Motivated by recent advances in the study of disengagement from street gangs, this research develops a theoretical framework of enduring gang membership based on gang organization and gang identity. Using multivariate data, this research tests the theoretical framework against a competing theory derived from the general theory of crime where gang organization and gang identity are non-existent or unimportant in producing enduring gang membership.
Eight waves of panel data on high-risk youth from the Denver Youth Survey and discrete-time event-history models are used to investigate enduring gang membership.
The length of time an individual spends in a gang is associated with the perceived organization of the gang and an individual’s gang identity. In a hazard model, accounting for right censoring, low self-control, and contextual time-varying gang related variables, increases in gang identity were associated with (on average) a 26% lower rate of reporting no longer being a gang member. Increases in perceived gang organization were associated with (on average) a 12% lower rate of reporting no longer being a gang member. Surprisingly however, no association was found between gang organization and gang identity.
This research finds support for using a theoretical framework based on gang organization and gang identity to understand enduring gang membership. Both gang identity and gang organization exert independent effects on the length of time an individual spends in a gang.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
In the gang literature, some researchers use the term, “desistance from gangs” to describe the process of leaving gangs. To avoid confusion, and following previous research (e.g., Sweeten et al. 2013) we use the term “disengagement from gangs” to refer to the process of leaving gangs, and reserve the term, “desistance,” to refer to desistance from criminal activity.
Our data allow us to test the primary hypothesis that reductions in gang identity are associated with an increased probability of leaving a gang. We are unable—because of data limitations—to test a secondary hypothesis that the reductions of gang identities are caused by concomitant increases in conventional role-identities, and thus, may operate directly or indirectly through gang identities. This secondary hypothesis is supported by studies of delinquency, such as Giordano et al. (2002) study of conventional role-identities as “hooks for change” producing desistance from crime.
We use the hazard of leaving the gang to measure enduring gang membership, and note that they are statistically equivalent: If p is the probability of leaving the gang, 1 − p is the probability of remaining in the gang.
Our hazard models estimate the key substantive parameters regressing the hazard of leaving a gang on demographic, self-control, and gang variables. We do not present estimates of parameters predicting gang variables, as they do not alter our substantive conclusions.
Because of issues with funding, interviews were not conducted in 1992 or 1993. Thus after Wave 5 interviews were completed in 1991 Wave 6 interviews were not completed until 1994.
We attempted to assess within gang reports of gang organization i.e., did respondents in the same gang report the same organizational characteristics. Respondents reported being members of what appear to be over 70 distinct gangs including 14 variations of Crips gangs and 3 variations of Bloods gangs. This is problematic as different types of Crips can be subsets of one another, or distinct entities entirely (Howell 2007). Due to limitations of the data we lack the ability to parse this out.
This procedure will yield unbiased estimates of measurement properties (reliability) under the assumption of no age and cohort effects on measurement properties and change in true scores. Departures from zero age and cohort effects will result in downward-biased estimates of reliability. Therefore, our estimates should be considered lower-bound estimates of true reliability.
We also tested for non-proportionality by interacting key covariates with duration and failed to reject the proportionality assumption.
It was necessary to collapse the 3-year, 4-year, 5-year, and 6-year gang members into one category due to the small N in the latter categories. Results from the reported models do not differ significantly from models ran with the linear term.
As noted above, duration was found to be non-linear therefore we estimated duration dependence, using three dummy variables.
We estimated a model for the first event of leaving a gang and found similar substantive results, but larger estimated standard errors. We also tested for interaction effects for key substantive variables by first versus second events, and failed to find significant interactions. Furthermore, we found that robust standard errors for clustering were similar in magnitude to our classical standard errors, suggesting that parameter estimates of our nonlinear model are not biased due to clustering (see King and Roberts 2015).
We examined the distribution of missing data on the key variables in our event history analysis (total of 35% compared to the full sample of gang members wave 1–10). We compared the distribution of 20 key variables for included observations against the excluded observations. Out of 20 total tests, only three showed statistically significant differences: included observations showed slightly higher scores on the gang providing protection, lower scores on childhood delinquency, and slightly higher scores on beer drinking. Moreover, our demographic variables, offending variables, gang organization, and gang identity are not significantly different between included and excluded observations (table available upon request).
Here we report the full sample of gang members in the Denver Youth Survey not just our analytic sample.
Tests were conducted to assess whether multicollinearity was an issue. A correlation matrix indicated no extremely high correlations and variance inflation factors (VIFs) indicated no issues with multicollinearity.
All results are reported in the text use the formula (β − 1) × 100 so results indicate the percentage change in the probability of exiting the gang given the respondent has not yet left.
We purposely used all available observations for each model to increase power. We conducted sensitivity checks using a listwise approach restricting the sample size of all three models to the smallest model (Model 3, N = 225) and results were consistent with reported models.
Recent research by Pyrooz et al. (2017) has found some support for parenthood as a turning point or pull factor in the life course of gang members.
Allison PD (1982) Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. Sociol Methodol 13:61–98
Allison PD (2013) Event history analysis. Sage Publication, Beverly Hills
Becker HS (1963) Outsiders studies in the sociology of deviance. Simon and Schuster, New York
Bloch HA, Niederhoffer A (1958) The gang: a study in adolescent behavior. Philosophical Library, New York
Bouchard M, Spindler A (2010) Groups, gangs, and delinquency: does organization matter? J Crim Justice 38:921–933
Brown R, Condor S, Mathews A, Wade G, Williams J (1986) Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. J Occup Org Psychol 59:273–286
Burt CH, Sweeten G, Simons RL (2014) Self-control through emerging adulthood: instability, multidimensionality, and criminological significance. Criminology 52:450–487
Carson DC, Vecchio JM (2015) Leaving the gang. In: Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (eds) The handbook of gangs. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 257–275
Cloward RA, Ohlin LE (1960) Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. The Free Press, New York
Cressey DR (1972) Criminal organization: its elementary forms. Harper & Row, New York
Decker SH, Curry GD (2000) Addressing key features of gang membership: measuring the involvement of young members. J Crim Justice 28:473–482
Decker SH, Lauritsen JL (2002) Leaving the gang. In: Huff RH (ed) Gangs in America 3. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 51–70
Decker SH, Van Winkle B (1994) ‘Slinging dope’: the role of gangs and gang members in drug sales. Justice Q 11:583–604
Decker SH, Van Winkle B (1996) Life in the gang: family, friends, and violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Decker SH, Katz CM, Webb VJ (2008) Understanding the black box of gang organization: implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime Delinq 54:153–172
Decker SH, Melde C, Pyrooz DC (2013) What do we know about gangs and gang members and where do we go from here? Justice Q 30:369–402
Decker SH, Pyrooz DC, Moule RK Jr (2014a) Disengagement from gangs as role transitions. J Res Adolesc 24(2):268–283
Decker SH, Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G, Moule RK (2014b) Validating self-nomination in gang research: assessing differences in gang embeddedness across non-, current, and former gang members. J Quant Criminol 30:577–598
Densley JA, Pyrooz DC (2017) A signaling perspective on disengagement from gangs. Justice Q. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1357743
Dewey J (1922) Human nature and conduct. Henry Holt and Company, New York
DiMaggio P, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48:147–160
Durán R (2013) Gang life in two cities: an insider’s journey. Columbia University Press, New York
Durkheim E (1964) The division of labor in society. Free Press, New York (1893)
Ellemers N, Kortekaas P, Ouwerkerk JW (1999) Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. Eur J Soc Psychol 29:371–389
Esbensen FA, Huizinga D (1990) Community structure and drug use: from a social disorganization perspective. Justice Q 7:691–709
Esbensen FA, Huizinga D (1993) Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31:565–589
Esbensen FA, Weerman FM (2006) Youth gangs and troublesome youth groups in the United States and the Netherlands. Eur J Criminol 2:5–37
Esbensen FA, Deschenes EP, Winfree LT Jr (1999) Differences between gang girls and gang boys: results from a multisite survey. Youth Soc 31:27–53
Esbensen FA, Winfree LT Jr, He N, Taylor TJ (2001) Youth gangs and definitional issues: when is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? NCCD News 47:105–130
Fagan J (1989) The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs. Criminology 27:633–670
Gambetta D (1993) The Sicilian Mafia: the business of private protection. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Gambetta D (2009) Codes of the underworld: how criminals communicate. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL (2002) Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am J Sociol 107:990–1064
Goldman L, Giles H, Hogg MA (2014) Going to extremes: social identity and communication processes associated with gang membership. Group Process Intergr Relat 17:813–832
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
Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ, Arneklev BJ (1993) Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:5–29
Hennigan K, Spanovic M (2012) Gang dynamics through the lens of social identity theory. In: Esbensen FA, Maxson CL (eds) Youth gangs in international perspective. Springer, New York
Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills
Hirschi T, Gottfredson MR (1993) Commentary: testing the general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:47–54
Hogg MA, Abrams D (1993) Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In: Hogg MA, Abrams D (eds) Group motivation: social psychological perspectives. Havester Wheatsheaf, Birmingham
Hogg MA, Terry DI (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad Manag Rev 25:121–140
Hope TL (2003) Do families matter? The relative effects of family characteristics, selfcontrol, and delinquency on gang membership. In: Calhoun TC, Chapple CL (eds) Readings in juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 168–185
Horowitz R (1983) Honor and the American dream: culture and identity in a Chicano community. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey
Howell JC (2007) Menacing or mimicking? Realities of youth gangs. Juv Fam Court J 58:39–50
Howell JC, Griffiths E (2015) Gangs in America’s communities. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills
Hughes LA (2013) Group cohesiveness, gang member prestige, and delinquency and violence in Chicago, 1959–1962. Criminology 51:795–832
Hughes LA, Short JF (2005) Disputes involving youth street gang members: micro-social contexts. Criminology 43:43–76
Huizinga, D. Denver Youth Survey Waves 1–10, (1987-1999) [Denver, Colorado]
Jankowski MS (1991) Islands in the street: gangs and American urban society. University of California Press, Berkeley
Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (1980) The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New York
Keane C, Maxim PS, Teevan JJ (1993) Drinking and driving, self-control, and gender: testing a general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:30–46
King G, Roberts ME (2015) How robust standard errors expose methodological problems they do not fix and what to do about it? Polit Anal 23:159–179
Klein MW (1971) Street gangs and street workers. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Luhtanen R, Crocker J (1992) A collective self-esteem scale: self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 18:302–318
Lynskey DP, Winfree LT, Esbensen FA, Clason DL (2000) Linking gender, minority group status and family matters to self-control theory: a multivariate analysis of key self- control concepts in a youth-gang context. Juv Fam Court J 51:1–19
Mael F, Ashforth BE (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J Org Behav 13:103–123
Maruna S (2012) Elements of successful desistance signaling. Criminol Public Policy 11(1):73–86
Matsueda RL (1992) Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. Am J Sociol 97:1577–1611
Matsueda RL (2006) Criminological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. In: Deflem M (ed) Sociological theory and criminological research: views from Europe and the United States. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 77–108
Matsueda RL (2013) Rational choice research in criminology: a multi-level framework. In: Wittek R, Snijders T, Nee V (eds) Handbook of rational choice social research. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp 283–321
Matsueda RL (2017) The 2016 Sutherland address: “toward an analytical criminology: the micro-macro problem, causal mechanisms, and public policy”. Criminology 55:493–519
Maxson CL, Esbensen FA (2012) The intersection of gang definition and group process: concluding observations. In: Maxson CL, Esbensen FA (eds) Youth gangs in international perspective. Springer, New York, pp 303–315
Mead GH (1934) Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Melde C, Esbensen FA (2011) Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology 49:513–552
Melde C, Esbensen FA (2013) The relative impact of gang status transitions: identifying the mechanisms of change in delinquency. J Res Crime Delinq 51:259–276
Melde C, Diem C, Drake G (2012) Identifying correlates of stable gang membership. J Contemp Crim Justice 28:482–498
Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83:340–363
Miller J (2001) One of the guys: girls, gangs, and gender. Oxford University Press, New York
Na C, Paternoster R (2012) Can self-control change substantially over time? rethinking the relationship between self-and social control. Criminology 50:427–462
Padilla FM (1992) The gang as an American enterprise. Rutgers University Press, Rutgers
Papachristos AV (2009) Murder by structure: dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. Am J Sociol 115:74–128
Papachristos AV, Hureau DM, Braga AA (2013) The corner and the crew: the influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. Am Sociol Rev 78:417–447
Peterson D, Taylor TJ, Esbensen FA (2004) Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Q 21:793–815
Pyrooz DC (2014) From your first cigarette to your last dyin’day: the patterning of gang membership in the life-course. J Quant Criminol 30:349–372
Pyrooz DC, Decker SH (2011) Motives and methods for leaving the gang: understanding the process of gang desistance. J Crim Justice 39:417–425
Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G (2015) Gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years in the United States. J Adolesc Health 56:414–419
Pyrooz DC, Fox AM, Katz CM, Decker SH (2012a) Gang organization, offending, and victimization: a cross-national analysis. In: Esbensen FA, Maxson CL (eds) Youth gangs in international perspective. Springer, New York, pp 85–105
Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G, Piquero AR (2012b) Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. J Res Crime Delinq 50:239–271
Pyrooz DC, Moule RK, Decker SH (2014) The contribution of gang membership to the victim–offender overlap. J Res Crime Delinq 51:315–348
Pyrooz DC, Mcgloin JM, Decker SH (2017) Parenthood as a turning point in the life course for male and female gang members: a study of within-individual changes in gang membership and criminal behavior. Criminology 55(4):869–899
Short JF (1985) The level of explanation problem in criminology. In: Meier RF (ed) Theoretical methods in criminology. Sage, Beverly Hills
Short JF (1998) The level of explanation problem revisited—the American Society of Criminology 1997 presidential address. Criminology 36:3–36
Short JF, Strodtbeck FL (1965) Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Shortland A, Varese F (2016) State-building, informal governance and organised crime: the case of somali piracy. Polit Stud 64:811–831
Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Steffensmeier D (1989) On the causes of “White-collar” crime: an assessment of Hirschi and Gottfredson’s claims. Criminology 27:345–358
Sweeten G (2012) Scaling criminal offending. J Quant Criminol 28:533–557
Sweeten G, Pyrooz DC, Piquero AR (2013) Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Q 30:469–500
Tajfel H (1978) Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparison. Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 61–76.
Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks-Cole, Monterey, pp 33–47
Taylor CS (1990) Dangerous society. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing
Thomas WI, Thomas DS (1928) The child in America. Alfred A, New York
Thornberry TP (2003) Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Thornberry TP, Huizinga D, Loeber R (2004) The causes and correlates studies: findings and policy implications. Juv Justice 9:3–19
Thrasher FM (1927) The gang. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Vigil JD (1988) Group processes and street identity: adolescent Chicano gang members. Ethos 16:421–445
Vigil J (1996) Street baptism: Chicano gang initiation. Hum Org 55:149–153
Vigil EB (1999) The crusade for justice: Chicano militancy and the government’s war on dissent. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
Webb VJ, Katz CM, Decker SH (2006) Assessing the validity of self-reports by gang members: results from the arrestee drug abuse monitoring program. Crime Delinq 52:232–252
Weber M (1922) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley (1978)
Woo D, Giles H, Hogg MA, Goldman L (2015) Social psychology of gangs. In: Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (eds) The handbook of gangs. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 136–156
Wood JL (2014) Understanding gang membership: the significance of group processes. Group Process Intergroup Relat 17:710–729
Yablonsky L (1967) The violent gang. Pelican Book, Middlesex
We thank Callie Burt, Jerry Herting, Katherine O’Neill, and Lynette Hoelter for helpful comments on an earlier draft, Aimée Dechter for helpful advice, and the Center for Social Science Computation and Research at the University of Washington and Charles Lanfear for computing assistance.
This research was supported by grants from the Blumstein-Jordan Endowed Professorship in Sociology, University of Washington, the National Institute of Justice (2014-R2-CX-0018), and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (1256082). Partial support for this research came from a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development research infrastructure grant to the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology at the University of Washington (R24 HD042828).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Here we describe in more detail our event history analysis, including treatment of repeated events, treatment of left-hand censoring, and treatment of missing data. We also report results from confirmatory factor analyses for gang organization and gang identity.
Event History Model Specifications
Our event history models use time since entering a gang as the clock governing enduring gang membership.
Treatment of Repeated Events
A few respondents left the risk set (self-reported that they were no longer in the gang) and then in later waves returned to the gang. Recall that the hazard of enduring gang membership is governed by a clock that measures duration of time in the gang. After an individual desists from the gang, their clock is reset to 0 and their second event is treated as separate from the first. In addition, a dummy variable (Episode) is added to the model indicating whether it was a respondent’s second event (Allison 1982). We found that robust standard errors clustered on individuals were similar to classical standard errors, suggesting that our non-linear parameter estimates are not biased due to clustering (King and Roberts 2015).
Observations are left-censored when the start of the event time is unknown. This occurs in our event histories in a few cases in which respondents reported being in a gang at the first wave, and we do not know precisely when they joined. It is often recommended that left-censored cases be removed from analysis to reduce bias (Singer and Willett 2003). Nevertheless, when the number of left-censored cases is substantial and are correlated with duration, bias will remain. A key question here is at what age to most youth join gangs? Howell and Griffiths (2015) reported that the typical age ranges youth members join a gang is between 11 and 15 years old. Two recent studies using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found similar results (Pyrooz 2014; Pyrooz and Sweeten 2015). Thus, previous research indicates that most youth join gangs in their early teenage years, with a few outliers joining at a younger age. The DYS captures not only those at prime gang-joining age, but the majority of early-onset outliers. DYS respondents were given their first youth survey at approximately age 11 and were asked: “in the past year were you a member of a street gang?” This covers gang membership beginning at age 10, the low end of the age spectrum for joining a gang. Thus, while it is possible that a youth could have joined and left a gang by age 10, it is extremely unlikely. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the DYS captured the majority, and possibly all, gang-involved youth in the sample and left censoring is negligible (Table 3).
Treatment of Missing Data
Missing data arises from a number of sources, including (1) the time-lagging of covariates; (2) key predictor variables not being asked until Wave 3; and (3) respondents not being interviewed in the person-year before the spell (left censoring) or in the person year after the spell (right censoring). The first two sources of missing data are unlikely to be systematic or biasing; they led to dropping 52 person-years from analysis. Individuals with data missing in the person-year before the spell began were left-censored and eliminated from the study (N = 26) (Singer and Willett 2003). Right censoring (when the event occurrence is unknown because the study ended or the person was not sampled in the subsequent wave) of 66 person-years is handled by our event history models (Allison 2013).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
To investigate the dimensionality of gang organization and gang identity we estimated confirmatory factory models for ordinal and dichotomous indicators using one time point for each respondent. These models using scale appropriate polychoric correlations under the assumption that underlying each ordinal indicator is a continuous latent construct. We found similar results using diagonally-weighted least squares and maximum likelihood with Satorra-Bentler corrections for test statistics. We observed high factor loadings for both gang organization (range 0.44–0.92) and gang identity (range 0.66–0.86) indicating each observed variable is strongly related to the corresponding latent construct (see Table 4). Moreover, fit statistics for both gang organization (χ2 = 10.59, df = 20, p < .96) and gang identity (χ2 = 10.33, df = 6, p < .11) indicate one-factor solutions.
About this article
Cite this article
Leverso, J., Matsueda, R.L. Gang Organization and Gang Identity: An Investigation of Enduring Gang Membership. J Quant Criminol 35, 797–829 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09408-x
- Disengagement from gangs
- Enduring gang membership
- Gang organization
- Gang identity