requests for removal, which seems inconsistent with the fact that only six agencies responded that they had received such requests between 2010 and 2014. One possible explanation for the discrepancy may be that some agencies did not receive requests for removal from adults but responded to our question in terms of the processes they have in place to notify adults if they were to receive requests for removal.
|Alameda Police Department
|Petaluma Police Department
|Amador County Probation Department*
|Palo Alto Police Department
|Baldwin Park School Police Department
|Plumas County Probation Department
|Banning Police Department
|Plumas County Sheriff’s Office
|Barstow Police Department
|Pomona Unified School District Security Department
|Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office
|Redwood City Police Department
|California City Police Department
|Riverbank Police Department
|Citrus Heights Police Department
|Riverside Police Department
|Clovis Unified School District Police Department
|San Benito County Probation Department
|Coronado Police Department
|San Benito County Sheriff’s Office
|Covina Police Department
|San Bernardino Unified School District Police Department
|Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office
|San Clemente Police Department
|El Rancho Unified School District Police Department
|San Jacinto Police Department
|Firebaugh Police Department
|San Luis Obispo Police Department
|Fontana Unified School District Police Department*
|San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
|Glenn County Sheriff’s Office
|San Mateo Police Department
|Goleta Police Department
|Sanger Police Department
|Huntington Park Police Department
|Santa Clara County Probation Department
|Inglewood Unified School District Police Department*
|Santa Clara Police Department
|Inyo County Probation Department
|Santa Cruz Police Department
|Kern High School District Police Department
|Shafter Police Department
|Lake County Probation Department
|Shasta County Probation Department
|Livingston Police Department
|Sierra Madre Police Department
|Lodi Police Department
|Siskiyou County Probation Department*
|Los Angeles County Probation Department
|Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office
|Los Angeles School Police Department*
|Solano County Sheriff’s Office
|Los Banos Police Department
|Soledad Police Department
|Madera County Probation Department
|South Gate Police Department
|Madera County Sheriff’s Office
|South Lake Tahoe Police Department
|McFarland Police Department
|South Pasadena Police Department
|Mendocino County Probation Department
|Taft Police Department
|Modoc County Probation Department
|Tehachapi Police Department*
|Montebello Unified School District Police Department
|Tehama County Sheriff’s Department
|Monterey Park Police Department
|Tuolumne County Probation Department
|Orange County District Attorney’s Office
|Ukiah Police Department
|Orange County Sheriff’s Department
|West Contra Costa Unified School District Police Department
|Oroville Police Department
|Windsor Police Department
|Palos Verdes Estates Police Department
|Yolo County Sheriff’s Department
|Perris Police Department
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of the agencies we surveyed compared to the agencies that submitted responses.
* These agencies contacted the California State Auditor’s Office to explain that they missed the survey deadline; generally, they asserted that this was a result of mail delays within the agencies.
|Does your agency notify adults when . . .
|Percentage Responding yes
|. . . It removes them from CalGang in response to a request for removal?
|. . . They are removed from CalGang as part of the automatic five-year system purge?
|. . . It removes them from CalGang for any other reason, such as the result of an audit?
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of survey responses.
Summary of Survey Results Related to Requests for CalGang Information
Table A.3 summarizes the estimated number of requests for CalGang information our survey respondents received and responded to between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2015. According to the survey responses, they most commonly received internal requests from law enforcement officials. We discuss the employment- and military‑related screening requests in the Audit Results.
|Type of Information Request
|Number of Requests Received
|Number of Requests Responded to
|Public Records Act request for CalGang aggregate data
|Public Records Act request for specific information on a CalGang subject
|Legal request by a court, attorney, or judge
|Internal request by a law enforcement official within an agency
|External request by a local, state, or federal law enforcement official
|Media request by a newspaper, radio station, television station, etc.
|Public-benefit‑related request for public housing, financial assistance, or school financial aid
|Employment-related request for background checks or hiring decisions
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of survey responses.
* For this information category, the agencies reported responding to more information requests than they received. The data presented in this Table is based on the agencies’ responses, and thus, we do not know the exact reasons for the differences; it is possible that the agencies counted information requests that they responded to during our audit period but received in an earlier period.
Demographics of Individuals in CalGang by Location, Type, Gender, Age, and Race
In the Introduction, we present two figures summarizing information about individuals in CalGang as of November 23, 2015. Specifically, Figure 1 summarizes the number of gang members and affiliates by county based on the location of the law enforcement agency that entered the individuals into CalGang, and Figure 2 shows the demographic breakdown of individuals by race, gender, and age. We present this information in more detail in Table B. In total, more than 150,000 individuals had records in the CalGang system as of November 23, 2015, more than 64,000 of which were entered by the law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County alone. Eleven California counties—Alpine, Del Norte, Glenn, Imperial, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, Sierra, and Trinity—do not appear in the Table because the law enforcement agencies in those counties had not created the records for any of the individuals who were in CalGang as of November 23, 2015. However, some of the individuals in CalGang may reside in these counties. For example, if a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles County entered an individual who resides in Imperial County into CalGang, our analysyis presented in the Table would assign that individual’s record to Los Angeles County.
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of CalGang data obtained from the California Department of Justice as of November 23, 2015.
Note: Some percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
* Because the CalGang data may include multiple birthdates for an individual, we used the birthdate that was confirmed by a law enforcement agency to determine the age of the individual. If a confirmed birthdate did not exist, we used the most recent birthdate entered into CalGang for that individual.
† We assigned gang members and affiliates based on the location of the law enforcement agency that initially entered them into CalGang. The counties of Alpine, Del Norte, Glenn, Imperial, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, Sierra, and Trinity do not appear in this Table because law enforcement agencies in those counties did not create records for any of the individuals that were in CalGang as of November 23, 2015.
‡ Other includes African, American Indian, and people of two or more races.