Reading Analyses
http://cad.sagepub.com/ Crime & Delinquency http://cad.sagepub.com/content/55/3/363 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0011128707306017 2007 2009 55: 363 originally published online 14 December Crime & Delinquency Kerryn E. Bell Gender and Gangs : A Quantitative Comparison Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at:
Crime & Delinquency Additional services and information for http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://cad.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://cad.sagepub.com/content/55/3/363.refs.html Citations: at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Gender and Gangs A Quantitative Comparison Kerryn E. Bell The Ohio State University Research and theory about female gang involvement remain scarce. Drawing on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, this study addresseswhether males and females differ in risk factors associated with gang membership (e.g., community characteristics, parent-child relation\ ships, associations with deviant friends). Integrating theory and research from social disorganization, social control, and feminist perspectives on crime/ delinquency, few differences are found between boys and girls in terms of risk factors associated with gang membership and outcomes associated with gang involvement. Instead, the results indicate that parental social control, attachment, and involvement; school safety; peer fighting; age; and race similarly influence boys’ and girls’ gang involvement.
Keywords: gang; gender; delinquency A growing interest in the prevalence and nature of youth gangs has been documented in the criminological literature (Cummings & Monti, 1993; Curry, Ball, & Fox, 1994; Esbensen, Deschenes, & Winfree, 1999; Huff, 1996; Spergel, 1990; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003). In part resulting from this, there has been increasing interest \ in female gang participation (Moore, 1991). Unfortunately, there remains little consensus concerning the extent and nature of female gang activity (see J. Miller, 2001, for a discussion of this point). Partially, this lack of consensus reflects the nongeneralizability of results from previous studies (e.g., Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Laidler & Hunt, 2001; J. Miller, 1998, 2001; Wang, 2000). Moreover, research on the topic using the Denver Youth Survey (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Esbensen, Huizinga, & Weiher, Crime & Delinquency Volume 55 Number 3 July 2009 363-387 © 2009 SAGE Publications 10.1177/0011128707306017 http://cad.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com 363 Author’s Note: Please direct all correspondence to Kerryn E. Bell, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 300 Bricker Hall, 190 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210; phone:
(614) 886-0012; fax: (614) 292-6687; e-mail: [email protected].
Article at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from 1993), the Rochester Youth Development Survey (Browning, Thornberry, & Porter, 1999; Thornberry & Burch, 1997), and the Seattle Social Development Study (Hill, Lui, & Hawkins, 2001), among others, has not employed nationally representative samples (Bjerregaard, 2002; Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999; Esbensen et al., 1999; Palmer & Tilley, 1995) or focused extensively on gender differences in factors associated with gang involvement.To address these shortcomings, the current study explores gender differ- ences in gang involvement using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally representative sample of school-age children (Grades 7 to 12), and quantitative methods to assess whether characteristics associated with gang involvement differ by gender.
Addressing and building on themes from previous work, this article con- siders whether males and females differ in risk factors associated with gang membership. This is especially important because Thornberry et al. (2003) suggested that not only does gang involvement affect the lives of individu- als while in a gang but that it has negative long-term consequences as well. Background Gender Similarities in Gang Membership Recent research on gang involvement explores reasons that youth join gangs and highlights three common themes: neighborhood disadvantage, having gang-involved family or friends, and problems within the family such as neglect, lack of supervision, and drug or alcohol addiction. In a qualitative study of female gang members in Hawaii, Joe and Chesney-Lind (1995) argued that it is common for females growing up in poor neighbor- hoods to turn to gangs and that all of the females in their research des\ cribe a visible gang presence in their neighborhood. In addition, 90% of the female gang members report a family member, usually a sibling, in a gang.
Documenting the extensive nature of victimization in these females’ lives, the study also reveals that three quarters of the sample report experiencing physical abuse and 62% report sexual abuse in their family. J. Miller’s (2001) qualitative study of female gang members in Columbus, Ohio, and St. Louis, Missouri, documents similar themes leading young women to join gangs. Most notably, females’ neighborhood contexts pro- vide exposure to gangs. In addition, many young women document the strong influence of gang-involved family members, and some females 364 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from describe the existence of serious family problems such as violence and drug abuse, leading them to avoid home in an attempt to meet their social and emotional needs elsewhere. Both of these studies, however, are nongener- alizable due to their reliance on small non–nationally representative samples.Along with these studies of female gang members, research similarly indicates that male gang members disproportionately come from lower- class communities characterized by social instability, poverty, and unem- ployment (Cartwright & Howard, 1966; Hagedorn, 1988; Jankowski, 1991; W. B. Miller, 1958; Moore, 1985; Oehme, 1997; Spergel, 1990). Furthermore, Covey, Menard, and Franzese (1992) argued that the probability of males joining a gang increases with greater neighborhood disadvantage and that males are greatly influenced to join a gang if parents, siblings, and fr\ iends are or have been members.
Gender Differences in Gang Membership Despite these similarities in reasons why males and females join gangs, however, Campbell’s (1991) findings suggest that female gang members come from more disadvantaged backgrounds than male gang members.
Specifically, she stated that females in gangs are more likely than gang males to come from broken, unemployed homes and report family violence including parental drug abuse. Moore and Hagedorn (1996) furthered this argument by making the distinction that male gang members usually come from conventional working-class families, whereas female gang members are more likely to come from “underclass” families that are abusive as well.
These latter findings are consistent with the idea that females may need more of a “push” to initiate their involvement in serious offending than is the case for males (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Thus, it is argued that females join gangs because they have few options in very disadvantaged neighborhoods and they are seeking a “familial” peer group and emotionally fulfilling relationships that they do not find in other areas of their lives (Campbell, 1991; Chesney-Lind, Shelden, & Joe, 1996; Fleisher, 1998; Harris, 1988). Fleisher (1998) found some variation by gender in this regard as males are often drawn to the “action” associated with gang involvement. However, Esbensen et al. (1999) found that with the exception of males being more likely to join a gang to acquire money, there are no gender differences in reasons to join a gang. In their study, both males and females reported joining gangs, above all else, for protection. Bell / Gender and Gangs 365 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Theoretical Context When considering gender and crime, there is still an invisibility of women and girls (Belknap, 2001). Naffine (1996) noted it is with some alarm that it is still possible to study criminals without referring to \ their gender. Thus, do similar or different factors, or a combination of both, influence men and women to offend? Traditional theories lean toward sim- ilar factors, whereas feminist criminologists argue for different influences over men and women. Such feminist theories increasingly take into account intersections of various kinds of disadvantage, which can be noted in the gang context (Giordano, Cernkovick, & Randolph, 2002). In considering gender and gang involvement, both traditional and feminist theories are incorporated here. Traditional Theories Social Disorganization Theory There is considerable growth in interest in urban crime, including under- standing the proliferation of gangs that has resulted in part from the r\ apid deterioration of living conditions in many urban areas. The implication that this deterioration has for adolescent supervision and thus involvement in gang activity is often interpreted through the framework of social disorga- nization theory. Social disorganization theory assumes that delinquency emerges in neighborhoods where neighborhood relations and social institu- tions have broken down and can no longer maintain effective social controls (Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Although Sampson and Groves’s (1989) work was significant in revi- talizing social disorganization theory, Lowenkamp, Cullen, and Pratt (2003) in particular validated this work by replicating this study. Using the 1994 British Crime Survey, the authors provided further proof that support for social disorganization theory is not time specific but an enduring social reality. Bursik and Grasmick (1993) contributed to the above basic model of social disorganization theory as well by suggesting that disorder (Skogan, 1990) may have a mediating effect on the relationship between social disorganization and levels of social control. Specifically, residential instability, heterogeneity, and poverty affect interpersonal relationships within the community that open opportunities for crime. Thus, Bursick and Grasmick opened the door for a consideration of social control theor\ y at the individual level to supplement a discussion of social disorganization theory. 366 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Using the above, then, it is assumed that in disadvantaged neighbor- hoods, less supervision of both boys and girls results in greater opportunity for deviant peer exposure, which in turn increases the likelihood of adoles- cents’ association with gangs. Furthermore, the breakdown of parent-child and neighborhood relations provides greater opportunity for males and females to associate with delinquent peers and to become immersed in gangs.
Social Control Theory Social control theory assumes that all individuals would naturally com- mit crime if left to their own devices, yet most people do not commit crime as a result of certain controlling forces (i.e., individuals form social bonds that constrain them from acting on their antisocial nature). Hirschi (\ 1969) argued that both males and females who are most tightly bonded to groups such as the family, school, and peers are less likely to commit delinquent acts through the attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief such social bonds entail. Therefore, adolescents with strong attachments to fam- ily and/or those youth who are more involved and supervised by parents, or feel a sense of belonging, are less likely to belong to gangs. Walker-Barnes and Mason (2001) also suggested that gang membership is tied to deficient family relationships and poor social control such as lack of supervision.\ They drew on various studies showing that parenting behavior is broadly related to general delinquent behavior (e.g., Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler, & Mann, 1989; Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; DiLalla, Mitchell, Arthur, & Pagliocca, 1988; Keenan, Loeber, Zhang, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Van Kammen, 1995; Laub & Sampson, 1988; Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1994; Shields & Clark, 1995).
Feminist Perspective Statistically, criminologists see a great difference between amount and types of crime that men and women commit, commonly referred to as the gender gap in crime. As more feminist scholars have insisted that gender be considered in criminological research (Campbell, 1990; Joe & Chesney- Lind, 1995; Messerschmidt, 1995; J. Miller, 2002; Moore, 1991), researchers know more about girls’ experiences in gangs today. To that end, this study argues that traditional theories alone cannot explain gender differences in crime. Rather, a feminist perspective of offending emphasizes consideration of female victimization and how the social organization of gender shapes female involvement in crime. Chesney-Lind and Faith (2000) documented that victimization is at the heart of much female offending and that this pat- tern of gender entrapment best explains women’s inv olvement in crime. 1 Bell / Gender and Gangs 367 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from In terms of gang involvement specifically, feminist scholars have played a significant role in bringing to light the overlapping nature of female offending and victimization. J. Miller (2001) stated that there is evidence that many female gang members have histories of childhood victimization or find themselves in abusive adult relationships and that this sexual vic- timization continues within the gang. Furthermore, feminist scholars argue that considering the interconnected nature of women’s victimization and offending, women use violence differently than do men, that is, as a pro- tective measure in response to their vulnerability. Campbell (1993) argued that for gang males, then, violence provides power whereas for gang females, violence is a result of fear because violence is a better alter\ native than being victimized again. Campbell’s argument goes along with the idea of gender differences in crime involvement, specifically indicating that there are differences in reasons why men and women join gangs and that such differences need to be taken into account. In considering gender and gang involvement, then, both traditional and feminist theories discussed above are necessary to explain such involvement and will be shown through this research. It becomes further significant to include feminist theories as J. Miller (2002) pointed out research on girls in gangs suggests the need for ge\ nder- specific as well as gender-neutral interventions to address male and female gang members. Furthermore, Chmelynski (2006) documented how, in rec- ognizing and combating an increase of female gang members in schools, districts have implemented gender-specific programming to target girls, recognizing a necessity for such programming. This would support feminist theory assertions that reasons boys and girls join gangs, although they con- tain some similarities, are different as well. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 The above literature and theories lead to the initial hypothesis that sim- ilar factors are associated with male and female gang involvement, yet these factors influence males and females to different degrees. Specifically, it is expected that the effect of neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and crime; family disadvantage and structure; and parenting and peer behaviors will have a stronger effect on females’ likelihood of being in a gang in compar- ison to males’ likelihood. This is consistent with a feminist perspective and the idea that females may need an extra “push” to initiate involvement in delinquency or entrance into a gang (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). 368 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Hypothesis 2 Because there is some evidence that adolescents join gangs for a sense of protection, the second hypothesis is that adolescents who are more co\ n- cerned for their safety are more likely to be involved in gangs. For example, males and females living in neighborhoods with greater disorder and crime rates would be expected to report an increased need for safety. However, because previous literature suggests that both males and females in gangs live in neighborhoods with greater disorder and crime rates, gender differ- ences in the impact of safety on gang involvement are not expected. Tied to this is the use of exposure to peer deviance as a test of an intervening vari- able looking at the influence of social disorganization theory. It is expected that greater exposure to peer deviance is associated with gang membership similarly for both males and females. Specifically, it is hypothesized that both males and females are more likely to join a gang when they have greater association with deviant peers.
Hypothesis 3 The third hypothesis assumes, as social control theory would argue, that parent-child relationship quality is associated with gang membership.
Specifically, the ideas that adolescents are more likely to join gangs if they have much conflict with parents or have parents reporting a substance abuse problem are assessed. Once again, these variables are expected to similarly affect both males and females; however, they may have a stronger effect on females rather than males because females appear to need a stronger cata\ - lyst toward gang involvement and subsequent delinquency. Data and Method This study employs data from Add Health, a nationally representative sample of adolescents in Grades 7 to 12 with data collected in three waves between 1994 and 2002. Add Health is well suited for the current study because it includes measures of neighborhood characteristics, measures o\ f parenting practices and family disadvantage, and self-report data on ado- lescent involvement in gangs. On the other hand, because Add Health is a school-based data set, it can be assumed that serious gang youth would not be included. Even so, 5.4% of the boys and 2.5% of the girls in the Add Health data set claim gang involvement, which is very comparable to other research looking at female gang involvement (see the 2000 National Youth Gang Survey at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200204.pdf). Bell / Gender and Gangs 369 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Add Health consists of one in-school survey followed by three waves of in-home interviews as well as a parental questionnaire administered during the first in-home interview. A random sample of those interviewed in the initial in-school survey was chosen to participate in the longer in-home interviews. During the in-home interview, interviewers recorded the home address of each adolescent, allowing researchers to link neighborhood res- idence to census and other contextual data available at the state, county, tract, and block-group levels (Billy, Wenzlow, & Grady, 1998). The final sample size is limited to respondents with nonmissing data on the final vari- ables used in the analysis as discussed in Table 1. Thus, drawing from the parental and in-school questionnaires, Wave 1 and Wave 2 in-home inter- views, and contextual data from the 1990 U.S. Census, 7,212 respondents remain in the final sample. 2 Measures Dependent Variable The dependent variable for the research question evaluating gender dif- ferences in factors associated with gang involvement is a dichotomous indi- cator of gang involvement measured at Wave 2. Gang involvement assesses males’ and females’ response to the question, “Have you been initiated into a named gang?” Those who answer “yes” are coded 1, and those who answer “no” are coded 0. The strength of this measure is that it focuses on the robustness of self-nomination into a gang. On the other hand, the accu- racy of responses to the above question on a self-report survey cannot be verified. Furthermore, as with all cross-sectional data, because the question\ on gang involvement is only asked at Wave 2, establishing time order with risk factors and gang membership is a problem. Appendix A provides a detailed description of all variables included in the study. When studying gangs, it is important to define what is meant by the term “gang.” Esbensen, Winfree, and Taylor (2001) noted that there is little consensus among researchers as to what constitutes a gang or who is a gang member and that a popular strategy in defining gangs has been self-identification. Kornhauser (1978) argued that a major problem for gang research has been distinguishing between group and gang delinquency, thus suggesting that definitions of gangs are imprecise. To address this issue, previous research makes the distinction between gangs and other delin- quent groups by looking at the greater criminal propensity of gangs, foc\ us- ing specifically on the escalation in scope and form of gang activity in recent years (Klein, 1995; Klein & Maxson, 1989; W. B. Miller, 1982). 370 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from 371 Table 1 t Tests Describing Differences Between Females and Males (Within Gang Status) and Between Gang Members and Non–Gang Members (Within Gender) Female Male Gang Nongang GangNongang MSD MSD MSD M SD Community characteristic Neighborhood disadvantage index 0.97* a .85 –0.14 .27 1.11 .53 –0.43 .24 Neighborhood disorder 1.65* a,b .12 1.48* c .03 1.64* d .08 1.46 .02 Neighborhood crime e 5.89* a,b .43 5.25* c .28 5.69* d .36 5.24 .27 Family Family disadvantage 0.06* b .23 0.02* c .15 0.10* d .31 0.05 .22 Single (two biological parent reference) 0.03 .17 0.02* c .15 0.07* d .25 0.05 .22 Blend (two biological parent reference) 0.04 .19 0.02 .15 0.07 .26 0.05 .22 Other (two biological parent reference) 0.04 .21 0.02 .15 0.10 .30 0.05 .22 Parenting behaviors Alcohol abuse index 0.26 .25 0.06* c .05 –0.06* d .16 0.15 .06 Availability index 0.17* b .60 0.64* c .09 0.23* d .29 0.68 .10 Social control index 5.40* a,b .20 5.38* c .06 5.52* d .12 5.38 .06 Attachment index –0.85* b .80 0.98* c .15 –0.35* d .49 1.62 .15 Involvement index 5.99* a,b .46 6.09* c .11 5.23* d .33 5.56 .11 Safety School 2.93* a,b .27 3.63* c .05 3.19* d .17 3.74 .05 Neighborhood 0.02 .15 0.05 .21 0.05 .22 0.08 .26 Peer deviance Peer fighting 0.96* a,b .07 0.75* c .02 1.12* d .06 0.83 .02 Control variables Age 14.21* a,b .21 14.79* c .13 14.75* d .19 14.94 .14 Black (White reference) 0.02 .15 0.03* c .16 0.07* d .26 0.05 .22 Hispanic (White reference) 0.06* a,b .23 0.02 .14 0.08 .28 0.05 .22 Asian (White reference) 0.03.16 0.03 .16 0.06 .24 0.05 .23 Native American (White reference) 0.08* b .28 0.02 .15 0.10* d .30 0.05 .23 Other race (White reference) 0.00 .00 0.03 .16 0.08 .28 0.05 .23 Immigrant 0.00* a,b .06 0.03 .16 0.07 .25 0.05 .23 N 963,719 1863,211 a. Significant difference between female and male gang members.
b. Significant difference between female gang members and non–gang members.
c. Significant difference between female and male non–gang members.
d. Significant difference between male gang members and non–gang members.
e. Means and standard deviations are divided by 1,000.
*p< .05. at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Furthermore, Thornberry et al. (2003) suggested that the more complex structure of the gang facilitates more serious forms of criminal activity, thus distinguishing the gang from other delinquent groups. The approach taken in this study is similar to previous researchers and uses self-nomination.
Battin, Hill, Abbott, Catalano, and Hawkins (1998) used self-nomination and gang involvement in their study and noted that self-nomination and gang membership independently predict delinquency beyond the effect of having delinquent friends and prior delinquency. Esbensen et al. (2001) also used increasingly restrictive definitions of a gang and found that from a research perspective, self-nomination is the most robust measure of gang membership capable of distinguishing gang youth from non–gang youth.
Using the precedent of previous research, this study considers self-nomination into a gang as a strong dependent measure of gang involvement.Independent Variables Neighborhood characteristics . Independent variables in this study con- sist of neighborhood and family characteristics as well as parent-child rela- tionship quality and exposure to peer violence. All of these variables, measuring risk factors associated with gang involvement, are measured at Wave 1. Three neighborhood characteristics are assessed to test social dis- organization theory: neighborhood disadvantage, neighborhood crime, and neighborhood disorder. Block-level data from the 1990 census are used to measure neighborhood disadvantage associated with adolescents’ resi- dence. 3Neighborhood disadvantage is measured as an index incorporating the proportion of female-headed households, the unemployment rate, the proportion of people below poverty level, and the proportion of households receiving public assistance. Neighborhood disorder is derived from the parental questionnaire and measures parents’ report of how big a problem drug dealers and users are in the neighborhood (1 =no problem to 3 =big problem). Neighborhood crime rates are measured as the total crimes per 100,000 in the reporting county in 1990, based on information provided by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Using drug dealing and subsequent disor- der as well as higher crime rates as correlates of a more disadvantaged neighborhood, this study is able to assess neighborhood exposure to disor- der and crime.
Family disadvantage. As is the case with much literature measuring social disorganization theory, it is not just the influence of the neighborhood struc- tural factors but also the family unit itself. For e xample, Lowenkamp et al. 372 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from (2003), in replicating Sampson and Groves’s (1989) test of social disorga- nization theory, used a measure of family disruption that considers family structure. The research here uses a measure of family disadvantage that considers respondents’ families’ receipt of public assistance, a measure of family structure, and parental alcohol abuse. Receipt of public assistance is based on a survey item that asks parents whether they receive public assis- tance such as welfare (0 =no,1 = yes). Family structure is assessed with a dummy variable that compares respondents residing with two-parent bio- logical families to single, blended (i.e., step- and adoptive families), and other family types. The last measure of family disadvantage, parental alco- hol abuse, is based on a measure that asks the respondents’ parents how often they drink alcohol (coded 1 =never to 6 = nearly every day) and how often in the past month they had five or more drinks on one occasion (coded 1 = never to 6 = 5 +times). These two items are standardized and summed such that higher values indicate a greater likelihood of parental abuse of alcohol. As previous research on gender and gang involvement suggests the influence of family substance abuse (Campbell, 1991; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; J. Miller, 2001), parental alcohol abuse is also an important concept to test here.
Parent-child relationship quality. Social control theory can be assessed by looking at four aspects of parent-child relationship quality. First, a parental availability index is created based on a question that asks how often the resident mother and/or father is home when the adolescent leaves and returns from school (ranging from 1 =never to 6 = she/he takes me/brings me home from school ) and whether the resident mother and/or father is home when the adolescent goes to bed (ranging from 1 =never to 5 = always). These items are standardized and summed to create an index of parental availability. A parent-child social control index is created by incorporating the following items: how often the parent allows the adoles- cent to make his or her own decisions about the time he or she has to be home on weekends, the people he or she hangs around with, what he or she wears, how much television and what he or she watches, what time he or she has to go to bed on weeknights, and what he or she eats. Each item ranges from 0 = noto 1 = yes,and the items are summed to create the parent-child social control index. A parent-child attachment index measures how close the adolescent feels to his or her resident mother and/or father, how much he or she thinks the parents care for him or her, whether he or she feels the parents are warm and loving toward him or her, and how satisfied he or she is with the Bell / Gender and Gangs 373 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from parental relationship. The range for this index is 1 =not close at all/do not feel parent cares at all to 5 =extremely close/feel parent cares very much.
These items are summed and standardized to create the attachment index. Finally, a parent-child involvement index asks whether, in the past 4 weeks, the adolescent reports that his or her resident mother/father par- ticipated in the following activities with him or her: gone shopping, played a sport, gone to a religious service or a movie, talked about a personal prob- lem or schoolwork, or worked on a school project. Each item on the parent- child involvement index ranges from 0 =no to 1 = yes, and the items are summed to create the involvement index. All of these measures are described in Appendix A.
Safety. Safety, or a sense of protection, has also been described as a rea- son to join a gang (Esbensen et al., 1999). Thus, respondents are asked how safe they feel in school and in their neighborhood. Whether the adolescent feels safe in school is coded from 1 ( strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with a higher value indicating a feeling of greater safety. Neighborhood safety is also measured with a simple dichotomous response for whether the indi\ - vidual feels safe in his or her neighborhood (0 =no, 1 = yes). Finally, the role of peer influence, an indicator of peer violence, is included from \ the preconstructed network data. Each friend in the respondent’s friendship network reports on how often he or she has been involved in a physical fight. Each friend’s response is summed and divided by the number of friends in the network, resulting in a measure of friends’ average involve- ment in violence. 4These items measuring safety are also being used to test social disorganization theory and are used as measures of the individual’s reaction to his or her environment.
Control Variables Controls for age (measured in years), race (measured with six dummy variables for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other races, with Whites as the reference category), a measure of school dropout between Waves 1 and 2 (0 =nondropout, 1 = dropout), and a mea- sure of immigrant status (0 = non–foreign born,1 = foreign born) are also included. Appendix A provides definitions of all control variables included in the analyses. Appendix B provides a correlation matrix describing bivari- ate associations among all variables by gender (female correlations are above the diagonal and male correlations are presented below the diagonal).
Of note, Appendix B indicates little evidence of high collinearity among independent variables. 374 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Analytic Strategy To test whether the neighborhood and family characteristics as well as parenting and peer behaviors described above are associated with gang membership, survey-corrected logistic regression is employed due to the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable. 5To test gender differences in the strength of the associations, interactions between gender and the\ independent variables of interest are introduced. Results Bivariate Analysis Table 1 presents initial bivariate tests describing differences between females and males within gang status and between gang members and non–gang members within gender.
Gender Differences for Gang Members Focusing first on gender differences for gang members, Table 1 indicates that female and male gang members differ in terms of the influence of neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and crime (female gang members experience less neighborhood disadvantage but greater neighborhood dis- order and crime). Female gang members also differ from male gang members in terms of parental social control and involvement (girls experi- ence less social control and more parental involvement), school safety (girls experience less safety), and peer fighting (female gang members experience less peer fighting). Finally, female gang members differ from male gang members in terms of their age (female gang members are on average younger), their race (female members are less likely to be Hispanic), and immigrant status (male gang members are more likely to be immigrants than are female gang members).
Female Gang Members Versus Non–Gang Members Focusing on risk factors associated with gang membership and compar- ing female gang members to female non–gang members, female gang members report greater neighborhood disorder and crime, family disadvan- tage, and peer fighting yet less parental availability, attachment, and involvement and school safety than female non–gang members. Female gang members also experience more peer fighting than their nongang coun- terparts. Furthermore, female gang members are more likely to be Hispanic Bell / Gender and Gangs 375 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from or Native American, more likely to be younger, and less likely to be immi- grants compared to female non–gang members.Male Gang Members Versus Non–Gang Members In comparing male gang members and non–gang members, initial descriptive findings suggest that similar to females, males in gangs report greater neighborhood disorder and crime than males not in gangs. In addi\ - tion, male gang members show greater family disadvantage and are more likely to come from single-parent households than is the case for nongang males. Male gang members also show significantly less parental availabil- ity, attachment, and involvement as well as less school safety and greater exposure to peer fighting than their nongang counterparts. In addition, these bivariate results indicate that male gang members are more likely to be Black or Native American and younger than is the case for male non–gang members. Overall, descriptive results support the hypotheses that similar influences such as neighborhood factors as well as parenting and peer behaviors affect both boys and girls, but to different degrees.
Multivariate Analysis Table 2 presents the results of multivariate analyses. Table 2 presents the results of logistic regression addressing whether community and family characteristics, parenting behaviors, safety, and peer deviance are associ- ated with male and female gang involvement. Although interactions were conducted with all independent variables, only the base model and those with significant interactions are presented here. Results indicate very few gender differences in the effect of risk factors on gang involvement. In terms of gender differences, females who are Hispanic do have greater odds of gang membership in comparison to Hispanic males. Furthermore, immi- grant status is more protective for females than is the case for males.
However, the effect of community disadvantage, family disadvantage, par- enting behaviors, safety, and peer deviance on gang involvement is not moderated by gender. Model 1 serves as the baseline model and indicates that females are sig- nificantly less likely to be involved in a gang than males. Specifically, the odds that females will be gang members are 0.6 times lower than those for males. Furthermore, three parenting behaviors are significantly associated with gang membership. Counterintuitively, greater parental social control and involvement increase the odds of gang involvement. Perhaps this indi- cates parents’ increased efforts to mediate the effects of gang membership. 6 376 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from 377 Table 2 Logistic Regression of Community and Family Characteristics, Parenting Behaviors, Safety, and Peer Deviance on Gang Initiation (Standard Errors in Parentheses) a Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 BOdds bOdds bOdds Female –1.21 (.20)*** 0.39 –1.43 (.31)*** 0.35 –1.14 (.21)*** 0.42 Community Neighborhood disadvantage index 0.06 (.03) 1.04 0.06 (.03) 1.03 0.06 (.03) 1.04 Neighborhood disorder 0.14 (.15) 1.28 0.14 (.15) 1.28 0.14 (.15) 1.29 Neighborhood crime b 0.00 (.03) 1.00 0.00 (.03) 1.00 0.00 (.03) 1.00 Family Family disadvantage 0.30 (.33) 1.41 0.31 (.33) 1.42 0.29 (.33) 1.38 Single (two biological parent reference) 0.02 (.29) 0.71 0.04 (.28) 0.72 0.04 (.29) 0.71 Blend (two biological parent reference) 0.22 (.27) 1.29 0.23 (.27) 1.28 0.22 (.27) 1.29 Other (two biological parent reference) 0.10 (.39) 1.36 0.07 (.41) 1.37 0.11 (.40) 1.37 Parenting behaviors Alcohol abuse index –0.05 (.05) 0.98 –0.05 (.05) 0.98 –0.05 (.05) 0.98 Availability index 0.05 (.04) 1.01 0.05 (.04) 1.01 0.05 (.04) 1.01 Social control index 0.13 (.06)* 1.07 0.13 (.05)* 1.07 0.13 (.06)* 1.07 Attachment index –0.09 (.02)*** 0.92 –0.09 (.02)*** 0.93 –0.09 (.02)*** 0.92 Involvement index 0.08 (.03)* 1.04 0.08 (.03)* 1.04 0.08 (.03)* 1.04 Safety School –0.28 (.06)*** 0.81 –0.27 (.06)*** 0.81 –0.28 (.06)*** 0.81 Neighborhood 0.19 (.25) 1.02 0.18 (.25) 1.01 0.19 (.25) 1.02 Peer deviance Peer fighting 0.50 (.10)*** 1.73 0.49 (.10)*** 1.73 0.49 (.10)*** 1.73 (continued) at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from 378 Table 2 (continued) Model 1Model 2 Model 3 BOdds bOdds bOdds Control variables Age –0.16 (.05)*** 0.87 –0.16 (.05)*** 0.87 –0.16 (.05)*** 0.87 Hispanic (White reference) 0.98 (.23)*** 2.67 0.53 (.30) 2.18 0.98 (.23)*** 2.65 Black (White reference) 0.16 (.30) 1.26 0.25 (.34) 1.39 0.15 (.30) 1.25 Asian (White reference) 1.16 (.34)*** 2.24 1.19 (.44)** 2.20 1.12 (.34)*** 2.23 Native American (White reference) 1.07 (.42)** 2.65 0.95 (.54) 2.13 1.06 (.42)** 2.63 Other race (White reference) 0.46 (.64) 1.22 0.59 (.66) 1.60 0.48 (.65) 1.28 Immigrant –0.33 (.36) 0.69 –0.35 (.37) 0.70 0.04 (.37) 0.97 Female ×Hispanic 1.25 (.47)** 1.65 Female ×Black –0.31 (.54) 0.76 Female ×Asian –0.07 (.80) 1.03 Female ×Native American 0.40 (.79) 1.64 Female ×Immigrant –4.51 (1.12)*** 0.12 Intercept –1.65 (1.00)–1.68 (.98) –3.05 (1.08)** R 2 .10*** .11*** .11*** a. Only those models with significant interactions are included here.
b. Means and standard deviations are multiplied by 1,000.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from More consistent with prior research, less parental attachment is associa\ ted with a greater likelihood of gang membership, and feeling less safe in school is also associated with increased likelihood of gang involvement.
Greater exposure to peer fighting increases the probability of gang involve- ment, whereas older age reduces the likelihood of gang involvement. Last, being Hispanic, Asian, or Native American is indicative of greater gang involvement in comparison to the White reference category. Conclusion Overall, the importance of this research is the use of a large, nationally representative sample to assess associations of gang involvement for males and females that help elucidate whether the nature of gang involvement is gendered. Findings provide little evidence that risk factors associated with gang involvement differ for males and females. This study does find, however, significant gender differences in terms of entrance into a gang for Hispanics and if the respondent is an immigrant\ .
Specifically, Hispanic females are significantly more likely to be involved in gangs than are Hispanic males. However, females who are first-generation immigrants to the United States are significantly less likely to be involved in gangs than males of the same status. Perhaps this lesser involvement of first-generation females in gangs indicates greater parental control of s\ uch girls on introduction to a new culture. Future research should continue to evaluate whether gender differences in gang experience are conditioned by race or ethnic identity. In addressing the research question (Are there gender differences in the risk factors associated with gang membership?), this study finds largely similarities between males and females in the factors associated with gang involvement. Neighborhood disadvantage, parent-child relationship factors, school safety, and exposure to violent peers similarly affected male and female adolescents’ likelihood of being in a gang. These findings corrobo- rate previous studies and traditional theories of crime such as social control theories, which suggest that the reasons for male and female involvement in crime—and in this case, reasons for joining a gang—are similar.
However, in contrast to qualitative findings, which highlight the rate of neighborhood disadvantage for gang membership, findings here indicate that neighborhood disadvantage is unassociated with gang membership once relevant control variables are introduced. Perhaps this reflects a diffu- sion of gangs across the United States so that they are no longer limited to Bell / Gender and Gangs 379 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from disadvantaged urban areas in just a few cities (Dukes & Stein, 2003; Klein, 1995; Thornberry et al., 2003).Similar to prior findings, this study does indicate that gang involvement is associated with parenting behaviors and exposure to peer deviance among male and female adolescents. The importance of parental attach- ment for both males and females is consistent with previous literature, which suggests that adolescents, particularly females, join gangs to find “familial” and emotionally fulfilling relationships that they do not find in other areas of their lives (Campbell, 1991; Chesney-Lind et al., 1996; Fleisher, 1998; Harris, 1988). Exposure to peer violence is also associated with a greater likelihood of gang involvement and may be tied to less parental attachment. Thus, although the hypotheses were not proven, gender differences were found when it comes to the involvement of boys and girls of different races and ethnicities and immigrant statuses. It was argued at the beginning of this article that both traditional and feminist theories combine to explain gender and gang involvement. Social control theory was supported as sim- ilarities were found between gender when considering reasons why males and females join a gang. Surprisingly, a lack of difference by neighborhood or gender does not provide much support for social disorganization or fem- inist theories. Perhaps this article suggests it is best to get at gende\ r differ- ences through a combination of quantitative and qualitative research as such differences appear subtle and difficult to assess through just quantita- tive research. Future research on gender and gangs should thus include mul-\ tiple methods. Future research should also take a longitudinal approach to the evalua- tion of differences between male and female gang members such that causal statements about gang involvement can be made. Such research could also, then, look at gang influence on delinquency and victimization.
In addition, reliance on self-report data alone can be improved by incorpo- rating various data sources into research. Specifically, using self-report data such as Add Health as well as official police reports or in-depth interviews on gang activity and with gang members in an area could provide greater reliability regarding gang involvement. Finally, the gang type and its impact on gender are also important. Future research should consider different types of gangs (i.e., gangs with females as auxiliary members through a\ ll- girl gangs). These suggestions for future research could augment research on gender differences in gang involvement.
380 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Appendix A Operationalization of Variables Variable NameDescription Dependent variable Gang initiation (Wave 2) 0 = no,1 = yes Independent variable Gender 0 = male, 1 = female Community characteristic Neighborhood disadvantage Using 1990 census, in block proportion households(µ =.93) that are female householder, unemployment rate, proportion people with income below poverty level in 1989, proportion of households receiving public assistance Neighborhood disorder How big a problem drug dealers and users are in the neighborhood (1 =no problem, 3 = big problem) Neighborhood crime Total crime rate per 100,000 in the reporting county Family Family disadvantage Is your family receiving public assistance? (0 =no, 1 = yes) Family structure Dummy variable for two biological parents (reference category), single parent, blended (i.e., step-/adoptive), and other Parenting behavior Alcohol abuse (µ = .64) How often have you drunk in the past month (1 =never, 6 = nearly every day), how often 5+ drinks in the past month (1 =never, 6 = 5 +times) Availability (µ = .70) Resident mother is home when respondent leaves for school (1 =never,6 = she takes me to school ), resident mother is home when respondent returns from school (1 =never, 6 = she brings me home from school ), resident mother is home when respondent goes to bed (1 =never, 5 = always), resident father is home when respondent leaves for school (1 =never, 6 = he takes me to school), resident father is home when respondent returns from school (1 = never,6 = he brings me home from school), resident father is home when respondent goes to bed (1 =never, 5 = always) Social control (µ = .66) Whether parents let respondents make own decisions about time they are home on weekends, people they hang around with, what they wear, how much television they watch, programs they watch, time they are in bed on weeknights, what they eat (0 =no, 1 = yes) Bell / Gender and Gangs 381 (continued) at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Attachment (µ =.86) How close respondents feel to resident mother, how much they feel resident mother cares, most of the time resident mother is warm and loving, respondents are satisfied with resident mother relationship, how close they feel to resident father, how much they feel resident father cares, most of the time resident father is warm and loving, respondents are satisfied with resident father relationship, how much they feel parents care (1 =not close at all/do not feel parents care, 5 = extremely close/feel parents care very much) Involvement (µ = .74) In the past 4 weeks, went shopping with resident mother, played a sport with resident mother, went to a religious service with resident mother, talked about dating with resident mother, went to a movie with resident mother, talked about a problem with resident mother, talked about schoolwork with resident mother, worked on a school project with resident mother, talked about other school items with resident mother, went shopping with resident father, played a sport with resident father, went to a religious service with resident father, talked about dating with resident father, went to a movie with resident father, talked about a problem with resident father, talked about schoolwork with resident father, worked on a school project with resident father, talked about other school items with resident father (0 = no,1 = yes) Peer deviance Fighting Safety School You feel safe in your school (1 =strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) Neighborhood Do you usually feel safe in your neighborhood?
(0 =no, 1 = yes) Control variable Age Measured in years Race Dummy variable for White (reference category), Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and all other races Immigrant Whether respondent is first-generation immigrant to the United States (0 = non–foreign born, 1 = foreign born) Not in school Whether respondent is in school or not (0 =nondropout, 1 = dropout) 382 Crime & Delinquency Appendix A (continued) Variable Name Description at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Appendix B Correlation Matrix (Females Above Diagonal and Males Below Diagonal) 123456789101112 1. Gang initiation — .05 .04 .04 .06 .01 .01 .02 .02 –.02 .00 –.05 2. Neighborhood .12 — .37 .30 .29 .24 –.02 .10 –.02 –.07 –.02 –.18 disadvantage index 3. Neighborhood disorder .07 .32 — .11 .17 .18 –.03 .02 .03 –.09 –.04 –.16 4. Neighborhood crime .04 .25 .06 — .06 .11 –.01 .03 .01 –.02 –.01 –.06 5. Family disadvantage .06 .30 .19 .05 — .26 –.03 .05 .06 –.08 –.06 –.17 6. Single (two biological .06 .21 .14 .12 .20 — –.24 –.10 .06 –.58 –.01 –.57 parents reference) 7. Blend (two biological .04 .03 .04 –.01 .01 –.22 — –.08 .10 .00 .03 –.04 parents reference) 8. Other (two biological .00 .13 .03 .07 .02 –.09 –.08 — –.06 –.02 .02 –.06 parents reference) 9. Alcohol abuse index –.03 –.05 .03 .01 .01 .08 .06 .00 — –.09 .06 –.07 10. Availability index –.04 –.08 –.10 –.02 –.08 –.56 –.01 .02 –.13 — –.08 .65 11. Social control index .02 –.04 .01 –.03 –.03 .06 –.01 .03 .06 –.14 — –.04 12. Attachment index –.10 –.16 –.16 –.06 –.18 –.61 –.05 –.05 –.12 .70 –.10 — 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 13. Involvement index — .19 .09 –.14 –.07 –.04 –.16 –.04 –.03 –.01 –.01 14. School safety .18 — .21 –.12 –.11 –.06 –.09 .01 –.06 .01 .01 15. Neighborhood safety .05 .13 — –.11 .05 –.06 –.12 –.01 –.02 .01 .01 16. Peer fighting –.07 –.05 –.06 — –.22 .03 .04 –.01 .07 –.03 –.03 17. Age –.09 –.14 .05 –.24 — –.01 .05 .02 –.02 –.02 .05 18. Hispanic (White reference) –.02 –.04 –.09 .05 .02 — –.14 –.06 –.05 –.03 .18 19. Black (White reference) –.11 –.10 –.05 .06 .04 –.13 — –.08 –.07 –.04 –.05 20. Asian (White reference) .01 –.04 .01 –.06 –.01 –.06 –.08 — –.03 –.02 .36 21. Native American –.03 –.02 –.04 .03 –.03 –.05 –.06 –.03 — –.01 –.03 (White reference) 22. Other race .03 –.04 –.02 .01 –.06 –.04 –.05 –.02 –.02 — .12 (White reference) 23. Immigrant –.03 –.04 –.06 –.06 .07 .19 –.02 .36 –.03 .02 — Bell / Gender and Gangs 383 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Notes 1. Campbell (1990) also argues that the general tendency is to minimize and distort moti- vations of female gang members as a result of gender bias on the part of \ male gang researchers, who describe females’ experiences from the male gang members’ point of view. 2. Cases were lost when restricting respondents to all three waves of data, namely, the in- school questionnaire and subsequent Wave 1 and Wave 2 in-home interviews. Furthermore, the final sample size was also restricted through incorporation of the parental questionnaire, \ net- work data, and finally inclusion of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health sam- pling weights necessary to adjust for the stratified cluster sampling design. 3. Based on high factor loadings in a principal components analysis, items in the neigh- borhood disadvantage index were summed and standardized at the block level. 4. For more information on the use of network data to assess peer deviance, see Haynie (2001). 5. All regression analyses incorporate survey weights that adjust the standard errors to reflect the clustered nature of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health sampling design (see Chantala & Tabor, 1999). 6. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine if this interpretation is correct with t\ he National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data because gang involvement is measured only during the second wave of in-home interviews. To assess this requires measures of par- enting practices and gang involvement at multiple points in time. References Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology, 36(1), 93-111.
Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice ( 2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Billy, J. A., Wenzlow, A., & Grady, W. (1998). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Part I, codebooks for the Waves I and II contextual database. Retrieved August 2002 from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/strategies/design.html Bjerregaard, B. (2002). Self-definitions of gang membership and involvement in delinquent activities. Youth & Society, 34 (1), 31-54.
Blaske, D. M., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Mann, B. J. (1989). Individual, family, and peer characteristics of adolescent gender offenders and assaultive offenders.
Developmental Psychology, 25,846-855.
Browning, K., Thornberry, T., & Porter, P. (1999). Highlights of findings from the Rochester Youth Development Study (Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effec- tive community control. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, A. (1990). Female participation in gangs. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, A. (1991). Girls in the gang(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Campbell, A. (1993). Men, women and aggression. New York: Basic Books.
Cartwright, D., & Howard, K. (1966). Multivariate analysis of gang delinquency: Ecological influences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 321-337.
384 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25, 295-319.
Chantala, K., & Tabor, J. (1999). Strategies to perform a design-based analysis using the Add Health data. Retrieved August 2002 from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/ strategies.html Chesney-Lind, M., & Faith, K. (2000). What about feminism? In R. Paternoster & R. Bachman (Eds.), Explaining criminals and crime (pp. 287-302). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Chesney-Lind, M., Shelden, R., & Joe, K. A. (1996). Girls, delinquency, and gang member- ship. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America(pp. 185-204). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chmelynski, C. (2006). When “mean girls” turn to female violence. Education Digest, 72(4), 37-39.
Covey, H. C., Menard, S., & Franzese, R. J. (1992). Juvenile gangs.Chicago: Thomas.
Cummings, S., & Monti, D. J. (1993). Gangs: The origins and impact of contemporary youth gangs in the United States. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Curry, G. D., Ball, R. A., & Fox, R. J. (1994). Gang crime and law enforcement recordkeep- ing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Deschenes, E. P., & Esbensen, F. (1999). Violence and gangs: Gender differences in percep- tions and behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15 (1), 63-96.
DiLalla, L. F., Mitchell, C. M., Arthur, M. W., & Pagliocca, P. M. (1988). Aggression and delinquency: Family and environmental factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 233-246.
Dukes, R. C., & Stein, J. A. (2003). Gender and gang membership. Youth & Society, 34(4), 415-441.
Esbensen, F., Deschenes, E., & Winfree, L. T. (1999). Differences between gang girls and gang boys: Results from a multisite survey. Youth & Society, 31 (1), 27-53.
Esbensen, F., & Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology, 31(4), 565-590.
Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., & Weiher, A. (1993). Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9, 94-116.
Esbensen, F., Winfree, L. T., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gang and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 47(1), 105-130.
Fleisher, M. (1998). Dead end kids: Gang girls and the boys they know. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Giordano, P., Cernkovick, S., & Randolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (4), 990-1064.
Hagedorn, J. M. (1988). People and folks: Gangs, crime and the underclass in a rustbelt city.
Chicago: Lakeview Press.
Harris, M. G. (1988). Cholas: Latino girls and gangs. New York: AMS Press.
Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106 (4), 1013-1057.
Hill, K., Lui, C., & Hawkins, J. D. (2001, December). Early precursors of gang membership: A study of Seattle youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin,pp. 1-5.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huff, C. R. (1996). Gangs in America(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jankowski, M. S. (1991). Islands in the streets: Gangs and American urban society. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Joe, K. A., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). “Just every mother’s angel”: An analysis of gender and ethnic variations in youth gang membership. Gender & Society, 9(4), 408-431. Bell / Gender and Gangs 385 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Keenan, K., Loeber, R., Zhang, Q., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van Kammen, W. B. (1995).The influence of deviant peers on the development of boys’ disruptive and delinquency behavior: A temporal analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 715-726.
Klein, M. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence and control. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (1989). Street gang violence. In N. Weiner & M. Wolfgang (Eds.), Violent crime, violent criminals (chap. 8). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laidler, K. J., & Hunt, G. (2001). Accomplishing femininity among the girls in the gang. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 656-678.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1988). Unraveling families and delinquency: A reanalysis of the Glueck’s data. Criminology, 26, 355-380.
Lowenkamp, C., Cullen, F., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Replicating Sampson and Grove’s test of social disorganization theory: Revisiting a criminological classic. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 40(4), 351-373.
Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., & Hiraga, Y. (1994). Adolescent problem behav- ior: The effect of peers and the moderating role of father absence and the mother-child relationship. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 723-743.
Messerschmidt, J. (1995). From patriarchy to gender: Feminist theory, criminology and the challenge of diversity. In H. Rafter & F. Heidensohn (Eds.), International feminist perspectives in criminology: Engendering a discipline (pp. 167-188). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Miller, J. (1998). Gender and victimization risk among young women in gangs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35 (4), 429-453.
Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, and gender. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, J. (2002). Young women in street gangs: Risk factors, delinquency, and victimization risk. In W. Reed & S. Decker (Eds.), Responding to gangs: Evaluation and research (pp. 67-105). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14 (3), 5-19.
Miller, W. B. (1982). Crime by youth gangs and groups in the United States. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Moore, J. (1985). Isolation and stigmatization in the development of the underclass: The case of Chicano gangs in East Los Angeles. Social Problems, 33, 1-10.
Moore, J. (1991). Going down to the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Moore, J., & Hagedorn, J. M. (1996). What happens to girls in the gang? In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 205-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Naffine, N. (1996). Feminism and criminology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Oehme, C. G. (1997). Gangs, groups, and crime: Perceptions and responses of community organizations. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Palmer, C. T., & Tilley, C. F. (1995). Genderual access to females as a motivation for joining gangs: An evolutionary approach. Journal of Gender Research, 32(3), 213-217.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social- disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (4), 774-802.
Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
386 Crime & Delinquency at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from Shields, G., & Clark, R. D. (1995). Family correlates of delinquency: Cohesion and adapt-ability. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 22, 93-106.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neigh- borhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Spergel, I. A. (1990). Youth gangs: Continuity and change. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (chap. 4). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22 (1), 459-488.
Thornberry, T., & Burch, J. (1997). Gang members and delinquent behavior (Bulletin).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Thornberry, T., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., Smith, C., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walker-Barnes, C., & Mason, C. (2001). Ethnic differences in the effect of parenting on gang involvement and gang delinquency: A longitudinal, hierarchical linear modeling perspec- tive. Child Development, 72 (6), 1814-1831.
Wang, J. Z. (2000). Female gang affiliation: Knowledge and perceptions of at-risk girls. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (5), 618-632.
Kerryn E. Bell is a doctoral candidate in sociology at The Ohio State University. Her research interests include intersections of gender, race, and crime. She is currently looking at changes in patterns of female offending over time. Bell / Gender and Gangs 387 at RUTGERS UNIV on January 3, 2011 cad.sagepub.com Downloaded from
