|
Abstract
|
This study examines alternative explanations for why gang members are more likely to have higher rates of serious and violent crime than nongang members. Specifically, three models are posited: (a) a selection or "kind of person" model; (b) a social facilitation or "kind of group" model; and (c) an enhancement model that combines aspects of the selection and social facilitation models. Each model has different implications for the rate of delinquency and drug use of gang members before, during, and after membership in a gang. Data from the Rochester Youth Development Study, a panel study that overrepresents adolescents at high risk for serious delinquent behavior and drug use, are used to compare these models. Findings indicate that gang members, as compared to nongang members, did not have higher rates of delinquent behavior or drug use before entering the gang, but once they became members, their rates increased substantially. Moreover, when gang members left the gang their rates of delinquency typically were reduced. These results are interpreted as being supportive of the social facilitation model.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The intent of this article by Thornberry et al. was to determine whether gang members were more involved in criminal activity during their membership than they were before and after their membership, or whether gangs select criminally predisposed members who would engage in criminal activity regardless of their status as gang members.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi-experimental, longitudinal design with a stratified sample comprised of public school students in Rochester, New York. This multiwave panel study was designed to examine the causes and correlates of delinquent behavior and drug use and was identified as the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS). The items in this self-report index were derived from the national Youth Survey (Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton 1985) as modified by the Denver Youth Survey (Huizinga, Esbensen, and Weiher 1991). The three hypotheses tested by the data were: 1) Selection (criminal activity dependent upon the type of person). 2) Social facilitation (criminal activity depending on type of group). 3) Enhancement (in which selection and facilitation models were combined such that gangs recruited members on the basis of their existing delinquency [selection], but also provided an atmosphere which encouraged and increased delinquency [social facilitation]. The sample was stratified on two dimensions: 1) Males were overrepresented (3:1). 2) Students from high-crime areas were oversampled on the assumption that they would be at greater risk for offending. All students in the highest arrest rate areas were asked to participate while those in the remaining census tracts were selected according to their proportional contribution to the overall arrest rate. The students were then stratified by gender and grade in school, and then selected from the strata at random. Weighted analysis was applied to these students since the true probability of each adolescent selected was known. The final panel consisted of 987 students who were interviewed every 6 months. Since census rates from 1986 were utilized to calculate the sampling rates, the first wave of data were most likely obtained shortly thereafter. The analysis in this article was based on waves 2 through 7; during wave two the students were in the fall semester of the 8th or 9th grade and during wave 7 they were in the spring semester of 10th or 11th grade. Because of the relatively low base rates of gang membership during a given wave, data were combined into three annual time periods: waves 2 & 3; waves 4 & 5; waves 6 & 7. The surveys targeted information on: Violence (6 items); crimes against property (17 items); drug use (9 items); drug selling (2 items); general delinquency (a composite of the other three indexes); and self-reported gang membership. The dependent variable was self-reported delinquency and drug use. Respondents were grouped according to gang membership during time 1 only; time 2 only; time 3 only; times 1 & 2 only; times 2 & 3 only; or times 1 & 2 & 3. Cross-time comparisons examined the delinquency and drug use of gang members when they were members and when they were not. Cross-group comparisons examined the delinquency and drug use of gang members and nongang members.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
1) General delinquency: Transient members (those who were gang members for only one year) fell within the social facilitation model because their involvement in delinquency was high during gang membership, although they were not more delinquent during noninvolvement than nongang members. Stable gang members (those who remained members for at least 2 years) fell within the enhancement model because they exhibited the highest rates of delinquency but even for them the rates were higher during gang membership. 2) Crimes against the person: Both transient and stable gang members fell within the social facilitation model because they were both more likely to engage in violence during membership. In addition, during nonmembership they did not differ from nongang members in terms of person offenses. 3) Crimes against property: Neither transient or stable gang members fell into any of the three models, because gang membership had only a minor impact on crimes against property, and gang members were not substantially different from nongang members. 4) Drug sales: Transient members fell into the social facilitation model, while for stable members this model was not consistent. Results for stable gang members were mixed during their nonmembership and the results may have been confounded due to an age or period effect. The age group might have been young enough that the onset of drug sales was due to their aging process rather than their gang involvement. 5) Drug use: Both transient and stable gang members fell into the social facilitation model because drug used tended to increase during active gang membership than either before or after, and differences between gang members and nongang members were more extreme during active gang membership.
The strongest support for the social facilitation model was in crimes against the person. Since crimes against the person were the behaviors most often associated with gangs, since the general delinquency index also supported the social facilitation model, and since the only offense type that did not support the social facilitation model was property crime, the authors argue that the social facilitation model was most descriptive of gang behavior. The enhancement model described some of their behavior, but was limited in its scope, and the selection model remained unapplicable.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
Because the boys in the study were on the younger end of the age continuum for gang membership, further studies should consider membership in later adolescence. In addition, the studies should broaden their scope to include several cities, and because Rochester was identified as a city where the gang problem was emerging, a city with a consistent population of gang members should also be analyzed. Finally, because gang membership seemed to occur for a period of only a few years, the phenomenon should not be treated as a stable trait or as a constant characteristic of its members. In sum, future research should be less myopic in its scope, argue the authors, and should examine the processes at work in the social facilitation model. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
REFERENCES:
This article has also been published as a chapter in: Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., & Miller, J. (1995). The Modern Gang Reader. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
N1 - Call Number: F-471, AB-471
KW - New York
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Crime
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Gang
KW - Gang Crime
KW - Gang Delinquency
KW - Gang Violence
KW - Gang Membership Effects
KW - Delinquency Causes
KW - Crime Causes
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Peer Crime
KW - Peer Delinquency
KW - Peer Violence |