Girls,Gangs,and Getting Out

Abstract

This study draws from role exit theory and feminist criminology to examine whether the catalysts and consequences of gang disengagement differ between males and females. We analyze data on 143 individuals interviewed about their status as former gang members in Los Angeles, CA, and Phoenix, AZ, and assess whether there are gender differences across three interrelated components of disengaging from gangs: (1) the motivations for leaving the gang, (2) sources of support in the exit process, and (3) real and perceived residual concerns and consequences in transitioning out of the gang. Very few differences in the gang disengagement process were found between females and males. Females reported continued concerns about threats to their family, while males reported continued police harassment after leaving the gang. Overall, findings suggest that group processes shape disengagement experiences regardless of gender.

Keywords

role exit role transition female gang members gang disengagement gender

Among the “undisputed facts” in criminological research is the gender gap in criminal offending (Heimer, 2000; Lauritsen, Heimer, & Lynch, 2009, p. 362). Both females and males engage in criminal offenses, but the gender gap is characterized by differences in offending frequency and seriousness (Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Freng, 2010; Steffensmeier & Schwartz, 2009; Triplett & Myers, 1995). Until the 1970s, criminological research regularly neglected women and girls or portrayed them in sexist ways (Belknap, 2007; Campbell, 1990). When research did include females, it often focused on how females fit into male-oriented theoretical frameworks (i.e., adding gender and stirring; Belknap, 2007; Heimer & Kruttschnitt, 2006) or on “female issues” such as sexual assault (e.g., Brown, 1977; Pollack, 1950; Pollack & Friedman, 1969). A notable example of this is found in the risk assessment literature, where risk prediction tools are generally constructed using male offenders and then applied with little hesitation to females (e.g., Holtfreter & Cupp, 2007; Van Voorhis, Wright, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2010). The historically “gender blind” study of crime has resulted in theoretical and empirical voids surrounding the gendered processes that influence the female criminal career (Belknap, 2007; Smart, 1976). This approach is prevalent in the study of gangs (Curry, 1998; Miller, 2001).

Historically, gangs were described as a male enterprise (e.g., Thrasher, 1927). Miller’s (1973) research on the Molls and Queens, Brown’s (1977) work with the Holly Ho’s, Campbell’s (1984a, 1984b) research on poor Puerto Rican and Black female gang members, and Quicker’s (1983) study of Chicana gang members are credited with moving research away from the androcentric perspective of earlier work (Curry, 1998). In recent decades, substantial advances have been made in examining the place of women—and gender—in the study of gangs. This research has concentrated on violence perpetuated by and toward female gang members (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Campbell, 1984a, Miller, 1998; Miller & Decker, 2001), whether the risks and motivations for joining a gang are gendered (Chesney-Lind, Sheldon, & Joe, 1996; Joe-Laidler & Hunt, 1997; Miller, 2001; Weerman, 2012), and the diverse, gendered experiences that characterize gang life (Curry, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2014; Miller, 2001; Moore, 1991; Peterson, Miller, & Esbensen, 2001). Although this work has shed important light on how and why gang membership and gang dynamics differ by gender, it leaves unresolved what is arguably the most underdeveloped area of gang research: experiences during disengagement from gangs.¹

To the extent that gang research reflects “adding gender and stirring,” little research has examined whether gender influences the process of leaving the gang. Feminist theory is ostensibly agnostic with respect to gang disengagement but would likely anticipate some differences between men and women in this process. This is analogous to arguments used when examining the correlates of female desistance from crime. Alternatively, the gang research that has examined this topic has found few differences between men and women (e.g., Carson, Peterson, & Esbensen, 2013; Peterson & Panfil, 2014; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011). We expand on this work by explicitly focusing on how gender shapes disengagement from gangs. Although research on gang disengagement has advanced in the last decade (Carson et al., 2013: Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Decker, Pyrooz, & Moule, 2014; Densley, 2012; Moloney, MacKenzie, Hunt, & Joe-Laidler, 2009; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011), little attention has been afforded to whether—and to what extent—gender may moderate the disengagement process. We draw from the broader feminist criminology and gang literatures to hypothesize that the motivations, methods, and consequences associated with leaving the gang should differ by gender. This issue is far from settled and there is some evidence (Peterson & Panfil, 2014) that gender exerts a smaller influence on leaving the gang than may be hypothesized from the feminist perspective. The current study is based on interviews with 143 former gang members in Los Angeles and Phoenix, 35 of whom were female. We assess whether female and male former gang members differed in (1) their motivations for exiting the gang, (2) the sources of support when leaving, and (3) the consequences associated with leaving and the residual concerns of gang life. It is important to examine whether transitions out of gangs are gendered because such work can inform programming efforts aimed at identifying points of intervention and providing resources to gang members. Moreover, this study will also inform discussions surrounding the criminological gender gap and its relevance to gangs.

Gender, Crime, and Gangs

Gender Differences in Criminal Behavior

The gender gap in offending has been the historical justification for focusing on male offending and victimization patterns (Belknap, 2007; McGloin & DiPietro, 2012). Because research on offending and victimization has overwhelmingly focused on the experiences of men, the development of theory has historically offered few answers for female offending. Things changed in the 1970s with the development of feminist criminology and a series of seminal works on female deviance and victimization (Adler, 1975; Klein & Kress, 1973; Martin, 1976; Simon, 1975; Smart, 1976). Overall, feminist criminology posits that extant research, focused largely on the experiences of males, fails to capture the factors shaping female criminal behavior, resulting in an incomplete story of the essential differences in male and female criminality (Belknap, 2007; Chesney-Lind, 1989; Daly, 1992; Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988; Simpson, 1989, 1991).

Various life experiences and social–structural features such as prior victimization and abuse, race, class, urban inequality, and economic disadvantage shape female criminality (Covington, 2001; Daly, 1992; Hubbard & Pratt, 2002; Miller, 1998; Owen & Bloom, 1995; Simpson, 1991). For more serious crimes, research indicates that the context of female offending differs from males (Farr, 2000; Simpson, 1991). For example, research confirms the salience of prior violent victimization in shaping pathways to the justice system through maladaptive coping strategies (Daly, 1992; Tasca, Zatz, & Rodriquez, 2012). Other factors, such as problems in the home and a desire to gain respect through violence, also influence female offending (Tasca et al., 2012). The Girls Study Group (Zahn, Hawkins, Chiancone, & Whitworth, 2008) provides a comprehensive look at the factors that shape female offending. These factors include sexual abuse and maltreatment, depression and anxiety, deviant romantic partners, and early pubertal development. In terms of less serious crimes, the role of contextual factors appears to be similar between men and women (Daly, 1989; Zeitz, 1981). Although feminist criminology has produced a large body of literature on female crime rates, offending comparisons between men and women, and the application of criminological theory to female offending, a number of areas require further attention (e.g., Chesney-Lind, 1997; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996; Zahn et al., 2008). The experiences of female street gang members is one such area.

Gender and Gang Membership

Several studies have examined whether the pathways into gangs and the experiences of members differ between males and females, with mixed results. On one hand, some studies find that gendered processes and stratification within the gang influence several aspects of female gang involvement. First, some research indicates that the risk factors shaping female gang participation are different from those of male members (Esbensen, Deschenes, & Winfree, 1999; Esbensen et al., 2010). Females are more likely to report familial and peer influences and less likely to report protection, fun and action, or other reasons for gang joining (Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003). Second, females often function on the peripheries of the gang (Curry et al., 2014), and gendered dynamics within gangs shape the victimization experiences of members (Miller, 1998). For example, the risk of victimization among female gang members is lower compared to males (e.g., Miller & Decker, 2001). Although gender can protect females from intergang violence, it exposes young women to intragang violence (e.g., sexual exploitation or assault; cf. St. Cyr & Decker, 2003).² Third, male gang members are involved in more criminal, and more serious, activities compared to their female counterparts (Weerman, 2012), with female members involved in less drug use, drug dealing, and property crime (Fleisher, 1998; Miller, 2001).

On the other hand, recent research suggests that risk factors for gang membership appear to be similar across genders (see Peterson & Morgan, 2014; Peterson & Panfil, 2014). Several studies have found that associating with delinquent friends is a risk factor for both females and males (Bell, 2009; Esbensen & Deschenes, 1998; Esbensen, et al., 2010; Hill, Howell, Hawkins, & Battin-Pearson, 1999). Other risk factors for involvement shared by both sexes include low social support, supervision, and lack of social bonds (Bell, 2009; Esbensen & Deschenes, 1998; Hill et al., 1999); perceptions of school disorder (Bell, 2009; Esbensen & Deschenes, 1998, Esbensen et al., 2010); beliefs supporting deviance (Esbensen et al., 2010; Thornberry et al., 2003); and early problem behavior (Hill et al., 1999, Thornberry et al., 2003).

Overall, the extant literature suggests that females and males share common risk factors and motivations for gang joining. However, there are also unique features for females in the transition into the gang and the experiences while in the gang (Klein & Maxson, 2006; Peterson & Panfil, 2014). Missing from this important line of research is an understanding of how gender affects gang disengagement. There is a burgeoning literature on disengagement from gangs (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Decker et al., 2014; Densley, 2012; Moloney et al., 2009; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2014), yet few studies attempt to explicitly compare the role exit experiences of male and female gang members. We draw from a recent study (Decker et al., 2014) that has theoretically framed gang disengagement within the context of role exit theory (Ebaugh, 1988).

Gender and Disengaging From Gangs

The concept of role exit is consistent with theories of criminal desistance (e.g., Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002) and has been applied to disengagement from gangs (Decker et al., 2014). In the process of “becoming an ex,” individuals gradually transition from one role to another (Ebaugh, 1988). This process was conceptualized by Ebaugh (1988) by drawing on theories of life course transitions (Becker, 1963; Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Goffman, 1961) and role theory (Merton, 1957). For Ebaugh, becoming an ex involves four stages: first doubts, seeking alternatives, turning points, and creating an ex-role. First doubts are experienced when individuals start to question their commitment to a role. This stage is accompanied by considering alternatives and weighing costs and rewards associated with role demands. The second stage, seeking alternatives, involves actively evaluating alternative roles. The third stage involves a “turning point” that facilitates role exit. The final stage includes creating the ex-role which includes accepting the expectations and identity associated with being an “ex” and acknowledging the tension between the past, present, and future. Although we do not directly test role exit theory, its principles help illustrate why the process might be different for female and male gang members.

Studies examining how females disengage from gangs have generally focused on three areas, including motherhood, criminal justice system involvement, and/or sex-specific motives and methods. Motherhood may act as a “hook for change” (Giordano et al., 2002), assisting in the process of leaving deviant roles and identities (Edin & Kefalas, 2005). Moore and colleagues (Moore & Devitt, 1989; Moore & Hagedorn, 2001) examined the impact of motherhood on desistance from gang-related behavior. Their Los Angeles-based work yielded mixed findings regarding the influence of pregnancy on disengagement; for some, motherhood provided a way to exit the gang. In their study of single low-income mothers, Edin and Kefalas (2005) found that many participants acknowledged that motherhood restructured their activities and was an important catalyst that gave them a new purpose in life. Fleisher and Krienert (2004) found that the majority (63%) of female gang members said pregnancy was their primary reason for leaving the gang. These findings contrast with Varriale’s (2008) more recent study that found no support for the assertion that motherhood was a potential disengagement mechanism. Empirical work examining the impact of motherhood is mixed, leaving questions about its impact on desistance and disengagement. For example, substance use may decline during pregnancy but resume after childbirth (Bachman, Wadsworth, O’Malley, Johnston, & Schulenberg, 1997; Gilchrist, Hussey, Gillmore, Lohr, & Morrison, 1996; Morrison, Spencer, & Gillmore, 1998). Conversely, motherhood has been found to reduce subsequent arrest, criminal behavior, and alcohol and drug use (Graham & Bowing, 1995; Kreager, Matsueda, & Erosheva, 2010; Uggen & Kruttschnitt, 1998).

Becoming a parent is not the only catalyst for change among female gang members. Coming into contact with the criminal justice system—through incarceration and other sanctions—can act as a turning point for female offenders. Imprisonment can result in sobering up, exiting the gang, and continuing education (see Bui & Morash, 2010; Fleisher & Kreinert, 2004; Hunt, Joe-Laidler, & MacKenzie, 2005; Lesser, Koniak-Griffin, & Anderson, 1999). Some female parolees have referred to imprisonment as a “wake-up call,” when reflecting on their past while incarcerated (Bui & Morash, 2010). The relationship between incarceration, desistance, and group disengagement is complicated, as imprisonment can strengthen ties to the gang by promoting embeddedness and reducing desistance opportunities (Huebner, Varano, & Bynum, 2007). Overall, research on the effect of incarceration on gang leaving has resulted in mixed findings (Blazak, 2009; Decker et al., 2014; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Sommers, Baskin, & Fagan, 1994). It is feasible that incarceration could result in disengagement from gangs; yet, research on this topic is scant and examination of female gang members is even more limited.

Research focusing on the sex-specific consequences, methods, and motives for leaving is mixed. Pyrooz and Decker (2011) used data gathered from a detention sample of 84 juvenile former gang members. They found that males and females were statistically just as likely to report pull motivations for disengagement (i.e., external to the gang) and active or hostile methods for leaving (i.e., getting “jumped out”). In addition, females and males retained a similar number of emotional and social ties to the gang (Pyrooz et al., 2014). Carson, Peterson, and Esbensen (2013) recently expanded on this in a descriptive study of a school-based sample, finding that consequences, methods, and motives for leaving the gang were largely similar by gender. Indeed, for both males and females, passive exit strategies (e.g., just left, moved away, and allowed out by the gang) were the most common method of leaving the gang, disillusionment with the gang lifestyle was the most commonly endorsed motivation for leaving, and that the consequences associated with desistance were similar for females and males. Comparing results from quantitative studies with those of qualitative studies (e.g., Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Harris, 1994; Padilla, 1992; Peterson, 2012; Quicker, 1999; Vigil, 1988), we can characterize the gendered processes of gang disengagement as having a great deal of similarity in the presence of some differences.

Given the state of the literature, examining the similarities and differences in gang disengagement by gender has both theoretical and practical importance. From a theoretical standpoint, it is important for criminology to know whether theory and research must integrate a gendered dynamic. Indeed, for gang research in particular and criminology in general, it is necessary to understand whether gang membership and gang process trump gender. From a practical standpoint, understanding female gang disengagement can lead to more effective targeted policy and intervention strategies (Peterson & Howell, 2013). Individuals in gangs are often treated, as if they are inherently similar due to their status as gang members.

The Current Study

The goal of this study is to assess the differences between males and females regarding the catalysts and consequences of gang disengagement. We expand on prior research by comparing the motivations, sources of assistance, and consequences of gang leaving across sex. We focus specifically on the role of formal and informal institutional support and processes of disengagement. Research to date has focused predominantly on males and has failed to adequately consider the importance of gender in the disengagement process. Overall, there is little empirical work investigating these topics, most of which qualitatively examines small samples of former gang members (e.g., Decker & Lauritsen, 2002) or focus on secondhand accounts from current gang members discussing individuals they know to have left gang life (e.g., Vigil, 1988). Most importantly, few studies have examined these topics from a gendered perspective. Recent studies have simply controlled for gender, with little elaboration on gendered effects, or were descriptive in nature (Carson et al., 2013; Decker et al., 2014; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Pyrooz et al., 2014; Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2013).

Given prior research on female criminality and gang membership, we expect to find that gendered conditions and circumstances—such as family factors—contribute to female gang disengagement. For example, desistance research finds that motherhood and getting caught up with the law may contribute to the disengagement of female gang members (e.g., Bui & Morash, 2010; Fleisher & Kreinert, 2004; Huebner et al., 2007; Hunt et al., 2005). Conversely, equivocal empirical findings on desistance suggest that we might find that experiences of disengagement are more similar than expected (Carson et al., 2013; Daly, 1989; Zeitz, 1981). We propose the following question: Do gendered conditions and circumstances—such as family factors—contribute to female gang disengagement?

Method

Data

We analyze data on 143 adolescents and young adults who were interviewed about their status as former gang members in Los Angeles, CA, and Phoenix, AZ, during 2011.³ Locations were chosen to include a large number of at-risk youth and gang-involved individuals. The Los Angeles and Phoenix sites were selected for the current project for two reasons. First, the locations had the largest number of female respondents (N = 35). Second, both locations share similar structural qualities. Los Angeles’ geographic area, coupled with the confluence of a highly diversified labor market and large number of immigrants, has created ample grounds for economic inequality (Bobo, Oliver, Johnson, & Valenzuela, 2000). Further, gang violence accounts for the majority of lethal violence in the greater Los Angeles area (Tita et al., 2003). Phoenix, the largest and fastest growing city in the desert Southwest, has been called a stigmatized area of racial segregation and economic marginality (Bolin, Grineski, & Collins, 2005). Although Phoenix has experienced tremendous economic growth in recent decades, segments of the city remain impoverished; doubly so during the economic recession at the outset of the study. Moreover, Phoenix has a long history of gangs. Indeed, research on Chicano gangs in Phoenix parallels findings by researchers in Los Angeles (Zatz & Portillos, 2000). Most importantly, research examining large U.S. cities has found that greater heterogeneity and economic disadvantage are related to higher levels of gang activity (Pyrooz, Fox, & Decker, 2010), making these study sites an appropriate pairing for investigation.

Respondents were participants in community-based outreach programs aimed at assisting gang members and former offenders. By purposively surveying adolescents at these locations, we were able to collect quantitative and qualitative information about gang disengagement. Purposive sampling strategies are fitting for the current study because our aim is exploratory (Sudman, 1983) and purposive sampling is useful for examining selected individuals or groups’ experiences and low base-rate behaviors (Devers & Frankel, 2000). Prior research has either relied on school samples or juvenile detention samples to observe mostly null findings; our sample includes a wider age range (juveniles and adults), individuals with long histories of gang involvement, and those considered at risk as well as those who have experienced “deep end” criminal justice system involvement.

Interviews were conducted by a trained research staff over the course of several months. Participants were initially interviewed with a structured questionnaire. This interview strategy changed to a mixed-methods format during the first round of Los Angeles interviews when a respondent told us that although he did not consider himself a gang member, he could never leave his gang. Because this response did not fit the original structured format, we added a qualitative component. Most individuals at both sites agreed to participate in the study (less than 3% refused). Respondents were provided a small monetary incentive, usually a grocery store gift card, at the conclusion of the interview.

Dependent Variables

Three key outcomes inform the current analysis: (1) reasons for leaving the gang, (2) sources of assistance when leaving the gang, and (3) the real and perceived concerns and consequences of gang life after leaving the gang.

Reasons for leaving the gang

Respondents were asked about various reasons that may have impacted their decision to leave the gang. Reasons for leaving included violence, police harassment or pressure, getting a job or working more, starting a family, family members leaving the gang, the gang falling apart or disbanding, boyfriend or girlfriend, getting caught up with the law, getting tired of the gang lifestyle, and moving. These reasons have been previously noted in the gang literature (e.g., Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Decker et al., 2014; Vigil, 1988). Respondents were asked whether each reason had no influence (= 0), some influence (= 1), or a major influence (= 2) on their leaving.

Sources of assistance

Respondents were asked whether various sources of support provided no help (= 0), minor help (= 1), or major help (= 2) when transitioning out of the gang. Formal institutions included church, job, criminal justice system, school, and social service agencies (e.g., Boyle, 2011; Brenneman, 2011). Informal, or more personal, groups included family and significant others.

Real and perceived consequences of gang life after leaving the gang

Respondents were asked to identify how worried they were regarding real and perceived consequences of gang disengagement. With respect to the real consequences of gang disengagement, respondents were asked whether (1) they were attacked because they left the gang, (2) they were attacked by rival gangs after leaving, (3) they were treated like a gang member by the police after disengagement, and (4) if their family was attacked because of their leaving. All of these responses are binary, where yes (= 1) and no (= 0) responses are mutually exclusive.

Regarding perceived concerns over leaving the gang, participants were asked how worried they were about (1) their former gang attacking or targeting them, (2) rival gangs attacking or targeting them, (3) the police treating them like a gang member, and (4) their family being attacked. Possible answers to all questions included the following: not at all worried (= 0), a little bit worried (= 1), pretty worried (= 2), and extremely worried (= 3).

Independent Variables

Given the aim of the current study, we examine the relationship between our disengagement variables of interest according to participant gender. In our sample, female participants are coded “1” and male participants are coded “0,” respectively. We also examine various factors including race (white is the reference category), whether the participant was a first- or second-generation immigrant (yes = 1, no = 0), parent education level, whether the participant had children (yes = 1, no = 0), number of children, the location of surveying (Los Angeles = 1, Phoenix = 0), and the age of the participant when leaving the gang. Former gang members often do not remember the exact date in which they desisted; therefore, we first asked them to provide us with the year and then, if possible, a month or season of the year (e.g., Caspi et al., 1996). Event history calendar methods, like the techniques used in this study, have been found to facilitate high-quality retrospective accounts of life events even in circumstances where individuals are asked to recall occurrences that happened years ago (Belli, 1998).

Analytic Strategy

This study specifically examines the following variables by gender: demographics, the sources that assisted transitioning out of the gang, real consequences and perceived concerns of gang life, and reasons for leaving the gang. Two-tailed t-tests of variable means are used to assess the significance of gender differences in sources of support for transitioning out of the gang, real and perceived concerns of leaving gang life, and reasons for leaving the gang.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive characteristics of this sample of former gang members. Respondents are predominantly male, Hispanic and Black, and socially marginalized, consistent with the purposive sampling strategy. Former gang members reported leaving the gang as recently as 4 months prior to the interviews to as long as three decades ago. On average, females reported being removed from their gang longer than their male counterparts (9 years vs. 6 years). Significant differences between men and women include their age at the time they left the gang and their number of children. Women in this sample had more children and left the gang, on average, 3 years earlier than their male counterparts. Overall, females and males do not differ much in terms age at interview, race, their parent’s education level, whether they have children, or whether they are first- or second-generation immigrants.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

	Female (N = 35)	Male (N = 108)	Total Sample (N = 143)
	Mean or %		Mean or %	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Age at interview	30.29	30.40	30.37	10.87	13.52	56.80
Black	28.57	25.93	26.57		0	1
Hispanic	68.57	63.89	65.03		0	1
First generation	5.71	11.11	9.79		0	1
Second generation	34.29	32.41	32.87		0	1
Parental education	9.85	9.94	9.92	3.42	0	16.00
Age at gang leaving*	20.99	24.00	23.26	7.14	12.42	45.00
Has children	74.29	62.96	65.73		0	1
Number of children*	2.06	.69	1.03	3.24	0	11
Los Angeles	13.29	42.66	55.94		0	1
Phoenix	11.19	32.87	44.06		0	1

Note. N = 143; F = 35, M = 108.

*p < .05; χ² test/independent t-tests to determine statistical differences between genders.

Reasons for Leaving

The decision to exit the gang can be prompted by different experiences, and the process of leaving the gang can be complicated by beliefs surrounding the concept of identity and self, consistent with role exit theory. Whereas status and the importance of membership play a role in some individuals’ ex-gang member identity, others focus on new roles such as parenthood. For example, one female ex-gang member, when asked what it meant to no longer be a gang member told us that “To be, like, below the level of, you know, hard, or somebody that would be able to go anywhere and just get respect. Like a nobody.” Gang membership was a source of status for this respondent, something that was lost when exiting the gang. In the case of another respondent, when asked what she saw when she looked in the mirror told us, “A mom.” For this respondent, first doubts emerged when she got pregnant; she reported that she first thought about leaving the gang at that time. In addition—and further demonstrating the importance of motherhood to this respondent—she disengaged from the gang after giving birth to her child. When asked when she knew that she was not in a gang anymore she told us, “When I had my child.” In this example, motherhood acted as a catalyst for change that influenced identity. This is consistent with a good deal of the literature on transitions out of crime for women.

Table 2 presents the reasons female and male gang members decided to disengage from gang life. No statistically significant gender differences were found with regard to reasons for leaving the gang, consistent with the descriptive findings of prior research (Carson et al., 2013; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011). For both females and males, tiring of gang life and starting a family were the main sources that influenced their exit from gangs. For example, one female ex-gang member told us that she left her gang after she got pregnant. When asked whether anything else helped her exit the gang she responded, “Just the baby.”

Table 2.

Reasons for Leaving the Gang.

	Females (N = 35)			Males (N = 108)
I left my gang because…(0–2)^a	M	SD		M	SD
…of violence (e.g., I was assaulted or my friends were assaulted)	0.66	0.97	ns	0.53	0.93
…of police harassment or pressure	0.51	0.92	ns	0.52	0.87
…I got a job or started working more	0.77	1.00	ns	0.81	1.02
…I started a family	1.06	1.10	ns	0.92	1.02
…people in my family left the gang	0.20	0.76	ns	0.19	0.66
…the gang fell apart or disbanded	0.31	0.83	ns	0.19	0.62
…of my boyfriend or girlfriend	0.31	0.99	ns	0.42	0.81
…I got caught up with the law (e.g., arrested, went to jail/prison)	0.69	0.90	ns	0.87	1.01
…I got tired of the gang lifestyle and it was time to grow up and move on	1.74	0.61	ns	1.50	0.88
…I moved	0.86	1.14	ns	0.56	1.00

Note. N = 143.

^a0 = no influence, 1 = some influence, 2 = major influence.

^nsp > .05; independent t-tests to determine statistical differences between genders.

Sources of Assistance

Table 3 presents the perceptions of former gang members about several sources of assistance, both formal and informal, in the disengagement process. Females and males reported that family played the largest role in the disengagement process, with more than half (F = 51%, M = 56%) indicating that family provided a major source of help. Employment was the only formal institution that received mention by half or more of the former gang members, with more than one third (F = 34%, M = 40%) identifying that their job provided major help. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of respondents indicated that social service agencies played no role in their gang disengagement. This finding is particularly noteworthy since participants were interviewed in agencies that provide social services to gang members. Overall, no statistically significant gender differences were found regarding sources of assistance.

Table 3.

Sources of Assistance for Transitioning out of the Gang.

	Level of Support
	No Help %	Some Help %	Major Help %	All Sources (0–2)^a Female/Male
	Female/Male	Female/Male	Female/Male	All Sources (0–2)^a Female/Male
Source of Support
Family	40.00/26.85	8.57/17.59	51.43/55.56	1.15/1.28 ^ns
Job	51.43/46.30	14.29/13.89	34.29/39.81	0.92/0.93 ^ns
Significant other	68.57/56.48	2.86/21.30	28.57/22.22	0.91/0.82 ^ns
Church	57.14/54.63	14.29/18.52	28.57/26.85	0.71/0.72 ^ns
School	74.29/81.48	8.57/10.19	17.14/8.33	0.43/0.27 ^ns
CJ system	77.14/72.22	11.43/14.81	11.43/12.96	0.34/0.41 ^ns
Service agency	77.14/83.33	.00/3.70	22.86/12.96	0.46/0.30 ^ns
Number of sources	Total sources	Minor sources	Major sources
Mean	2.66/2.95 ^ns	6/1.04 ^ns	2.06/1.92 ^ns

Note. N = 143; F = 35, M = 108. CJ = criminal justice.

^a0 = no help, 1 = some help, 2 = major help.

^nsp > .05; independent t-tests to determine statistical differences between genders.

On average, former male gang members in our sample reported that they were assisted by approximately three (F = 2.7, M = 3.0) sources of help when disengaging from the gang. Only one former female gang member and seven former male gang members reported that they received no help from any of the seven sources of assistance. The mean for major sources of support for gang disengagement for females was 2.1 and 1.9 for males, indicating that multiple sources of assistance may be required to successfully transition out of gang life. Four findings can be gleaned from this table: First, the facilitation of the disengagement process can be characterized by a bundling of influential sources; second, females and males do not differ much in terms of sources of assistance when transitioning out of the gang; third, the most important group facilitating role exit is an informal group (the family); and finally, formal agencies, such as the police and social programs, are not perceived to play a major role in promoting disengagement, but their efforts could be operating indirectly or further down the causal chain. This latter point is notable in that interviews were conducted at agencies specifically developed to assist gang members in leaving their gang.

Real and Perceived Consequences of Leaving the Gang

The real and perceived consequences of leaving the gang can inhibit disengagement from the gang or push exiting gang members back into gang life (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Decker et al., 2014). Table 4 provides information about real consequences and perceived concerns after disengaging from the gang. With regard to real consequences, males were more likely to report being treated like gang members by the police after they left the gang, which was the only statistically significant gender difference. Like real consequences, only one statistically significant difference was found between female and male gang members in terms of perceived concerns of gang life after leaving. Females were statistically more likely to worry that their family would be attacked after they exited the gang. For example, one female told us that she was “very worried” that rivals would attack her when she left the gang because she “was pregnant and couldn’t defend [herself].” These differences, however, did not reach statistical significance.

Table 4.

Real and Perceived Concerns of Gang Life After Leaving the Gang.

	% Responding “Yes”^a
Were/was you(r)…	Female(N = 35)		Male (N = 108)
…attacked because you left the gang	17.14	ns	13.89
…attacked by rival gangs after leaving	40.00	ns	35.12
…treated like a gang member by the police	57.14	*	77.78
…family attacked because of leaving	14.29	ns	8.33

	After Leaving (0–3)^b
	Females			Males
How worried were you about…	M	SD		M	SD
…your former gang attacking/targeting you	0.51	0.89	ns	0.37	0.73
…rival gangs attacking/targeting you	0.97	1.12	ns	0.79	1.04
…the police treating you as a gang member	1.26	1.22	ns	1.32	1.30
…your family being attacked	0.91	1.15	*	0.49	0.91

Note. N = 143.

^a*p < .05.

^nsp > .05; χ² test to determine statistical differences between genders.

^b0 = not at all worried, 1 = a little bit worried, 2 = pretty worried, 3 = extremely worried.

*p < .05. ^nsp > .05; independent t-tests to determine statistical differences between genders.

A series of multivariate ordinary least squares and logistic regression models were estimated to determine whether we incorrectly accepted the null hypothesis and that our results were the product of an unobserved suppressor. We explored whether the effects of gender were operating through several covariates, including race, ethnicity, nativity, parental education, children, site, and history of gang membership. Our results confirmed the null findings that there are far more similarities and very few differences across genders in the gang disengagement process.

Discussion

Motivated by the continued emphasis on understanding the gendered nature of criminal involvement and a limited understanding of how these processes play out in the gang context, the current study assessed differences and similarities between male and female experiences with gang disengagement. Based on interviews with 143 former gang members in Los Angeles and Phoenix, this article examined whether the process of disengagement is gendered. We found that sources of female gang exit strongly resemble those of males. Indeed, of the 28 outcomes studied, only 2 differed significantly. These findings are consistent with prior research examining the reasons, methods, and consequences of leaving the gang. Our results warrant three broader points of discussion.

First, the absence of substantive differences between women and men may be attributable to the long-standing presence of well-developed gangs in these cities (Hagedorn, 2002). Gangs are an important neighborhood institution for marginalized youth coping with isolation and alienation in Los Angeles and Phoenix (see Moore, 1991). Regarding gendered criminality, Miller (2008) found that, in a community characterized by urban inequality, self-reported delinquency rates were similar across genders. Adolescents may engage in delinquent activities such as fighting, gun violence, selling drugs, and protecting territory (Miller, 2008). The social and ecological factors found in disadvantaged communities, like Los Angeles and Phoenix, that promote exposure to delinquent peer groups, drugs, unsupervised activity, and delinquency may influence the disengagement process, independent of gender. Gang processes may be powerful enough to minimize the impact of gender, at least for gang exit. The strength of our findings—no male–female difference was found in 26 of the 28 comparisons—suggests that at least in these cities, gang processes work to overwhelm gender differences in gang exit. As our findings are consistent with the review provided by Peterson and Panfil (2014), this point attains added importance.

Second, these findings lend further credence to past research, suggesting that group processes within gangs trump demographic features like gender (Decker, 1996; Klein & Maxson, 2006; Vigil, 1988). The lack of differences between female and male members may indicate that they have similar levels of embeddedness regardless of gender. Theory suggests that as embeddedness in the gang increases, the likelihood of acquiring prosocial ties, gainful employment, and education is trumped by efforts to retain ties with the gang (Moule, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2013; Pyrooz et al., 2013). Sweeten, Pyrooz, and Piquero (2013) argue that gang embeddedness matters as much—if not more—than gang membership itself in terms of offending and desistance. In light of our findings, the embeddedness of female gang members deserves more research attention to determine whether they reach similar levels of immersion in gangs as their male counterparts (Curry, 1998; Pyrooz et al., 2013).

Third, these findings raise conceptual questions about disengagement. Such questions include when disengagement is complete and how progress toward disengagement can best be detected and measured by individual gang members, fellow gang members, and social service or law enforcement officials. Disengagement is a crucial consideration for gang interventions, yet our findings support existing research regarding the relatively ineffective role social service agencies and law enforcement play in encouraging gang disengagement (Healy, 2010; Klein & Maxson, 2006). In fact, family was found to play the largest role in disengaging from the gang, followed by employment. This finding suggests that intervention efforts should focus on helping gang members to build prosocial ties (Decker et al., 2014).

Our study contributes to an emerging body of literature on gang disengagement. We found few statistically significant differences regarding our outcomes of interest, which runs counter to recent calls for gender-responsive intervention programs (Petersen & Howell, 2013). Recently, Petersen and Howell (2013) argued the importance of both female-specific and gender neutral programming for female gang members. The authors provide a comprehensive review focused on prevalence, gender-linked risk factors, protective factors, experiences during membership, and a review of prevention and intervention programs. Overall, they argue that prevention and intervention efforts should pay careful attention to the differences in participants, with gender being front and center (Petersen & Howell, 2013). Although their review addresses disengagement in the context of program goals, it does not address how exit may differ for females. This is problematic, as disengagement is a crucial consideration for gang social service intervention programs.

To be sure, our study is not without limitations. First, we use data from two cities in the southwest that have long histories of gangs. Research that examines whether the same findings about disengagement cut across different community types (i.e., rural and suburban), as well as other urban and non-U.S. locations that are not chronic gang cities is needed. Better measurement of gang experiences, embeddedness, and role exit process is needed. Female gang careers deserve more attention and the cross-sectional research design here cannot parse out gender-specific pathways of these careers. A more analytically satisfactory study of female gang disengagement would test gender-specific risk factors and desistance variables over time. These variables were not available in the current data, a limitation common to examinations of sex differences in risk factors for gang involvement (see Peterson & Morgan, 2014). Third, our study relies on a relatively small sample, with only 35 female respondents. Nonetheless, this sample has more female ex-gang members than other studies of gang disengagement (e.g., Decker & Lauritsen, 2002). Given the significant differences in age at gang leaving, our findings may reflect developmental effects that future research should unpack.

In the end, this study is an attempt to understand the nuances of disengagement, a salient issue in the study of gangs. We encourage future research to continue to uncover the pathways and mechanisms promoting disengagement and how these paths may differ across gang members. Specifically, research examining how ex-gang members view themselves is needed. Understanding how ex-gang members approach new roles, abandon old roles, and self-reflect regarding their decision to leave the gang can contribute to both the role exit and gang membership literature.

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this project was provided, in part, by Google Ideas and the Arizona State University Foundation. We are grateful for their support. The content of this article, however, is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Google or the ASU Foundation.

Notes

References

Adler

(1975). Sisters in crime. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bachman

Wadsworth

O’Malley

Johnston

Schulenberg

(1997). Smoking, drinking, and drug use in young adulthood: The impacts of new freedoms and new responsibilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Becker

(1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press.

Belknap

(2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bell

K. E.

(2009). Gender and gangs: A quantitative comparison. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 363–387.

Belli

R. F.

(1998). The structure of autobiographical memory and the event history calendar: Potential improvements in the quality of retrospective reports in surveys. Memory, 6, 383–409.

Bjerregaard

Smith

(1993). Gender differences in gang participation, delinquency and substance use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 329–355.

Blazak

(2009). The prison hate machine. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 633–640.

Bobo

L. D.

Oliver

M. L.

Johnson

J. H.

Valenzuela

(2000). Analyzing inequality in Los Angeles. In Bobo

L. D.

Oliver

M. L.

Johnson

J. H.

Jr Valenzuela

Jr . (Eds.), Prismatic metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles (pp. 3–50). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

10.

Bolin

Grineski

Collins

(2005). Geography of despair: Environmental racism and the making of South Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Human Ecology Review, 12, 155–167.

11.

Boyle

(2011). Tattoos on the heart. New York, NY: Free Press.

12.

Brenneman

(2011). Homies and hermanos: God and gangs in Central America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13.

Brown

W. K.

(1977). Black female gangs in Philadelphia. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 21, 221–228.

14.

Bui

H. N.

Morash

(2010). The impact of network relationships, prison experiences, and internal transformation on women’s success after prison release. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 1–22.

15.

Campbell

(1984a). The girls in the gang. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

16.

Campbell

(1984b). Girls’ talk: The social representation of aggression by female gang members. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 139–156.

17.

Campbell

(1990). On the invisibility of the female delinquent peer group. Women & Criminal Justice, 2, 41–62.

18.

Carson

D. C.

Peterson

Esbensen

F. A.

(2013). Youth gang desistance: An examination of the effect of different operational definitions of desistance on the motivations, methods, and consequences associated with leaving the gang. Criminal Justice Review, 38, 510–534.

19.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Thornton

Freedman

Amell

J. W.

Harrington

… Silva

P. A.

(1996). The life history calendar: A research and clinical assessment method for collecting retrospective event-history data. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 6, 101–114.

20.

Chesney-Lind

(1989). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 5–29.

21.

Chesney-Lind

(1997). Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Chesney-Lind

Shelden

R. G.

Joe

K. A.

(1996). Girls, delinquency, and gang membership. In Ronald Huff

(Ed.), Gangs in America (2nd ed., pp. 185–204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Covington

(2001). Creating gender-responsive programs: The next step for women’s services. Corrections Today, 63, 85–87.

24.

Curry

G. D.

(1998). Female gang involvement. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 100–118.

25.

Curry

G. D.

Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

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

26.

Daly

(1989). Gender and varieties of white-collar crime. Criminology, 27, 769–794.

27.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law & Women’s Studies, 11, 11–52.

28.

Daly

Chesney-Lind

(1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497–538.

29.

Decker

S. H.

(1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 243–464.

30.

Decker

S. H.

Lauritsen

(2002). Leaving the gang. In Ronald Huff

(Ed.), Gangs in America (3rd ed., pp. 51–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Moule

R.K.

Jr. (2014). Gang disengagement as role transitions. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 24, 268–283.

32.

Densley

J. A.

(2012). Street gang recruitment: Signaling, screening, and selection. Social Problems, 59, 301–321.

33.

Devers

K. J.

Frankel

R. M.

(2000). Study design in qualitative research—2: Sampling and data collection strategies. Education for Health, 13, 263–271.

34.

Ebaugh

H. R. F.

(1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Edin

Kefalas

(2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

36.

Esbensen

F.-A.

Deschenes

E. P.

(1998). A multisite examination of youth gang membership: Does gender matter? Criminology, 36, 799–828.

37.

Esbensen

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.

38.

Esbensen

Peterson

Taylor

Freng

(2010). Youth violence: Sex and race differences in offending, victimization and gang membership. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

39.

Farr

K. A.

(2000). Classification for female inmates: Moving forward. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 3–17.

40.

Fleisher

M. S.

(1998). Dead end kids: Gang girls and the boys they know. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

41.

Fleisher

Krienert

(2004). Life-course events, social networks, and the emergence of violence among female gang members. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 607–622.

42.

Gilchrist

L. D.

Hussey

J. M.

Gillmore

M. R.

Lohr

M. J.

Morrison

D. M.

(1996). Drug use among adolescent mothers: Prepregnancy to 18 months postpartum. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 337–344.

43.

Giordano

P. C.

Cernkovich

S. A.

Rudolph

J. L.

(2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology 107, 990–1064.

44.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1971). Status passage. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

45.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

46.

Graham

Bowling

(1995). Young people and crime. London, England: Home Office Research and Planning Unit.

47.

Hagedorn

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

C. R.

(Ed.), Gangs in America (3rd ed., pp. 101–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Harris

M. G.

(1994). Cholas, Mexican-American girls, and ganga. Sex Roles, 30, 289–301.

49.

Healy

(2010). The dynamics of desistance. London, England: Willan.

50.

Heimer

(2000). Changes in the gender gap in crime and women’s economic marginalization. Criminal Justice, 1, 427–483.

51.

Heimer

Kruttschnitt

(Eds.). (2006). Gender and crime: Patterns in victimization and offending. Ney York: New York University Press.

52.

Hill

K. G.

Howell

J. C.

Hawkins

J. D.

Battin-Pearson

S. R.

(1999). Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 300–322.

53.

Holtfreter

Cupp

(2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 363–382.

54.

Hubbard

D. J.

Pratt

T. C.

(2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency among girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 1–13.

55.

Huebner

B. M.

Varano

S. P.

Bynum

T. S.

(2007). Gangs, guns, and drugs: Recidivism among serious, young offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 187–222.

56.

Hunt

Joe-Laidler

MacKenzie

(2005). Moving into motherhood: Gang girls and controlled risk. Youth & Society, 36, 333–373.

57.

Joe-Laidler

K. A. J.

Hunt

(1997). Violence and social organization in female gangs. Social Justice, 24, 148–169.

58.

Klein

Kress

(Eds.). (1973). Women, crime and criminology. Issues in Criminology, 8.

59.

Klein

M. W.

Maxson

C. L.

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

60.

Kreager

D. A.

Matsueda

R. L.

Erosheva

E. A.

(2010). Motherhood and criminal desistance in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Criminology, 48, 221–258.

61.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Heimer

Lynch

J. P.

(2009). Trends in the gender gap in violent offending: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminology, 47, 361–399.

62.

Lesser

Koniak-Griffin

Anderson

N. L. R.

(1999). Depressed adolescent mothers’ perceptions of their own maternal role. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 20, 131–149.

63.

Martin

(1976). Battered wives. San Francisco, CA: Glide Publications.

64.

McGloin

J. M.

DiPietro

(2012). Girls, friends, and delinquency. In Cullen

F. T.

Wilcox

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 294–312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

65.

Merton

R. K.

(1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

66.

Miller

(1998). Gender and victimization risk among young women in gangs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 429–453.

67.

Miller

(2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

68.

Miller

(2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York: New York University Press.

69.

Miller

Decker

S. H.

(2001). Young women and gang violence: Gender, street offending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115–140.

70.

Miller

W. B.

(1973). The Molls. Society, 11, 32–35.

71.

Moloney

MacKenzie

Hunt

Joe-Laidler

(2009). The path and promise of fatherhood for gang members. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 305–325.

72.

Moore

(1991). Going down to the Barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

73.

Moore

Devitt

(1989). The paradox of deviance in addicted Mexican American mothers. Gender & Society, 3, 53–70.

74.

Moore

J. W.

Hagedorn

(2001). Female gangs: A focus on research. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

75.

Morrison

D. M.

Spencer

M. S.

Gillmore

M. R.

(1998). Beliefs about substance use among pregnant and parenting adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 69–95.

76.

Moule

R. K.

Jr. Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

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

C. L.

Krohn

M. D.

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

77.

Owen

Bloom

(1995). Profiling women prisoners: Findings from national surveys and a California sample. The Prison Journal, 75, 165–185.

78.

Padilla

F. M.

(1992). The gang as an American enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

79.

Petersen

R. D.

Howell

J. C.

(2013). Program approaches for girls in gangs: Female specific or gender neutral? Criminal Justice Review, 38, 491–509.

80.

Peterson

(2012). Girlfriends, gun-holders, and ghetto-rats? Moving beyond narrow views of girls in gangs. In Miller

Level

L. D.

Kerring

P. K.

(Eds.), Delinquent girls: Contexts, relationships, and adaptations (pp. 71–84). New York, NY: Springer.

81.

Peterson

Miller

Esbensen

F. A.

(2001). The impact of sex composition on gangs and gang member delinquency. Criminology, 39, 411–440.

82.

Peterson

Morgan

K. A.

(2014). Sex differences and the overlap in youths’ risk factors for onset of violence and gang involvement. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37, 129–154.

83.

Peterson

Panfil

V. R.

(2014). Street gangs: The gendered experiences of female and male gang members. In Gartner

McCarthy

(Eds.), Gender, sex and crime (pp. 468–489). New York, NY: Oxford.

84.

Pollack

(1950). The criminality of women. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

85.

Pollack

Friedman

(1969). Family dynamics and female sexual delinquency. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

86.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Decker

S. H.

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

87.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Decker

S. H.

Webb

V. J.

(2014). The ties that bind: Desistance from gangs. Crime and Delinquency, 60, 491–516.

88.

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.

89.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Sweeten

Piquero

A. R.

(2013). Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 239–271.

90.

Quicker

J. C.

(1983). Homegirls: Characterizing Chicana gangs. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

91.

Quicker

J. C.

(1999). The Chicana gang: A preliminary description. In Chesney-Lind

Hagedorn

J. M.

(Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs, and gender (pp. 48–56).Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

92.

Simon

(1975). Women and crime. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

93.

Simpson

(1989). Feminist theory, crime, and justice. Criminology, 27, 605–632.

94.

Simpson

(1991). Caste, class, and violence crime: Explaining differences in female offending. Criminology, 29, 115–135.

95.

Smart

(1976). Women, crime and criminology: A feminist critique. London, England: Routledge Kegan Paul.

96.

Sommers

Baskin

D. R.

Fagan

(1994). Getting out of the life: Crime desistance by female street offenders. Deviant Behavior, 15, 125–149.

97.

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.

98.

Steffensmeier

Allan

(1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered paradigm of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459–487.

99.

Steffensmeier

Schwartz

(2009). Trends in girls’ delinquency and the gender gap: Statistical assessment of diverse sources. In Zahn

(Ed.), Delinquent girls: Findings from the girls study group (pp. 50–83). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

100.

Sudman

(1983). Applied sampling. In Rossi

P. H.

Wright

J. D.

Anderson

A. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 145–194).Toronto, Canada: Academic Press.

101.

Sweeten

Pyrooz

D. C.

Piquero

A. R.

(2013). Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Quarterly, 30, 469–500.

102.

Tasca

Zatz

M. S.

Rodriguez

(2012). Girls, experiences with violence: An analysis of violence against and by at-risk girls. Violence Against Women, 18, 672–680.

103.

Thornberry

T. P.

Krohn

M. D.

Lizotte

A. J.

Smith

C. A.

Tobin

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

104.

Thrasher

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

105.

Tita

Riley

K. J.

Ridgeway

Grammich

Abrahamse

A. F.

Greenwood

(2003). Reducing gun violence: Results from an intervention in East Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Press.

106.

Triplett

Myers

L. B.

(1995). Evaluating contextual patterns of delinquency: Gender-based differences. Justice Quarterly, 12, 59–84.

107.

Uggen

Kruttschnitt

(1998). Crime in the breaking: Gender differences in desistance. Law and Society Review, 32, 339–366.

108.

Van Voorhis

Wright

Salisbury

Bauman

(2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261–288.

109.

Varriale

J. A.

(2008). Female gang members and desistance: Pregnancy as a possible exit strategy? Journal of Gang Research, 15, 35–64.

110.

Vigil

J. D.

(1988). Group processes and street identity: Adolescent Chicano gang member. Ethos, 16, 421–445.

111.

Weerman

(2012). Are the correlates and effects of gang membership sex-specific? Troublesome youth groups and delinquency among Dutch girls. In Esbensen

F. A.

Maxson

(Eds.), Youth gangs in international perspective: Results from the Eurogang program of research (pp. 271–287). New York, NY: Springer.

112.

Zahn

M. A.

Hawkins

S. R.

Chiancone

Whitworth

(2008). Girls study group: Understanding and responding to girls’ delinquency. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

113.

Zatz

M. S.

Portillos

E. L.

(2000). Voices from the Barrio: Chicano/a gangs, families, and communities. Criminology, 38, 369–402.

114.

Zeitz

(1981). Women who embezzle or defraud: A study of convicted felons. New York, NY: Praeger.