Older,Wiser,and a Bit More Badass? Exploring Differences in Juvenile and Adult Gang Members’ Gang-Related Attitudes and Behaviors

Abstract

Concerns regarding older gang members have persisted for nearly a century, and yet, these members have received minimal attention from gang scholars. Drawing conceptually from Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, and Tobin’s enhancement model and recent research on gang embeddedness, this study uses data from active gang members (N = 99) to qualitatively compare juvenile and adult gang members’ gang-related attitudes and behaviors. This research finds considerable overlap in the responses of juvenile and adult gang members. Both groups defined the gang in social terms and expressed a willingness to violently defend gang turf. Adult members, however, reported greater ownership of multiple firearms, supporting Spergel’s contention that lethal violence is more common among adult members due to greater availability of “sophisticated” weapons. The theoretical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

adult gang members gang turf gun ownership and use

Introduction

Since 1996, the National Gang Center (NGC) has administered an annual survey to local police agencies that inquires about gangs, and recent reports estimate there are over 700,000 gang members in the United States (Egley & Howell, 2012). The NGC estimates also indicate that since 1996 law enforcement agencies have reported that at least one half of gang members are adults (National Gang Center [NGC], n.d.). Historical accounts of gangs noted the presence of adult members (Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943) and research since the 1970s suggests this phenomenon is not limited to traditional gang cities (e.g., Decker & van Winkle, 1996; Hagedorn, 1988). Older gang members present unique challenges for communities and law enforcement officials (Egley, Logan, & McDaniel, 2012). Indeed, ethnographic accounts hint toward the possibility of greater group organization on the part of older members (Hagedorn, 1988; Jankowski, 1991), and older members acting as catalysts for group violence or the violent settlement of disagreements (Blumstein, 1995).

Despite these periodic accounts and the perceived consequences of older members for gang-related violence, little has been written regarding older gang members. Research that follows youths over time indicates gang membership is typically fleeting, lasting no more than 1 or 2 years (Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001; Gatti, Tremblay, Vitaro, & McDuff, 2005; Peterson, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2004; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003). Of those gang members who remain longer, these self-report studies find only 5% or so remain for 4 or more years (Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 2004). Panel research therefore typically shows gang joining occurs during early to mid-adolescence (Thornberry et al., 2003), and the vast majority of members do not retain their affiliations into adulthood. Given this evidence, it is not surprising that most research on gang members has focused on youths (Decker, Melde, & Pyrooz, 2012). As a consequence, however, there is an absence of research on adult gang members, which is problematic for at least two reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, there remains concern regarding adult gang membership in the United States because research suggests older members are more involved in especially serious violence (e.g., Maxson, Gordon, & Klein, 1985). Second, scholars have argued that adult members are more capable of directing and organizing their gangs (Decker, Katz, & Webb, 2008) and that adult members come to identify more with the gang as they age (Decker & Curry, 2000). These findings and propositions suggest the presence of older gang members influences internal gang dynamics.

To that end, the current study considers whether the instrumental and symbolic attitudes and behaviors of younger and older gang members differ. We draw on interviews with 99 active gang members in St. Louis, MO, conducted between 1990 and 1993. We examine three specific aspects of membership: (1) definitions and conceptualizations of the gang, (2) the willingness to use violence to defend gang turf, and (3) the prevalence of firearm possession and use. Drawing conceptually from Thornberry et al.’s (2003) enhancement model and recent research on gang embeddedness, we hypothesize that older members will be more likely to define the gang in violent terms, to express a greater willingness to use violence to defend gang turf, and to report greater possession and use of firearms. These proposed relationships speak to adult membership concerns regularly raised by policy makers and gang scholars. We situate our findings in light of contemporary criminological theory and criminal justice practices and offer directions for future research.

Adult Gang Membership in the Postindustrial Era

Concerns about older gang members are not new. In his seminal study of 1920s Chicago gangs, Thrasher (1927, p. 409) noted that “There is no hard and fast dividing line between predatory gangs of boys and criminal groups of younger and older adults. They merge into each other by imperceptible gradations, and the latter have their real explanation, for the most part, in the former.” Subsequent decades of research continued to identify adult gang members. Miller’s (2011) examination of Boston gangs in the mid-1950s found members as old as their early 20s. Robin’s (1967) work with Philadelphia gangs in the early 1960s involved members who were 11 to 25 years old. Moore (1978) also reported adult membership among Chicano gang members in East Los Angeles during the mid-1970s. Vigil (1988) suggested over 20 years ago that an increasing number of men in their late 20s and 30s continued to remain with, or failed to “mature out” of, their gang.

Both individual and structural explanations have been given to explain why individuals remain in their gang beyond adolescence. Using five waves of GREAT data, Melde and colleagues (2012) found that age at gang joining, gang organization, joining for protection, experiencing violent victimization, and participation in violence all increased an individual’s probability of prolonged membership. Hill, Lui, and Hawkins (2001) suggested that prolonged membership was a consequence of behavioral maladjustment and associating with delinquent peers. Recent research has tapped into these associations by examining gang embeddedness. Drawing from Hagan’s (1993) concept of criminal embeddedness, Pyrooz, Sweeten, and Piquero (2012) found weakly embedded members left the gang sooner than those who were more involved. Greater gang involvement corresponds with diminished resources and ties to prosocial networks (Moule, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2013). A reduction in these resources and ties, in turn, necessitates that individuals increasingly rely on the gang for money and prestige, thus prolonging membership. Consistent with this notion, Sweeten, Pyrooz, and Piquero (2012) showed that leaving the gang was partially a consequence of the psychosocial characteristics of the member, as well as demographic features. These studies collectively suggest youths who remain gang members for longer periods of time differ in a number of ways from youths who end their membership more quickly.

These personal characteristics interact with structural factors (Decker, Melde, & Pyrooz, 2012; Decker, Pyrooz, & Moule, 2012). Many cities that saw the emergence of gangs in the 1980s had undergone deindustrialization only a decade earlier (Moore, 1998; Spergel & Curry, 1990; Vigil, 1988). Once gangs emerged in these disadvantaged communities, they failed to disappear. As Hagedorn (2002, p. 103) noted, “Gangs in late modernity don’t go away; they become part of the landscape.” In the immigrant enclaves of the early 20th century, by contrast, the institutionalization of gangs was unlikely to occur (Moore, 1998). In disadvantaged neighborhoods, the declining availability of low-skilled jobs that pay a livable or attractive wage cut off a common pathway by which earlier generations of undereducated youths typically transitioned to productive adulthood (Hagedorn, 2002; Wilson, 1996). These employment dynamics of the “post-industrial” labor market strengthen the allure and influence of the gang (Howell & Decker, 1999). Such structural processes make it less attractive to leave the gang and, in turn, increase the chances of gang membership extending into adulthood (Hagedorn, 1998, 2002; Lasley, 1992; Moore, 1998).

Empirical support for prolonged gang membership in the postindustrial era is found with data from the NGC. NGC gathers survey data from a national sample of local law enforcement agencies (Egley & Howell, 2012). Recent NGC estimates suggest that nearly 60% of gang members were considered adults (ages 18 or older) by local law enforcement (NGC, n.d.). As Maxson (2011) noted, adult membership is found less often in community-based and school-based panel studies that follow juveniles into adulthood. These data generally indicate that gang membership begins in early to mid-adolescence and ends relatively quickly (Maxson, 2011). Klein and Maxson (2006) offered two explanations for why information gathered from the police and panel studies differ on the actual prevalence of adult membership. First, law enforcement personnel are more aware of members who commit serious acts of violence, which are more concentrated among older members (e.g., Maxson, 1999). Second, members are more likely to come to the attention of the police the longer they remain in the gang. These behaviors—prolonged membership and the regular perpetration of serious violence—are sparingly reported by gang members found in community- and school-based panel studies, suggesting that these studies sample many “marginal” gang members who are of less concern to the police. These studies, therefore, likely underrepresent more committed members who are presumably more difficult to access and retain over time. When taken together, these arguments point to an empirical middle ground, where older, adult members constitute a sizable but minority portion of all gang members. Beyond comprising a nontrivial proportion of the gang population, the research suggests older members participate in and promote more serious violence and affect the internal dynamics of gangs.

Adult Gang Member Behavior and Role in Gang Dynamics

Criminal propensity theories suggest that those individuals selecting into gangs will continue to engage in high rates of offending (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Criminal socialization theories alternatively suggest that those individuals joining gangs will become more delinquent over time as a consequence of exposure to delinquent peers and the group processes of the gang (Akers, 2009; Short, 1969; Short & Strodtbeck, 1965). The latter view is consistent with Thornberry and colleagues’ (2003; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, & Chard-Wierschem, 1993) enhancement model, where gang joining promotes elevated levels of criminal behavior even among already delinquent individuals. Scholars have further recognized that “not all gang members are created equal” (Thornberry et al., 2003, p. 6; see also Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2012). Research on gang embeddedness suggests those who are most embedded are likely to exhibit elevated offending profiles (Sweeten, Pyrooz, & Piquero, 2012). These findings have two implications for examining adult gang members. First, those adolescents who prolong gang membership into adulthood are presumably more embedded in their gangs. Second, given the relationship between embeddedness and offending, a nontrivial amount of criminal behavior would be expected of these members.

The concerns expressed by law enforcement regarding older gang members often involve violent offending. Consistent with these concerns, research suggests older members may be easily drawn into conflicts involving younger gang affiliates (Spergel, 1984), and older members are often well respected in gang circles because of their violent reputations (Harding, 2010). Indeed, the evidence suggests it is these older members who often perpetuate lethal violence. For instance, homicide data from a number of U.S. cities indicate that suspects in gang homicides are, on average, young adults between 18 and 24 years of age (e.g., Corsaro & McGarrell, 2009; Maxson, 1999; Pizzaro & McGloin, 2006; Pyrooz, 2012; Rosenfeld, Bray, & Egley, 1999; Spergel, 1986). Egley, Logan, and McDaniel (2012) also found a similar age pattern across gang homicides in five U.S. cities with data from the National Violent Death Reporting System. Similarly, Maxson and colleagues (1985, p. 220), after analyzing gang homicide data from the city and county of Los Angeles, concluded that gang homicide suspects and victims “are older than might be expected of ‘youth gang’ members.” Indeed, while most youths join a gang by 15 years of age, studies of gang homicide clearly suggest that serious gang violence becomes more prevalent as members near or enter adulthood.

These gang homicide findings coincide with two additional concerns associated with adult gang membership. First, research indicates that most gangs are not well organized (Howell, 2007, 2012). One explanation for the loose structure of most gangs deals with the relatively young age of their members. As Decker, Katz, and Webb (2008, p. 155) noted, this perspective calls attention to the “developmental factors” that make it difficult for young members to organize other members and related gang activities. These factors (e.g., shortsightedness, immaturity) subside with age, suggesting that as membership persists beyond adolescence, members may become more adept at organizing and motivating others. Jankowski (1991) and Hagedorn (1988) noted that older members may also affect gang structure by actively recruiting younger members to commit crimes, or by remotely serving as role models for current and prospective members who admire older members’ unencumbered lifestyle (see also Blumstein, 1995). The implication is that more violence is a consequence of older members organizing and providing more structure for the gang (e.g., Bouchard & Spindler, 2010; Decker et al., 2008; Sheley, Zhang, Brody, & Wright, 1995).

Second, members may come to identify more with the gang as they age. Decker and Curry (2000) raised this possibility in their study with current and former gang members of middle school age. They suggested gang involvement was not a “master status” among younger adolescents, but that involvement meant more for older teenagers and individuals in their 20s. Prolonged gang membership erodes relationships with prosocial institutions, such as work, family, and school, which facilitate the successful transition from adolescence to productive and law-abiding adulthood (Moule et al., 2013). As individuals become more embedded in the gang, these social ties outside of the gang subside, until few if any remain. The disintegration of these ties is accelerated and reinforced by criminal justice sanctions. Gang members are likely to be targets of suppression strategies by law enforcement, such as gang injunctions, or penalty enhancements for criminal convictions. Placement in prison can further reify gang ties, as it places even greater emphasis on one’s gang identity and penchant for violence (Pyrooz, Decker, & Fleisher, 2011; Sweeten et al., 2012). When released back into the community, it is often the gang who is waiting for their members, offering opportunities for work or socialization that might otherwise be unavailable (Fleisher & Decker, 2001).

The Current Study

The arguments mentioned above offer compelling reasons to study adult gang members; yet, gang research rarely focuses on adults. The sparseness of such research is noteworthy, given the growing number of studies that compare gang members along other demographic lines. Indeed, prior research has compared attitudes and behaviors of gang members by gender (e.g., Esbensen, Deschenes, & Winfree, 1999; St. Cyr & Decker, 2003) and by race/ethnicity (e.g., Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). Klein (2005) argued that the gang literature is enriched by undertaking such comparative research. Using data from Decker and van Winkle’s (1996) study of active gang members in St. Louis, MO, this research compares juvenile and adult gang members’ responses to questions dealing with the gang and related behaviors. This effort is intended to assess whether the dynamics of gang membership differ between younger and older members.

Our research specifically examines gang member attitudes toward defining the gang, defending gang territory, and the ownership and use of firearms. When these topics are discussed in the literature, much of the commentary deals with violence. For instance, a debate persists in the research concerning how best to define a youth gang (Esbensen et al., 2001). A source of contention is whether involvement in delinquent or criminal activity should be used to define a youth gang (Decker & Pyrooz, 2010). This research assesses to what extent active gang members emphasize crime or violence when asked to define the gang. As Curry and Decker (1997, p. 503) indicated, “gang members themselves are rarely asked their views on the issue.” The arguments raised above suggest that violence becomes an especially salient feature of gang membership as members near or enter adulthood. This research examines whether violence is mentioned more prominently by adult members when defining the gang.

Gang members in the current sample were also asked how they would respond if a rival gang member entered their neighborhood or turf. Historically, territory or turf has been integral to the identity of gangs. Adamson (1998) observed, for instance, that a sizable number of Chicago gangs in Thrasher’s (1927) study were named after streets, city blocks, or neighborhoods. Research continues to indicate that many gangs are territorial, although the existing evidence suggests that often the physical space claimed by contemporary gangs is quite small (e.g., Tita, Cohen, & Engberg, 2005). Nonetheless, gangs assign much symbolic value to this turf and thus often feel compelled to use violence when members perceive this space as threatened by rival groups (Brunson & Miller, 2009; Coughlin & Venkatesh, 2003). Research on the spatial dynamics of gang violence offers evidence of this behavior. Papachristos, Hureau, and Braga (2010) found, for instance, that gangs in Chicago and Boston are more likely to use violence against rival gangs with bordering turf. These spatially proximate groups are certainly perceived as a greater threat to a gang’s territory. While the existing research suggests that protecting turf is a point of emphasis for many gangs, there may be differences across members in their commitment to this priority. Spergel (1990, p. 208) broadly raised this possibility when he noted that “notions of territoriality” likely vary by select characteristics of gang members such as age. This research assesses whether juvenile and adult gang members report a similar willingness to use violence against rival gang members who enter their turf. It stands to reason that members who believe that violence is the appropriate or only response in such instances are particularly committed to defending gang turf.

The final set of questions deals with the ownership, carrying, and use of firearms by gang members. Gun violence is an especially salient feature of gang membership (Decker, 1996, 2007). From the perspective of gang members, gun ownership or possession can serve at least two general functions. First, given that gang members are more likely than nongang members to experience violent crime (Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, & Freng, 2007), they have greater instrumental reason to acquire a gun in order to protect themselves or their turf. Second, gun ownership or possession can also serve as an expressive motive. It is to the advantage of gangs to project a violent image because such a persona is respected on the street (Stretesky & Pogrebin, 2007). Firearm access and use can go a long way in advancing this image because, as Cook (1983, p. 55) noted, “even in the hands of a weak and unskilled assailant, a gun can be used to kill.” Consistent with these arguments, research routinely finds that gang members are more likely than nongang members to possess guns (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995), and research also finds that gang homicide incidents are more likely than nongang homicide incidents to involve a firearm (Block & Block, 1993). Spergel (1995) speculated that gun access and use is more prevalent among older gang members, which presumably increases the likelihood that confrontations involving these members turn deadly. This research examines whether adult members report greater ownership and use of firearms.

Method

Sample

The current sample includes the 99 active gang members from St. Louis, MO, who participated in Decker and van Winkle’s (1996) larger study of gang-related behaviors and attitudes. A snowball sampling strategy was used to locate these 99 active gang members. This method involved the use of a trained field ethnographer who initially located a small number of gang members in the community. These members were then asked to identify other non-imprisoned gang members who might be willing to participate in the study. All of the persons interviewed for the study identified themselves as a gang member, and they all reported actively participating in a gang for at least 6 months prior to their interview. The interviews took place from October 1990 to September 1993.

Roughly 90% of the gang members interviewed in Decker and van Winkle’s (1996) study were black males. The remaining gang members were either Black females (n = 7) or White males (n = 4). The juvenile gang members (n = 65) ranged in age from 13 to 17 ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 15.5), while the adult gang members (n = 34) ranged in age from 18 to 29 ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 19.6). The majority of juvenile gang members reported joining a gang prior to turning 14 ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 13.5), and the average age of gang entry reported by the adult members was 15. In most cases, therefore, the adult members were active in a gang at least twice as long as the juvenile members ( $\overset{ˉ}{x}$ = 4.6 years vs. 2 years). Not surprisingly, then, the adult members reported more contact with the criminal justice system. For instance, 92% of the adult members indicated that they had been arrested at least once, compared to 75% of the juvenile members. A history of multiple arrests was also more common among the adult gang members (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics and Findings.

	Juveniles	Adults
	n = 65	n = 34
Male	93%	94%
Black	99%	91%
Age	M = 15.5	M = 19.6
Age joined gang	M = 13.5	M = 15.0
Length of time (years) in gang	M = 2.0	M = 4.6
At least one prior arrest	75%	92%
Defined gang in violent terms	25%	29%
Claimed gang turf	94%	94%
If yes, would use immediate violence if rival gang member entered turf	89%	91%
Own at least one firearm	67%	94%
If yes, used one or more firearms at least once	86%	93%

Coding

The threshold used to distinguish between juveniles and adults, age 18, was selected for two reasons. First, the concerns of policy makers and law enforcement specifically center on adult gang members (e.g., NGC, n.d.). Second, individuals who are aged 18 or older are considered adults within the U.S. legal system, which corresponds to both opportunities to legally acquire firearms (Cook & Ludwig, 2004; Vernick & Hepburn, 2003) and traditionally increased sanctions for criminal behavior (Bishop, 2000). Based on this age threshold, a systematic review of responses to interview questions dealing with defining a gang, gang territory, and gun ownership and use was undertaken. Responses to the gun- and turf-related questions were reviewed first. These questions were structured (e.g., do you own a gun, do you have a particular area that is important to the gang) and less arduous to categorize. The definition-related question (i.e., what is a gang or why do you call the group you belong to a gang), however, was open-ended and permitted gang members greater latitude in responding. The responses to this question were reviewed using “conceptual tags” that were originally developed by Decker and van Winkle (1996). These tags were bracketed text (e.g., <drug sales>) placed in the interview transcripts that represented the thematic substance of a gang member’s response on each of the questions. These tags were used to identify whether juvenile and adult members referenced similar themes when broadly defining the gang.

Findings

Defining a Gang

The study of gangs often sparks discourse on how best to define a gang (Klein, 1995). This discourse largely centers on whether criminal activities should serve as a criterion in defining a gang. This research explores whether active gang members reference criminal activities in defining a gang. Gang members who do so are presumably more likely to participate in such activities. Given that prior research indicates that especially serious gang violence is concentrated among older adolescents and young adults, there is reason to presume that adult gang members will be more likely to reference violence or criminal activities in defining a gang.

Adult Members

Of the 34 adult gang members, 10 explicitly made some mention of violence or criminal activities when asked to broadly define a gang. However, when these adult gang members referenced such behaviors, additional characteristics of a gang were often discussed. Mike Mike indicated that

A gang is uh, it’s really like a lot of group of people wanna ya know wanna get off into something that they don’t really wanna do and a gang is like I say they start off like 5 to 10 people and they say man yea we gonna start making money together that’s a gang and that’s like unity. They they a gang is when they stay together and then all of a sudden they wanna wear different colors and say yea anybody that trip off our colors we gonna kill em ya that’s all that’s that’s really whats all the gang is about.

Another adult gang member referenced criminal activities in defining a gang, but did so in a manner to make it understood to the interviewer that his gang engages in other activities besides violence. There were no other respondents among the adult gang members who attempted to downplay their gang’s involvement in criminal activities or violence. Big Money noted that

To my knowledge it’s a group of fellas. Not just fellas but ones that can depend on each other that’s all down for the same thing. Everybody think gang ain’t nothing but just thinking about being violent. Your gang, we think about working. Yeah, we sit in the parking lot and we drink. We try to get jobs and stay off the streets. We don’t want to be known. We want to be known but we don’t want to be known in no wrong way. We already got that impression now. We already known the wrong way.

Eight of the adult gang members defined a gang almost exclusively in terms of participating in a group and spending time with other gang members. In fact, most of the adult gang members made some reference to such social dynamics in their response. When asked to define a gang, for instance, Lance contended that it is “Dudes that hang out and do what they want do to.” Similarly, John mentioned that “It’s like a bunch of friends all hanging together.” Three of the adult gang members also responded by stating that a gang is a second family. In contrast, a small number of adult respondents exclusively defined the gang in neighborhood terms (e.g., being “down for the hood”) or entirely emphasized the organized structure of gangs. In general, then, slightly less than 30% of the adult gang members explicitly referenced criminal activities when asked to broadly define a gang, while the remaining adult respondents most often emphasized what Decker and van Winkle (1996) described as the collective nature (e.g., hanging out with other members) of gangs.

Juvenile Members

A similar percentage of juvenile gang members (25%) also referenced violence or criminal activities explicitly when asked to broadly define a gang. However, these juvenile gang members were generally more shortsighted in their responses than the adult gang members, and they mentioned little other than criminal activities in characterizing a gang. For instance, Robert answered that “A gang is a group of friends that help each other when they need to fight.” I-Dog noted that his group considered itself a gang because “they like fighting.” As with the adult respondents, some of the juvenile gang members asserted that what ultimately defines a gang is its close-knit or family dynamic. An example included Kaons who indicated that members of his gang often referred to themselves as a family. Five juvenile members declared that a gang is basically an “organization.” Roughly the same proportion of adult members defined the gang in organizational terms. Finally, as with the adult gang members, a common response by the juvenile members was to generally define a gang in terms of “hanging” with a group or being an integral part of a group.

Turf

A question was posed to the gang members that asked what would happen “if someone from another gang crosses over on to your turf.” In reviewing the responses offered, particular attention was paid to whether some level of force or violence would be used to resolve such a situation. As with defining a gang, there was a presumption that adult gang members would be more likely to report a violent response, given their more pronounced homicide rate. Most of the gang members—regardless of age—reported that their gangs had an identified territory and that efforts were made to defend this turf. There were a few rare occasions where a gang member indicated that their gang did not claim any particular area or turf. Given the broad prevalence of claimed turf among the sample, it is perhaps not surprising to find that almost all of the juvenile and adult gang members reported that force would be used to remove oppositional gang members from their turf. For instance, Derone (age 21) simply indicated that his gang would “whup his ass or kill him.” $hortDog (age 15) remarked that there is a very good chance the rival gang member would “get shot,” particularly if this oppositional member is in possession of a firearm.

Immediate violence was by far the most common response reported by the juvenile and adult members, but there were infrequent instances in which a juvenile or an adult indicated that violence would not be automatically used to remove a rival gang member from their gang’s turf. With these gang members, it was indicated that violence is reserved for situations in which rival gang members initiate or provoke a response. For instance, Maurice (age 20) remarked that the “only time we’ll fight them [a rival member] is when they start a fight.” X-Men (age 14) noted:

Most of the time we let them walk through there unless we say something to one another or they say something to one of the girls then we hit them, we give them a warning. If he come up there with all blue on then he gonna get hit.

Overall, there were no substantive differences found between juvenile and adult gang members in how they reported handling a rival gang member who enters their turf. Indeed, it was clear from the responses of both juvenile and adult members that protecting gang turf is a priority and that resorting to violence to protect this turf is a common response to perceived threats such as the presence of rival gang members.

Firearm Ownership and Use

The final issue addressed is the prevalence of gun ownership and use by the gang members. Most of the gang members in the sample were legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm in the retail market because of their age and/or criminal history. As mentioned, 92% of the adult gang members reported being arrested at least 1 time, and slightly more than one half of the adult gang members reported being arrested 5 or more times. Despite the legal restrictions that theoretically limit gun access to most gang members, research consistently finds that gun ownership and use is commonplace among gang members. Spergel (1995) reasoned that gun-related behaviors are more prevalent among older gang members, which explain, in part, the higher rate of lethal violence among this demographic.

The gang members were asked whether or not they “owned [or had] a gun.” Among those who directly answered this question, 94%—31 of 33—of the adult gang members and 67%—39 of 58—of the juvenile respondents stated that they owned a gun. These numbers indicate that adult gang members were indeed more likely to own a gun; however, self-reported firearm ownership was still quite prevalent among the juvenile members. There was greater discrepancy between juvenile and adult gang members when the focus turned to how many guns were owned or possessed. Among the gang members who reported gun ownership, two thirds of the adult members and roughly one fourth (27%) of the juvenile members reported possessing three or more guns.

Gang members were then asked whether they carried and used any of the guns they reported owning. In general, no substantive differences were evident between juvenile and adult gang members in carrying and using the one or more guns they owned. That is, the current findings indicated that if a gang member reported owning a gun, they also generally reported having carried and used their one or more firearms. With respect to gun carrying, both the juvenile and the adult gang members who owned a gun often mentioned that they seldom carried their one or more firearms with them at all times. Instead, guns were typically carried at certain times of the day or week or when there was a perceived threat. For instance, Anthony (age 22) indicated that he carried “any time I know there is going to be trouble.” John (age 19) noted that “I carry it all weekend. I carry it at nighttime. I don’t carry it during the daytime. I don’t want to get caught by police and get locked up so I don’t really carry it.” The juvenile gun owners made similar remakes. Lisa (age 15) indicated that she does not carry her gun “unless we going to a big fight or something.” Lil Thug (age 16) also expressed that “if it’s not time to fight I don’t carry it.”

Regarding the use of firearms, both the juvenile and the adult gang members irregularly commented on the situational context or the frequency of their gun use. For instance, some gang members provided detailed accounts of select instances where they used their gun (these episodes often dealt with intergang conflict), while other gang members did not comment on these circumstances. It was clear, however, that if a juvenile or adult gang member admitted to owning a one or more firearms, they overwhelmingly reported using it at least once at some point. We summarize our overall findings in Table 1.

Discussion and Conclusion

Prevailing wisdom over the past century has suggested that there is something fundamentally different about older gang members. Their prevalence and persistence, and perceived role in promoting increased gang organization and violence, suggests a greater need to study these members. Despite these concerns, few contemporary gang studies have focused on adult members. This research sought to address this gap in the literature by comparing a sample of juvenile and adult members’ attitudes and behaviors related to gang membership. Existing research offers both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that adult members would exhibit more violent tendencies and beliefs than younger, juvenile members. We specifically examined members’ definitions of a gang, attitudes regarding the defense of gang turf, and firearm-related behaviors. Consistent with expectations, older members were more likely to report ownership of one or more firearms. In contrast to these expectations, though, there were considerably more similarities than differences in the responses of the adult and juvenile gang members regarding defining the gang and defending gang turf. Our results have implications for future gang research and suggest important intervention strategies for law enforcement. Three key findings warrant further discussion.

First, the relative uniformity of answers for defining the gang and defending gang turf are notable, but not necessarily surprising. Recall that the juvenile members in the sample had, on average, been involved in a gang for over 2 years and had joined their gangs earlier than the adult members. These younger members had therefore spent a substantial amount of time exposed to the group processes of the gang, and it is reasonable to expect that they and adult members would eventually share similar views of their gangs. As contemporary research continues to examine the heterogeneity of the gang experience, scholars should be cognizant of how perceptions of the gang change over time. Indeed, the incorporation of gang membership into the life-course framework (e.g., Krohn & Thornberry, 2008; Melde & Esbensen, 2011; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011) provides ample opportunities to do so. Accounts of gang membership from former members reinforce this view, as many note that they now regard membership as something childish or as time wasted, rather than a social endeavor (Decker, Pyrooz, & Moule, 2012).

Second, the physical and spatial boundaries of turf have been a salient issue for gangs for quite some time (Miller, 2011; Thrasher, 1927; Tita et al., 2005). Indeed, all of the members mentioned that their gang had turf, and this turf was primarily located in the neighborhood where the gang originated. Despite this finding, there is some speculation that gang turf is becoming less defined by neighborhood boundaries due to factors such as increased residential mobility, improved public transportation, and expanded school choice (Brunson & Miller, 2009; Spergel, 1995). Fagan (1996, p. 41) noted, for instance, that gangs may “stake claims to shopping malls, skating rinks, school corridors, and even cliques of women.” This suggests two directions for future research. First, scholars should assess whether perceptions of gang territory differ by characteristics of gang members. While gang members of all ages may generally claim at least some identified space, as was the case with the current members, the size and location of this territory (i.e., gang set space) may vary and contribute to differential rates of violence among younger and older members. For instance, if juvenile members generally claim turf that is smaller and more remote than the turf of adult members, there is likely less need to regularly defend such turf. This consideration can also be extended to perceptions of rival gang territory and may explain why gang violence clusters on the periphery of gang territory (Brantingham, Tita, Short, & Reid, 2012). Second, scholars should consider how gang territory objectively changes in size over time. If there is serious competition by gangs over fringe territory, there are likely winners and losers, and this has implications for understanding gang behavior (see, e.g., Taniguchi, Ratcliffe, & Taylor, 2011).

Third, adult gang members were more likely than juvenile members to own one or more firearms. This finding is consistent with Spergel’s (1995) contention that lethal violence is more pronounced among adult gang members due to greater access to sophisticated weapons. Our findings also suggest adult gang members are a viable source for acquiring a gun in the nonretail or secondary market, which is often a “thin” market for legally prohibited persons (e.g., juveniles) in search of a gun (Cook, Ludwig, Venkatesh, & Braga, 2005). Further, the current findings suggest that once a gun is acquired by a gang member, there is a strong probability that it will be carried and used; this underscores the importance of efforts to prevent legally prohibited persons from initially acquiring guns (Watkins, Huebner, & Decker, 2008). In other words, we did not find that adult members were more likely than juvenile members to report carrying or using guns. This suggests interpersonal conflicts involving adult gang members are more likely to result in death not because of adult members’ greater willingness to carry or use an accessible firearm (i.e., being more “badass”), but rather they are simply more likely to be in possession of a gun when these volatile encounters occur. In addition, the members clearly expressed the utility of having a gun on them, but most indicated they were selective as to when they carried. More specifically, some suggested that police enforcement patterns shaped their decision as to when they did or did not carry. Others noted that they were more likely to carry when they believed there was a growing conflict with a rival gang. Police initiatives that aim to increase likelihood of arrest for illegally possessing or carrying a firearm are common in U.S. cities (e.g., Fagan & Davis, 2000; Sherman & Rogan, 1995). The current findings lend credibility to such initiatives by suggesting that gang members are not insensitive to police efforts to curtail these behaviors. These findings also lend credibility to efforts that rely on “violence interrupters” to quickly defuse interpersonal conflicts (e.g., Skogan, Hartnett, Bump, & Dubois, 2000; Wilson & Chermak, 2011). It is during heighted periods of conflict that gang members expressed a particular need to carry a firearm.

Our findings must be considered in light of three limitations of the data. First, our findings are from only one city, St. Louis, and the respondents are unlikely to be representative of the gang population of St. Louis or other American cities, thus limiting their generalizability. Second, the data are two decades old, raising questions of their potential utility for contemporary gang scholars and practitioners. Third, we were unable to quantify the embeddedness of the gang members that have been used in the study, which may explain why we find few differences between juveniles and adults. Put differently, juvenile and adult members may share comparable levels of gang embeddedness despite being at distinct developmental stages of membership.

In specifying these limitations, we must note that St. Louis shares a number of characteristics with other emergent gang cities of the 1980s, and there is little reason to believe that that processes which facilitated the emergence, prevalence, and persistence of gangs and gang members are limited only to that city (e.g., Pyrooz, Fox, & Decker, 2010). While the data are two decades old, we believe they tap into processes that have been of growing interest to scholars since the 1970s: firearms, violence, and perceptions of one’s gang. Writing more than 30 years apart, Klein (1971) and Felson (2006) suggested that these are the dynamics that inform gang behavior, whether through a “violent mythos” or a “big gang” theory. Revisiting older data to try and elaborate on the processes and elements of gang behavior is a fruitful endeavor, as illustrated by Lori Hughes and Jim Short’s (2005) recent examination of Chicago gang disputes in the 1960s. Our review illustrates nearly a century of concern about adult gang members, and when data may be useful in understanding timeless phenomena, then revisiting such data is certainly worthwhile. We encourage other scholars to revisit older data as they become available, whether through archival records or fortuitous events.

In the end, our findings point to the continued importance of recognizing the gang experience as diverse and paying greater attention to the developmental and group processes that shape gang member behavior. The overlap among both young and old gang members suggests a greater need to examine the group socialization processes inherent in gangs. Further, there is a continuing need to directly assess such relationships and more broadly address how dynamics of gang membership may change over time. While we are not the first to suggest a “black box” surrounding gang membership, it is now the responsibility of scholars to assess behavioral and attitudinal shifts that occur during membership. While quantitative research is beginning to do so (Matsuda, Melde, Taylor, Freng, & Esbensen, 2012), qualitative research is well positioned to elaborate on the specific group processes and mechanisms at work.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Scott Decker for making the Life in the Gang data available to us.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adamson

(1998). Tribute, turf, honor and the American Street gangs: Patterns of continuity and change since 1820. Theoretical Criminology, 2, 57–84.

Akers

R. L.

(2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bishop

D. M.

(2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. Crime and Justice, 26, 81–167.

Bjerregaard

Lizotte

A. J.

(1995). Gun ownership and gang membership. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 37–58.

Block

C. R.

Block

(1993). Street gang crime in Chicago. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Blumstein

(1995). Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 10–36.

Bouchard

Spindler

(2010). Groups, gangs, and delinquency: Does organization matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 921–933.

Brantingham

P. J.

Tita

G. E.

Short

M. B.

Reid

S. E.

(2012). The ecology of gang territorial boundaries. Criminology, 50, 851–885.

Brunson

R. K.

Miller

(2009). Schools, neighborhoods, and adolescent conflicts: A situational examination of reciprocal dynamics. Justice Quarterly, 26, 183–210.

10.

Cook

P. J.

(1983). The influence of gun availability on violent crime patterns. Crime and Justice, 4, 49–89.

11.

Cook

P. J.

Ludwig

(2004). Does gun carrying prevalence affect teen gun carrying after all? Criminology, 42, 27–54.

12.

Cook

P. J.

Ludwig

Venkatesh

S. A.

Braga

A. A.

(2005). Underground gun markets (NBER Working Paper No. 11737). Cambridge, MA: NBER.

13.

Corsaro

McGarrell

E. F.

(2009). Testing a promising homicide reduction strategy: Re-assessing the impact of the Indianapolis “pulling levers” intervention. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 63–82.

14.

Coughlin

B. C.

Venkatesh

S. A.

(2003). The urban street gang after 1970. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 41–64.

15.

Curry

G. D.

Decker

S. H.

(1997). What’s in a name? A gang by any other name isn’t quite the same. Valparaiso University Law Review, 31, 501–514.

16.

Decker

S. H.

(1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 243–264.

17.

Decker

S. H.

(2007). Youth gangs and violent behavior. In Flannery

D. J.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Waldman

I. D.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 388–402). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Decker

S. H.

Curry

G. D.

(2000). Addressing key features of gang membership: Measuring the involvement of young members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 473–482.

19.

Decker

S. H.

Katz

C. M.

Webb

V. J.

(2008). Understanding the black box of gang organization: Implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime and Delinquency, 54, 153–172.

20.

Decker

S. H.

Melde

Pyrooz

D. C.

(2012). What do we know about gangs and gang members and where do we go from here? Justice Quarterly. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.732101

21.

Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

(2010). On the validity and reliability of gang homicide: A comparison of disparate sources. Homicide Studies, 14, 359–376.

22.

Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Moule

R. K.

Jr . (2012). Gang desistance as role transitions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.

23.

Decker

S. H.

van Winkle

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

24.

Egley

Jr. Howell

J. C.

(2012). Highlights of the 2010 national youth gang survey. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

25.

Egley

Jr.

A. Logan

McDaniel

(2012). Gang homicides—Five U.S. cities, 2003-2008. MMRW, 61, 46–51.

26.

Esbensen

F.-A.

Deschenes

E. P.

Winfree

L. T.

Jr. (1999). Differences between gang girls and gang boys: Results from a multisite survey. Youth and Society, 31, 27–53.

27.

Esbensen

F.-A.

Winfree

L. T.

Jr. He

Taylor

T. J.

(2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime and Delinquency, 47, 105–130.

28.

Fagan

J. A.

(1996). Gangs, drugs and neighborhood change. In Huff

C. R.

(Ed.), Gangs in America II (pp. 39–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Fagan

Davies

(2002). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York city. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28, 457–504.

30.

Felson

(2006). Crime and nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Fleisher

M. S.

Decker

S. H.

(2001). Going home, staying home: Integrating prison gang members into the community. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 65–77.

32.

Gatti

Tremblay

R. E.

Vitaro

McDuff

(2005). Youth gangs, delinquency and drug use: A test of the selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1178–1190.

33.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

34.

Hagan

(1993). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology, 31, 465–491.

35.

Hagedorn

J. M.

(1988). People and folks: Gangs, crime and the underclass in a rustbelt city. Chicago, IL: Lake View Press.

36.

Hagedorn

J. M.

(1998). Gang violence in the postindustrial era. Crime and Justice, 24, 365–419.

37.

Hagedorn

J. M.

(2002). Gangs and the informal economy. In Huff

C. R.

(Ed.), Gangs in America III (pp. 101–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Harding

D. J.

(2010). Living the drama: Community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

39.

Hill

K. G.

Lui

Hawkins

J. D.

(2001). Early precursors of gang membership: A study of Seattle youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

40.

Howell

J. C.

(2007). Menacing or mimicking? Realities of youth gangs. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 58, 39–50.

41.

Howell

J. C.

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

42.

Howell

J. C.

Decker

S. H.

(1999). The youth gangs, drugs, and violence connection. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

43.

Hughes

L. A.

Short

J. F.

Jr. (2005). Disputes involving youth street gang members: Micro-social contexts. Criminology, 43, 43–76.

44.

Jankowski

M. S.

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

45.

Joe

K. A.

Chesney-Lind

(1995). “Just every mother’s angel”: An analysis of gender and ethnic variations in youth gang membership. Gender and Society, 9, 408–431.

46.

Klein

M. W.

(1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

47.

Klein

M. W.

(1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

48.

Klein

M. W.

(2005). The value of comparisons in street gang research. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 135–152.

49.

Klein

M. W.

Maxson

C. L.

(2006). Street gang patters and policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

50.

Krohn

Thornberry

(2008). Longitudinal perspectives on adolescent street gangs. In Liberman

(Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 128–160). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

51.

Lasley

J. S.

(1992). Age, social context, and street gang membership: Are “youth” gangs becoming “adult” gangs? Youth and Society, 23, 434–451.

52.

Matsuda

K. N.

Melde

Taylor

T. J.

Freng

Esbensen

F.-A.

(2012). Gang membership and adherence to the “code of the street.” Justice Quarterly. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.684432

53.

Maxson

(2011). Street gangs. In Wilson

J. Q.

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 158–182). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

54.

Maxson

C. L.

(1999). Gang homicide: A review and extension of the literature. In Smith

M. D.

Zahn

M. A.

(Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 239–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Maxson

C. L.

Gordon

M. A.

Klein

M. W.

(1985). Differences between gang and nongang homicides. Criminology, 23, 209–222.

56.

Melde

Diem

Drake

(2012). Identifying correlates of stable gang membership. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28, 479–495.

57.

Melde

Esbensen

F.-A.

(2011). Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology, 49, 513–552.

58.

Miller

W. B.

(2011). City gangs. Retrieved from http://gangresearch.asu.edu/walter_miller_library/walter-b.-miller-book/city-gangs-book

59.

Moore

J. W.

(1978). Homeboys: Gangs, drugs, and prisons in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

60.

Moore

J. W.

(1998). Understanding youth street gangs: Economic restructuring and the urban underclass. In Watts

M. W.

(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on youth and violence (pp. 65–78). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

61.

Moule

R. K.

Jr. Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

(2013). Social capital, the life-course, and gangs. In Gibson

Krohn

(Eds.), Handbook of life-course criminology (pp. 143–158). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

62.

National Gang Center. (n.d.). National Youth Gang Survey analysis. Retrieved from http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis

63.

Papachristos

A. V.

Hureau

D. M.

Braga

A. A.

(2010). Conflict and the corner: The impact of intergroup conflict and geographic turf on gang violence (SSRN Working Paper). Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2139/ssrn.1722329

64.

Peterson

Taylor

T. J.

Esbensen

F.-A.

(2004). Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 21, 793–815.

65.

Pizzaro

J. M.

McGloin

J. M.

(2006). Explaining gang homicides in Newark, New Jersey: Collective behavior or social disorganization? Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 195–207.

66.

Pyrooz

D. C.

(2012). Structural covariates of gang homicide in large U.S. cities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 489–518.

67.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Decker

S.H.

(2011). Motives and methods for leaving the gang. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 417–425.

68.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Decker

S. H.

Fleisher

(2010). From the street to the prison, from the prison to the street: Understanding and responding to prison gangs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 12–24.

69.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Fox

A. M.

Decker

S. H.

(2010). Racial and ethnic heterogeneity, economic disadvantage, and gangs: A macro-level study of gang membership in urban America. Justice Quarterly, 27, 867–892.

70.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Sweeten

Piquero

A. R.

(2012). Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. doi:10.1177/0022427811434830

71.

Robin

G. D.

(1967). Gang member delinquency in Philadelphia. In Klein

M. W.

(Ed.), Juvenile gangs in context: Theory, research, and action (pp. 15–24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

72.

Rosenfeld

Bray

T. M.

Egley

(1999). Facilitating violence: A comparison of gang-motivated, gang affiliated, and nongang youth homicides. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 495–516.

73.

Sheley

J. F.

Zhang

Brody

C. J.

Wright

J. D.

(1995). Gang organization, gang criminal activity, and individual gang members’ criminal behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 76, 53–68.

74.

Sherman

L. W.

Rogan

D. P.

(1995). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: “Hot spots” patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly, 12, 673–693.

75.

Short

J. F.,

Jr. (1969). Social structure and group processes in explanations of gang delinquency. In Sherif

Sherif

C. W.

(Eds.), Problems of youth: Transition to adulthood in a changing world (pp. 235–264). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

76.

Short

J. F.

Jr. Strodtbeck

F. L.

(1965). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

77.

Skogan

W. G.

Hartnett

S. M.

Bump

Dubois

(2008). Evaluation of Ceasefire-Chicago. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

78.

Spergel

I. A.

(1984). Violent gangs in Chicago: In search of social policy. Social Service Review, 58, 199–225.

79.

Spergel

I. A.

(1986). The violent gang problem in Chicago: Local community approach. Social Service Review, 60, 94–131.

80.

Spergel

I. A.

(1990). Youth gangs: Continuity and change. Crime and Justice, 12, 171–275.

81.

Spergel

I. A.

(1995). The youth gang problem: A community approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

82.

Spergel

I. A.

Curry

G. D.

(1990). Strategies and perceived agency effectiveness in dealing with the youth gang problem. In Huff

C. R.

(Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 288–309). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

83.

St. Cyr

J. L.

Decker

S. H.

(2003). Girls, guys, and gangs: Convergence or divergence in the gendered construction of gangs and groups. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 423–433.

84.

Stretesky

P. B.

Pogrebin

M. R.

(2007). Gang-related gun violence: Socialization, identity, and self. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 41, 85–114.

85.

Sweeten

Pyrooz

D. C.

Piquero

A. R.

(2012). Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Quarterly. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.723033

86.

Taniguchi

T. A.

Ratcliffe

J. H.

Taylor

R. B.

(2011). Gang set space, drug markets, and crime around drug corners in Camden. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 327–363.

87.

Taylor

T. J.

Peterson

Esbensen

F.-A.

Freng

(2007). Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 351–380.

88.

Thornberry

T. P.

Huizinga

Loeber

(2004). The causes and correlates studies: Findings and policy implications. Juvenile Justice, 9, 3–19.

89.

Thornberry

T. P.

Krohn

Lizotte

Chard-Wierschem

(1993). The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 55–87.

90.

Thornberry

T. P.

Krohn

M. A.

Lizotte

A. J.

Smith

C. A.

Tobin

(2003). Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

91.

Thrasher

F. M.

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

92.

Tita

G. E.

Cohen

Engberg

(2005). An ecological study of the location of gang “set space.” Social Problems, 52, 272–299.

93.

Vernick

J. S.

Hepburn

(2003). State and federal gun laws: Trends for 1970-99. In Ludwig

Cook

P. J.

(Eds.), Evaluating gun policy: Effects on crime and violence (pp. 345–402). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

94.

Vigil

J. D.

(1988). Barrio gangs. Austin: University of Texas Press.

95.

Watkins

A. M.

Huebner

B. M.

Decker

S. H.

(2008). Patterns of gun acquisition, carrying, and use among juvenile and adult arrestees: Evidence from a high-crime city. Justice Quarterly, 25, 674–700.

96.

Whyte

(1943). Street corner society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

97.

Wilson

J. M.

Chermak

(2011). Community-driven violence reduction programs: Examining Pittsburgh’s one vision one life. Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 993–1027.

98.

Wilson

W. J.

(1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.