The Gang Member Stands Out: Stigma as a Residual Consequence of Gang Involvement

Abstract

The topic of stigma and discrimination has been explored among various criminal justice populations; however, few studies have examined the stigma associated with being a former gang member. This study explores the stigmatic experiences among a sample of 30 self-identified former gang members to highlight the ongoing discrimination they experience in the time following involvement. Using grounded theory, results indicate that two thirds of study participants either anticipated or directly experienced stigma on behalf of the police or general public in the time since gang exit. These experiences were believed to impede future avenues of success and social integration. In addition to highlighting the frequency of anticipated and experienced stigma, we describe the sources of stigma that indicate former gang involvement. The sources of stigma include aspects of voluntary self-presentation such as tattoos and style of dress as well as official sources of gang intelligence that is most closely associated with gang databases. We conclude by discussing potential avenues for addressing reintegration and adjustment strategies among former gang members.

Keywords

criminal organizations/gangs other qualitative methods violent behavior

Gangs have existed since the inception of the United States (Adamson, 2000; Sante, 1991) and have grown tremendously since. There are approximately 850,000 gang members across the United States, constituting more than 30,000 gangs (National Gang Center, 2012). Despite their enduring nature, very little research has examined the stigmatization experiences among these individuals, which is particularly troubling given the plethora of myths and stereotypes that characterize gang members as criminally deviant and incorrigible (Howell, 2012) as well as the empirical evidence linking gang membership to higher rates of crime and violence (e.g., Curry, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2014; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Esbensen, Huizinga, & Weiher, 1993; Pyrooz, Turanovic, Decker, & Wu, 2016). Although not all gang members engage in crime (Klein, 2007), these perceptions contributed to a moral panic during the 1980s and 1990s (Cyr, 2003; Howell, 2012; McCorkle & Miethe, 1998), prompting social and political leaders to respond with a “war on gangs” and constant bombardment of a “law and order” view of gangs and their communities (Duran, 2009; Howell, 2012).

The perception of dangerous gang members with pathological disorders attacking innocent civilians is stigmatizing and may lead to differential treatment from formal agents of social control and society more broadly. Stigma not only signifies immorality through social and physical markers and characteristics (e.g., radical political behaviors, gang membership) but also designates individuals as less-than-human, consequently erecting boundaries between “normals” and deviants (Austin, 2004; Goffman, 1963). Moreover, stigma is an interrelated process whereby individuals are negatively labeled, distinguished and separated into an out-group, and experience loss of status and discrimination (Link & Phelan, 2001).

While the scant research itself necessitates additional scholarship, the investigation of stigmatization and gang membership is important for other reasons. First, awareness of this relationship extends our understanding of how stigmatization manifests in different contexts; that is, how it affects the reality of those stigmatized in different ways. For instance, the treatment of sex offenders and former inmates may differ markedly from that of gang members. Knowledge of these various populations is informative for theoretical and social advancement. Second, statistics demonstrate that gang membership constitutes a nontrivial proportion of the population of those residing in high-risk neighborhoods. Specifically, when looking at high-crime and high-risk neighborhoods, as many as 29% of girls and 32% of boys claim membership (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2009). Consequently, understanding how stigma permeates the lives of these individuals can inform policy and enhance our understanding of the elements that are needed for more effective gang prevention and intervention efforts (Howell, 2012).

Given the limited body of stigmatization research on gang members, the current study seeks to explore the stigmas that former gang members experience and anticipate from law enforcement and the general public (including employers), specifically as it relates to discrimination. The emphasis on former gang members (who on average have been out of the gang for 11 years in our sample) is especially valuable because it highlights the magnitude and enduring impact of a stigmatized identity. Although the current study does not address the disengagement process itself, it provides an important look at perceptions of experienced and anticipated stigma that results directly from a former gang identity. This study is not meant to be comparative (i.e., examining differences in stigma between former gang members and sex offenders/former inmates) but rather an extension of previous literature given the virtual absence of research examining stigma among former gang members (however, see Rosen & Cruz, 2018, for the exception). Given the exploratory nature of this inquiry, qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with former gang members was conducted, resulting in major themes that are reflective of these realities.

Stigma and Deviant Groups

Since Goffman’s (1963) seminal work, stigma research has proliferated in various disciplines and has become a sensitizing concept in a variety of scholarship including research on mental illness (Gerlinger et al., 2013; Östman & Kjellin, 2002), tattooing (Larsen, Patterson, & Markham, 2014; Phillips, 2001), murderers (May, 2000), sex offenders (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008; Evans & Cubellis, 2015), sexually transmitted diseases (Nack, 2000), exotic dancing (Bradley, 2007; Lewis, 1998; W. E. Thompson, Harred, & Burks, 2003), and the lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgendered communities (Kaufman & Johnson, 2004). Despite some definitional ambiguity, stigma is commonly understood as an “attribute that is deeply discrediting” (Goffman, 1963, p. 3) and includes physical and social blemishes and markers (e.g., physical deformities, incarceration, racial and ethnic makeup). Moreover, scholars have suggested that there are various types of personal stigma, including perceived, anticipated, and experienced stigma. Perceived stigma refers to an individual perception of stigma as it applies to his or her group more generally (and in this case, former gang members) and thus the awareness of such stigma (Moore, Stuewig, & Tangney, 2013). However, of primary interest in this article are anticipated and experienced stigmas. Anticipated stigma refers to future incidents or events in which the individual expects to be personally discriminated against due to one’s identity (Gerlinger et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2013; Moore, Stuewig, & Tangney, 2016; Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009), whereas experienced stigma represents the actual incidents of discrimination and restriction encountered by stigmatized persons (Gerlinger et al., 2013). It is these two forms of stigma that are examined in this article particularly because they describe a personal sense of stigma (and not simply the awareness of it; Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009) and how these stigmas will and do personally impact their lives.

It is important to keep in mind that stigma is not only an attribute but also a multifaceted and dynamic social process. According to Link and Phela (2001), stigma is a process that occurs when “elements of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination co-occur together in a power situation that allows the components of stigma to unfold” (p. 367). Given this social distinction, deviant groups are relegated into a “them” category, effectively separating the dangerous classes from the rest of society. This is especially evident for criminals and former inmates, namely in the form of physical (e.g., jails and prisons) and social separation (e.g., collateral consequences). Importantly, stigma is entirely contingent on social, economic, and political power; in other words, it takes power to stigmatize (Link & Phelan, 2001). For instance, political and social leaders call for and develop policies that directly impact deviant groups such as mandatory minimums, sentence enhancements, and formalized collateral consequences (e.g., sex offender registries). As such, these individuals are subjected to the actions of power actors who apply economic, social, and political penalties to ensure that the criminal brand and shame of incarceration are not forgotten (Austin, 2004).

Generally, stigmatized groups are disadvantaged, resulting in less favorable outcomes such as criminal justice involvement, reduced education, housing, health, and psychological well-being (e.g., LeBel, 2012; Link, 1987; Link & Phelan, 2001; Moore et al., 2013, 2016; Moore & Tangney, 2017). As such, deviant groups are effectively placed in the lower rungs of societal hierarchy, resulting in concrete forms of inequality within various social interactions (Link & Phelan, 2001), including those from the criminal justice system. These separation strategies seemingly validate the perception that these individuals are less-than-human (Goffman, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001). In regard to gang membership, though research suggests that individuals may join to gain status (e.g., Cohen, 1955; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Horowtiz, 1983; Jankowski, 1991; Thrasher, 1927), in doing so, these individuals actually lose status when measured by conventional standards (or what Cohen, 1955, described as the “middle-class values”). Thus, status enhancement through gang membership can actually result in status devaluation according to the measuring rods of conventional society.

Although scholarship have been devoted to the study of stigma among deviant groups in general, relatively less attention has focused on stigma among specific subsets of deviant individuals and offenders. Particularly, although research on gangs has examined collateral consequences associated with membership, the specific topic of stigma is seldom addressed. Gang membership itself is often perceived to be deeply discrediting given several myths attached to the label, including the assumption that gangs are inexorably linked with drugs and violence, they are resilient to any and all prevention/intervention efforts, and members are super predators (Howell, 2012; Howell & Griffiths, 2019). Law enforcement officials view active gang members as more violent and dangerous than nonmembers (Klein, 2004), and this perspective is then associated with intense neighborhood suppression techniques that further ensnares fringe and hardcore members alike (Barrows & Huff, 2009). Additionally, law enforcement officials use gang databases that contain a wealth of personal information that may ultimately become available to members of the general public and lead to discrimination and further negative attention from law enforcement officials (Leyton, 2003). Indeed, there can be a greater stigma attached to the gang label than criminal behavior itself (Bullock & Tilley, 2008).

It is well established in the literature that gang membership is associated with a variety of negative and often cumulative detrimental outcomes; however, relatively little research has assessed perceptions of stigma among former members. One area of research that has examined this issue to a limited extent is that which focuses on gang tattoos. Indeed, tattoos are used by law enforcement officials when determining placement in prison and determining an individual’s rank within the gang (Phelan & Hunt, 1998; Poljac & Burke, 2008). Even after disengagement, tattoos may serve as a “constant connection to their criminal past” (Poljac & Burke, 2008, p. 15) and prevent full acceptance into mainstream society (Phillips, 2001; Rosen & Cruz, 2018). In addition to tattoos, research in the area of disengagement found that a majority of former gang members continued to worry about ongoing harassment from the police in the time following exit. In fact, former gang members reportedly feared ongoing negative treatment from the police more than from their former gang colleagues and rivals (Decker, Pyrooz, & Moule, 2014). Their concerns may not be unfounded as law enforcement officers may be unlikely to believe that gang disengagement is genuine (Densley & Pyrooz, 2017). Although Decker, Pyrooz, and Moule’s (2014) study provides important insight into the residual consequences of gang membership, the focus of the study was not on stigma and discrimination and the results relied heavily on the reporting of frequencies without capturing the rich narratives offered by former members. One study conducted by Rosen and Cruz (2018) did focus on discrimination in the time following gang exit; however, much of their discussion conflated stigma associated with demographic variables such as being young in age, having a low socioeconomic status, and a low education with that of a former gang status. Also, the generalizability of their results to a U.S. population is uncertain considering their study focused exclusively on former gang members living in El Salvador.

Although the gang disengagement literature has made important strides by increasing our understanding of the motives and social processes associated with leaving, we know very little about the experiences of ongoing stigma among a sample of individuals who have since exited the gang. Treatment on behalf of law enforcement and other members of the general public in the time since leaving could have important implications for the ultimate success of disengagement and the ability of important structural changes to occur (i.e., marriage, employment; Sampson & Laub, 1993). The process and methods associated with disengagement are important to consider; however, this study takes a different approach and advances an important area of knowledge by examining the residual stigma associated with gang membership that persists long after exit.

Data and Method

This study relied on life history interviews with a sample of 30 former gang members in a medium-sized city located in the Midwestern United States. Gaining access to this sample required a considerable amount of time and also utilized the help of numerous gatekeepers in the community. Current and former gang members typically represent “hidden populations” that are difficult to research because of limited accessibility (Fleisher, 2000). The second author began making contact with current and former gang members after expressing his desire to study gangs with an acquaintance. Contact with this individual began during the summer of 2010 and continued for approximately 1 year. After a few months of speaking to this person, he invited the second author to spend time at a local gas station where he worked. He explained how the gas station was located in a gang neighborhood and was used as a hangout spot for numerous individuals involved with gangs. Furthermore, this individual said he knew numerous high-ranking gang members in the city where the research was conducted. The gas station was located at an intersection that included the same street that was claimed by the most notorious and largest Crip gang operating in the city. The second author began spending time at this gas station when the acquaintance was working and began making contacts with numerous individuals who would later prove to be vital to the success of data collection efforts. According to Fleisher (2000), one of the cardinal rules of street ethnography is to be present in the neighborhood as much as possible. The experience created opportunities for contact with numerous members of the community that included current gang members, former gang members, and a variety of individuals who considered themselves community activists working to prevent violence.

Over time, the second author learned about a community network approach to the problem of street gangs where the local chief of police, police captains, religious leaders, gang interventionists and preventionists, leaders of summer job programs, and other concerned citizens would meet on a weekly basis for approximately an hour to discuss community violence and other social problems. While attending these weekly meetings, the second author met numerous former gang members who would serve directly as research participants as well as several other gatekeepers who would recommend referrals in the community. One such individual included in this study was Henry¹—a former high-ranking member of a Crip gang from the West Coast. Henry left the gang life but remained devoted to helping people exit from gangs using a street-level approach. This individual proved invaluable for gaining access to other former gang members as he was involved in gangs in the city since the mid-1980s. The second author met numerous former gang members who were well known in the community while attending these meetings. In addition to attending these meetings, the second author attended various community events such as marches to end violence and protests of police abuse of power, town hall style meetings, and other community recreational center events. This level of immersion provided numerous opportunities to meet many members of the community including former gang members. Other individuals were contacted through snowball sampling techniques.

The second author conducted semistructured interviews with former gang members between May 2011 and July 2013. The name of the city and study participants are concealed as a precaution to mask their identities and provide anonymity. Instead, pseudonyms are used whenever a proper name is referencing a person, place, or gang. Although gang research has historically revealed the location of research, in this instance, the benefits of engaging in such practice are outweighed by the need for human subject protection.

The sample comprised 20 African Americans, 6 Hispanics or Latinos, 1 Caucasian, and 3 individuals who described themselves as having multiple races and ethnicities. Additionally, there are 29 males and 1 female represented in the sample. The goal of the original study was to determine the motives for gang exit while also collecting as much additional information as possible using a life history framework. There were numerous times when snowball sampling efforts would ebb and flow; however, toward the end of the study period, the number of referrals willing to participate in the study began to decline significantly. Furthermore, the interviews uncovered a level of saturation regarding important themes related to motives for gang exit. With regard to sample size and composition, attempts were also made to include additional females into the sample. There was only one additional referral for a female study participant, but unfortunately this individual declined to be interviewed. A wide range of diversity existed among participants, and of the 30 individuals, they represented a history of involvement in 23 different gangs in the city of interest. Slightly less than half of the study participants (13 individuals or 43%) were in the gang for a time of between 11 and 20 years. Relatedly, 18 individuals described their status while in the gang as of high status (original gangsters, shot-callers, or veteranos) whereas the remaining 12 participants described themselves as being regular members without a leadership role in their respective gangs. There was a large age range across study participants, with the youngest and oldest being 22 and 55 years of age, respectively. The median age across study participants was 35 years. At the time of the interview, 17 participants indicated they were single, separated, or divorced and 13 individuals were married. A total of 23 individuals were employed in various professions at the time of the interview including those in the trade and food industry as well as local social service agencies and state and federal organizations. When interviews were conducted, members of the sample had both an average and median time span of approximately 11 years since leaving the gang (the range of time since gang exit was approximately 1–22 years at the time of the interviews).

Life history interviews began by asking participants about their earliest memories and progressed chronologically by asking them to describe events and conditions such as family characteristics, behavior in school, reasons for joining and leaving the gang, and experiences in the time following gang membership. Life histories provide robust data that capture the subtle ways individuals link the past, present, and future to their sense of introspection and identity development (McAdams, 1990, 1993) and are commonly used to study deviant groups because they provide a comprehensive level of detail on various social, psychological, and structural characteristics that precedes and follows involvement in criminal groups (Bubolz & Lee, 2018; Bubolz & Simi, 2015; A. Campbell, 1984; Fleisher, 2000; Gilfus, 1992; Giordano, 2010; Shaw, 1930, 1931; Shover, 1996; Simi, Bubolz, & Hardman, 2013; Simi, Futrell, & Bubolz, 2016; Simi, Sporer, & Bubolz, 2016; Vigil, 1988; Whyte, 1943). This technique is useful for studying stigma because it allows the researcher to identify the degree of disruptiveness stigma has on life circumstances as well as the longevity, or course, of stigma which indicates its permanence (Link, Yang, Phelan, & Collins, 2004).

Interviews were conducted in a variety of natural environments that included local restaurants at a secluded table, inside vehicles, and inside the participants’ homes and front lawns. Natural environments are superior to locations unknown to study participants because they encourage a more relaxed environment, aid in the development of rapport, and increase the validity of responses (Fleisher, 2000). The typical interview session lasted approximately 2½ hr; however, some interviews greatly exceeded that average. Additionally, some participants allowed for interviews and observations across an entire day and on multiple occasions. Among the 30 study participants, there were a total of 58 interview sessions because nearly two thirds of the sample allowed follow-up interviews (for some respondents, there were multiple follow-up sessions). Interview sessions were tape recorded and later transcribed. In addition to semistructured life history interviews, observation notes were recorded in situations that provided opportunities of a more ethnographic nature. The data were then analyzed by both authors using a modified grounded theory technique. Grounded theory allows research findings to emerge from the data through an inductive process (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Instead of theory testing, this method attempts to be unassuming in approach and therefore is suitable for the discovery of new ideas and findings. The original intent of the study was to examine the motives for disengagement using a comprehensive life history approach; however, soon after the study began, it became apparent that stigma and discrimination was an emergent theme. Two specific questions that addressed stigma and discrimination were then asked of study participants. Participants were first asked “What do most people think about you personally because of your status as a former gang member?” and then subsequently “What do most people in society think of former gang members?” Although the latter question appeals to perceived stigma, individuals often used this as an opportunity to talk about their personal experiences and anticipated episodes with discrimination. Furthermore, given the flexibility afforded by semistructured interviews, participants also discussed stigmatic experiences while responding to questions related to their interactions with law enforcement, difficulties finding employment, community perceptions, and negative long-term effects of gang membership. These questions, in addition to those explicitly asking about stigma, allowed us to analyze both anticipated and experienced aspects of stigma that deal with discrimination. Both authors engaged in coding and reflexive discussion to validate findings and achieve intercoder reliability (J. L. Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, & Pedersen, 2013).

Findings

Of the 30 participants, 20 male respondents spoke about stigma. Therefore, the prevalence reported in this section is based on this subset of individuals. As detailed in the literature, although stigma is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon that entails the interaction of several processes (e.g., labeling, discrimination), we looked specifically at individual-level experiences, notably experienced and anticipated stigmas as it related to discrimination. To reiterate, the former refers to actual experiences with stigma that have occurred in the past, whereas the latter refers to an individual’s anticipation of personal disparate treatment by others in the future. As such, these stigmas can be temporally distinguished. Given this conceptual distinction (Moore et al., 2013, 2016; Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009), our analysis indicates that both types existed among former gang members. In particular, 17 of the 20 participants (85%) talked about personally experiencing stigma from across all categories of sources (i.e., the police, society, and/or employers). Likewise, 15 participants (75%) expressed concern over anticipated stigma from these same sources. While the type of stigma is important, it is clear that participants were more concerned with the sources of stigmatization. In other words, participants’ discussion of stigma revolved primarily around their interactions with the police and general public. Specifically, 16 participants who spoke about stigma (80%) recalled at least one incident in which they anticipated or actually experienced unfair treatment by the police in the time since gang exit. Moreover, 17 participants (85%) suggested that the general public (including employers) treated them differently—or at least they anticipated they would—given their former gang status. In the following sections, we elaborate more on these findings.

Experienced Stigma From the Police

The history between gangs and the police is one marked by diametric opposition. Gangs constitute one of the most criminally active and enduring groups in the United States (Curry et al., 2014). Given this strained relationship, nearly two thirds of participants who spoke about stigma (65%) suggested that despite leaving the gang, they continued to experience incidents of police harassment and indifference. In other words, they were perceived and approached like current gang members despite their insistence that they were formers. Greg and Tony’s experiences with the police highlight this challenge.

Police are the only ones that treat me bad since my change. Everybody else respects the fact that I left the gang alone. It seems like the only…I would call them haters, that’s the word nowadays, haters is the police department. I can’t think of anybody else who looks down on me for making the change. (Greg, July 30, 2012, 4 years since gang exit)

Because no matter what you doing different…They [the police] ask me what I’m doing. They pulled all my money out of my pocket, they said where did you get this from? Man, I got out, man, I work now. I showed them the pay stub. I said, that paycheck is still right there. I’m with the Goodwill program. They [the police] started talking down on me, you with that program, you trying to change your life, but you ain’t going to change. (Tony, July 31, 2012, 1 year since gang exit)

Members of the sample reported that law enforcement was locked in a script of suspicion and maintained an “us versus them” perspective that only served to further deteriorate relationships and exacerbate distrust. The following individual named Jerry left the gang in the year 1997 and described a harmful incident with law enforcement that occurred approximately 6 years after leaving his gang while visiting a neighboring state. He was arrested for public intoxication and placed in a holding cell after an argument occurred with his girlfriend.

I got arrested over there, they beat me up real bad…They were making fun of me for being a gang member. They were just in there, and then the one would come back and then he was like, oh, you’re a big gang member from Pleasantville, huh, blah blah blah, taunting me. Finally me I was like, hey man, can I just bond out of here…I just wanted to go, you know…Anyways, I got a little irritated and I started kicking the door with my handcuffs on. They came in and leg swept me, really beat the shit out of me…it was bad. They hog-tied me up with my ankles to my wrists. Then I got out like an hour later. They were using blackjacks and stuff on my temple or whatever, some sort of pressure point thing that makes you so you can’t even see and stuff and kicking me in the nuts…they were totally working me over. (Jerry, December 3, 2012, 15 years since gang exit)

Although Jerry’s demeanor while incarcerated likely influenced the treatment he received from law enforcement, the officers also engaged in taunting behaviors when learning of his gang past. Jerry attributed their aggressive and demeaning behavior to his past gang involvement and the negative treatment he received progressed from verbal abuse into physical and violent behaviors. Numerous study participants described experienced stigma on behalf of law enforcement; however, another portion of the sample also described how they anticipated negative future treatment on behalf of law enforcement.

Anticipated Stigma From the Police

Although participants’ accounts with experienced stigmatization impinged their daily lives, our analysis indicated that anticipated experiences with stigma were equally problematic. As noted earlier, anticipated stigma is the anticipation of personal rejection or discrimination from others due to an individual’s identity (Moore & Tangney, 2017)—and in this case, one’s former gang status. Over half of the participants (55%) described these feelings and suggested that their former status would likely invoke future instances of harassment from the police. However, it became apparent that these anticipated events were prompted by their general feelings about the police; that is, how the police operated as a crime control agency whose indifferent approach generated discriminatory practices. In this way, participants’ feelings of anticipated stigma were informed from previous negative experiences and worldviews about the police. This interplay between anticipated and experienced stigmas has been teased out in previous literature as well (e.g., Farrelly et al., 2014; Lasalvia et al., 2013). When asked whether participants felt their status as a former member would elicit personal devaluation from the police, participants agreed, suggesting that the police were interested in perpetuating the city’s gang problem (Fleisher, 2000; McCorkle & Miethe, 1998; Meehan, 2000; Zatz, 1987) and, thus, maintaining a mind-set and repertoire of practices that were advantageous to such practice. For instance, Richard felt that the police were conspiring against him by explicitly drawing on his former gang status and sensationalizing the gang problems in his city.

There’s always that connection. I don’t think they [the police] want it [gang membership] to go away…I feel like they’re doing it just in case something happened to me, they’ll say, well, see, we told you. If this man was decent, why would he be connected to these people [gang members]? (Richard, December 17, 2012, 18 years since gang exit)

Furthermore, participants stressed the insensitivity police had toward individuals attempting to change their lives. Like their direct experiences with police discrimination, participants here described the police as being too stereotypical and unyielding in their assessment of former gang members. Consequently, these participants felt that their changed lives would be nothing more than paper thin in the eyes of the police. As highlighted by Jake and Greg’s narratives, the police were too rigid in their approach and unjustifiably so.

Police on that once a criminal, always a criminal type shit, like if they had a better attitude about people, like they think motherfuckers don’t change. (Jake, June 15, 2012, 11 years since gang exit)

I could take a walk from here down to the store and I might get, you know, pulled over by an officer and they might say, they might just jump out on me. In the streets they call them the jump out boys. You know, they might just jump out on me and want to pat me down and I’m wondering why, because I’m wearing this…? You can’t be stereotypical. So I think they prejudge the guys on the streets. (Greg, March 12, 2012, 4 years since gang exit)

In short, despite their lengthy disengagement from the gang, participants indicated that they were subjected to unqualified and unprovoked police interactions. Given the relationship between gangs and the police, the accounts here reflect a highly critical view on change. Specifically, our participants felt that law enforcement perceived their change as disingenuous and simply a temporary phase until they returned to their old ways, despite several years of being out of the gang. Likewise and similarly troubling is the anticipation of discriminatory policing. As highlighted by the narratives, it is clear that there is a great degree of anxiety and mistrust in the police and, thus, a seemingly inevitable anticipation of illegitimate policing including practices such as “jumping out” on individuals.

Experienced Stigma From Society

Much like their experiences with the police, almost half the participants (45%) who talked about stigma expressed similar reflections about the general public. While the general public is not responsible for policing and monitoring gang activity, society itself is largely responsible for outcasting these individuals. As Link and Phelan (2001) suggested, stigma is a process that involves several elements that function at the societal level, including a binary distinction between “us” and “them,” the negative attribution to stigmatized persons, the deprivation of status and discrimination, and the social, economic, and political power to actualize stigmatizing policies and practice (e.g., police gang units and gang databases). Given this, it is unsurprising that the majority of participants who spoke about stigma experienced these incidents from the general public, including employers. These experiences were discussed with a mixture of redemption, anger, and frustration. Indeed, Carlos described a personal story of overcoming the odds and proving his “haters” wrong. Cognizant of the negative labels and perceptions about him, Carlos sought to distance himself from his formerly worn gang label, turning to conventional avenues for staying on the right path. However, he acknowledged that despite leading a legitimate lifestyle for nearly two decades, his former gang involvement would never completely disappear. To Carlos, in spite of his personal change and self-redemption, complete acceptance by society was impossible.

I had a strike, a big major strike and no one wanted to help me but I had to earn it…so now the city as a whole says okay, yeah, this is one guy that really changed his life but it took him five years to prove it…[but] you’re always gonna have haters, man, always, there’s still some folks out there that don’t believe in me, they don’t believe in what Champions [sports gym] stands for, you know, they think it’s a, they think it’s a cover up, you know, I mean, it’s just unfortunate but that’s just the way it is. (Carlos, July 16, 2013, 17 years since gang exit)

Jake shared a similar sentiment regarding the impossibility of complete societal acceptance; however, his narrative was less optimistic and highlighted the negative impact that stigmatization can have on an individual. The power differential described by Link and Phelan (2001) can be clearly seen in Jake’s experience: The social and political powers are so overwhelming that it is the source of failure and reinforces old criminal habits as a means of survival. In contrast to Carlos’s redemption story, Jake painted a darker picture filled with anger and frustration, highlighting the multifaceted impact of stigma including the structural (e.g., policy), social (e.g., negative labels), and individual (e.g., awareness of stigmatizing label; Link & Phelan, 2001) elements.

Even when you do change, people think you don’t change, you got this stigma about you like, well you used to be a gang member, oh he used to…sell dope, he shot people…that shit is a long time ago. You a whole completely different person, but don’t nobody allow you to change…Like eventually you gonna go back doing the same thing because ain’t shit to do. Like how, you can’t get a job, can’t do this, can’t do that. Here you can’t even eat, like me I come down here like damn you get assistance, no, it’s a lifetime ban on drug dealers…even if I’m changed. (Jake, June 15, 2012, 11 years since gang exit)

While participants anticipated stigmatization from the general public, it became evident that stigmatization from potential employers was an acute concern for some of our participants. These concerns are consistent with previous research that has examined the damaging impact of stigma (e.g., race and criminal history) on employment (e.g., Decker, Ortiz, Spohn, & Hedberg, 2015; Holzer, Raphael, & Stoll, 2006; Pager, 2003; Pager, Western, & Sugie, 2009; Schwartz & Skolnick, 1962). As illuminated by Jake’s narrative, employers also reinforced the division between law abiding citizens and former gang members. Although employers may not have explicit knowledge of their past gang involvement, blemishes often associated with gang members are easily recognized, most notably tattoos (Gambetta, 2009; Nasir, 2016; Phelan & Hunt, 1998; Phillips, 2001; Poljac & Burke, 2008; Steward, 1990; Valentine, 2000). Although such rejection may have been due to policy (as Tony told himself), ultimately tattoos served to disqualify them from potential jobs despite having no serious criminal records.

Yeah, one job told me, we aren’t going to hire you because you got teardrops. I knew that was just they policy though. Coming here with it I went to them like dang, I wasn’t nervous or nothing in the interview. I answered all the questions right on time and all this and all that. Then I don’t have any felonies or anything like that but I still didn’t get the job, man, what’s going on? Was it because of these teardrops that’s on my face? I really felt like that’s what it was. (Tony, July 31, 2012, 1 year since gang exit)

Some employers won’t see you. The only places probably open to work at is a meat packing place, you know what I mean? Because anybody at those places, you have tattoos on your face, they’re not going to care. If you’re trying to look for a professional job or something then sometimes that’s where the rejection comes in. They’re not going to mess with you…Like I was going to work at a tech company…Everything checked out but I guess when they called me for an interview and they saw my tattoos [on my neck] and they’re like up against a wall, against a fence, you know. They really won’t mess with you. (Johnny, February 1, 2013, 5 years since gang exit)

It is clear that experiences with discrimination from society impacted how participants viewed their chances at future life success and the authenticity of their change. Although these perceptions are impacted by direct experiences of societal stigma, anticipated incidents of stigma from society can have an equally negative impact.

Anticipated Stigma From Society

In addition to experienced stigmatization from the general public, 9 of the 20 (45%) participants anticipated prejudicial treatment from society. They felt that the general public would be just as unforgiving as the police and that once they were marked, they would be marked for life. This stigma would carry with it a constant cycle of judgement. Consequently, participants anticipated accusations about continuing involvement in both the gang and its criminal activities, despite disengagement in both. Indeed, as Ray (November 19, 2012, 13 years since gang exit) stated, “With the former, the former is real small, that’s what people see, the former, but…that gang member stands out.” Moreover, while this mind-set seems to hold some permanence for these individuals, it was clear that the anticipation of stigma could have an impact on one’s actual behaviors. As stigmatized individuals come to expect and even fear rejection (as our participants did), “they may act less confidently…or they may simply avoid a potentially threatening contact altogether” (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 374). As illustrated by Daryl’s high level of “stigma consciousness” (i.e., high expectation for being stereotyped; Pinel, 1999), his anticipation of stigma transformed his goals and political aspirations into opportunities for devaluation and further stigmatization, leading to the abandonment of his political pursuits.

Some people get scared of you. Some people look at you as you was a gang member, you always on the negative side. You can never do anything positive, you’re labeled a gang member. You know what one of my dreams is?…I want to run for city council, then hopefully mayor…You know what’s going to stop me though? My past…my being an ex-gang member. Not all that I’ve done in this community because there’s no light being shined on that…the disaster work that I do; the community work that I do with all these gang members of helping them turn they life around…But, you don’t see that on TV. You don’t see nobody writing that story. So, therefore, all I’m remembered as to the higher people is what’s written in them papers. (Daryl, May 9, 2013, 18 years since gang exit)

In spite of this seemingly dark outlook, some participants also revealed that stigma could be attenuated through personal communication, that is, by getting to actually know the individual. Through this process, it is likely that one’s former gang status is disclosed as a means to reduce the possibility of rejection from others and “the risk that more morally disreputable interpretations might be applied” (Schneider & Conrad, 1980, p. 41). Through preventative telling and education of others (Flores, 2014; Link, Cullen, Struening, Shrout, & Dohrenwend, 1989; Schneider & Conrad, 1980), former gang members are able to present a transformative story of themselves through “redemption scripts” as a way to manage their stigma (Flores, 2014; Maruna, 2001). For instance, when asked if he could ever escape stigmatization from society, Nick responded that:

I doubt it. I mean once they get to know me then they will, oh yes, he did involve with that, but that don’t stop him, he’s changed…but I know a lot of people think that I’m still involved with them, once they get to know me they’re like oh yes, they stop judging me. (Nick, April 6, 2013, 5 years since gang exit)

In summary, like their experiences with the police, participants recalled specific incidents where they were discriminated against due to their past involvement with the gang. Generally, societal stigmatization illustrates the pervasive and multifaceted impact of stigma that operates at the structural, social, and individual levels (Link & Phelan, 2001). The intertwining and dynamic nature of this process ultimately trickles down to the individual, where stigma is clearly felt. Despite this overwhelming force, these participants were able to resist rejoining the gang, however, with the knowledge that they would never gain full citizenship into “normal” society. As Carlos pointed out, there would always be “haters” and doubters, despite massive efforts toward self-redemption. Moreover, the anticipations described by participants reflected frustrating accounts of their own stigma as reinforced and portrayed in society. They were fully aware of the negative labels attached to their former gang status and as such, anticipated disparate treatment. Indeed, the narratives highlighted the enduring nature of stigma and the implications associated with such presumptions about one’s character; and as such, participants expected to be continually labeled as “gang members” rather than “former gang members.”

Sources of Stigma

Although participants attributed their stigmatic experiences to their former status, gang membership itself is a latent, unobservable identity. Put simply, the gang identity does not involve some sort of organic or bodily transformation to signify one’s current or former gang membership to outsiders. Instead, members may signal their gang status more superficially, through tattoos and dressing a certain way (i.e., voluntary self-presentation). Moreover, gang involvement may be determined through official sources of gang intelligence—that is, being entered into a gang database. It is these observable qualities that seem to be the “sources” of stigma. Considering this, we provide a preliminary examination of these sources based on the insights of 16 participants. They suggested that voluntary self-presentation (i.e., having tattoos and their style of dress) and official sources of gang intelligence (i.e., being in a gang database) were the two most recognized sources of their former status.

Despite the mainstream appeal of tattoos and its social acceptability (DeMello, 2000; Kosut, 2006), eight participants informed us that tattoos were the clearest signal of their former gang membership. This is not too surprising given that tattoos (especially those located on the face or neck) have been associated with social deviants for over 100 years (Kosut, 2006) and continue to be a source of identity work, visually communicating to others their past gang membership, accomplishments, and status (Phelan & Hunt, 1998). Participants expressed concern that their tattoos would indelibly link them to their past gang history and that police officers would rely on these visual markers as grounds for harassment and questioning. For instance, the following individual described an incident in the time following membership when he was stopped by a police officer and treated differently because of a gang tattoo located on his neck.

…anywhere I get pulled over, it comes out Shark [street nickname] from 32nd Street, you know. Like the other day I had an accident and the cop asked me, hey Mr. Smith, you know, what is that on your neck? I was like, that’s a 32nd Street. He goes, oh so you’re a gang member. I was like, I used to be, not no more, I used to run with some of the people. (Nick, April 6, 2013, 5 years since gang exit).

Likewise, participants informed us that potential employers responded similarly to their tattoos. It is very possible that to employers, tattoos served as a reasonable indicator of one’s character and, more importantly, the negative qualities (and myths) often associated with gang members. As was mentioned in the results section on experienced stigma from society, Tony and Johnny described feelings of rejection from potential employers due to their visible neck and facial tattoos.

Seven participants stated that “dressing like a gang member” also elicited discrimination from police and society. Specifically, individuals who wore T-shirts of a color typically associated with gangs, saggy pants, and hats turned to one side were viewed as maintaining gang membership. However, to these participants, this was a grossly inappropriate judgment of gang membership seeing as the described apparel choice and fashion was a common “urban style” trend in their neighborhoods. As such, participants felt that making a distinction between gang and nongang members based on how they dressed was completely unjustified. Nonetheless, they recognized that the police and outside community members continued to utilize this as a legitimate criterion for assigning gang membership. Indeed, Johnny recalled an incident when gang officers stopped to question his presumed gang affiliation in large part due to the T-shirt he had on:

Some gang unit, they’ll still stop me, man. They always stop me…They always come to me, are you still in a gang? What gang are you from? Always. I was standing outside my house…they were coming through and this gang [unit] just cruises by the street…I was wearing a Los Angeles shirt, they come back and ask me to come over, I’m like, what? What do you want? They said, where are you from? Where your gang at? What are you talking about, man? I’m not in a gang. I was bald headed too, I was shaved for the summer. They were like, well you have Los Angeles on your shirt. Well, it doesn’t mean shit. I remember saying shit why does that mean I have to say I’m with a gang. (Johnny, February 1, 2013, 5 years since gang exit)

Interestingly, although the following study participant acknowledged racial profiling (toward Blacks) as a common occurrence in his neighborhood in Pleasantville, he noted that looking the part of a gang member solicited greater police attention and harassment in spite of one’s race.

The cops here only have an agenda. No cop wants to be in North Pleasantville, so if I’m [a police officer] going to be in North Pleasantville I’m going to ride the hell out of these people. There is a lot of racial profiling and stereotyping. Now if me and you [the second author] were to go down to the neighborhood and stand on the corner, they’re going to mess with me because I got on my red shirt, I got my hat with the C crossed out, black shirt with a red G. I got on a cross. I got tattoos. They’re going to be prone to mess with me before they mess with you, even if you were black. (Jason, February 16, 2013, 13 years since gang exit)

Similarly, both Jason and Johnny expressed that certain hairstyles were perceived by the police as being gang-related, namely, buzzed hair, braids, and dreads (in addition to clothing). These perceptions seem intimately tied to race, as the “cholo” aesthetic includes buzzed or shaved hair (and in Johnny’s case noted above, who is of Latino descent; Rodríguez, 2006; Vigil, 1988) and with braids and dreads being culturally black (Rose, 1991; C. Thompson, 2009). Indeed, hairstyle according to Flores (2014) can be seen as a “soft embodiment” of gang masculinity. As Jason (February 16, 2013, 13 years since gang exit) explicitly stated,

I used to have dreads. In this neighborhood if you got braids or dreads you’re a gang member. I cut my hair off in ‘07…You wouldn’t believe the amount, the decrease of the times I have been pulled over. They’ll try to say, you did a trifle thing so on and so forth. They’ll use any excuse under the sun to pull you over. Some of the cops laugh at me.

While aspects of voluntary self-presentation were the most frequently cited indicators of former gang membership, five participants stated that official sources of gang intelligence were another important source of stigma, namely being listed in a gang database. Although being on a database requires initial detection from law enforcement officers (i.e., other signals or cues of one’s gang membership are drawn on first before being listed), it remains a consistent source of stigmatization among former gang members. In particular, despite being out of the gang, remaining in the system can engender discriminatory responses from the police as the data may be outdated and not reflective of an individual’s former status. As such, one’s entry in the gang database is truly a residual consequence of gang membership.

…that’s why I was trying to say like what level would you be at? The captain or pawn or maybe king or a pawn, you’re in the gang, you’re in the gang. You ask gang unit, they’ll tell you or the gang unit or intelligence they’ll tell you, you never off the gang list. To this day, I’m on the gang list but it won’t take me off. I asked them well how did I get on there, that’s what I want to know. What justifies me to be on there? They were like, the top three are self-admittance, um then there are crimes, and things of that nature. I’ve done basically all those. I said, so there’s no way to ever be off of it, they keep it like a chart. No matter what we gonna keep you in there…(Kyle, July 24, 2013, 14 years since gang exit)

Although not frequently discussed among study participants, it is interesting to note that the media also served as a source of stigma. As described earlier in this article, Daryl perceived his source of stigma as resulting from local news coverage describing him as a gang member. He believed this sealed his fate as both the public and law enforcement would be insensitive to and dismissive of his change. Daryl’s media label problematizes escape from his gang past in two notable ways: First, he is more likely to be attached to his past simply due to the viewership of these news outlets. Second, there is a great degree of permanence to these media stories. Despite the passage of time, they will always be available to the public, whether through the Internet or catalogued microfilms.

Discussion and Conclusion

Drawing from life history interviews among 30 former gang members, this study explores anticipated and experienced stigma that continues to persist long after gang exit has occurred as well as other potential sources that intimate their past gang involvement. We found that despite an average of 11 years away from their gang, 20 participants expressed concern over stigmatizing experiences from the police and general public. Specifically, they articulated both anticipated and experienced stigma as manifested through discrimination. Regarding the police, participants indicated that they have been victim to police discrimination and indifference despite their former status. Likewise, participants also anticipated negative treatment given what they perceived to be a gang industry and necessity of perpetuating the gang problem. In addition, participants expressed similar concerns regarding society and employers. Like their experiences with the police, participants felt that their former gang status was not truly respected. As such, they described feeling marked by society and consequently, trapped in a cycle of judgement. Additionally, 16 participants described potential sources that seemingly revealed their past gang involvement, namely, voluntary self-presentations (i.e., tattoos and style of dress) and official sources of gang intelligence (i.e., gang databases).

As with all research, this study contains numerous limitations. For instance, the stigmatic experiences uncovered in this study could be influenced by a variety of other factors including criminal history, race/ethnicity, and gender. Gang membership is a particularly focused phenomenon, as it is incredibly racialized and gendered (i.e., young minority men; Curry et al., 2014). As such, these demographic features may account for some of the stigma described here. Indeed, in Rosen and Cruz’s (2018) examination of stigma among former Salvadorian gang members, they found that discrimination revolved around age and socioeconomic status, as well as location of neighborhood residence—sources that do not directly link to gang membership. Similarly, due to the nature of the data, we were unable to objectively disentangle (i.e., analyze the actual reasons for police and societal discrimination) between anticipated and experienced stigma as a result of the aforementioned characteristics (or as a combination of these factors; e.g., gang membership and race). Therefore, it may be a constellation of multiple factors (former gang membership included) operating simultaneously. Namely, given our findings, we suspect that one’s former gang status, in conjunction with the aforementioned sources of stigma, operates together to produce stigmatic experiences. It is important to note that the former gang identity may remain salient in understanding stigma, given that the police are likely to remember the faces and names of certain former gang members due to past encounters. The former label may take on a life of its own beyond other “signals” of former gang membership (e.g., tattoos, clothing).

Considering this, future quantitative assessment of this process should employ mediation analyses to tease out both direct and indirect effects of one’s former status (in addition to demographic markers) on stigmatic outcomes. Specifically, it is possible that experienced stigma is a function of one’s former status operating indirectly through measures of voluntary self-presentation (i.e., tattoos and dress). Likewise, direct effects between former gang status and stigma may still be observed given the skepticism that law enforcement and society hold about formers (i.e., “once a gang member always a gang member”). As such, knowledge of one’s gang past may still directly elicit stigmatic responses despite changes in one’s self-presentation and removal from a gang database. While examining these relationships would undoubtedly clarify the theoretical pathway between one’s former gang identity and stigma, testing these mediation propositions requires quantitative data that is of sufficient sample size, contains variations along demographic and gang-related dimensions, and includes some measure of objective stigma (e.g., the actual police response and intention driving these responses). Unfortunately, at this time, such data are unavailable for analysis in the current study.

In contrast to research conducted by Rosen and Cruz (2018), participants in this study specifically described the source of their stigma as deriving directly from their former gang membership as revealed by things such as tattoos and clothing. As noted earlier, participants were asked how members of society felt about them both personally and generally given their former gang status. In this way, participant’s subjective evaluation of stigma as a residual consequence of their former gang membership (in contrast to their age, sex, race, or criminal history) provides valuable insights into their own experiences, in spite of the absence of more objective assessments of stigma.

Additionally, the frequencies reported should be considered a conservative measure of stigma found among former gang members as not all study participants were asked about this topic during the interviews. Rather, the topic of stigma emerged through the inductive process and specific questions related to this issue were included after the study began. In other words, not all participants were asked for their anticipation of and experiences with stigma (as well as those questions related to stigma; e.g., interactions with the police, long-term negative impacts of gang membership), given that time restraints did not allow these questions to be asked of everyone and the themes did not emerge until later in the course of data collection. For this reason, the extent of stigma as experienced and anticipated by former gang members could be much higher than what is reported in these results. Future research should continue to examine this topic among a broader sample that includes both current and former gang members, law enforcement officials, and potential employers.

Furthermore, this study relies on self-reports and is based on perceptions of stigma that may not reflect the true intent of the police and society to discriminate based on past membership. As such, there may be discrepancies between the participants’ perceptual/subjective evaluations of stigma and those more objectively defined (i.e., the intentions and actions of the “stigmatizers” such as the police). Regardless, sociological research has clearly demonstrated that perceptions are important in their consequences and individuals act in accordance to the way they define social situations (Blumer, 1986; Mead, 1934). Consequently, perceptions are critical to understanding human behavior and the constellation of factors that both facilitate and inhibit desistance from criminal behavior and associated groups. Future research should also examine the coping strategies associated with stigma and the techniques used to attenuate the debilitating effects. One interesting area that should be explored further is the social processes associated with those who choose to publicly reveal their past membership and those who conceal such an association.

In light of these findings, there are numerous policy implications that law enforcement officers and stakeholders in the community should consider. First, although disengagement from gangs is a gradual process that may be complicated by persistent ties to current members (Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2010), positive changes should be celebrated by members of the community. Individuals often believe that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, but the relationship is not deterministic and behavioral patterns can be changed. The idea of “once a gang member always a gang member” is a perception that has a level of permanence and may represent a roadblock on the path toward conforming behaviors. Rather than view former gang members with skepticism and distrust, law enforcement and the community more broadly should adopt a level of cooperation with these individuals. Gang members believe they are stigmatized by both law enforcement and the community more broadly and a constructive conversation that addresses these perceptions may allow formers to feel their road to redemption is possible. It may be determined that law enforcement view declarations of being a former gang member as a “weak signal” of disengagement—the notion that talk is cheap (Densley & Pyrooz, 2017). Through cooperation and dialogue, law enforcement may come to see a genuine form of disengagement and possibly work with former gang members to solve gang problems in the community. For instance, strategies like Cease Fire Chicago and the Comprehensive Gang Model (i.e., “Spergel Model”) take advantage of former gang member’s past experiences and utilize their experiences in a way that serves to prevent crime and violence among current gang members (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009; Skogan, Hartnett, Bump, & Dubois, 2008; Spergel & Grossman, 1997).

Law enforcement and members of the general public such as employers should reconsider the perception that once an individual joins a gang, they remain a threat long after leaving the group. These stereotypes may permanently lock former gang members out of the employment market, leave them feeling socially isolated, and prevent them from achieving their goals and becoming fully enmeshed in mainstream society. By examining the experiences and interactions between former gang members and the police and society, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of effective gang intervention strategies. While one’s former gang status can be concealed to an extent, participants clearly experienced and understood the long-term impacts of their stigmatized identity and the negative interactions it produced between themselves and the police and society. In short, the significance of our findings highlights the enduring nature of stigma and its salience in the lives of former gang members. The narratives highlighted here provide a glimpse into the social world of these individuals and, thus, potential areas for improving and developing more successful efforts at gang reintegration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sou Lee

Note

References

Adamson

(2000). Defensive localism in white and black: A comparative history of European-American and African-American youth gangs. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23, 272–298.

Austin

. (2004). “The shame of it all”: Stigma and the political disenfranchisement of formerly convicted and incarcerated persons. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 36, 173–192.

Barrows

Huff

C. R.

(2009). Gangs and public policy: Constructing and deconstructing gang databases. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 675–703.

Blumer

(1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkley: University of California Press.

Bradley

M. S.

(2007). Girlfriends, wives, and strippers: Managing stigma in exotic dancer romantic relationships. Deviant Behavior, 28, 379–406.

Bubolz

B. F.

Lee

. (2018). Putting in work: The application of identity theory to gang violence and commitment. Deviant Behavior. doi:10.1080/01639625.2018.1437655

Bubolz

B. F.

Simi

(2015). Disillusionment and change: A cognitive-emotional theory of gang exit. Deviant Behavior, 36, 330–345.

Bullock

Tilley

(2008). Understanding and tackling gang violence. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 10, 36–47.

Burchfield

K. B.

Mingus

(2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 356–374.

10.

Campbell

(1984). The girls in the gang: A report from New York City. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 294–320.

12.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

13.

Cohen

A. K.

(1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York, NY: Free Press.

14.

Curry

G. D.

Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

(2014). Confronting gangs: Crime and Community (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

Cyr

J. L. S.

(2003). The folk devil reacts: Gangs and moral panic. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 26–46.

16.

Decker

S. H.

Ortiz

Spohn

Hedberg

(2015). Criminal stigma, race, and ethnicity: The consequences of imprisonment for employment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 108–121.

17.

Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Moule

R. K.

(2014). Disengagement from gangs as role transitions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 268–283.

18.

Decker

S. H.

Van Winkle

(1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends, and violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

19.

DeMello

(2000). Bodies of inscription: A cultural history of the modern tattoo community. London, England: Duke University Press.

20.

Densley

J. A.

Pyrooz

D. C

. (2017). A signaling perspective on disengagement from gangs. Justice Quarterly. Advanced Online Publication. doi:10.1080/07418825.2017.1357743

21.

Duran

R. J.

(2009). Legitimated oppression: Inner-city Mexican American experiences with police gang enforcement. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38, 143–168.

22.

Esbensen

F. A.

Huizinga

Weiher

A. W.

(1993). Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in explanatory factors. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9, 94–116.

23.

Evans

D. N.

Cubellis

M. A.

(2015). Coping with stigma: How registered sex offenders manage their public identities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 593–619.

24.

Farrelly

Clement

Gabbidon

Jeffery

Dockery

Lassman

, … MIRIAD study group. (2014). Anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: A cross sectional study. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 157.

25.

Fleisher

M. S.

(2000). Dead end kids: Gang girls and the boys they know. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

26.

Flores

E. O.

(2014). God’s gangs: Barrio ministry, masculinity, and gang recovery. New York: New York University Press.

27.

Gambetta

(2009). Codes of the underworld: How criminals communicate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

28.

Gerlinger

Hauser

De Hert

Lacluyse

Wampers

Correll

C. U.

(2013). Personal stigma in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A systematic review of prevalence rates, correlates, impact and interventions. World Psychiatry, 12, 155–164.

29.

Gilfus

M. E.

(1992). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4, 63–89.

30.

Giordano

P. C.

(2010). Legacies of crime: A follow-up of the children of highly delinquent girls and boys. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

32.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

33.

Holzer

H. J.

Raphael

Stoll

M. A.

(2006). Perceived criminality, criminal background checks, and the racial hiring practices of employers. The Journal of Law & Economics, 49, 451–480.

34.

Horowtiz

(1983). Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

35.

Howell

J. C.

(2012). Gangs in America’s communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Howell

J. C.

Griffiths

(2019). Gangs in America’s Communities (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Jankowski

M. S.

(1991). Islands in the streets: Gangs and American urban society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

38.

Kaufman

J. M.

Johnson

(2004). Stigmatized individuals and the process of identity. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 807–833.

39.

Klein

M. W.

(2004). Gang cop: The words and ways of officer Paco Domingo. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

40.

Klein

M. W.

(2007). Chasing after street gangs: A forty-year journey. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

41.

Kosut

(2006). Mad artists and tattooed perverts: Deviant discourse and the social construction of cultural categories. Deviant Behavior, 27, 73–95.

42.

Larsen

Patterson

Markham

(2014). A deviant art: Tattoo-related stigma in an era of commodification. Psychology and Marketing, 31, 670–681.

43.

Lasalvia

Zoppei

Van Bortel

Bonetto

Cristofalo

Wahlbeck

, … ASPEN/INDIGO Study Group. (2013). Global pattern of experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by people with major depressive disorder: A cross-sectional survey. The Lancet, 381, 55–62.

44.

LeBel

T. P.

(2012). Invisible stripes? Formerly incarcerated persons’ perceptions of stigma. Deviant Behavior, 33, 89–107.

45.

Lewis

(1998). Learning to strip: The socialization experiences of exotic dancers. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 51–66.

46.

Leyton

(2003). The new blacklists: The threat to civil liberties posed by gang databases. In Hawkins

D. F.

Myers

S. L.

Stone

R. N.

(Eds.), Crime control and social justice: The delicate balance (pp. 109–174). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

47.

Link

B. G.

(1987). Understanding labeling effects in the area of mental disorders: An assessment of the effects of expectations of rejection. American Sociological Review, 52, 96–112.

48.

Link

B. G.

Cullen

F. T.

Struening

Shrout

P. E.

Dohrenwend

B. P.

(1989). A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: An empirical assessment. American Sociological Review, 54, 400–423.

49.

Link

B. G.

Phela

J. C.

(2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.

50.

Link

B. G.

Yang

L. H.

Phelan

J. C.

Collins

P. Y.

(2004). Measuring mental illness stigma. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30, 511–541.

51.

Maruna

(2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

52.

May

(2000). Murderers’ relatives’ managing stigma, negotiating identity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29, 198–221.

53.

McAdams

D. P.

(1990). Unity and purpose in human lives: The emergence of identity as a life story. In Rabin

A. I.

Zucker

R. A.

Emmons

R. A.

Frank

(Eds.), Studying persons and lives (pp. 148–200). New York, NY: Springer.

54.

McAdams

D. P.

(1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

55.

McCorkle

R. C.

Miethe

T. D.

(1998). The political and organizational response to gangs: An examination of a “moral panic” in Nevada. Justice Quarterly, 15, 41–64.

56.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

57.

Meehan

A. J.

(2000). The organizational career of gang statistics: The politics of policing gangs. The Sociological Quarterly, 41, 337–370.

58.

Moore

K. E.

Stuewig

J. B.

Tangney

J. P.

(2013). Jail inmates’ perceived and anticipated stigma: Implications for post-release functioning. Self and Identity, 12, 527–547.

59.

Moore

K. E.

Stuewig

J. B.

Tangney

J. P

. (2016). The effect of stigma on criminal offenders’ functioning: A longitudinal mediational model. Deviant Behavior, 37, 196–218.

60.

Moore

K. E.

Tangney

J. P.

(2017). Managing the concealable stigma of criminal justice system involvement: A longitudinal examination of anticipated stigma, social withdrawal, and post-release adjustment. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 322–340.

61.

Nack

(2000). Damaged goods: Women managing the stigma of STDs. Deviant Behavior, 21, 95–121.

62.

Nasir

K. M.

(2016). Antipodal tattooing: Muslim youth in Chinese gangs. Deviant Behavior, 37, 952–961.

63.

National Gang Center. (2012). National youth gang survey analysis: Gang units. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Gang-Units

64.

National Gang Intelligence Center. (2009). National gang threat assessment, 2009 (No. 2009 M0335-001). Washington, DC: National Drug Intelligence Center.

65.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2009). OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model: Planning for Implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

66.

Östman

Kjellin

(2002). Stigma by association: Psychological factors in relatives of people with mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 494–498.

67.

Pager

(2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937–975.

68.

Pager

Western

Sugie

. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623, 195–213.

69.

Phelan

M. P.

Hunt

S. A.

(1998). Prison gang members’ tattoos as identity work: The visual communication of moral careers. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 277–298.

70.

Phillips

S. A.

(2001). Gallo’s body: Decoration and damnation in the life of a Chicano gang member. Ethnography, 2, 357–388.

71.

Pinel

E. C.

(1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114–128.

72.

Poljac

Burke

(2008). Erasing the past: Tattoo-removal programs for former gang members. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 77, 13–18.

73.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Decker

S. H.

Webb

V. J.

(2010). The ties that bind: Desistance from gangs. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 491–516.

74.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Turanovic

J. J.

Decker

S. H.

(2016). Taking stock of the relationship between gang membership and offending: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 365–397.

75.

Quinn

D. M.

Chaudoir

S. R.

(2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 634–651.

76.

Rodríguez

R. T.

(2006). Queering the homeboy aesthetic. Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 31, 127–137.

77.

Rose

. (1991). “Fear of a black planet”: Rap music and black cultural politics in the 1990s. The Journal of Negro Education, 60, 276–290.

78.

Rosen

J. D.

Cruz

J. M.

(2018). Overcoming stigma and discrimination: Challenges for reinsertion of gang members in developing countries. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 4758–4775.

79.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

80.

Sante

(1991). Low life: Lures and snares of old New York. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

81.

Schneider

J. W.

Conrad

(1980). In the closet with illness: Epilepsy, stigma potential and information control. Social Problems, 28, 32–44.

82.

Schwartz

R. D.

Skolnick

J. H.

(1962). Two studies of legal stigma. Social Problems, 10, 133–142.

83.

Shaw

C. R.

(1930). The jack-roller: A delinquent boy’s own story. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

84.

Shaw

C. R.

(1931). The natural history of a delinquent career. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press.

85.

Shover

(1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

86.

Simi

Bubolz

B. F.

Hardman

(2013). Military experience, identity discrepancies, and far right terrorism: An exploratory analysis. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 36, 654–671.

87.

Simi

Futrell

Bubolz

B. F.

(2016). Parenting as activism: Identity alignment and activist persistence in the white power movement. The Sociological Quarterly, 57, 491–519.

88.

Simi

Sporer

Bubolz

B. F.

(2016). Narratives of childhood adversity and adolescent misconduct as precursors to violent extremism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53, 536–563.

89.

Skogan

W. G.

Hartnett

S. M.

Bump

Dubois

(2008). Evaluation of CeaseFire—Chicago. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

90.

Spergel

I. A.

Grossman

S. F.

(1997). The little village project: A community approach to the gang problem. Social Work, 42, 456–470.

91.

Steward

S. M.

(1990). Bad boys and tough tattoos: A social history of the tattoos with gangs, sailors, and street-corner punks. New York, NY: Haworth Press.

92.

Thompson

(2009). Black women, beauty, and hair as a matter of being. Women’s Studies, 38, 831–856.

93.

Thompson

W. E.

Harred

J. L.

Burks

B. E.

(2003). Managing the stigma of topless dancing: A decade later. Deviant Behavior, 24, 551–570.

94.

Thrasher

F. M.

(1927). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

95.

Valentine

(2000). Gangs and their tattoos: Identifying gangbangers on the street and in prison. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.

96.

Vigil

J. D.

(1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in southern California. Austin: University of Texas Press.

97.

Whyte

W. F.

(1943). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

98.

Zatz

M. S.

(1987). Chicano youth gangs and crime: The creation of a moral panic. Contemporary Crises, 11, 129–158.