Abstract
Objectives
To determine whether membership in youth gangs provides a unique social forum for violence amplification. This study examines whether gang membership increases the odds of violent offending over and above involvement in general delinquent and criminal behavior.
Methods
Five waves of data from a multi-site (seven cities) panel study of over 3,700 youth originally nested within 31 schools are analyzed. We estimate four level repeated measures item response theory models, which include a parameter to differentiate the difference in the log of the expected event-rate for violent offense items to the log of the expected event-rate for nonviolent offense items.
Results
Depending on the comparison group (gang youth, overall sample), periods of active gang membership were associated with a 10 or 21% increase in the odds of involvement in violent incidents. When the sample is restricted to youth who report gang membership during the study, the proportionate increase in the odds of violence associated with gangs is statistically similar for males and females. After youth reported leaving the gang their propensity for violence was not significantly different than comparison group observations, although levels of general offending remain elevated.
Conclusions
While results are limited by the school-based sampling strategy, the importance of gang prevention and intervention programming for violence reduction is highlighted. Preventing youth from gang membership or shortening the length of gang careers through interventions may reduce absolute levels of violence.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This figure represents the number of schools at the recruitment stage of the evaluation.
Length of time the locale had operated the program and the extent to which school students had been exposed to the program were assessed when sites were selected for the national evaluation. Sites where the program was just beginning were excluded because they were deemed likely to have had less time to “work out the kinks” associated with delivering the program with fidelity. Conversely, some sites with a long history of delivering the program were excluded from consideration because it was deemed to be likely that the program had saturated the entire school and/or community context.
For a more thorough description of the site selection process, consult Esbensen et al. (2012).
There were a total of 480 respondents who reported gang membership at some point during the study, but two of these cases lacked basic information necessary for inclusion in the current study.
The question concerning “gang fights” was included in the analysis because the majority (between 58 and 69% depending on wave) of respondents who reported being involved in such incidents were non-gang members. Further, while reported analyses classified “weapon carrying” as a violent offense, consistent with Osgood and Schreck (2007), supplementary analyses that classified such incidents as non-violent produced substantively similar results.
In the style of notation used by Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), the Level 1 regression equation is: \( \ln (\lambda ij) = \psi_{0tij} + \psi_{1tij} \,{\text{Violence}} + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^{I - 1} {\psi_{xtij} D_{ij} } \quad (1) \)
The Level 2 regression equations are: \( \psi_{0tij} = \pi_{00ij} + \pi_{01ij} \times \left( {X_{1tij} } \right) + \pi_{02ij} \times \left( {X_{2tij} } \right) + \cdots + e_{0tij} \quad (2) \)
\( \psi_{1tij} = \pi_{10ij} + \pi_{11ij} \times \left( {X_{1tij} } \right) + \pi_{12ij} \times \left( {X_{2tij} } \right) + \cdots + e_{1tij} \quad (3) \)
\( \psi_{xtij} = \pi_{x0ij} \quad (4) \)
The Level 3 regression equations are:
\( \pi_{00ij} = \beta_{000j} + \beta_{001j} \times \left( {X_{1ij} } \right) + \beta_{002j} \times \left( {X_{2ij} } \right) \, + \cdots + r_{00ij} \quad (5) \)
\( \pi_{10ij} = \beta_{100j} + \beta_{101j} \times \left( {X_{1ij} } \right) + \beta_{102j} \times \left( {X_{2ij} } \right) \, + \cdots + r_{10ij} \quad (6) \)
\( \pi_{xj} = \beta_{j} \quad (7) \)
The Level 4 regression equations are:
\( \beta_{000j} = \gamma_{0000} + \gamma_{0001} \times \left( {X_{1j} } \right) + u_{000j} \quad (8) \)
\( \beta_{100j} = \gamma_{1000} + \gamma_{1001} \times \left( {X_{1j} } \right) + u_{100j} \quad (9) \)
\( \beta_{xj} = \gamma_{xj} \quad (10) \)
A cubic term for age was included in supplemental analyses predicting both general offending propensity and violence specialization, but was not significant and thus not included in reported analyses.
There was significant variation in overall delinquency at the individual and school level, however, so control for school-level effects was still necessary.
Given the nature of the dependent variable as a count of delinquent acts, an over-dispersed poisson regression model with a log link function is utilized. By default with four level models in HLM 7.00 for Windows (Raudenbush et al. 2010), results are based upon penalized quasi-likelihood estimation.
Event rate ratios can also be interpreted as the percentage change in the expected outcome for a one-unit change in the independent variable, holding other variables constant, by using the following formula: (100 × [exp(B) − 1]) (Long 1997).
We thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting Sullivan’s (1989) research as an example of comparative research on group delinquency.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that such processes may help explain the current findings.
References
Anderson E (1999) Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W.W. Norton, New York
Battin SR, Hill KG, Abbott RD, Catalano RF, Hawkins JD (1998) The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology 36:93–115
Bjerk D (2009) How much can we trust causal interpretations of fixed-effects estimators in the context of criminality? J Quant Criminol 25:391–417
Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, Visher C (1986) Criminal careers and “CareerCriminals”, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington DC
Deane G, Armstrong DP, Felson RB (2005) An examination of offense specialization using marginal logit models. Criminology 43:955–988
Decker SH (1996) Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Q 13(2):243–264
Decker SH (2007) Youth gangs and violent behavior. In: Flannery D, Vazsonyi A, Waldman I (eds) The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior. New York, Cambridge, pp 388–402
Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2010) Gangs, groups, and guns, in Small Arms Survey 2010. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 128–155
Decker SH, Van Winkle B (1996) Life in the gang: family, friends, and violence. Cambridge University Press, New York
Ellickson PL, Hawes J (1989) An assessment of active versus passive methods of obtaining parental consent. Eval Rev 13:45–55
Esbensen F-A, Huizinga D (1993) Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31:565–589
Esbensen F-A, Osgood DW, Taylor TJ, Peterson D, Freng A (2001a) How great is G.R.E.A.T.? Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminol Public Policy 1:87–118
Esbensen F-A, Winfree LT Jr, He N, Taylor TJ (2001b) Youth gangs and definitional issues: when is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime Delinquency 47(1):105–130
Esbensen F-A, Melde C, Taylor TJ, Peterson D (2008) Active parental consent in school-based research: how much is enough and how do we get it? Eval Rev 32(4):335–362
Esbensen F-A, Peterson D, Taylor TJ, Freng A (2010) Youth violence: sex and race differences in offending, victimization, and gang membership. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Esbensen F-A, Peterson D, Taylor TJ, Osgood DW (2012) Results from a multi-site evaluation of the GREAT program. Justice Q. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.585995
Farrington DP (2005) The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory. In: Farrington DP (ed) Advances in criminological theory, vol 14. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 73–92
Farrington DP, Snyder HN, Finnegan TA (1988) Specialization in juvenile court careers. Criminology 26:461–485
Felson M (2006) Crime and nature. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Felson RB, Liska AE, South SJ, McNulty TL (1994) The subculture of violence and delinquency: individual versus school context effects. Soc Forces 73:155–173
Giordano PC, Schroeder RD, Cernkovich SA (2007) Emotions and crime over the life course: a neo-median perspective on criminal continuity and change. Am J Sociol 112(6):1603–1661
Gordon RA, Lahey BB, Kawai E, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Farrington DP (2004) Antisocial behavior and youth gang membership: selection and socialization. Criminology 42:55–88
Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Horney JD, Osgood DW, Marshall IH (1995) Criminal careers in the short-term: intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. Am Sociol Rev 60:655–673
Hughes LA, Short JFJ (2005) Disputes involving Youth Street gang members. Criminology 43:43–76
Huizinga D, Weiher AW, Espiritu R, Esbensen F-A (2003) Delinquency and crime: some highlights from the Denver Youth Survey. In: Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (eds) Taking stock of delinquency: an overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 47–91
Johnson CS, Raudenbush SW (2006) A repeated measures, multilevel Rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. In: Bergeman CS, Boker SM (eds) Methodological issues in aging research. Erlbaum Press, Mahwah, pp 131–164
Katz J (1988) Seductions of crime. Basic Books, New York
Katz CM (2003) Issues in the production and dissemination of gang statistics: an ethnographic study of a large midwestern police gang unit. Crime Delinquency 49(3):485–516
Klein MW (1971) Street gangs and street workers. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Klein MW (1995) The American street gang. Oxford University Press, New York
Klein MW, Maxson CL (2006) Street gang patterns and policies. Oxford University Press, New York
Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependant variables, vol 7. Sage, Thousand Oaks
McGloin JM (2008) Gang involvement and predatory crime. In: DeLisi M, Conis PJ (eds) Violent offenders: theory, research, public policy, and practice. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, pp 141–154
McGloin JM, Decker SH (2010) Theories of gang behavior and public policy. In: Barlow H, Decker SH (eds) Criminology and public policy: putting theory to work. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 150–165
McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ, Piquero AR, Pratt TC (2007) Local life circumstances and offending specialization/versatility: comparing opportunity and propensity models. J Res Crime Delinquency 44(3):321–346
McGloin JM, Schreck CJ, Stewart EA, Ousey GC (2011) Predicting the violent offender: the discriminant validity of the subculture of violence. Criminology 49(3):767–794
McMorris BJ, Clements J, Evans-Whipp T, Gangnes D, Bond L, Toumbourou JW et al (2004) A comparison of methods to obtain active parental consent for an international student survey. Eval Rev 28:64–83
Melde C, Esbensen F-A (2011) Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology 49(2):513–552
Miller J, Decker SH (2001) Young women and gang violence: gender, street offending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Q 18:115–140
Osgood DW, Anderson AL (2004) Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology 42:519–549
Osgood DW, Schreck CJ (2007) A new method for studying the extent, stability, and predictors of individual specialization in violence. Criminology 45(2):273–312
Peterson D, Taylor TJ, Esbensen F-A (2004) Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Q 21:794–815
Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 30. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 359–506
Pyrooz DC, Decker SH, Webb VJ (2010) The ties that bind: desistance from gangs. Crime Delinquency, online first: 1–26
Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G, Piquero AR (in press) Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. J Res Crime Delinquency
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Raudenbush SW, Johnson CS, Sampson RJ (2003) A multivariate, multilevel Rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. Sociol Methodol 33:169–211
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R (2010) HLM 7.00 for Windows. Scientific Software International Inc, Lincolnwood
Reiss AJ, Roth JA (1993) Understanding and preventing violence, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Rosenfeld R, Bray TM, Egley AJ (1999) Facilitating violence: a comparison of gang-motivated, gang-affiliated, and non-gang youth homicides. J Quant Criminol 15:495–516
Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2005) A life-course view of the development of crime. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 602(November):12–45
Schreck CJ, Stewart EA, Osgood DW (2008) A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology 46(4):871–906
Schreck CJ, McGloin JM, Kirk DS (2009) On the origins of the violent neighborhood: a study of the nature and predictors of crime-type differentiation across Chicago neighborhoods. Justice Q 26(4):771–794
Sullivan ML (1989) Getting paid: youth crime and work in the inner city. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
Sullivan CJ, McGloin JM, Pratt TC, Piquero AR (2006) Rethinking the “norm” of offender generality: investigating specialization in the short-term. Criminology 44:199–233
Sullivan CJ, McGloin JM, Ray JV, Caudy MS (2009) Detecting specialization in offending: comparing analytic approaches. J Quant Criminol 25:419–441
Taylor TJ, Peterson D, Esbensen F-A, Freng A (2007) Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. J Res Crime Delinquency 44(4):351–380
Thornberry TP (1998) Membership in youth gangs and involvement in serious and violent offending. In: Loeber R, Farrington DP (eds) Serious and violent juvenile offenders. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 147–166
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Chard-Wierschem D (1993) The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. J Res Crime Delinquency 30:75–85
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA, Tobin K (2003) Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York
Unger JB, Gallaher P, Palmer PH, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Trinidad DR, Cen S et al (2004) No news is bad news: characteristics of adolescents who provide neither parental consent or refusal for participation in school-based survey research. Eval Rev 28:52–63
Weerman FM, Maxson CL, Esbensen F-A, Aldridge J, Medina J, van Gemert F (2009) Eurogang program manual, Retrieved 10/10/2011, 2011, from http://www.umsl.edu/~ccj/eurogang/EurogangManual.pdf
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible, in part, by the support and participation of seven school districts, including the School District of Philadelphia. This project was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, award No. 2006-JV-FX-0011.
Disclaimer
The points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the US Department of Justice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Melde, C., Esbensen, FA. Gangs and Violence: Disentangling the Impact of Gang Membership on the Level and Nature of Offending. J Quant Criminol 29, 143–166 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9164-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9164-z