Abstract
Analysis of agency response networks in 21 urban areas reveals that the adoption of policy responses is significantly related to social network location. In the 1988 National Youth Gang Intervention and Suppression Program survey, agency representatives were asked to list agencies with which regular contact was maintained in the process of dealing with the youth gang problem. Policy response is measured by the adoption of four policy responses: (1) making staff training available, (2) having a policy for dealing with youth gang problems, (3) having a policy in writing, and (4) attempting to influence legislation on the youth gang problem. Rasch modeling supports the scalability of the four items. The STRUCTURE program is used to identify elements of network structure within each community-specifically cliques and equivalence structures. A generalized linear model analysis of variance of the policy response scale reveals that structural equivalence and clique membership account for 54% of the variation in policy response. An examination of clique means indicates that network structure may retard as well as enhance policy response adaptations. In policy terms, this finding suggests that network structure should be mobilized by those who wish to develop a unified, national-level response to youth gang problems at the local level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bursik, R. J. (1986). Ecological stability and the dynamics of delinquency. In Reiss, A. J., Jr., and Tonry, M. H. (eds.),Crime and Community, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bursik, R. J., Jr., and Webb, J. (1982). Community change and patterns of delinquency.Am. J. Sociol. 88: 24–42.
Burt, R. S. (1982).Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perception, and Action, Academic Press, New York.
Burt, R. S. (1983). Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. In Burt, R. S., and Minor, M. J. (eds.),Applied Network Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 262–282.
Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence.Am. J. Sociol 92: 1287–1335.
Burt, R. S. (1989).Structure Assistant, Columbia University, New York.
Burt, R. S., and Minor, M. J. (1983).Applied Networks Analysis, Sage, Beverley Hills.
Clark, T. N. (1973).Community Power and Policy Outputs, Sage, Beverley Hills.
Clark, T. N. (1975). Community power.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1: 271–295.
Coleman, J. S. (1957).Community Conflict, Free Press, New York.
Coleman, J. S. (1971).Resources for Social Change, Wiley Interscience, New York.
Coleman, J. S. (1973).The Mathematics of Collective Action, Aldine, Chicago.
Coleman, J. S. (1974).Power and the Structure of Society, Norton, New York.
Coleman, J. S. (1990).Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., and Menzel, H. (1966).Medical Innovation, Bobbs-Merrill, New York.
Curry, G. D. (1976), Utility and collectivity: Some suggestions on the anatomy of citizen preferences and urban public policy. In Clark, T. N. (ed.),Citizens and Preferences and Urban Policy, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Curry, G. D., and Spergel, I. A. (1988). Gang homicide and delinquency.Criminology 26: 381–405.
Dahl, R. A. (1961).Who Governs? Yale University Press, New Haven.
Heitgerd, J. L., and Bursik, R. J. (1987). Extra-community dynamics and the ecology of delinquency.Am. J. Sociol. 92: 775–787.
Horowitz, R. (1990). Sociological perspectives on gangs: Conflicting definitions and concepts. In Huff, R. C. (ed.).,Gangs in America, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 37–54.
Huff, C. R. (1989). Youth gangs and public policy.Crime Delinq. 35: 524–537.
Hunter, F. (1953).Community Power Structure, North Carolina University Press, Durham, NC.
Janowitz, M. (1978).The Last Half-Century: Societal Change and Politics in America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Knoke, D., and Burt, R. S. (1983). Prominence. In Hurt, R. S., and Minor, M. J. (eds.),Applied Network Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 195–222.
Laumann, E. O. (1973).Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Networks, Wiley, New York.
Laumann, E. O., and Pappi, F. U. (1976).Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence Systems, Academic Press, New York.
Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., and Marsden, P. V. (1977). Community influence structures: Replication and extension of a network approach.Am. J. Sociol. 83: 594–631.
Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., and Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkages.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 4: 455–484.
Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16: 435–463.
Marsden, P. V., and Laumann, E. O. (1977). Collective action in a community elite: Exchange, influence resources, and issue resolution. In Liebart, R. J., and Imersheim, A. W. (eds.),Power, Paradigms, and Community Research, Sage, London.
National Institute of Justice. (1991). National Institute of Justice Research and Development Awards Fiscal Year 1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952).Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Free Press, New York.
Shaw, C. R., and McKay, H. D. (1972).Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Simmel, G. (1971).On Individuality and Social Forms, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Sorokin, P. A. (1927/1959).Social and Cultural Mobility, Free Press, New York.
Spergel, I. A. (1964).Racketville, Slumtown, Haulburg, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Spergel, I. A. (1969).Community Problem Solving: The Delinquency Example, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Spergel, I. A. (1991a).Community Mobilization, National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program, Technical Assistance Manual, School of Social Service Administration in Cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Spergel, I. A. (1991b).General Community Design, National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program, Technical Assistance Manual, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago in Cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Spergel, I. A., and Curry, G. D. (1990). Strategies and perceived agency effectiveness in dealing with the youth gang problem. In Huff, C. R. (ed.),Gangs in America, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 288–309.
Spergel, I. A., and Curry, G. D. (1992). The National Youth Gang Survey: A research and development process. In Goldstein, A., and Huff, C. R. (eds.),Gang Intervention Handbook, Academic Press, Champaign-Urbana.
Spergel, I. A., Lynch, J. P., Reamer, F. G., and Korbelik, J. (1982). Response of organization and community to a deinstitutionalization strategy.Crime Delinq. 28: 426–449.
Thrasher, F. M. (1927).The Gang, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Whyte, W. F. (1943).Street Corner Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Curry, G.D., Thomas, R.W. Community organization and gang policy response. J Quant Criminol 8, 357–374 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01093640
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01093640