Follow the links to go directly to Appendix A or Appendix B

Appendix A

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.

Figure A
Rate of Survey Response by Agency Type

A bar chart showing the number of agencies that received our statewide survey verses the number that responded broken out 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.

Table A.1
Agencies That Did Not Respond to the CalGang Survey
Agency Name		Agency Name
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.

Table A.2
Summary of the Number of Agencies That Reported Notifying Adults Regarding Their Removal From CalGang
Does your agency notify adults when . . .	Responses	Yes	No	Percentage Responding yes
. . . It removes them from CalGang in response to a request for removal?	188	21	167	11%
. . . They are removed from CalGang as part of the automatic five-year system purge?	190	8	182	4
. . . It removes them from CalGang for any other reason, such as the result of an audit?	190	9	181	5

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.

Table A.3
The Number of Requests for CalGang Information Agencies Estimated They Received and Responded to Between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2015
Type of Information Request	Number of Requests Received	Number of Requests Responded to
Public Records Act request for CalGang aggregate data	8	38*
Public Records Act request for specific information on a CalGang subject	20	7
Legal request by a court, attorney, or judge	169	169
Internal request by a law enforcement official within an agency	5,633	5,641*
External request by a local, state, or federal law enforcement official	513	606*
Media request by a newspaper, radio station, television station, etc.	3	2
Public-benefit‑related request for public housing, financial assistance, or school financial aid	3	0
Employment-related request for background checks or hiring decisions	238	210
Totals	6,587	6,673

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.

Appendix B

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.

Table B
Demographics of Individuals in CalGang by Location, Type, Gender, Age, and Race
		Percentage of Individuals by Category
		Type		Gender			Age*				Race
County^†	Total Number of Individuals	Gang Members	Affiliates	Male	Female	Not Identified	0–17	18–30	31–45	46+	Asian/ Pacific Islander	Black	Hispanic	White	Other^‡	Not Identified
Statewide	150,432	92.40%	7.60%	93.09%	6.78%	0.14%	1.72%	57.26%	33.61%	7.42%	2.27%	20.54%	64.93%	8.17%	0.57%	3.53%
Alameda	4,513	89.14	10.86	91.96	8.04	–	2.33	60.12	29.36	8.20	3.66	15.87	67.16	11.85	0.66	0.80
Amador	11	100.00	–	100.00	–	–	9.09	90.91	–	–	–	9.09	54.55	36.36	–	–
Butte	1,075	86.51	13.49	92.28	7.72	–	3.16	58.14	30.05	8.65	4.74	5.02	42.51	34.05	2.60	11.07
Calaveras	1	100.00	–	100.00	–	–	–	–	100.00	–	–	–	100.00	–	–	–
Colusa	5	100.00	–	80.00	20.00	–	–	100.00	–	–	–	–	40.00	60.00	–	–
Contra Costa	1,023	99.02	0.98	97.07	2.93	–	1.17	65.69	27.37	5.77	1.27	17.11	63.83	14.66	0.98	2.15
El Dorado	99	92.93	7.07	91.92	8.08	–	–	61.62	31.31	7.07	–	5.05	48.48	44.44	2.02	–
Fresno	10,205	99.77	0.23	94.70	5.30	–	0.24	47.54	43.20	9.02	3.55	12.53	71.66	10.60	0.76	0.89
Humboldt	3	100.00	–	100.00	–	–	–	–	100.00	–	–	–	66.67	33.33	–	–
Inyo	3	100.00	–	66.67	33.33	–	–	66.67	33.33	–	–	–	–	–	100.00	–
Kern	3,740	92.65	7.35	95.43	4.57	–	1.02	52.51	39.28	7.19	0.27	18.10	65.40	15.91	0.11	0.21
Kings	14	100.00	–	100.00	–	–	–	71.43	21.43	7.14	–	7.14	85.71	7.14	–	–
Lake	96	100.00	–	97.92	2.08	–	–	46.88	47.92	5.21	1.04	3.13	52.08	36.46	5.21	2.08
Lassen	33	100.00	–	96.97	3.03	–	–	42.42	51.52	6.06	–	6.06	39.39	39.39	6.06	9.09
Los Angeles	64,384	90.83	9.17	92.14	7.86	–	1.71	56.89	33.67	7.73	1.71	29.99	60.15	4.06	0.37	3.72
Madera	95	100.00	–	100.00	–	–	–	49.47	42.11	8.42	–	5.26	81.05	12.63	–	1.05
Marin	177	97.18	2.82	93.79	6.21	–	1.13	82.49	14.69	1.69	0.56	12.99	73.45	9.60	1.69	1.69
Mendocino	86	94.19	5.81	98.84	1.16	–	1.16	65.12	26.74	6.98	–	1.16	59.30	15.12	24.42	–
Merced	1,018	97.74	2.26	95.68	4.32	–	3.54	77.31	17.58	1.57	3.73	9.82	78.78	6.09	0.39	1.18
Monterey	1,296	99.69	0.31	94.29	5.71	–	0.08	62.73	32.48	4.71	0.62	2.08	93.90	2.31	0.31	0.77
Napa	412	95.87	4.13	92.72	7.28	–	9.95	83.50	5.83	0.73	0.24	0.97	89.08	7.77	–	1.94
Nevada	18	94.44	5.56	94.44	5.56	–	–	50.00	44.44	5.56	11.11	–	55.56	33.33	–	–
Orange	10,434	89.78	10.22	93.26	6.74	–	4.67	67.26	23.66	4.41	5.23	1.90	80.53	6.78	0.21	5.35
Placer	292	98.97	1.03	94.86	5.14	–	0.34	47.60	43.15	8.90	2.74	6.16	50.00	36.64	1.03	3.42
Riverside	9,618	94.29	5.71	93.97	6.03	–	1.27	50.64	39.02	9.07	0.55	16.8	65.21	12.68	0.49	4.26
Sacramento	1,195	98.33	1.67	94.98	5.02	–	2.93	66.03	22.43	8.62	5.36	16.65	50.71	25.52	0.50	1.26
San Bernardino	14,321	94.58	5.42	94.58	5.42	–	0.31	42.68	45.39	11.62	0.64	26.48	58.40	12.23	0.99	1.26
San Diego	6,015	95.25	4.75	95.98	4.02	–	1.96	70.81	24.61	2.63	6.37	25.27	60.96	3.18	0.80	3.42
San Francisco	691	99.71	0.29	95.37	4.63	–	–	48.63	41.24	10.13	1.01	22.58	22.43	3.62	4.49	45.88
San Joaquin	691	98.99	1.01	97.83	2.17	–	1.45	75.69	21.42	1.45	3.62	5.35	81.91	8.25	0.43	0.43
San Luis Obispo	697	97.13	2.87	94.12	5.88	–	6.89	61.69	26.83	4.59	0.57	1.00	69.44	25.97	0.57	2.44
San Mateo	1,097	99.18	0.82	96.81	3.19	–	0.64	75.39	22.24	1.73	1.00	2.19	61.71	4.01	0.36	30.72
Santa Barbara	766	82.90	17.10	96.08	3.79	0.13	0.39	66.58	30.16	2.87	0.13	2.09	91.12	3.92	0.26	2.48
Santa Clara	5,276	94.98	5.02	94.16	5.84	–	1.55	62.28	28.81	7.35	3.68	2.07	85.75	6.35	0.36	1.80
Santa Cruz	543	96.69	3.31	97.24	2.76	–	2.39	77.16	17.86	2.58	–	1.66	80.48	14.36	–	3.50
Shasta	250	100.00	–	94.00	6.00	–	2.80	51.60	38.40	7.20	0.80	8.00	28.40	58.40	3.60	0.80
Siskiyou	8	87.50	12.50	87.50	12.50	–	–	75.00	25.00	–	–	12.50	37.50	37.50	12.50	–
Solano	173	94.80	5.20	96.53	3.47	–	1.16	80.35	16.18	2.31	–	6.94	85.55	5.20	1.16	1.16
Sonoma	1,965	67.84	32.16	75.52	13.99	10.48	2.09	67.84	24.12	5.95	1.48	5.60	55.78	22.65	2.44	12.06
Stanislaus	2,483	76.16	23.84	88.28	11.72	–	1.25	69.11	24.45	5.20	3.26	4.51	71.45	17.64	0.32	2.82
Sutter	781	100.00	–	83.10	16.90	–	5.76	60.82	28.94	4.48	0.64	5.51	67.09	24.71	1.02	1.02
Tehama	41	95.12	4.88	100.00	–	–	–	70.73	26.83	2.44	2.44	–	65.85	29.27	–	2.44
Tulare	1,479	98.72	1.28	96.42	3.58	–	1.35	75.73	20.96	1.96	3.38	2.64	87.96	3.92	0.20	1.89
Tuolumne	4	100.00	–	100.00	–	–	–	–	75.00	25.00	–	–	100.00	–	–	–
Ventura	929	94.62	5.38	96.02	3.98	–	0.86	73.41	22.82	2.91	0.22	1.18	90.74	5.17	0.11	2.58
Yolo	7	100.00	–	100.00	–	–	–	28.57	57.14	14.29	–	–	85.71	14.29	–	–
Yuba	572	98.60	1.40	90.38	9.62	–	9.62	61.89	24.48	4.02	5.42	8.39	56.47	27.80	1.05	0.87
Unknown	1,797	96.99	3.01	96.99	3.01	–	0.28	46.13	46.19	7.40	4.28	22.98	63.55	7.12	0.11	1.95

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.