Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 357–374

Community organization and gang policy response

  • G. David Curry
  • Rodney W. Thomas
Article

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.

Key words

gangs community organization network analysis gang policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Bursik, R. J., Jr., and Webb, J. (1982). Community change and patterns of delinquency.Am. J. Sociol. 88: 24–42.Google Scholar
  3. Burt, R. S. (1982).Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perception, and Action, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence.Am. J. Sociol 92: 1287–1335.Google Scholar
  6. Burt, R. S. (1989).Structure Assistant, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Burt, R. S., and Minor, M. J. (1983).Applied Networks Analysis, Sage, Beverley Hills.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, T. N. (1973).Community Power and Policy Outputs, Sage, Beverley Hills.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, T. N. (1975). Community power.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1: 271–295.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1957).Community Conflict, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J. S. (1971).Resources for Social Change, Wiley Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, J. S. (1973).The Mathematics of Collective Action, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Coleman, J. S. (1974).Power and the Structure of Society, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. S. (1990).Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., and Menzel, H. (1966).Medical Innovation, Bobbs-Merrill, New York.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Curry, G. D., and Spergel, I. A. (1988). Gang homicide and delinquency.Criminology 26: 381–405.Google Scholar
  18. Dahl, R. A. (1961).Who Governs? Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  19. Heitgerd, J. L., and Bursik, R. J. (1987). Extra-community dynamics and the ecology of delinquency.Am. J. Sociol. 92: 775–787.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Huff, C. R. (1989). Youth gangs and public policy.Crime Delinq. 35: 524–537.Google Scholar
  22. Hunter, F. (1953).Community Power Structure, North Carolina University Press, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
  23. Janowitz, M. (1978).The Last Half-Century: Societal Change and Politics in America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Laumann, E. O. (1973).Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Networks, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Laumann, E. O., and Pappi, F. U. (1976).Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence Systems, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., and Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkages.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 4: 455–484.Google Scholar
  29. Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16: 435–463.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952).Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Shaw, C. R., and McKay, H. D. (1972).Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  34. Simmel, G. (1971).On Individuality and Social Forms, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Sorokin, P. A. (1927/1959).Social and Cultural Mobility, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Spergel, I. A. (1964).Racketville, Slumtown, Haulburg, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Spergel, I. A. (1969).Community Problem Solving: The Delinquency Example, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Thrasher, F. M. (1927).The Gang, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Whyte, W. F. (1943).Street Corner Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. David Curry
    • 1
  • Rodney W. Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.Crime & Justice Studies Program, Department of Sociology & AnthropologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown
  2. 2.Urban Child Research CenterCleveland State UniversityCleveland

Personalised recommendations