Skip to main content

Gangs and Violence: Disentangling the Impact of Gang Membership on the Level and Nature of Offending

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    This figure represents the number of schools at the recruitment stage of the evaluation.

  2. 2.

    Other studies have also utilized the method to investigate community-level variation in violence (Schreck et al. 2009) and individual tendencies to be a victim and/or offender in violent incidents (Schreck et al. 2008).

  3. 3.

    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.

  4. 4.

    For a more thorough description of the site selection process, consult Esbensen et al. (2012).

  5. 5.

    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.

  6. 6.

    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.

  7. 7.

    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:

    \( \beta_{000j} = \gamma_{0000} + \gamma_{0001} \times \left( {X_{1j} } \right) + u_{000j} \quad (8) \)

    \( \beta_{100j} = \gamma_{1000} + \gamma_{1001} \times \left( {X_{1j} } \right) + u_{100j} \quad (9) \)

    \( \beta_{xj} = \gamma_{xj} \quad (10) \)

  8. 8.

    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.

  9. 9.

    There was significant variation in overall delinquency at the individual and school level, however, so control for school-level effects was still necessary.

  10. 10.

    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.

  11. 11.

    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).

  12. 12.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting Sullivan’s (1989) research as an example of comparative research on group delinquency.

  13. 13.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that such processes may help explain the current findings.

References

  1. Anderson E (1999) Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W.W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, Visher C (1986) Criminal careers and “CareerCriminals”, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deane G, Armstrong DP, Felson RB (2005) An examination of offense specialization using marginal logit models. Criminology 43:955–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Decker SH (1996) Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Q 13(2):243–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2010) Gangs, groups, and guns, in Small Arms Survey 2010. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 128–155

    Google Scholar 

  9. Decker SH, Van Winkle B (1996) Life in the gang: family, friends, and violence. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellickson PL, Hawes J (1989) An assessment of active versus passive methods of obtaining parental consent. Eval Rev 13:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Esbensen F-A, Huizinga D (1993) Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31:565–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Google Scholar 

  18. Farrington DP, Snyder HN, Finnegan TA (1988) Specialization in juvenile court careers. Criminology 26:461–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Felson M (2006) Crime and nature. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hughes LA, Short JFJ (2005) Disputes involving Youth Street gang members. Criminology 43:43–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Google Scholar 

  28. Katz J (1988) Seductions of crime. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Klein MW (1971) Street gangs and street workers. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  31. Klein MW (1995) The American street gang. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Klein MW, Maxson CL (2006) Street gang patterns and policies. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependant variables, vol 7. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Google Scholar 

  39. Melde C, Esbensen F-A (2011) Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology 49(2):513–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Miller J, Decker SH (2001) Young women and gang violence: gender, street offending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Q 18:115–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Osgood DW, Anderson AL (2004) Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology 42:519–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Peterson D, Taylor TJ, Esbensen F-A (2004) Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Q 21:794–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pyrooz DC, Decker SH, Webb VJ (2010) The ties that bind: desistance from gangs. Crime Delinquency, online first: 1–26

  46. Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G, Piquero AR (in press) Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. J Res Crime Delinquency

  47. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  48. Raudenbush SW, Johnson CS, Sampson RJ (2003) A multivariate, multilevel Rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. Sociol Methodol 33:169–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R (2010) HLM 7.00 for Windows. Scientific Software International Inc, Lincolnwood

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reiss AJ, Roth JA (1993) Understanding and preventing violence, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2005) A life-course view of the development of crime. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 602(November):12–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Schreck CJ, Stewart EA, Osgood DW (2008) A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology 46(4):871–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sullivan ML (1989) Getting paid: youth crime and work in the inner city. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sullivan CJ, McGloin JM, Ray JV, Caudy MS (2009) Detecting specialization in offending: comparing analytic approaches. J Quant Criminol 25:419–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA, Tobin K (2003) Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  62. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

Download references

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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Melde.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5.

Table 5 Correlations between change in property and violent offending across waves

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Delinquency frequency descriptive statistics and estimated item severity

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gangs
  • Violence
  • Specialization
  • Item response theory