1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Background of the Study

Juvenile crime and delinquency are serious problems in every society

today. Their intensity and gravity depend mostly on the social, economic and

cultural conditions in each country. There is evidence, however, of an apparent

worldwide increase in juvenile criminality combined with economic recession,

especially in marginal sectors of urban centers. From 1995 to 2000, over 10,500

children were arrested and detained every year. In many cases, youth offenders

are “street children” who have been exposed to violence in their immediate social

environment, either as observers or as victims (UNICEF 1995).

Children in Conflict or also known as “Sukarap” have been wandering

anywhere and everywhere in many cities. General Santos City is one of those

cities who has a large number of sukaraps. A sukarap is another term for “ton-og”

or “batang kalye” or as translated in English, the children in conflict. Usually they

stray on the streets and in malls, and a majority of them come from public schools.

It’s not about the way they dress or how they style themselves but mostly on the

way they act in public especially when in groups or with friends (Lopez, 2014).

There have been numerous cases wherein these children are reported to

be causing trouble in public through riots and noise, causing inconvenience and

fear of safety for the innocent bystanders who are at risk of getting involved with

these fights. Others wanted to become famous and they usually called themselves

fame whore. They are also engaged in gang war or riot (Lopez 2014).
 2

There are a lot of reasons why some youth today engaged in “Sukarap”.

According to them, they are neglected by their parents, poverty and they want a

companion that is willing to help them especially those who are victims of bullying

and abuse (Lopez, 2014).

In this study, the researcher ought to recognize the response of the authority

wherein this sukarap is involve in different problems that also distresses the

community.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to investigate problems encounter against sukarap in

General Santo City and the response of authorities.

Specifically the researcher sought to find out the answer of the following

questions:

1. What are the problems causes by the sukarap in the city?

2. What are the responses of the authorities?

3. What is the significant difference about the problems encounter against

sukarap in the city and the response of the authority?

Hypotheses

There is no significant difference between the problems encounter against

sukarap in the city and the response of the authority.

Theoretical Framework

According to the FBI, a juvenile is anyone under the age of 18 regardless

of how each individual state defines a juvenile. A delinquent is an individual who

 3

fails to obey the laws. Juvenile delinquency is defined as an individual under the

age of 18 who fails to abide by the laws. There are three common theories on

juvenile delinquency. The three theories are the anomie theory, the subculture

theory, and the differential opportunity theory.

The anomie theory was first written in the 1940s by Robert Merton. Merton's

theory explains that juvenile delinquency occurs because the juveniles do not have

the means to make themselves happy. Their goals are unattainable within legal

means so they find unlawful means by which to attain their goals.

Another theory about juvenile delinquency is the subculture theory. In 1955,

Albert Cohen developed the subculture theory, which is a culmination of several of

his theories. The subculture theory is much like it sounds; juveniles that do not

meet the social standards seek validation from a subculture. The subculture group

is formed of other juveniles who also do not meet the social standards. These

groups then act in manners that are not socially acceptable and rebel against the

socially acceptable standards. According to Cohen, juvenile delinquency is a

product of society. The juveniles commit crimes, such as stealing, because it is not

a social norm, and they do it to fit in with their subculture.

The differential opportunity theory does not fully support Cohen's theory that

juveniles become delinquent when they do not meet society's standards.

Differential opportunity theory, developed by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin in

1960, believes that opportunity plays a role in juvenile delinquency.

 4

Conceptual Framework

Here is the conceptual framework that represents the relationship between

the independent variable of problem encounter against sukarap in General Santos

City and the dependent variable of response of authorities from the research:

Independent Variable
Dependent Variable

 problem encounter
 response of the
against sukarap in
authorities
General Santos City

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework

 5

Significance of the Study

By nature and purpose of this study, the results or findings of the study will

bear significant contributions to the following persons:

Community. The study will serve as an eye opener for the community to

be collective in understanding the interconnected nature of the youth’s involvement’s and

be responsible for articulating solutions and taking action to address the gang problem.

Local Government Unit. This will help them utilize their authority to work

positively with young people in gangs and helping them through very difficult times

in their lives, to help them through the often tough transition of evolving into

productive, responsible members of society.

Other Researchers. This study provided baseline data needed for further

study and acquire more knowledge in conducting research, put in practice what

they had learned in their subjects and develop their communication skills.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study will look into the problem encounter against sukarap in General

Santos City and in which the response of the authorities will be assess.

This study was only limited to the twenty (20) sukarap members, which

data’s will be confidentially acquire and will be chosen through purposive random

sampling. The responses of the respondents treated with statistical analysis.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were used in this study and are being defined

operationally:
 6

Problem Encounter Against Sukarap in General Santos City. Sukarap

is another term for ton-og which means batang kalye or batang-hamog. Since,

sukarap has given much head ache to the local government such as public riots,

stealing, and other law breaking activities, and when this happens, the offender

often displays antisocial behavior even before reaching adolescence. The

researchers had to investigate what are the other problems given by them.

Response of Authority. Addressing the juvenile delinquency of the

sukarap in General Santos City. This makes proper investigation be imposed fairly

and proportionately judgement base on the laws break my this sukarap. In this

study also the researcher opt to find the programs given by authority for proper

rehabilitation of sukarap.
 7

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter contains the exploration of related literature and

studies, both foreign and local, and the synthesis of the reviewed literature studies

to the present study.

Foreign Literature

There are many factors that contribute to youth involvement in gangs.

Differential Association theory is used to better understand why youths intend to

join gangs. Sutherland describes differential theory as a way for “criminal behavior

to be learned through interactions with others and is culturally transmitted”. He

emphasizes that criminal behavior is learned through intimate personal groups and

learning includes specific directions of motives, attitudes and through definitions of

legal codes as favorable and unfavorable. A person becomes criminal because of

whom they are associated with and how those interactions influence ones criminal

behavior. As Sutherland stated, “the distinction between law breakers and law

abiding people lies not in their personal fibre but rather in their content of what they

have learned”. Sutherland’s differential theory is a learning theory that helps

explain people’s behavior in relation to crime (Lilly et al, 2015).

Lack of parental supervision is a factor that pushes youth involvement in

gangs. Research has shown that “low rates of employment push parents to work

longer hours which results in parental absence” also emphasize that having low

levels of parental supervision can cause youths to join gangs because they have

free unsupervised time. Sutherland’s differential association theory helps to better

understand that criminal behavior is “associated with interactions of others”. By

 8

having interactions with one another, you are able to observe and learn behaviors

that can be criminal (Goodman, 2015).

Differential association helps in understanding why having a lack of parental

supervision can lead to youths joining gangs. As stated, a person becomes

criminal due to “excess of definitions that are favorable to the violation of law.

Depending on the acceptable ideas that prohibit crime is usually taught to kids by

parents. Having an absent parent or lack of parental supervision can “direct a

youths motives, drives and attitudes”. The lack of parental supervision results in

less interaction with youths that fail to provide the right guidance for youths to not

be involved in gangs. Lack of parental supervision is seen as a factor that leads

youths to join gangs and differential association theory help to understand that

criminal behavior is learned through social interactions (Lilly et al, 2015).

Another related factor that can account for youth gang membership is

having peers who are affiliated with gangs. Research has shown that youths tend

to join gangs because of having a peer who is already involved in a gang. Peer

pressure and persuasion can be a result of youths joining gangs. Youths with “low

self-control and antisocial behaviors leads to youths engaging in gang

membership”. Differential association theory can be applied to this factor as it

involves learning criminal behaviors from others (Flexon, 2012).

Sutherland puts emphasis on the differential association theory as the main

principle for criminal behavior is in the learning process that occurs “within intimate

personal groups”. Youth association with gang-affiliated peers teaches criminal

behaviors because of the social interactions that are involved in the learning
 9

process. Thus, gang affiliated peers are a reason that lead youth gang

membership. Differential association theory helps to emphasize that youths are

learning from whom they are associated with (Lilly et al, 2015).

Finally, neighborhoods with a high gang or drug presence lead youths to

join gangs. Research shows that youths who are “living in lower socioeconomic

neighborhoods or from areas exposed to drugs such as marijuana are three times

more likely to join gangs”. Youths that do not have the adequate resources are

exposed to the streets that are gang affiliated. Youths engage in gang culture

because they are surrounded by it in their neighborhoods and are often influenced

to be involved. Differential association theory is unable to help explain this factor

because this theory is a learning based theory that focuses on interactions with

others as a cause of criminal behavior (Hill et al., 1999).

Differential association theory focuses more on “how people learn to

become criminals in connection with what people have learned”. It fails to focus

more into neighborhoods as a cause of criminal behavior but rather more on

individuals interacting and learning from one another. Thus, neighborhoods with a

high gang or drug presence push youths to be in a gang. But differential

association theory does not apply to this factor, as it does not aim to further explain

societies role in relation to criminal behavior. It rather puts more emphasis on the

interactions among one another as a cause of criminal youth involvement (Lilly et

al, 2015).

Youth gangs have received considerable attention by scholars,

practitioners, and the general public for quite some time. As of 2009, it was
 10

estimated that there were approximately 28,100 youth gangs with 731,000 youth

gang members in the United States. 1 Additionally, gangs were found to be present

in various locales – large, urban areas; suburban counties; and even rural areas

(Egley et al, 2011).

It is certainly possible to trace the evolution of gang research. From a

research standpoint, we see attention on gangs has waxed and waned over time.

This highlighted four major periods of concerns about youth gangs. The earliest

period in the United States (U.S.) was 1870, corresponding with increased

immigration into large cities. Additional periods of gang concern occurred in the

1890s and 1920s. Interestingly, the gangs of these early periods died out without

formal intervention. The 1960s represented the third period of gang problems in

America. This period differed from previous gang “outbreaks” and had a lasting

effect (Curry et al, 2003).

At the tail end of the youth violence epidemic, one important new source of

information about gangs was institutionalized. Since 1996, the National Youth

Gang Survey has collected systematic estimates of law enforcement records of

gangs and gang membership on an annual basis. Agency records are by no means

perfect, but the systematic collection of data over more than a decade provides a

reasonable degree of confidence in the NYGS findings. Findings from the NYGS

illustrate three distinct trends in the prevalence of American gangs: 1) there was a

steep decrease from the mid-1990s until 2001, 2) an upsurge between 2001 and

2005, and 3) a period of relative stability since 2005. Although the attention of the
 11

nation has turned towards fear of terrorism since 2001, it is clear that gangs remain

a pressing issue (Egley et al, 2011).

Research on gangs has often relied on five major criteria: 1) a group (i.e.,

more than two people) who 2) is viewed (by themselves and/or others) as being

distinct from other groups, 3) that have a degree of permanence, 4) have methods

of communication (e.g., signs, symbols, colors), and 5) are involved in criminal

activity. The most controversial criteria – involvement in criminal activities – is

generally thought to be a necessary component to distinguish gangs from more

prosocial groups such as Boy/Girl Scouts, fraternity/sorority members, and

members of the armed forces. Including this criterion, however, essentially

guarantees that gangs will be found to be more involved in crime and delinquency

than non-gang groups (Short, 2010).

The Eurogang Program of Research has provided an alternative definition

that has been gaining considerable credence as a definition of a youth street

gangs. According to the Eurogang definition, youth street gangs can be defined as

“any durable, street oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is

part of its group identity”. While the Eurogang Program of Research has led to

some very interesting findings, it started slowly. As an aside, rumor has it that there

was initial reluctance on the part of Europeans to admit that they had gangs

because they were not like those gangs found in Los Angeles or Chicago, Illinois.

6 The Americans in attendance replied, “Neither do we.” This short exchange

broke the ice and led to an ongoing partnership between Europeans and

Americans in studies of gang issues (Klein et al, 2016).

 12

Youth gangs are not monolithic. The alleged humorous exchange between

the Europeans and Americans contained considerable truth. While there have

been several gang typologies proposed dating back. Their typology was based on

law enforcement’s reports of the gang with which they were the most familiar.

Based on these responses, created a typology based on six main criteria: the

presence of subgroups, size, age range of members, duration of existence,

territoriality, and crime versatility. Based upon these criteria, five types of gangs

were identified (Klein et al, 2016).

Traditional gangs are the ones that most people think about. Traditional

gangs are classified as having many members, subgroups based on age or other

criteria, a broad age range, existing for a long period of time, claim territory, and

engage in a wide variety of crime types. Although these are the types of gangs

which often capture public concern, these are the least common type of gangs.

The second gang type is known as neotraditional. Neotraditional gangs are similar

to traditional gangs in terms of subgroups, territory, and crime versatility; they

differ, however, in terms of size, age range of members (Huff, 2008).

Over time, neotraditional gangs may become traditional gangs. The third

gang type is compressed gangs. Compressed gangs have no subgroups, are small

in size, have narrow age ranges, are in existence for short periods of time, do not

claim territory, but are versatile in their criminal activity. It appears that compressed

gangs are the most common types of gangs operating in the United States. The

fourth type of gangs is collective gangs. Collective gangs have no subgroups, are

medium to large in size, have a medium-to-large age range of members, are

 13

around for medium duration, do not claim territory, and are involved in a variety of

criminal activity. The final gang type, according to Maxson and Klein, are known

as speciality gangs. Specialty gangs have no subgroups, have few members, have

a narrow age range, are short in duration, claim territory, but specialize in certain

types of criminal behavior. The most commonly understood speciality gangs are

drug dealing and/or party gangs (Huff, 2008).

As is true with defining what constitutes a gang, there are disagreements

about what constitutes “gang activity” or “gang crime.” From a practical standpoint,

different jurisdictions use different definitions. This definitional distinction is present

in the two largest American “gang cities.” Los Angeles has traditionally used what

is known as a “gang member-based” definition. Accordingly, all crimes that involve

a gang member are classified as gang crimes. Conversely, Chicago has

traditionally used what is known as a “gang motivated-based” definition. Under this

approach, only crimes which are committed to further the interests of the gangs

are recorded as gang crimes. A study by Maxson and Klein (1990) found that the

different 8 definitional issues affected the prevalence of gang homicide in each

city, but did not dramatically change that nature of the circumstances associated

with the crimes. Thus, different definitions may affect the scope of the gang

problem, but do little to change the nature of gang problem (Maxson et al, 2010).

Unfortunately, we have little national-level information about gang crime.

Information collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime

Reports, National IncidentBased Reporting System, and Supplemental Homicide

Reports provide little guidance as they collect and report information haphazardly.
 14

A more systematic recording and reporting of gang crimes in these sources would

be incredibly helpful in understanding the nature of criminal activities committed by

gang members. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon, however, as these

programs are based on local law enforcement data collection practices – many of

which do not collect gang information in any systematic fashion (Katz et al, 2016).

The simple answer to this question may at first glance seem to be that a

gang member is any individual involved in gang activities. This, however, is not

sufficient. As we have discussed, it is often difficult to gain consensus on what

constitutes “gang activity” or “gang crime.” Additionally, such a definition fails to

delineate gradations of gang membership. An interesting exercise to demonstrate

the importance gang definitions make on the scope and nature of gang problems.

Using data collected from nearly 6,000 eighth-grade youth attending public schools

in 11 diverse U.S. cities, they employed increasingly restrictive definitions of gang

membership to see how they affected the prevalence of gang membership and the

characteristics of gang members (Esbensen et al, 2010).

Contrary to expectations that more restrictive definitions would reveal

patterns more in line with studies based on ethnographic methods or police data

(e.g., males of minority group status), moving from the least to most restrictive

definition, gang members were increasingly female and White. It is important to

note, however, that the most salient differences were between those who reported

currently being in a gang versus all other definitions. Drawing on these findings,

the authors concluded that self-nomination as a current gang member was a valid

measure of gang membership. Similarly, a sample of middle school students in St.

 15

Louis, Missouri, to determine how behaviors varied across different gradations of

gang membership status. They were interested in 1) gang members, 2) gang

affiliates, and 3) nongang youth. Fifteen percent of youth in their study were

classified as ever or currently being gang members. Perhaps most important were

the findings that a significant proportion of youth (57%) reported some degree of

gang involvement even if they claimed they had never been gang members (Curry,

et al, 2012).

A considerable amount of research has examined the racial/ethnic

characteristics of gang members. What gang members “look like” often depends

on which type of research methodology is used. Biographies and journalistic

accounts typically portray gang members as racial/ethnic minority youth, of lower

socioeconomic status, raised in single parent families. Police statistics and

ethnographic information typically present a similar characterization. This picture

of gang youth is probably not surprising, as gangs are typically comprised of the

most marginalized members of society. Indeed, some scholars have argued that

youth join gangs because they are “multiply marginalized” they develop

problematic self-identities as part of their socialization to the street, often the main

source of socialization in the most disadvantaged areas (Esbensen 2010).

Most youth even in the “highest risk” communities will not become actively

involved with gangs. Those who do, however, may find their gang experience to

be an important turning 15 point in their lives. Periods of gang membership are

commonly linked with elevated rates of violence and substance use. The more a

youth socializes in the gang context the greater the amount of time exposed to
 16

anti-social norms and behaviors. Additionally, the gang context exposes youth to

motivated offenders and lowers capable guardianship. Threats of violence real or

perceived are also important elements of the gang lifestyle (Melde et al, 2011).

Gang members have been found to be involved in more general delinquent

offending, violent offending, and violent victimization than their non-gang peers.

Indeed, this is one of the most “robust” of all criminological findings. Yet there are

various perspectives as to why this finding holds. We next briefly turn to a

discussion of three major perspectives on why the link between gang membership

and violence appears so robust (Thornberry et al., 2013).

Gang membership is predominately a fleeting youth experience. Several

longitudinal youth studies have demonstrated that membership typically peaks

around early to mid-adolescence and most gang joiners leave within one year or

less. These findings suggest that for many individuals, gang affiliation is as

transitory an experience as is involvement in other non-gang adolescent youth

groups. On the whole, relatively little is known about who gang leaders are as well

as why and how they desist from their gang. What has been established is that: 1)

they do leave, 2) desistance is motivated by a range of factors, and 3) members

most commonly leave their gang through informal means with little or no

consequences (Warr, 2012).

While protection is one of the most commonly found motivations for joining

a gang, exposure to violence and victimization is a paradoxically common factor

which motivates gang desistance. A research with current and former members in

St. Louis, Missouri, found exposure to violence to be one of the most discussed
 17

motivators for gang desistance. Their work demonstrated that some members

were motivated by a single and severe violent victimization while others were

gradually worn down by an accumulation of violent experiences throughout their

period of affiliation. For these former members, direct and vicarious experiences

with violence, as well as a desire to prevent future victimization, directly motivated

their desire to leave the gang (Pyrooz et al, 2011).

There are many efforts aimed at preventing youth from joining gangs, but

few research studies examining the effectiveness of prevention efforts. One

example of a gang prevention program that has been extensively studied and

found to prevent gang membership is known as the Gang Resistance Education

and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program. This program is catalogued as a primary

prevention program, meaning it targets all youth. The main part of the program

consists of a standardized, 13 lesson curriculum targeting sixth or seventh grade

students. The G.R.E.A.T. program is delivered in a classroom setting by uniformed

law-enforcement officers who have received extensive training in the program

(Esbensen et al., 2001)..

Evaluation efforts have provided mixed support for the G.R.E.A.T. program.

Results from an early cross-sectional study of approximately 6,000 eighth-graders

attending public schools in 11 diverse U.S. cities indicated that students who had

received the G.R.E.A.T. program were less likely to be gang members, to be less

involved in delinquent behavior, to hold fewer delinquent attitudes and

associations, and to hold more prosocial attitudes than youth who had not received

the G.R.E.A.T. program. A more rigorous longitudinal panel study of approximately

 18

3,600 youth attending public schools in six diverse cities, however, reported less

favorable results. Youth who had the G.R.E.A.T. program reported more prosocial

attitudes and less pro-delinquent attitudes than students who had not had the

G.R.E.A.T. program, but the differences took approximately two years to emerge;

equally important, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of

gang membership or involvement in delinquent offending (Esbensen et al., 2001).

Gang intervention efforts, broadly speaking, are those that deal with active

gang members in ways that encourage them to desist or at least reduce their level

of gang participation. Intervention efforts have had a long history of use in the U.S.

and include individual, group, and community focused approaches. Intervention

programs often rely on individual and group counseling, the use of outreach

workers including former gang members, providing alternative opportunities for

members, as well as neighborhood violence reduction efforts (Pyrooz et al, 2011).

Another recent example is the Boys and Girls Club Gang Intervention

through Targeted Outreach (GITTO) program. The program targets “wannabe”

and active gang youth between the ages of 10 to 17 and recruits them for the

GITTO intervention program. Through Boys and Girls Club membership, the

program focuses on providing gang youth improvement across five core areas:

individual character development, educational development, health and life skills,

the arts, as well as sports, fitness, and recreation. Similar to the Boys and Girls

Club Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach program which has been

evaluated and identified as an effective prevention program GITTO program has

been endorsed by the National Gang Center as a promising program based on the
 19

positive outcomes of youth involved in the program. These include reductions in

involvement in gang-related behavior, reduced contact with the juvenile justice

system, and improvements in positive school engagement (Howell, 2010)

Suppression efforts aimed at youth gangs also have a long history. These

techniques typically involve intensive “crackdowns” or “roundups” by law

enforcement officers against gang members. Perhaps the most widely known

efforts have been found in Los Angeles, with the Community Resources Against

Street Hoodlums (CRASH) unit. Such suppression efforts typically involve law

enforcement officers saturating areas with a heavy gang presence to make large

numbers of arrests for any and all offenses possible (Klein 2016).

While suppression techniques present a visible effort by law enforcement

that provide the public with a sense that police are “doing something” to eradicate

the gang problem, this approach is fraught with problems. Such efforts are

particularly ineffective in dealing with gangs. For one thing, gang members are

rounded up but only spend a short time in police custody before being released.

This undermines the severity element of deterrence-based strategies. The fact that

these efforts are carried out only occasionally also undermines the certainty

element of deterrent based strategies. In short, there is little reason to believe that

suppression-based strategies are successful at eradicating gang problems (Klein

2016).

Local Literature

As of 1995, the Philippine youth population aged 15 to 19 years old

composed 11% of more than 68 million Filipinos. Approximately 14% of this age
 20

group lived in metro Manila. Demographers project that the youth population will

continue to grow in the next decades, before reaching its peak in. Filipino youth

are undergoing changes in many respects, including the area of education. School

enrollment for young people aged 15 to 19 rose from 27% for males and 25% for

females in 1960 to 40% and 37%, respectively, in 1990. In 2003, 74% of school-

age youth in metro Manila and 65% of school-age youth from the rest of the

Philippines attended high school (National Statistics Office, 2003).

In discipline among students is one of the major problems faced by schools

today. Gangsterism in particular has become a menace due to its violent nature.

Gangsterism involves bullying, extortion and even physical assault. The victims

are mainly fellow students and there have been a few cases in the Philippines

where the act of bullying and assault had been fatal.

If I am the discipline teacher, I would first undertake to study the extent of the

problem in my school as well as the reasons why students would get involved in

gangsterism. I would then haul the bullies and suspected gangsters in the school

to determine further the reasons behind their individual behavior (Lim 2008).

Statistics and studies on gangsterism indicate most student gangsters hail

from poor backgrounds or broken families whereby they lack attention and love

from the family members propelling them to behave in such a manner. Poor

students become gangsters as a means to gain extra cash by extorting money

from other students. Those who are a product of broken families normally indulge

in these kind activities to seek attention and as an outlet for their frustration and

unhappiness (Abayle, 2014).

 21

Thus, by engaging in a discussion with these gangster would be able to find

out which category they belong to. I would then proceed to advise them on the

dangers of their behavior which could land them in jail or in correctional institute

for juvenile delinquents. If this method does not work, then engage the assistance

of inspectors from the local police station to give regular talks at our school on why

gangsterism is a crime and the penalties faced by the perpetrators (Abayle, 2014).

A school-wide campaign would follow suit on how students and teachers

can tackle the problems of gangsterism. the campaign would involve talks by

former gangsters and reformed criminals who resorted to bullying and violence to

achieve their goals and how that in turn has affected their lives and their families.

Students would then be required to take a pledge not to resort to such behavior

even if they face severe pressures from other students or as an easy way to make

money from others (Camandal, 2008).

Instead of caning or punishing gangsters, a counseling and use the soft-

handed approach is consider. These facing financial troubles who resort to

extortion as a solution would be given assistance pending their promise not to

repeat such behavior. These who engage in gangsterism to seek attention would

be sent for professional counseling. Students facing constant pressure to become

part of gangs, would be exposed to the dangers of such behavior and encouraged

to report, without fearing for their lives, to the school authorities. A colaboration

with the other teachers to expose students to fun-filled activities and outdoor

learning experience to make school a more exciting place. This would prevent
 22

bored students from contemplating joining a gangster group to seek excitement

and acceptance (Abayle, 2014).

 23

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research design, locale of the study,

respondents and sampling used and statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

A cross-sectional correlation research design was used for this study where

evaluation problems encounter against sukarap in General Santos City and the

response of authority were assessed in relation to their Sense of Coherence

scores. This design enabled the researcher to observe two or more variables at

the point in time and was useful for describing a relationship between two or more

variables (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1995).

The short coming of this type of design was that results obtained from this

kind of analysis do not allow for strong findings to be made concerning a cause

and effect relationship between variables.

Locale of the Study

The study will be conducted at the two chosen barangay of General Santos

City. Barangay Calumpang and Barangay Tambler in which it was reported that

this barangays has growing population of the sukarap in the city.

 24

Research Instrument

The study made use of the researcher-made questionnaire as the

instrument in gathering the information from the respondents. It is constructed

base on the readings of the researcher. The researcher will submit it to the experts

for validation.

This questionnaire of the study used the scaling and parameters of Highly

Agree represented by number 5; Agree (4); Fairly Agree (3); Disagree (2); and

Strongly Disagree(1).

Respondents and Sampling Used

The respondents is randomly chosen through purposive sampling method.

Forty (40) sukarap members from two different barangays will answered the

prepared questionnaire.

The researchers will used a quota purposive sampling procedure in

choosing the respondents.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher will observed the following procedure in data gathering:

Asking permission to conduct the study. The researcher will write a

letter to the barangay captain of the two chosen barangay to gather specific data’s

and assures the institutions that this data will be use purely in the study.

Analysis and interpretation of data. The researcher will gather and

analyzed the data gathered using the appropriate statistical tools.

 25

Statistical Treatment of Data

The study will used weighted mean and the frequency test in the treatment

of data emulated as follows:

Weighted Mean:

𝑓𝑥1
𝑥1 𝑁

Where, f = frequency

X1 = value of every samples

N = total of population

Frequency and Percentage

𝑓
x 100 =
𝑁

Where, f = frequency

N = Total number of sample

 26

REFERENCES

Curry, G. David, Decker, Scott H., and Egley, Arlen, Jr. (2012). Gang Involvement

and Delinquency in a Middle School Population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275-

292.

Egley, Arlen, & Howell, James C. (2011). Highlights of the 2009 National Youth

Gang Survey. Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Esbensen, Finn-Aage, & Lynskey, Dana. (2010). Young gang members in a school

survey. In The Eurogang paradox: Street gangs and youth groups in the

U.S. and Europe (pp. 93- 114). The Hague: Kluwer.

Flexon, Jamie, Richard, Greenleaf and Arthur Lurigio. 2012. “The effects of self-

control, gang membership, and parental Attachment/Identification on police

contacts among Latino and African American youths.” International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 56(2): 218-

238.

Gilman, Amanda B., Karl G. Hill, David J. Hawkins, James C. Howell and Rick

Kosterman. 2014. “The Developmental Dynamics of Joining a Gang in

Adolescence: Patterns and Predictors of Gang Membership.” Journal of

Research on Adolescence 24(2): 204-219.

Goodman, Phil. 2015. “Sociological explanations of Crime.” SOC205 Theories in

 27

Criminology. September 25.

Howell, James C. (2010). Gang Prevention: An Overview of Research and

Programs. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Huff, C. Ronald. (2008). Comparing the criminal behavior of youth gangs and at-

risk youths: NIJ research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Katz, Charles M., and Webb, Vincent J. (2016). Policing gangs in America. New

York: Cambridge.

Klein, Malcolm W., and Maxson, Cheryl L. (2016). Street gang patterns and

policies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lachman, Pamela, Caterina G. Roman and Meagan Cahill. 2013. “Assessing

Youth Motivations for Joining a Peer Group as Risk Factors for Delinquent

and Gang Behavior.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11(3): 212-

229.

Lilly, Roberts J., Francis T. Cullen and Richard A. Ball, eds. 2015. Criminological

Theory: Context and Consequences (6th Edition). Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications.

Maxson, Cheryl L, and Klein, Malcolm W. (2010). Street gang violence: Twice as

great, or half as great? In C. Ronald Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America. Newbury

Park, CA: SAGE.

 28

Melde, Chris, and Esbensen, Finn-Aage. (2011). Gang Membership as a Turning

Point in the Life Course. Criminology, 49, 513-552.

Pyrooz, David C., and Decker, Scott H. (2011). Motives and methods for leaving

the gang: Understanding the process of gang desistance. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 39, 417-425.

Short, James F. (2010). New wine in old bottles? In C. Ronald Huff (Ed.), Gangs

in America, (pp. 223-239). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thornberry, Terence P., Krohn, Marvin D., Lizotte, Alan J., Smith, Carolyn A., and

Tobin, Kimberly. (2013). Gangs and delinquency in a developmental

perspective. New York: Cambridge.

Warr, Mark. (2012). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct.

New York: Cambridge University Press.