Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2009 Risk Factors of Gang Membership: A Study of Community, School, Family, Peer and Individual Level Predictors Among Three South Florida Counties Karla Johanna Dhungana

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

RISK FACTORS OF GANG MEMBERSHIP: A STUDY OF COMMUNITY, SCHOOL,

FAMILY, PEER AND INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PREDICTORS AMONG THREE SOUTH

FLORIDA COUNTIES

By

KARLA JOHANNA DHUNGANA

A Thesis submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2009

The members of the committee approve the thesis of Karla Johanna Dhungana defended on April 24, 2009.

______Sarah Bacon Professor Directing Thesis

______William Bales Committee Member

______Brian Stults Committee Member

Approved:

______Sarah Bacon, Thesis Committee Chair, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice

______Thomas Blomberg, Dean, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members. ii

I dedicate this to my twin brother and other half, Jeffrey Carlo Dhungana; after spending 22 years together two roads diverged. While his journey took him on adventures across the Americas, I found myself in Graduate School. Both eager to become Agents of Change, in following our separate paths we came to discover and realize within ourselves a similar tenacity, courage and perseverance. For the inspiration, love and support since day one and for remaining my hero, despite our physical distance, this one is for you brother!

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincerest gratitude is due to my major professor and committee chair, Dr. Sarah Bacon for her commitment to the project from its conception and her un- wavering faith and support throughout.

My appreciation also goes out to my thesis committee members, Dr. William Bales and Dr. Brian Stults for believing in the project and especially for sharing their statistical expertise; without which my analyses would not have been scrutinized and reach the accuracy and caliber that it did.

Special thanks to Mr. Hal Johnson from the Florida Department of Children and Families for providing the dataset utilized for the study.

My appreciation and immeasurable debt is also owed to my family, especially my parents, Dr. Shambhu and Josefina Dhungana, for believing in me enough to allow me to follow my dreams and venture on my own, my twin brother Jeff for his constant words of support despite our physical distance and my older brother Rajan for always believing in his baby sister.

Lastly, thanks and appreciation a thousand times over is due to my circle of friends in Tallahassee as well as my best friend Anjali Lohani in Boston, for celebrating every small success and seeing me through every little obstacle along the way; without them to commiserate with I would not have survived this process.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... vi

Abstract ...... vii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. HISTORY OF GANGS AND EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND ...... 4 2.1 What is a Gang? ...... 4 2.2 Prevalence and Development of Gangs in America ...... 5 2.3 Gangs in Florida ...... 7 2.4 Risk Factors of Gang Involvement ...... 10

3. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS……………………………. 16 3.1 Life Course Perspective ...... 16 3.2 Gangs and the Life Course Perspective ……………… ...... 16

4. METHODS ...... 19 4.1 Data ...... 19 4.2 Measures ...... 20

5. RESULTS ...... 24 5.1 Gang Prevalence ...... 24 5.2 Gang Membership Predictors by Risk Domain ...... 25

6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Discussion ...... 34 6.2 Policy Implications ...... 38 6.3 Limitations ...... 41 6.4 Directions for Future Research ...... 41

APPENDICES ...... 44 A. FLORIDA STATUTE 874.03: CRIMINAL GANG DEFINITION 44 B. FLORIDA GANGS ...... 47 C. MEASURES/SCALE OF RISK FACTORS BY DOMAIN... 55 D. FSU HUMAN SUBJECT COMMITTEE APPROVAL ...... 60

REFERENCES ...... 60

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...... 70

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Windows of Opportunity for Gang Prevention and Intervention 12

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics ...... 20

Table 3: Descriptives of Measure...... 22-23

Table 4: Gang Involvement by Gender ……………………………………. 24

Table 5: Gang Involvement by Race...……………………………………… 24

Table 6: Gang Involvement by Grade ……………………………………… 25

Table 7: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors, All Counties………………………………………………………...... 30

Table 8: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors, Broward County …………………………………………………………...... 31

Table 9: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors, Miami-Dade County………………………………………...... 32

Table 10: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors, Palm Beach County ………………………………………………...... 33

vi

ABSTRACT

Recent studies have shown that the influence of gang membership is a more detrimental predictor of delinquency than the association with delinquent peers alone. A recent survey reported the existence of at least 1,500 gangs and over 65,000 gang members in Florida (FDLE, 2007). Furthermore, statistics also reveal that Florida currently has the most rapidly growing gang population in comparison to all other states. This study examines and compares the predictors of gang membership in three South Florida counties with the highest gang membership rates, Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, by evaluating risk factors at the community, family, school, peer and individual level. Using the Florida Substance Abuse Survey Data, the study seeks to examine the risk factors predictive of gang memberships that are present in the three counties, how the exposures to multiple risk factors increase the odds of gang memberships and how they compare in exposure to risk factors. Logistic regressions are employed to identify significant predictors of gang membership net of the effects of race and gender. Implications for policy and gang intervention programs are discussed.

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Research has found that other than one’s own prior delinquency, one of the most robust predictors of the onset, continuance or desistance of delinquency is the association with delinquent peers (Akers et al., 1979; Elliot et al., 1985; Matsueda & Heimer, 1987; Thornberry & Krohn, 1997; Warr & Stafford, 1991;). However, studies have recently begun to show the influence of gang membership on delinquency to be more detrimental (Battin et al., 1998; Thornberry, 1998). Gang membership has been found to be a strong predictor of individual violence in adolescence (Hawkins et al., 1998; Battin et al., 1998; Thornberry, 1998), of drug use and drug trafficking even after leaving a gang (Hill et al., 1995; Thornberry et al., 2003) and predict higher rates of delinquency among its members as compared to non-gang members (Hagedorn, 1998; Maxon & Klein, 1990; Taylor, 1990; Thornberry et al., 2003).

Gangs are prevalent in all 50 states and as of September 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported the existence of approximately 20,000 gangs with around one million members in the United States, with close to 80 percent of the crime in many communities attributed to criminal gangs (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). Common gang related crimes include alien smuggling, armed robbery, assault, auto theft, drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, home invasions, identity theft, murder, and weapons trafficking (FBI, 2009), making the gang problem an urgent issue to consider. Understanding the developmental process of gang membership could have important policy implications for gang and gang violence prevention, intervention and suppression and concurrently for community safety, crime and violence reduction.

Predictors of gang membership have been identified at the individual (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Hill et al., 1999; Kosterman et al., 1996; Thornberry et al., 1993), peer (Curry & Spergel, 1992; Hill et al., 1999; Kosterman et al., 1996; Fagan, 1990; Maxson et al., 1998; Vigil & Yun,

1

1990), family (Adler, Ovando & Hocevar, 1984; Bowker & Klein, 1983; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Friedman, Mann & Friedmann, 1975; Hill et al., 1999; Kosterman et al., 1996; Maxon et al., 1998), school (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Kosterman et al., 1996; Hill et al., 1999) and community levels (Hill et al., 1999; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Kosterman et al., 1996; Lizotte et al., 1994; Thornberry et al., 2003). However, to be able to properly structure successful gang prevention and intervention programs, risk factors need to be identified for specific geographic locations. Each location can vary based on demographics such as racial, age and socio-economic make-up as well as social structural factors. Evaluating and identifying risk factors by location will not only allow for the identification of “at risk” youth but also for a program to tailor its efforts towards areas that most require intervention.

This study seeks to identify risk factors of gang involvement present in three Southeast Florida counties, Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. The 2007 Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) State-wide Gang Survey reported the existence of at least 1,500 gangs and over 65,000 gang members in the state of Florida. According to the FBI National Gang Threat Assessment, of the 67 Florida counties, the ones with the most gang members were Miami-Dade, with a reported 3,500 – 9,999 gang members and Palm Beach, Broward, Hills-Borough and Polk, with a reported 2,500 – 3,499 gang members (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). Furthermore, according to the Florida Gang Investigators’ Association, the US gang population is growing more rapidly in Florida than any other state.

The Florida Attorney General, along with state agencies, law enforcement agencies and community leaders has initiated a collaborative effort to develop a Statewide Gang Reduction Strategy. The strategy seeks to “increase the safety of the citizens of Florida by empowering Florida’s youth to reject criminal gangs as a viable option and by substantially reducing gang-related crime and violence in Florida” (Florida Gang Reduction Strategy: ii). The Attorney General contends that the gang issue is not just a law enforcement issue, but rather a community issue. He asserts that gang reduction strategies should include community partners in the assessment, planning, 2

implementation and evaluation and that an intervention process of “localizing, prioritizing and energizing” needs to occur. Prevention and intervention programs aimed at youth that are not yet involved in gangs, but may be on a trajectory path toward gang involvement as well as youth already in identified gangs committing delinquent and/or criminal activities is pointed out as a key aim. However, to provide sustainable intervention programs the need to define high risk youths must first be contended with. This study is a first step towards doing just that for three Florida counties with some of the highest gang membership rates in the state.

The paper is presented as follows: Chapter 2 provides an introduction to gangs, followed by a historical summary of gang development and prevalence in America and Florida. Also included in this chapter is a discussion of the risk factors associated with gang involvement and a review of the empirical findings associated with the risk factors. Chapter 3 presents a discussion of theoretical considerations for the present study. This study employs a life-course approach to the study of risk factors associated with gang membership. Thus, a brief discussion of the life-course perspective and its implications to the present study is discussed. Chapter 4 provides information on the data and descriptions of the measures utilized. Chapter 5 discusses statistical methods employed and report’s findings of the present study. Lastly, Chapter 6 concludes with a discussion of the key findings, the policy implications of the study as well as areas of limitations and directions for future research.

3

CHAPTER 2

HISTORY OF GANGS AND EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 What is a Gang?

In identifying what characterizes a gang, Fredric Thrasher, a pioneer in gang research trained through the Chicago School, stated that “no two gangs are just alike. [They] present an endless variety of forms, and each one is in some sense unique” (1927/2000: 15). Over 90 years later, this still holds true and can be observed through the major disagreements in the field about the appropriate operational definition of what constitutes a gang (Ball & Curry, 1995; Decker & Kempf-Leonard, 1992; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Miller, 1975, 1992; Bjerregaard, 2002). As Esbensen et al. point out, the lack of a universal definition of gang and gang members can lead to an under or over- estimating of gang membership which can have serious implications for public policies, law enforcement resource allocations and the accurate assessment of the epidemiology of gang members (2001: 105). Thrasher was among the first to characterize a gang and his definition stated that: The gang is an interstitial group originally formed spontaneously, and then integrated through conflict. It is characterized by the following types of behavior: meeting face to face, milling, movement through space as a unit, conflict, and planning. The result of this collective behavior is the development of tradition, unreflective internal structure, esprit de corps, solidarity, morale, group awareness, and attachment to a local territory (1927/2000: 18-19) However, Thrasher’s definition lacked the inclusion of delinquent or law-violating behavior. Thus, following Thrasher, many researchers have sought to expand this definition (Ball & Curry, 1995; Fleisher, 1998; Klein, 1971; Klein & Maxson, 1989; Miller, 1992; Curry & Spergel, 1988; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Klein’s (1971) definition identified a group distinguished by the neighborhood and themselves and one that has had delinquent behaviors recognized by their neighborhood and/or law enforcement,

4

whereas Curry and Decker’s (1998) definition took both Thrasher and Klein’s concepts and included the use of symbols and verbal and non-verbal communication to affirm their gang status, a sense of permanence, territorial turf and crime (p 2-6). Most researchers however, have come to terms with the fact that gang characteristics and behaviors differ across geographic regions (Egley, Howell, and Major, 2006; Klein, 2002; Weisel, 2002). Even law enforcement agencies have differences in their definitions of gangs (Ball and Curry, 1995; Klein, 1995, Spergel, 1995). A majority of states now have their own laws and statutes defining gangs and gang members. Based on recommendations of key gang researchers (Curry & Decker, 1998; Esbensen, 2000; Klein, 1995; Moore, 1998; Klein, Kerner, Maxson & Weitekampf, 2001), the following definition incorporates key criteria for classifying a group as a youth gang: ‐ The group must include three or more members. ‐ Members must fall within a limited age range, generally ages 12 to 24. ‐ Members must share some sense of identity, generally indicated by such symbols as style of clothing, graffiti, hand signs, and unique identifying gang signs or trademarks. ‐ Members of the group must view themselves as a gang and be recognized by others as a gang. ‐ The group must have some permanence and a degree of organization. ‐ The group must have a set of verbal and nonverbal forms of communication. ‐ The group must be involved in delinquent or criminal activity beyond a normal level of such involvement.

2.2 Prevalence and development of gangs in America

Gangs in the United States are speculated to have emerged from spontaneous play groups or as a collective response to urban social conditions (Thrasher, 1927, Spergel, 1995). Gang growth and activity in the United States can be identified during several distinct periods, the late 1800’s, the 1920’s, the 1960’s and the 1990’s and onward (Curry & Decker, 1998; Howell, Moore & Egley, 2002). During the late 1800’s 5

and early 1900’s the momentum of gangs grew particularly in low-income neighborhoods of expanding or declining industrial or postindustrial urban centers such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago (Thrasher, 1927/2000, Spergel, 1995, Esbensen et al., 2004). Thrasher observed that the formation of Chicago gangs was conditioned by community disorganization, familial disintegration and deterioration in social institutions. Through the observation of over 1,300 gangs in Chicago, he noted that gangs were a way of creating a society, when lack of a suitable one existed (Thrasher, 1927/2000). The 1960’s saw a decline in gang related activities (Short et al., 1963), potentially due to the increased involvement in the counter-culture movement, social and political activities of ethnic pride, civil rights, and the anti-war movement. However, a re- emergence of gangs occurred in the 1970’s. The growth of modern day gangs was captured by Walter Miller in his 1975 report; the first nationwide study of the scope of gang influence in the United States. In his report he noted that, “All was quiet on the gang front for almost 10 years. Then, suddenly and without advance warning, the gangs reappeared” (1975: 1-2). A study conducted in twelve of the largest US cities, his findings reported the existence of 275 police verified gangs with around 11,000 members nationwide. These modern day gangs came to be conditioned by a different set of trends such as increased access to sophisticated weaponry, increased mobility and increased violence (Klein, 1995; Miller, 1966, 1975; Spergel, 1995). As a result, modern gangs of the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s were characterized by increased drive-by shootings (Miller, 1966), increased ties to prison institutions (Hagedorn, 1988; Miller, 1992; Moore, 1990; Vigil, 1988), alcohol and drug use (Fagan, 1990; Thornberry, 1998), and involvement in drug trafficking (Battin et al., 1998; Fagan, 1990; Miller, 1992; Taylor, 1989; Thornberry, 1998). A recent OJJDP report highlighted the growth of gang problems from the 1970’s, when only 19 states reported gangs to the 1990’s when all 50 states reported dealing with gangs (Miller, 2001). The current estimate of 20,000 gangs with close to 1 million criminally active members (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009) poses a significant issue for the nation. Between 2004 and 2008 there was a 13 percent increase in law

6

enforcement agencies reporting criminal gang activities in their jurisdictions (45 percent versus 58 percent) and gangs are reported to be engaging in more sophisticated methodologies and activities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). They are utilizing the internet as a tool for recruitment and criminal activity and they serve as primary retail- level distributors of illicit drugs, especially of marijuana and cocaine, competing and putting themselves at the same threat level as U.S based Mexican drug trafficking organizations (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). Some of the country’s largest gangs include Mara Salvatrucha (aka MS-13): the largest Hispanic street gang in the United States with 6,000 – 10,000 members nationwide and involved in primarily violent crimes such as drug distribution, murder, rape, prostitution, robbery, home invasions, immigration offenses, kidnapping, carjackings/auto thefts, and vandalism; the 18th Street Gang: majority of members are illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America with approximately 30,000-50,000 members active in 44 cities in 20 states, primarily involved in drug trafficking; the Bloods: most members are African American males with 7,000 – 30,000 members active in 123 cities in 33 states; the Crips: most members are African American males with 30,000 – 35,000 members active in 221 cities in 41 states; the Tiny Rascal Gangsters: one of the largest and most violent Asian street gangs with 5,000 – 10,000 members; the Gangster Disciples: structured like a corporation and led by a chairman of the board, it has 25,000 – 50,000 active members in 110 cities in 31 states; and the Vice Lord Nation: with 30,000 – 35,000 members active in 74 cities in 28 states (FBI, 2009). 2.3 Gangs in Florida

The state of Florida legally defines a criminal street gang and criminal street gang member through Florida Statute 874.03. The statute states that a criminal gang is a “a formal or informal ongoing organization, association, or group that has as one of its primary activities the commission of criminal or delinquent acts, and that consists of three or more persons who have a common name or common identifying signs, colors, or symbols, including, but not limited to, terrorist organizations and hate groups” (Florida Legislature, 2009). For the full statute, refer to Appendix A. 7

A state grand-jury report released in December 2007 reported significant increases in not only gangs and gang memberships but also in violent crimes committed by gangs. As noted above, a majority of gang members are adolescents and young adults, and a significant number of crimes in most neighborhoods can be attributed to gangs. In 2008, youth under the age of 18 accounted for 23.31 percent of all arrests in the state of Florida. The state of Florida reports 2-3 gang members per law enforcement officer (U.S Department of Justice, 2009) and 4 gang members per 1,000 populations (U.S Department of Justice, 2009).

One of the most active Florida gangs is the Latin Kings. In the 1980’s the Latin Kings began operating in Miami-Dade County, with current chapters also being recognized throughout Palm Beach, Broward and Orange counties (Florida Department of Corrections, 2009). Other major active Florida gangs include the 18th Street Gang, MS-13, SUR 13, the Bloods, the Crips and the Black Gangster Disciples. Florida also has a large number of White Supremacist Groups that hold Neo-Nazi beliefs and use a hate orientation and race rhetoric. Some of these groups include the American Nazi Party, the Church of the Creator, the Aryan Nation, the Klu Klux Klan and the Silent Brotherhood (Florida Department of Corrections, 2009). A list of gangs/security threat groups encountered by the Florida Department of Corrections can be found in Appendix B.

In 2007, Broward County had an estimated population rate of 1,759,591of which 23.6 percent were youth under the age of 18 (U.S. Census Bureau). Of these youth, 15.7 percent was reported to be living in poverty (U.S Census Bureau), which is calculated using a measure of poverty thresholds; a family is counted as poor if its pretax money income is below its poverty threshold. Money income does not include non-cash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, employer-provided health insurance and food stamps (National Poverty Center, 2006). The total crime rate in Broward county increased by 5.2 percent from 2006 to 2007 (FBI, 2008) and 7.8 percent of all Florida violent crimes involving firearms occurred within the county (FDLE, 2008). 8

Miami-Dade County had an estimated population of 2,387,170 in 2007, of which 22.8 percent were under the age of 18 (U.S Census Bureau). 20.2 percent of these youth were reported as living in poverty (U.S Census Bureau). There was a 5.6 percent increase in total crime from 2006 to 2007 (FBI, 2008) and 21.1 percent (the highest rate in the state) of all Florida violent crimes involving firearms were reported to have occurred within Miami-Dade county in 2007 (FDLE, 2008). As the county with the highest reported numbers of gang and gang members, the Miami-Dade Police Department established the Multi-Agency Gang Task Force (MAGTF) and since 2004 have reported successfully conducting 56 sweeps, 1,931 arrests of gang members, which included 462 felonies, 1,296 misdemeanors, 170 warrants and 2 traffic arrests (Parker, 2009). The Task Force has also seized 100 weapons, 4,565 grams of Marijuana, 3,000 grams of Cocaine and $32,187 in U.S. Currency since 2004 (Parker, 2009). The Palm Beach Post reports at least 130 gangs operating in Palm Beach County, some based in single cities while others have their “turfs” dispersed throughout the county (Slater, 2007). In 2007, the youth population was 21.2 percent of the 1,266,451 total population, of which 15.5 percent of youth were reported to be living in poverty (U.S Census Bureau). There was a 2.2 percent increase in the total crime from 2006 to 2007 (FBI, 2008) and 7.1 percent of all violent crimes involving firearms in 2007 occurred in Palm Beach county (FDLE, 2007). In 2006, the county reported 101 murders, the highest rate in nearly a decade, a majority of which were attributed as drug and/or gang related cases (Palm Beach Post, 2007). As a result, Palm Beach County in conjunction with agencies such as the Sheriff's Office, the State Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach Police and The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have formed a Federal Gang Task Force to crack down on the growing number of gangs and gang related violent incidents throughout the county. As illustrated above, the gang issue is critical and expanding in the state of Florida, specifically South Florida. While Task Forces and collaborations between local and federal agencies are proving to be successful tools for gang activities suppression, an examination and understanding of the antecedents of gang membership could help

9

in the prevention, intervention and reduction of gang involvement by identifying developmental pathways and risk factors that lead to gang membership and thus curbing the rates of gang memberships itself.

2.4 Risk Factors of Gang Involvement

Risk factors are “individual or environmental hazards that increase an individual’s vulnerability to negative developmental outcomes” (Small & Luster, 1994: 182). They have been used in studies to predict adolescent drug use, delinquency and school dropout (Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992; Hawkins et al., 1998; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1987; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994; Arthur et al., 2002). Most of the risk factors that have been found to predict delinquency have also been found to be predictors of gang involvement (Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992; Hill et al., 1999; Kosterman et al., 1996).

Howell (2003) proposes viewing youth gangs along an age-graded continuum with the following groups represented along the gamut: childhood play-groups, troublesome youth groups, youth subculture groups, delinquent groups, taggers, school- based youth gangs, street-based youth gangs and adult criminal organizations. He presents a comprehensive community approach to understanding and addressing youth gang problems through a discussion of windows of opportunity, an example of a pathway or process that develops into a youth’s gang involvement based on risk domains. Table 1 presents this window.

Howell’s discussion has many implications for gang prevention, intervention and suppression programs and policies. According to the table presented below, by age 15 most windows for prevention closes and only a brief opportunity for intervention exists. The window for intervention is brief and any efforts thereafter will have to be efforts focused on suppression. Thus programs need to not only be tailored by geographic regions, they also have to focus on the age range of the targeted population. An understanding of key risk factors of different domains and developmental phases is thus critical for any gang intervention or prevention program to have maximum impact. A 10

brief discussion of risk factors of gang involvement associated with each domain is presented below.

11

Table 1: Windows of opportunity for gang prevention and intervention (adapted from Howell, 2003)

Risk and Protective Factors

Family School Peer Group Individual Characteristics Community

Age 3 Age 6 Age 9 Age 12 Age 15 Age 18

Conduct Problems Elementary School Failure Child Delinquency Gang Member Serious & Violent Offending

Prevention Intervention Suppression

12

2.4.1 Individual Domain Risk Factors

Individual characteristics have been substantially supported and linked to gang membership. Prior delinquency is a strong predictor of gang involvement in that youth already involved in deviant behavior are more likely to join than those who are not (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Kosterman et al., 1996; Thornberry et al., 1993). Additionally, youth holding fewer conventional beliefs, pro-gang attitudes and deviant attitudes have a higher likelihood of gang membership (Esbensen, Huizinga & Weiher, 1993; Fagan, 1990; Hill et al., 1999; Kosterman et al., 1996; Winfree et al., 1994). Illegal gun ownership has also been linked to gang involvement, with gang members twice as likely to carry a gun and be involved in delinquency (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Lizotte et al., 1994; Vigil & Long, 1990). Alcohol and drug use has also been shown to predict gang membership, delinquency and violence as well as higher rates among gang members as compared to non-gang members (Hill et al., 1999; Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Esbensen, Huizinga & Weiher, 1993; Thornberry et al., 1993; Vigil & Long, 1990). Furthermore, gang members were also found to be three times as likely to be involved in selling drugs (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; also see Fagan, 1990; Thornberry et al., 1993).

2.4.2 Peer Domain Risk Factors

Association with delinquent peers (Hill et al., 1999; Kosterman et al., 1996; Fagan, 1990; Maxson et al., 1998; Vigil & Yun, 1990) has found to be among the strongest peer risk factors of gang involvement. Also significant is associating with friends who are gang members (Curry & Spergel, 1992; Winfree et al., 1994), friends who use drugs (Curry & Spergel, 1992) and associating with friends who sell drugs (Curry & Spergel, 1992).

13

2.4.3 Family Domain Risk Factors

Familial predictors of gang involvement include poor family management such as low family involvement, inappropriate parental discipline and low parental control and monitoring (Adler, Ovando & Hocevar, 1984; Bowker & Klein, 1983; Friedman, Mann & Friedmann, 1975; Maxon et al., 1998; Moore, 1991). A history of family antisocial behaviors such as parental use of alcohol and drugs and a history of deviant behavior as well as sibling involvement in delinquency and antisocial behaviors has also been linked to gang involvement (Hill et al., 1999, Kosterman et al., 1996). Moreover, lack of parental role models (Wang, 1995), lack of adult role models (Miller, 1958; Vigil, 1988) and family members in gangs (Curry & Spergel, 1992; Moore, 1991; Moore, Vigil & Garcia; 1983) have also been found to be familial predictors of gang involvement.

2.4.4 School Domain Risk Factors

Academic failure has shown to be a strong predictor of gang involvement within the school domain (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Kosterman et al., 1996; Hill et al., 1999). Similarly, low commitment to school (Hill et al., 1999; Bowker & Klein, 1983; Maxson et al., 1998), low educational aspirations (Hill et al., 1999, Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Kosterman et al., 1996) and educational frustrations (Curry & Spergel, 1992) have also been found to significantly predict gang involvement.

2.4.5 Community Domain Risk Factors

Among the strongest risk factors at the community level is the availability of drugs (Hill et al., 1999; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Hagedorn, 1988, 1994a, 1994b; Kostermann et al., 1996; Taylor, 1989; Howell, 2003) and the number of neighborhood youth in trouble (Hill et al., 1999; Curry & Spergel, 1992). Also significant were high crime neighborhoods (Kosterman et al., 1996; Vigil, 1988, Howell, 2003) and socially disorganized neighborhoods with high levels of residential mobility (Curry & Spergel,

14

1988; Fagan, 1996; Short & Strodtbeck, 1965; Thornberry et al., 2003; Vigil, 1988). Gangs are found to be disproportionately clustered around socially disorganized neighborhoods, reflecting Thrasher’s original observations in the 1920’s (Thrasher, 1927/2000; also see Fagan, 1996; Vigil, 1988). In addition, the availability of firearms in a neighborhood was also found to predict gang involvement (Lizotte et al., 1994; Miller, 1992; Newton & Zimring, 1969).

15

CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

3.1 Life Course Perspective

The life course perspective is a multidisciplinary perspective that focuses on the study of patterns of change throughout the life course and the continuity between childhood behavior and later adulthood outcomes (Sampson & Laub, 1993). It combines ideas from various disciplines such as biology, psychology, sociology and history. According to Cohen and Vila (1996) life course studies attempt to understand 1) how lives and societal or historical change both influence each other and 2) how early events and influences in an individual’s life may influence behavior and other outcomes throughout the life course. It is concerned with both the effects of macro-level events as well as micro-level studies of individual development. It views aging and development as a continuous process and includes two central underlying concepts; trajectories and transitions (Elder, 1985). Trajectories are defined as pathways or lines of development over the life span which may include work life, marriage, parenthood, self-esteem or criminal behavior (Elder, 1985). Transitions are short term events embedded in trajectories such as starting a new job, getting married or being sentenced to prison. The interconnectedness of trajectories and transitions may lead to turning points or a change in an individual’s trajectory or life course (Elder, 1985). Turning points that may “re-direct paths” or modify trajectories include school, a cohesive marriage, meaningful work/career, serving in the military and parenthood (Elder, 1985; Rutter et al., 1990; Sampson & Laub, 1990).

3.2 Gangs and the Life-Course Perspective

Antisocial behavior has come to be recognized as a possible transition towards later delinquency and deviant behaviors (Farrington, 1977; Krohn et al., 1995; Sampson

16

& Laub, 1993). The use of the life-course perspective in studying gang involvement thus could not only help in understanding the factors that lead to gang membership but also the long term developmental consequences of it. Thornberry et al. (2003) suggest gang membership serving as both a trajectory and a turning point.

In viewing it as a trajectory, they point that gang membership can be seen as a pathway that certain individuals enter and others do not (Thornberry et al., 2003: 7). Several important characteristics define criminal trajectories that could be applied to gang membership trajectories. Participation refers to the prevalence or involvement of an individual. The beginning of a trajectory (criminal career or gang involvement) is marked by the age of onset. Desistance is the endpoint of a trajectory. Frequency refers to the number of offenses committed during a criminal career or during some specified time. Lastly, seriousness and generality relate to seriousness of the crime as well whether an individual’s career is marked by specialization or involvement in a wide variety of offenses (Benson, 2002). Individuals can differ in participation rates within a gang, their age of onset for gang membership as well as their length of participation and seriousness in the gang. Furthermore, by incorporating both stability and change over the life course (Sampson & Laub, 1993) the life-course perspective implies that gang membership trajectories can be influenced by several domains such as the individual’s structural position, neighborhood context, family, school, peer and individual characteristics (Thornberry et al., 2003: 7).

Alternatively, gang membership could also serve as a turning point for some individuals, modifying their trajectory. It is suggested that gang membership could facilitate an increase in deviant attitudes and behaviors, disrupt the normal course of adolescent development and reduce the likelihood of following a pro-social trajectory (Thornberry et al., 2003: 7-8). Especially notable is the link between delinquency and gang membership (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Curry & Spergel, 1992; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Kosterman et al., 1996; Thornberry et al., 1993) and the potential for significant re-direction in a trajectory. Delinquency could lead to formal sanctions through the criminal justice system thus reducing the chances of future employment by 17

becoming officially labeled; it can deteriorate school performance as well as weaken pro-social relationships.

While the present study utilizes cross-sectional data, the use of the life-course perspective to frame and conceptualize the discussion and relevance of the topic is applicable. The study uses a risk factors approach which is consistent with a life-course perspective in that it implies that there are multiple, often over-lapping risk factors that can account for an individual’s involvement in gangs. Furthermore, this perspective focuses on social bonding over the life course, suggesting that the institutions of both formal and informal social control vary throughout life and that depending on age these institutions have different roles and meanings (Laub, Sampson & Allen, 2001: 101). The emphasis on informal social controls can be reflected in gang memberships, which is influenced by interpersonal bonds to various different domains (i.e., school, peers, family etc.). While the cross-sectional nature of the data will not allow for the differentiation between the antecedent risk factors and consequences of gang involvement, it can still provide noteworthy information on the risk factors that are present in the analyzed counties and provide a first step towards identifying at the very least which areas of risk require and warrant the most attention.

18

CHAPTER 4

METHODS

The present study examines the research questions 1) Which risk factors of gang membership are present in 3 Southeast Florida counties – Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade?, 2) How does exposure to specific risk factors affect the odds of gang membership and 3) How do the counties compare in exposure to risk factors?

4.1 Data and Sample

The study utilizes data from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey (FYSAS). The FYSAS is a survey administered annually throughout the state of Florida and is a collaborative effort between the Florida Departments of Children and Families, Health, Education and Juvenile Justice under the leadership of the Governor’s Office of Drug Control. It is based on the Communities That Care Youth Survey, developed from the works of Dr. J. David Hawkins and Dr. Richard F. Catalano. The Communities that Care Youth Survey was designed to identify risk and protective factors across the domains of community, school, family, peer and individuals to predict alcohol, tobacco, other drug use and delinquent behavior (Arthur et al., 2002). Thus the FYSAS survey was originally intended to determine the levels of risk and protective factors faced by Florida youth and correlate those levels to alcohol, tobacco and other drug use rates (Florida Department of Children and Families, 2008). During odd years the data is collected at the state level and on even years, the survey is collected at the county and DCF district level. The data utilized for this study is from 2008. The focus of this study is on three South Florida counties, Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach.

19

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics

County Male Female White Hispanic African Other American Broward 4,234 4,690 2,546 2,696 3,378 515

Miami-Dade 1,106 1,314 306 1,616 459 87

Palm Beach 842 966 774 462 500 114

The 2008 survey was administered to 90,000 students in grades 6 through 12 in the spring of 2008 from 714 schools. The survey is representative of each county and/or local school district. For the purpose of this study, only responses from students of the aforementioned counties were analyzed, thus the total number of student responses used from 2008 were Broward (n = 9,135), Miami-Dade (n = 2,468) and Palm Beach (n = 1,850) with a total number of N = 13,453 participants surveyed in 2008. The sample has 47 percent males and 53 percent female respondents. Approximately 35.5 percent of the 2008 sample reported being Hispanic, 32.2 percent African American, 27 percent White, 4 percent Asian and the rest as Other. Table 2 displays the demographic information for the sample of this study.

4.2 Measures 4.2.1 Gang Involvement

Each respondent was asked “Have you ever belonged in a gang?” followed by “Did that gang have a name?” to identify them from informal peer groups. Gang membership was measured through a dichotomous variable; respondents that claimed to be in a named gang were identified as belonging in a gang, and the others as not belonging in a gang. Similar self-report measures of gang involvement have been used in previous gang studies (Hill et al., 1999, Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Hindelang et al., 1981; Klein, 1995; Thornberry et al., 1993).

20

4.2.2 Risk Factors

Each domain included several risk factors. Several multi-item scales were created to tap into specific risk factors. In creating the scales, correlations matrixes were created to observe associations between the single items. This was followed by a principle components analysis to verify the uni-dimensionality of each scale. Items that needed re-coding were re-coded. Items for each scale were then standardized and averaged to give each individual a single score for the scale. Lastly, alpha reliability coefficients were calculated for each multiple item scale to measure its internal reliability. Individual risk factors included scales on deviant attitudes (α = .821) and prior delinquency (α = .689) as well as questions on alcohol and drug use and drug trafficking. Peer risk factors included scales measuring friends drug use (α =.802) and interaction with delinquent peers (α =.818). Family measures included scales of family management problems (α = .771), family antisocial behavior (α =.801) and attachment to parents (α =.842). School risk factors were tapped through scales measuring academic failure (r = .417**) and low commitment to school (α = .691). Lastly, community level risk factors were measured through scales of low neighborhood attachment (α = .821), community disorder (α =.820), community disorganization and residential mobility (α =.585), perceived availability of drugs (α = .864) and a question on perceived availability of firearms. For the full list of questions included in each scale and the operationalization of each risk factor refer to Appendix C.

4.2.3. Control Variables

4.2.3.1 Female

Most prior gang research have traditionally focused on males, however recent studies have begun to show that risk factors and likelihood of gang membership is also prevalent among females (Moore & Hagedorn, 2001; Thornberry et al., 2003). Thornberry et al., (2003) found that the prevalence for joining a street gang was 29.3

21

percent for girls and 32.4 percent for boys; however girls were less likely to stay a gang member. Additionally, according to the 2007 Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) State-wide Gang Survey, 34.1percent of law enforcement agencies in the state report an increase in female gang involvement. A dummy variable was created to identify females versus males in this study, with codes of 0 = Males and 1 = Females.

4.2.3.2 Race

Prior research shows that Hispanic and African Americans are more likely to be gang members as compared to Whites (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Hill et al., 1999; Winfree et al., 1994). The 2007 FDLE State-wide Gang Survey reported that law enforcement agencies reported a higher number of African American (37.6%) and Hispanic (32.6%) gang members as compared to 23.2 percent of Whites in the State of Florida. Additionally, the racial make-up of the counties included for analyses in this study revealed the following for the year 2007: Broward County, 25.3 percent African American, 23.4 percent Hispanic and 48.1 percent White; Miami-Dade County, 19.1 percent African American, 62 percent Hispanic and 17.9 percent White; and Palm Beach County reported 16.4 percent African American, 17.3 percent Hispanic and 63.9 percent White (U.S. Census Bureau). Dummy variables were created to identify Non- Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics and Others. The Other category included youth who self- identified themselves as Asian, American Indian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Other. The reference category was Non-Hispanic Whites. Table 3 displays descriptives for all measures utilized in the present study.

Table 3: Descriptives of Measures

Risk Factors Mean Standard Deviation Individual Deviant Attitudes .64 1.7 Prior Delinquency .55 .90

22

Table 3: Continued

Risk Factors Mean Standard Deviation Individual (continued) .22 .66 Alcohol & Drug Use .10 .65 Selling Drugs Peer Friends Drug Use 1.04 1.07 Delinquent Peers 1.16 1.74 Family Family Management Problems 1.18 .82 Family Antisocial Behavior 1.12 .97 Low Attachment to Family 1.73 .79 School Academic Failure 1.01 .63 Commitment to School 1.42 .67 Community Neighborhood Attachment 1.25 .86 Community Disorder 1.38 .63 Community Disorganization .65 .98 Perceived Availability of Drugs .98 Perceived Availability of Firearms .50 .91 Controls Percentage Female 53% (Males 47%) Non-Hispanic Black 32.3% Hispanic 35.5% Other (Race) 5.2% Non-Hispanic Whites (reference category) 27%

23

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

5.1 Gang Prevalence

In 2008, 5.6 percent of the 3 county sample self reported belonging in a gang. The prevalence of males (8.7%) in gangs was higher than for females (4.06%), see Table 4. In order to examine gender differences in gang membership, a chi-square test was conducted. Findings revealed statistical significance, χ² (1, N = 13,453) = 109.10, p >.001 indicating that males and females significantly differed in their gang involvement.

Table 4: Gang Involvement by Gender

Female Male

Yes 262 (4.06%) 472 (8.7%)

No 6182 (95.94%) 4952 (91.3%)

Table 5: Gang Involvement by Race

Ethnicity B W H O Yes 344 (10.5%) 131(3.8%) 273(6.2%) 155 (8.6%) No 3419(89.5%) 3249(96.2%) 4071(93.8%) 1801 (91.4%)

Note: Ethnicity: B = Black/African American, W = White/Caucasian, H = Hispanic/Latino, O = Asians, American Indians, Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and Others

24

Additionally, 10.5 percent of Blacks/African Americans, 3.8 percent of Whites, 6.2 percent of Hispanics/Latinos and 8.6 percent of Others reported being involved in a gang in 2008. Gang involvement by race is summarized in Table 5. Gang membership by grade showed gang involvement as early as sixth grade and in every grade thereafter. Gang involvement was reported among 4.8 percent of sixth graders, 7.6 percent of seventh graders, 7.2 percent of eighth graders, 8 percent of ninth graders, 5.8 percent of tenth graders, 4.6 percent of eleventh graders and 4.6 percent of twelfth graders. In order to examine the influence of grade level on gang involvement, a one-way ANOVA was conducted, which revealed significant differences between the grade levels, F (6, 12121) = 6.47, p < .001. Table 6 summarizes gang involvement by grade level.

Table 6: Gang Involvement by Grade

Number (and Percentage) of Respondents Ever Belonging in Gang (ALL counties) 2008

Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Yes 86 (4.8%) 157 (7.6%) 136 (7.2%) 131 (8%) 104 (5.8%) 78 (4.6%) 62 (4.6%)

No 1683 (95.2%) 1886 (92.4%) 1735 (92.8%) 1516 (92%) 1665 (94.2%) 1601 (95.4%) 1288 (95.4%)

5.2 Gang Membership Predictors by Risk Domain

Due to the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable bivariate logistic regressions were conducted to measure the odds ratios which show the association between gang membership and each risk factor. Logistic regression applies maximum likelihood estimation after transforming the dependent variable into a logit variable (the natural log of the odds of the dependent variable occurring or not) and estimates the odds of a certain event occurring. An odds ratio of less than 1 indicates that the risk

25

factor is associated with a decreased likelihood of gang involvement whereas an odds ratio of more than 1 indicated an increased likelihood for gang membership. The prediction equation for the logistic regression equation is as follows: log(p/1-p) = b0 + b1*X1 + b2*X2 + b3*X3 + b3*X3+b4*X4 + … + bk*Xk

5.2.1 All Counties

In the pooled model with all 3 counties, five models were created with a risk factor domain added in each model. Table 7 summarizes these models. Model 1 predicts gang membership based on individual level risk factors while controlling for covariate control variables of being female, Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic and Other (reference category is Non-Hispanic White). Youth with deviant attitudes have more than two times greater odds of gang membership than those who do not (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23). Youth reporting prior delinquency showed a 31 percent higher likelihood of gang membership (OR = 1.31) and those reporting alcohol and drug use indicated an 18 percent higher likelihood (OR = 1.18). Selling drugs was not found to be significant. After peer risk factors were added, the effect of deviant attitudes (OR = 1.16) decreased significantly whereas prior delinquency (OR = 1.23) and alcohol and drug use (OR = 1.16) decreased slightly due to the influence of having delinquent peers (OR = 1.25). Having delinquent peers increased the likelihood of joining a gang by 25 percent. Having friends who used drugs was not significant. Model 3 included family risk factors and while family management problems and low attachment to family was not found to be significant, family antisocial behavior (OR = 1.23) was found to increase the likelihood of gang membership by 23 percent. All the previous factors found to be significant still retained significance as well. Model 4 included school risk factors of academic failure and commitment to school; neither was found to be significant. In the final model, model 5, community risk factors were included and community disorder (OR = 1.68), community disorganization (OR = 1.36) and perceived availability of firearms (OR = 1.33) was found to significantly increase the likelihood of gang membership. All other risk factors found to be significant in previous models 26

retained their significance for the exception of family antisocial behavior which was mediated by the inclusion of community risk factors. The strongest predictors in the final model was community disorder (OR = 1.68) followed closely thereafter by individual deviant attitudes (OR = 1.56). Other significant risk factors included prior delinquency (OR = 1.05), individual alcohol and drug use (OR = 1.15), having delinquent peers (OR = 1.17), community disorganization (OR- 1.36) and the perceived availability of firearms (OR = 1.33). Control variables showed that females were 58 percent less likely than males (OR = .420) to join a gang whereas Non-Hispanic Blacks (OR = 1.70) and Hispanics (OR = 1.85) were 70 percent and 85 percent more likely to join a gang as compared to Non-Hispanic Whites.

5.2.2 Broward County

Each county was analyzed separately to identify county specific risk factors. Similar to the pooled 3 county models, individual risk factors were assessed in the first model, with an additional risk domain included in each model thereafter. For a list of model by model results, refer to Table 8. For all three counties, the final model and significant risk factors will be discussed. Broward county analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of gang involvement was having deviant attitudes (OR = 1.57). A youth from Broward County with deviant attitudes is 57 percent more likely to join a gang as compared to those who do not. Additionally, prior delinquency (OR = 1.13) and alcohol and drug use (OR = 1.16) were found to be significant individual level predictors. Delinquent peers (OR = 1.18) was found to increase gang involvement likelihood by 18 percent whereas friends drug use was not found to be significant. None of the family and school level risk factors were found to be significant in the final model. Both were mediated by community level risk factors. Community disorder (OR = 1.48), community disorganization (OR = 1.42) and perceived availability of firearms (OR = 1.23) were found to be significant community predictors. The strongest predictors for Broward County were deviant attitudes; youth with deviant attitudes were 57 percent more likely to join a gang followed closely by youth who experienced community disorder, who were 48 percent more likely to join a gang 27

compared to those who do not. Additionally, being female (OR = .418) reduced the likelihood of joining a gang by 59 percent as compared to males. Being Non-Hispanic Black (OR = 1.70) increased the likelihood by 70 percent whereas Hispanic (OR = 2.11) increased the odds by more than 2 times as compared to Non-Hispanic Whites.

5.2.3 Miami-Dade County

Analyses for Miami-Dade County revealed fewer significant risk factors as compared to Broward County. Peer, family and school risk factors were mediated by individual and community risk factors. The strongest predictor was community disorder (OR = 2.55) indicating that youth from communities with high levels of disorder were more than two times more likely to join a gang as compared to those who did not live in such communities. Additional community factors that increased the likelihood of gang membership were low neighborhood attachment (OR = 1.47), youth with lower attachment to their neighborhood were 47 percent more likely to join a gang as compared to youth with higher levels of attachment, and perceived availability of firearms (OR = 1.74), youth living in neighborhoods with higher perceived availability of drugs were 74 percent more likelihood to join gangs. The only other significant risk factor not in the community domain was prior delinquency (OR = 1.43), indicating that youth with prior delinquency in Miami-Dade were 43 percent more likely to join as gang as compared to those with who did not. Females (OR = .298) were 70 percent less likely to join a gang as compared to males. Table 9 lists findings for all Miami-Dade models.

5.2.4 Palm Beach County

Similar to Miami-Dade, Palm Beach County analyses found that family and school risk factors were mediated by individual, peer and community level risk factors. Individual risk factors found to be significant for Palm Beach included deviant attitudes (OR = 2.14), indicating twice the likelihood of gang involvement for those with deviant attitudes and prior delinquency (OR = 1.21), revealing an increased likelihood of 21 percent. Having delinquent peers (OR = 1.26) was also found to increase the likelihood

28

of gang involvement by 26 percent. The strongest and only significant community risk factor was community disorder (OR = 2.23) indicating that youth living in communities with high disorder had more than two times higher likelihood of being involved in gangs. None of the control variables were found to be significantly related to gang involvement. Table 10 summarizes the findings from Palm Beach County models. In comparing the findings of the three counties, the final models for all counties reveal several patterns. Family and school risk factors were not found to be significant predictors of gang involvement in any county and were found to be mediated by individual, peer and community risk factors. Additionally, across all three counties one of the strongest predictors of gang involvement was community disorder, which more than doubled the chances of gang involvement in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach County. Youth with deviant attitudes had more two times the likelihood of joining gangs in Palm Beach and a 57 percent higher likelihood in Broward County. Perceived availability was found to be significant in both Broward and Miami-Dade County, increasing the likelihood of gang involvement by 23 percent and 74 percent respectively. Being female significantly decreased the likelihood of gang involvement in Broward and Miami-Dade County, whereas in Palm Beach it did not. Being Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic only significantly increased the likelihood of gang involvement in Broward County; race did not have a significant influence in Miami-Dade or Palm Beach County.

29

Table 7: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors – All Counties (N= 13,453)

RISK FACTORS Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Individual Deviant Attitudes .802 *** 2.23 .481 *** 1.61 .446 *** 1.56 .522 *** 1.68 .447 *** 1.56 Prior Delinquency .270 *** 1.31 .207 *** 1.23 .187 *** 1.20 .188 *** 1.20 .158 ** 1.05 Alcohol & Drug Use .170 *** 1.18 .149 *** 1.16 .123 * 1.13 .130 * 1.13 .141 ** 1.15 Selling Drugs ‐.010 .990 ‐.024 .976 ‐.011 .989 ‐.028 .972 ‐.009 .991 Peer Friends Drug Use ‐.094 .910 ‐.162 .851 ‐.159 .853 ‐.099 .906 Delinquent Peers .229 *** 1.25 .232 *** 1.26 .226 *** 1.25 .161 *** 1.17 Family Family Management Problems .104 1.10 .081 1.08 .016 1.01 Family Antisocial Behavior .209 ** 1.23 .213 ** 1.23 .089 1.09 Low Attachment to Family .041 1.04 .037 1.03 .032 1.03 School Academic Failure .267 1.30 .197 1.21 Commitment to School ‐.148 .862 ‐.120 .887 Community Neighborhood Attachment .126 1.11 Community Disorder .522 *** 1.68 Community Disorganization .312 *** 1.36 Perceived Availability of Drugs ‐.108 .897 Perceived Availability of Firearms .292 *** 1.33 Controls Female ‐.672 *** .510 ‐.787 *** .455 ‐.891 *** .410 ‐.914 *** .401 ‐.868 ** * .420 Non‐Hispanic Black .897 *** 2.45 .748 *** 2.11 .725 *** 2.06 .717 *** 2.04 .531 ** 1.70 Hispanic .554 *** 1.74 .623 *** 1.86 .659 *** 1.93 .666 *** 1.94 .617 *** 1.85 Other (Race) .426 ** 1.53 .398 1.48 .256 1.29 .203 1.22 .055 1.05 R‐ Squared .231 .239 .247 .259 .297 2‐Log Likelihood 4171.200 2081.833 1920.767 1781.290 1641.845 Note: *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001

30

Table 8: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors – 2008 – Broward County (N = 9,135)

RISK FACTORS Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR

Individual Deviant Attitudes .859 *** 2.36 .487 *** 1.62 .423 *** 1.52 .467 *** 1.59 .456 *** 1.57 Prior Delinquency .246 *** 1.27 .177 *** 1.19 .154 *** 1.16 .145 *** 1.15 .125 *** 1.13 Alcohol & Drug Use .179 *** 1.19 .176 *** 1.19 .146 * 1.15 .142 * 1.15 .50 * 1.16 Selling Drugs .027 1.02 ‐.015 .985 ‐.001 .999 ‐.004 .996 .029 1.03 Peer Friends Drug Use ‐.064 .938 ‐.144 .866 ‐.125 .883 ‐.046 .955 Delinquent Peers .234 *** 1.26 .248 *** 1.28 .246 *** 1.27 .167 *** 1.18 Family Family Management Problems .115 1.12 .102 1.10 .043 1.04 Family Antisocial Behavior .251 ** 1.28 .249 ** 1.28 .148 1.15 Low Attachment to Family .131 1.13 .103 1.10 .067 1.07 School Academic Failure .308 * 1.36 .238 1.26 Commitment to School ‐.155 .856 ‐.093 .912 Community Neighborhood Attachment .043 1.04 Community Disorder .392 ** 1.48 Community Disorganization .355 *** 1.42 Perceived Availability of Drugs ‐.105 .901 Perceived Availability of Firearms .211 * 1.23 Controls Female ‐.629 *** .533 ‐.695 *** .499 ‐.831 *** .436 ‐.902 *** .406 ‐.873 ** * .418 Non‐Hispanic Black .876 *** 2.40 .780 *** 2.18 .714 *** 2.04 .674 *** 1.96 .534 * 1.70 Hispanic .622 *** 1.86 .823 *** 2.27 .827 *** 2.28 .823 *** 2.27 .750 *** 2.11 Other (Race) .497 ** 1.64 .400 1.49 .217 1.24 .124 1.13 ‐.096 .908 R‐ Squared .219 .217 .229 .239 .268 2‐Log Likelihood 2819.347 1445.555 1327.087 1249.121 1161.628 Note: *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 31

Table 9: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors – 2008 – Miami‐Dade County (N = 2,468)

RISK FACTORS Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR

Individual Deviant Attitudes .597 *** 1.81 .309 1.36 .248 1.28 .492 1.63 .239 1.27 Prior Delinquency .403 *** 1.49 .392 *** 1.48 .404 *** 1.49 .488 *** 1.63 .364 *** 1.43 Alcohol & Drug Use .319 *** 1.37 .322 ** 1.38 .284 * 1.32 .198 1.21 .261 1.29 Selling Drugs ‐.227 .797 ‐.156 .856 ‐.159 .853 ‐.283 .753 ‐.239 .787 Peer Friends Drug Use ‐.121 .886 ‐.100 .905 ‐.048 .953 ‐.107 .899 Delinquent Peers .192 * 1.21 .152 1.16 .120 1.12 .170 1.18 Family Family Management Problems .376 1.45 .344 1.41 .130 1.13 Family Antisocial Behavior .012 1.01 ‐.068 .934 ‐.278 .757 Low Attachment to Family .100 1.10 ‐.118 .888 ‐.331 .718 School Academic Failure .021 1.02 ‐.228 .796 Commitment to School ‐.222 .801 ‐.201 .818 Community Neighborhood Attachment .634 * 1.47 Community Disorder .937 * 2.55 Community Disorganization .188 1.20 Perceived Availability of Drugs ‐.115 .892 Perceived Availability of Firearms .554 ** 1.74 Controls Female ‐.926 *** .396 ‐1.25 *** .285 ‐1.35 *** .258 ‐1.31 *** .268 ‐1.21 ** .298 Non‐Hispanic Black .779 * 2.18 1.08 * 2.95 1.03 2.81 1.01 2.77 .676 1.96 Hispanic ‐.015 .986 .284 1.32 .353 1.42 .444 1.55 .295 1.34 Other (Race) ‐.102 .903 ‐.054 .947 .058 1.06 .419 1.52 .689 1.99 R‐ Squared .276 .299 .304 .310 .403 2‐Log Likelihood 727.457 310.268 296.648 274.392 232.461 Note: *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 32

Table 10: Logistic Regression of Gang Membership Predictors – 2008 – Palm Beach County (N = 1,850)

RISK FACTORS Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR

Individual Deviant Attitudes .811 *** 2.25 .659 ** 1.93 .820 ** 2.27 .957 ** 2.60 .765 * 2.14 Prior Delinquency .269 *** 1.30 .250 *** 1.28 .226 *** 1.25 .233 *** 1.26 .196 * 1.21 Alcohol & Drug Use ‐.005 .995 ‐.086 .918 ‐.144 .866 .024 1.02 .004 1.00 Selling Drugs .060 1.06 .075 1.07 .124 1.13 .098 1.10 .166 1.18 Peer Friends Drug Use ‐.255 .775 ‐.389 .678 ‐.550 .577 ‐.607 .545 Delinquent Peers .232 ** 1.26 .239 * 1.27 .222 * 1.24 .236 * 1.26 Family Family Management Problems ‐.321 .725 ‐.342 .711 ‐.459 .632 Family Antisocial Behavior .270 1.31 .428 1.53 .235 1.26 Low Attachment to Family .230 1.25 .321 1.37 .312 1.36 School Academic Failure .341 1.40 .338 1.40 Commitment to School ‐.188 .828 ‐.350 .704 Community Neighborhood Attachment .099 1.10 Community Disorder .805 ** 2.23 Community Disorganization .293 1.34 Perceived Availability of Drugs .076 1.07 Perceived Availability of Firearms .150 1.16 Controls Female ‐.632 ** .531 ‐.851 * .427 ‐.928 * .395 ‐.726 .484 ‐.665 .515 Non‐Hispanic Black .978 *** 2.66 .452 1.57 .700 2.01 .704 2.02 .360 1.43 Hispanic .646 * 1.90 ‐.092 .912 .009 1.00 ‐.142 .867 ‐.296 .744 Other (Race) .356 1.42 .638 1.89 .575 1.77 .437 1.54 .041 1.04 R‐ Squared .268 .332 .354 .400 .450 2‐Log Likelihood 598.810 301.501 265.623 224.446 203.733 Note: *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 33

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Discussion

At an estimated 1 million gang members nationwide (National Gang Threat Assessment, 2009) and over 65,000 gang members in the state of Florida (FDLE, 2007) the need to identify risk factors associated with gang membership, as well to identify long term consequences of gang membership is a pressing and urgent issue. During the 2007 Gang Reduction Strategy Summit, the Florida Attorney General pointed out that among the problems in implementing gang reduction programs throughout the state is the lack of proper assessments for appropriate programs as well as lack of long-term reinforcement. This study provides a first step towards addressing and identifying aspects critical to consider for intervention, prevention and suppression programs in three South Florida counties battling severe gang problems. Several principle conclusions emerged from the present analysis. Each is elaborated upon below, and its implications for policy and future research are explored.

Across all three counties, community disorder emerged as one of the strongest predictors of gang membership. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that gangs are often disproportionately clustered in neighborhoods with high crime, drugs sales and the presence of gangs, which also increases the likelihood of gang involvement for youth living in that community (Curry & Spergel, 1992; Fagan, 1996; Hill et al., 1995; Short & Strodtbeck, 1965; Virgil, 1988). Most gangs are territorial, identified by specific “turfs” and/or localities. As early as the 1920’s Thrasher had noted that gangs “offer[ed] a substitute for what society fails to give; and it provides a relief from suppression and distasteful behavior. It fills a gap and affords an escape … Thus the gang, itself a natural and spontaneous type of organization arising through conflict, is a symptom of disorganization in the larger social framework” (Thrasher, 1927/2000:

34

12-13). Thornberry et al. (2003) investigated the motivation for joining gangs and found that two significant motivating factors emerged: to be involved in a social network consisting of friends and family members or for protection from the hostile neighborhood and community disorder. Both these motivating factors can become a cyclical and reciprocal influence of gang membership. Structural disadvantage increases the likelihood of gang membership (Thornberry et al., 2003), in turn increasing the numbers of gang members in communities with high disorder and subsequently attracting friends or family to join and/or create rivalries between territorial gangs leading to the need for protection. Among all risk factor domains of gang involvement, the community is one that can provide the strongest avenue for effective public policies that can serve as protective factors against gang involvement. This will be further discussed in the next sub-section. Prior delinquency was also a significant risk factor found in all three counties. This finding has been substantiated in many previous gang studies which found that gang members have higher delinquency rates as compared to non-gang members (Fagan, 1989; Hagedorn, 1998; Klein et al., 1986; Maxon & Klein, 1990; Taylor, 1990; Thornberry et al., 2003) and are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in their neighborhoods (National Gang Threat Assessment, 2009; Thornberry et al., 2003). While the cross-sectional nature of the present study does not allow for causal inferences about this relationship, three competing models have been suggested to account for the association between gang membership and delinquency (Thornberry, 1998; Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 1993). The selection model argues that gangs themselves do not cause delinquency; individuals who are already delinquent and have a high propensity for delinquency are attracted and recruited into gangs (Thornberry et al., 2003). The facilitation model on the other hand argues that gang membership is a significant influence on deviant behavior. Prior to joining gangs gang members are not different from non-gang members; it is the structure and group processes of the gang itself that will lead to high rates of delinquency (Thornberry et al., 2003:98). The last model, the mixed or enhanced model (Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 1993) posits that both selection and facilitation effects account for the association between delinquency and

35

gang membership. It suggests that gang members are already delinquency prior to gang involvement and upon involvement increase their rates of delinquency. Previous studies show stronger support for the facilitation model (Gatti et al., 2002; Thornberry et al., 2003; Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 1993; Tremblay et al., 1994) with some support for the mixed or enhancement model (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993). Gang involvement has shown to increase delinquency and leaving a gang decreases levels of delinquency (Gatti et al., 2002; Hill et al., 1996; Thornberry et al., 2003). Support for a pure selection model has been rare. The facilitation model supports the life-course perspective in that delinquency and a trajectory of crime (and conformity) are significantly influenced over the life course by individual characteristics, social bonds and the social environment. Changes that strengthen or weaken social bonds to society in adulthood will lead to more or less crime and deviance and the emphasis is placed on the quality, strength and interdependence of social ties rather than the occurrence or timing of discrete life events (Sampson & Laub, 1993: 21). Furthermore, association with delinquent peers was found to have a significant impact in gang involvement in Broward and Palm Beach County. As noted earlier, peer influences are most strongly associated in the developmental process during early adolescence continuing on through adolescence and late adolescence (Howell, 2003) and friends and family in gangs was found to be a significant motivating factor in joining gangs (Thornberry et al., 2003). Prior research has consistently supported the association between delinquent peers and delinquency, with recent studies showing that gang membership predicts delinquency above and beyond having delinquent peers (Battin et al., 1998; Thornberry, 1998). The life-course perspective points to additional considerations in light of this finding. The continuity from childhood to adulthood (Sampson & Laub, 1993) indicates several long term consequences of delinquent peers, delinquency and its association with gang membership. While the facilitation model suggests a decrease in delinquency in the period after leaving a gang, studies have still supported the finding that childhood delinquency is often a prerequisite for adult offending (Robins, 1978) and was found to be predictors of educational, economic, employment and family status into adulthood

36

(Sampson & Laub, 1993). Additionally, delinquency could lead to a higher likelihood of official sanction and incarceration for a youth, which has been found to be negatively related to later job stability (Hagan, 1993, Sampson & Laub, 1995) which was negatively related to continued involvement in crime over the life course (Sampson & Laub, 1995). In all of the models, the influence of family and school risk factors were mediated by individual, peer and community risk factors. As pointed out in Table 1, Howell asserts that the influence of family as a socializing unit of risk and protective factors is influential during the preschool period (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Howell, 2003) and school as an influencing factor during the elementary school period, with peer factors emerging toward the end of the elementary school period increasing in importance through middle and high school (Howell, 2003: 87). Individual and community factors can influence an individual at any point in the developmental process but will generally continue to manifest throughout adolescence and late adulthood (Howell, 2003). The sample for this study was sixth thru twelfth graders (10 – 19 years old) which accounts for the mediated domains of family and school. Ages 14-15, the typical age of a youth entering high school has been shown to be the peak age of gang involvement (Battin et al., 1998; Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; Huff, 1998) and at the start of high school, most risk and protective factors for delinquency and gang membership would have already been established (Howell, 2003:87). However, this does not indicate that domains of family and school are not significant predictors of gang involvement. A stepping stone trajectory can occur from early childhood leading a child will preschool conduct behaviors to be more likely to experience elementary school failure which can lead to delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence (Loeber & Farrington, 2001) as well as gang membership (Hill et al., 1999). Previous studies also indicate that youth on a trajectory of antisocial behaviors are more likely to join gangs (Lahey et al., 1999) which in turn increases their likelihood of becoming serious, violent, chronic offenders (Thornberry et al., 2003). Implications of these findings for gang programs and policies and will be discussed further in the next sub-section.

37

Perceived availability of guns was found to be significant in Broward and Miami- Dade County. Previous studies indicate that gang members are more likely to possess (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Newton & Zimring, 1969; Sheley & Wright, 1993, 1995), carry (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Lizotte et al., 2000) and use guns to commit crimes (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Klein et al., 1991). In 2008, Broward county and Miami-Dade county accounted for 7.8 percent and 21.2 percent of all Florida violent crimes involving firearms (FDLE, 2008). Thornberry et al. (2003) found a strong facilitation effect of gangs on gun carrying among boys and higher rates of criminal offending for boys who carry guns as compared to those who simply carry guns or are in gangs as well as higher odds of owning and carrying illegal guns later in life. In line with the life-course perspective, this finding suggests the deterrence of gun usage and availability during adolescence could have a significant impact on subsequent adult behavior and choices. 6.2 Policy Implications

Findings from the present study point to several important policy implications. Trajectories of crime and gang involvement are shaped through the unfolding of various phases in the developmental process, thus prevention, intervention and suppression programs aimed at different stages is critical. Furthermore, identification of “at-risk” youth in each developmental phase needs to be accompanied with the identification of protective factors, moderating variables that interact with the risk factor to minimize the risk factor’s effects. Gang focused programs thus need to be structured to reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors that can buffer youth from the influence of risk factors. Howell’s (2003) windows of opportunity for gang prevention and intervention (Table 1) points to the prevention window closing by age 15, when most gang membership would have already occurred (Battin et al., 1998; Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; Huff, 1998). This suggests that efforts of gang prevention need to be focused on preteens and younger youth. An example of a current nationwide and effective gang prevention program is the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T). A

38

school-based gang prevention program for middle school boys and girls, it is a 13 week curriculum taught by law enforcement officers with focuses on the consequences of gang involvement, social skills development, refusal skills training, conflict resolution skills and cognitive-behavioral training. An evaluation of the program (Esbensen Osgood et al., 2001) revealed positive long term effects and significant directional change in reduced victimization, more negative views about gangs, improved attitudes towards the police, more prosocial peers and less risk seeking. However, as pointed out above prevention efforts focused on early childhood may be just as critical, if not more. Poor family management – low family involvement, inappropriate parental discipline and low parental control and monitoring (Adler, Ovando & Hocevar, 1984; Bowker & Klein, 1983; Friedman, Mann & Friedmann, 1975; Maxson, Whitlock & Klein, 1983; Maxon et al., 1998; Moore, 1991) as well as child abuse/neglect (Thornberry et al., 2003) significantly increase the risk of gang membership among young children. Risk factors have a cumulative effect and factors associated with early childhood and parenting can lead to likelihood of experiencing additional risk factors in multiple domains, which significantly increases their chances of gang involvement (Thornberry et al., 2003). Programs focusing on the first window of opportunity, youth as young as those in kindergarten, can be effective through parental skill training and early childhood skills, thus providing important early protective factors against the first stepping stones towards gang membership. Furthermore, focus on early prevention can lead to higher rates of effectiveness simply due to the fact that these programs can solely focus on reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors whereas intervention and suppression programs will have to deal with behavioral problems and deviant activities that gang members will already have developed and be involved in.

By age 15, the opportunity window for prevention will have closed and gang programs need to focus on intervention (Howell, 2003). A study by Sampson et al. (1997) found that collective efficacy of a neighborhood; the willingness of residents to intervene to prevent antisocial behavior can serve as a protective factor against crime. As already noted, community disorder was the strongest risk factor associated with all

39

three counties analyzed in the present sample, thus among the most critical to focus on. The Florida Attorney General’s Summit session on Risk Based Prevention recommended a focus in the domains of the community and school that decrease conditions of risk that lead to gang involvement and increase resiliency in youth to avoid gang involvement. Suggested strategy elements include the building of a positive pro- active school climate, the creation of positive school and community activities available as alternative to gang activities, increased number of pro-social rewards in the community, improvement of neighborhood attachments and the engagement of multiple community sectors. Since youth often encounter risk factors in multiple domains, community based intervention programs should be multi-faceted and comprehensive. Programs should focus on reducing associations with delinquent peers through mentoring programs, increased parental monitoring and involvement and programs that allow youth to interact with other youth in pro-social and anti-deviant activities. Gang membership was found to be associated with the need for protection or an alternative environment to the ones youth live in, particularly in high-crime and disorder neighborhoods, thus community programs to improve the lives and environment of gang members are crucial. Homeboy Industries, a project initiated by Father Greg Boyle in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles promotes the slogan “Jobs not jails” by assisting at-risk and formerly gang-involved youth to become positive and contributing members of society through job placement, training and education. The program has been in place for over 20 years and has served thousands of youth providing them with an alternative, safe and productive environment in contrast to their gang environments. For gang members already involved in serious and violent offending and/or in correctional or juvenile facilities effective suppression programs need to be provided. Programs offered through the criminal justice system offering re-entry skills and training in the avenues of education (i.e. help receiving a GED), employment (programs to teach youth basic career oriented skills such as computer skills, vocations skills etc) and life skills (programs aimed at interpersonal skills, aggression and anger management as well as violence reducing techniques) can produce immediate short term effects which

40

can lead to long term reinforcement. Law enforcement task forces can also help in the suppression of entire gangs as shown through the examples of the Miami Police Department’s Multi-Agency Gang Task Force (MAGTF) and Palm Beach’s Federal Gang Task Force. These suppression efforts however are generally short term fixes to a problem that is cyclical and generational in nature. Programs and policies should thus focus on all phases of the developmental process and provide gang prevention, intervention and suppression programs accordingly.

6.3 Limitations

As discussed previously, a key limitation of the present study is the cross- sectional nature of the utilized dataset. The present data does not allow for the separation and identification of the antecedents and consequences of gang membership, thus preventing the determination of causal order. Nevertheless, the study sought to provide an explanatory and comparative analysis of risk factors associated which each county and the study achieved these goals. Additionally, the unit of analyses was done at a county-level. Neighborhood level differences will undoubtedly exist within a county and the identification of specific neighborhood level differences was not possible due to this limitation. However, the community risk measures of the study tapped into individual level perceptions of their communities and neighborhoods and thus still provide a rational basis for the comparison of neighborhoods across communities in each county.

6.4 Directions for Future Research

This study provided an analysis of risk factors present in three South Florida counties. Studies such as this however, only provide one side of the issue. Future studies need to focus on conducting analysis of both risk factors and protective factors present in a given locality. Identifying key risk factors as well as buffering protective factors will help in identifying and preventing youth on a trajectory path towards gang involvement, providing effective intervention programs for those that are already

41

involved or are in the process of beginning pre-criminal activities and pursue initiatives that encourage a zero-tolerance approach to gang involvement and violence by eliciting support and cooperation from community partners and neighborhoods. Furthermore, future studies need to further consider the interacting effects of cultural factors and its role in gang involvement. Many national and local gangs are identified based by ethnic heritage and as noted in the present findings, risk factors varied among racial groups. In a time when racial diversity is steadily increasing, such analysis will help inform policies to reduce race related gang problems, provide appropriate prevention and intervention programs based on cultural differences and provide a deeper understanding of the patterns of gang membership. Additionally, longitudinal studies focusing on the long-term consequences of gang membership are necessary to assess its role in later stages of the life-course. Studies such as these will be important to identify key turning points throughout the life-course that may be able to break the trajectory of gang involvement. In closing, the present study found findings consistent with previous gang literature. It was able to identify risk factors present in three specific counties and thus able to support the idea presented earlier in the paper that analysis of risk factors need to be done for specific localities in order to provide a appropriate and community- tailored intervention, prevention and/or suppression program. Findings revealed differences and similarities across each county. Community disorder and prior delinquency were risk factors relevant in all three counties analyzed. Association with delinquent peers, perceived availability of guns and being female were found to be significant in two of the three counties. Racial differences as well as neighborhood attachment and community disorganization emerged in one county. The effects of family and school risk factors were mediated in all three counties by individual, peer and community level risk factors. Studies such as this should be done prior to the conception and creation of specific area based gang programs to provide a first step towards dealing with a community’s gang problem. Gangs are undoubtedly an issue in modern day American society, however through the appropriate identification of risk factors and subsequently protective factors that mediate these factors, a better

42

understanding of gang dynamics can emerge and lead to successful efforts to tackle this crucial contemporary criminal justice issue.

43

APPENDIX A

FLORIDA STATUTE 874.03: CRIMINAL GANG DEFINITION

(1) "Criminal gang" means a formal or informal ongoing organization, association, or group that has as one of its primary activities the commission of criminal or delinquent acts, and that consists of three or more persons who have a common name or common identifying signs, colors, or symbols, including, but not limited to, terrorist organizations and hate groups.

(a) As used in this subsection, "ongoing" means that the organization was in existence during the time period charged in a petition, information, indictment, or action for civil injunctive relief.

(b) As used in this subsection, "primary activities" means that a criminal gang spends a substantial amount of time engaged in such activity, although such activity need not be the only, or even the most important, activity in which the criminal gang engages.

(2) "Criminal gang associate" means a person who:

(a) Admits to criminal gang association; or

(b) Meets any single defining criterion for criminal gang membership described in subsection (3).

(3) "Criminal gang member" is a person who meets two or more of the following criteria:

(a) Admits to criminal gang membership.

(b) Is identified as a criminal gang member by a parent or guardian.

(c) Is identified as a criminal gang member by a documented reliable informant.

(d) Adopts the style of dress of a criminal gang. 44

(e) Adopts the use of a hand sign identified as used by a criminal gang.

(f) Has a tattoo identified as used by a criminal gang.

(g) Associates with one or more known criminal gang members.

(h) Is identified as a criminal gang member by an informant of previously untested reliability and such identification is corroborated by independent information.

(i) Is identified as a criminal gang member by physical evidence.

(j) Has been observed in the company of one or more known criminal gang members four or more times. Observation in a custodial setting requires a willful association. It is the intent of the Legislature to allow this criterion to be used to identify gang members who recruit and organize in jails, prisons, and other detention settings.

(k) Has authored any communication indicating responsibility for the commission of any crime by the criminal gang. Where a single act or factual transaction satisfies the requirements of more than one of the criteria in this subsection, each of those criteria has thereby been satisfied for the purposes of the statute.

(4) "Criminal gang-related activity" means:

(a) An activity committed with the intent to benefit, promote, or further the interests of a criminal gang, or for the purposes of increasing a person's own standing or position within a criminal gang;

(b) An activity in which the participants are identified as criminal gang members or criminal gang associates acting individually or collectively to further any criminal purpose of a criminal gang;

45

(c) An activity that is identified as criminal gang activity by a documented reliable informant; or

(d) An activity that is identified as criminal gang activity by an informant of previously untested reliability and such identification is corroborated by independent information

46

APPENDIX B

FLORIDA GANGS

10th Street Thugs Miami 112 Avenue Boys Miami 12 Nation Street Gang Miami 18th Street Gang Multiple Cities/Counties 205th Street Players Miami 2-1 Jacksonville 22 Ave. Players Dade 23rd Street Boys Ft. Pierce 25 Street Folk St. Petersburg 299 Street Boys Miami 29th Street Players Miami 2nd Street Fellows Miami 35th Street Players Miami 39th Ave North Boys Clearwater 3-D Kings Sunrise 4 Avenue Players Leon 56 Ave Players Miami 6 Street Mob Broward 69 Folk Pensacola 773 Boys Quincy 8 Ball Posse Sarasota 98 Posse Ft. Pierce American Nazi Party Multiple Cities/Counties Apopka Boys Apopka Asian Bloods Multiple Cities/Counties Army of Light Hendry CI

47

Aryan Brotherhood Prisons Aryan Nations Multiple Cities/Counties Asian Gangsters Pinellas Baby Demons Miami B-Boys Pinellas City Bad Boys Hillsborough Basin Street Rat Pack Tallahassee Bellaire Boys Clearwater Black Angels Wimauma Black Gangster Disciples Multiple Cities/Counties Black Guerilla Family Multiple Cities/Counties Black Hawks Hillsborough Black United Soldiers Tallahassee Blackheart Miami Bloods Multiple Cities/Counties Blue Arrows West Palm Beach Broadview Mob Broward Carol City Lynch Mob Carol City Carver Shores Boys Orlando City Of Chaires Posse Tallahassee Cloud Nine Ft. Lauderdale Criminal Minded Posse Lake Worth Crips Multiple Cities/Counties Photo of tatto with I and crown. Crips Crypt Disciples Pensacola Danger Zone Palatka Davie Boys Broward Death Squad Pompano Beach Devil Boys Tampa

48

Dixie Court Players Okeechobee Dixie Playboys Ft. Lauderdale Dog Pound Gangsters Polataka Dogg Pound Miami Dover Locos Plant City Down By Law Palm Beach Du Rag Posse Palm Beach Eastside Bradenton Eastside Locos Manatee Eastside Posse Orlando Eau Gallie Posse Eau Gallie Ebony Kings Jacksonville El Rukn Multiple Cities/Counties Ex-Legion Broward Familia Multiple Cities/Counties Five Percenters Multiple Cities/Counties Flip Side Posse FL State Prison Flipside Lake Wales Folk Disciples-Chap 6 Orlando Folk Nation Multiple Cities/Counties Fort Pierce Boyz Fort Pierce Fountain Head Posse Melbourne Fourth World Mafia Pompano Beach G.O.D.S. MG Multiple Cities/Counties Gang Colors Miami Gang Of 14 Jacksonville Gangster Disciples Multiple Cities/Counties Gaylords Coral Springs Ghost Gangster Disciples Lake County Grand Theft Auto Hillsborough

49

Grateful Dead MG Multiple Cities/Counties Hell's Angels Multiple Cities/Counties Hollywood Criminals Hollywood Holton St. Boys Leon Imperial Gangsters Multiple Cities/Counties Imperial GD Multiple Cities/Counties Inner Circle Assassins Pompano Beach Insane Cobras Okaloosa CI Insane Gangster Disciples Multiple Cities/Counties Int. Gangster Association Orlando International Posse Multiple Cities/Counties Jackson Height Posse Tampa Jacksonville City Boys Jacksonville Jamaican Posse South Florida Jamestown Project Gang St. Petersburg Joe Louis Street Posse Tallahassee Junkyard Jits Ft. Pierce King Garden Boys Miami Ku Klux Klan Multiple Cities/Counties La Cruz Hollywood La Familia Tampa La Raza South Florida La Vida Sunrise Lake Bradford Boys Leon Latino Bad Boys Miami Latin Counts Multiple Cities/Counties Latin Disciples Multiple Cities/Counties Latin Eagles Multiple Cities/Counties Latin Folk Miami Latin Force Multiple Cities/Counties

50

Latin Gangster Disciples Multiple Cities/Counties Latin Kings Multiple Cities/Counties Latin Thug Posse Palm Beach Legion Hollywood Legion of Doom Miami Longwood Lost Boys Longwood Lynch Mob Palm Beach Mafia Boys Miami Maniac GD Miami Maniac Latin Disciples Multiple Cities/Counties Miami Boyz Miami Mickey Cobras Lee County Money Kings Ft. Myers Most Powerful Nation Davie MS 13 Multiple Cities/Counties N.S.W.W.P. Multiple Cities/Counties Nasty Boys Titusville Neta Orlando ******s From Lackawanna Jacksonville Night Hawks Jacksonville Northside Nation Broward/Miami Northside White Boyz Ft. Myers Opa Locka Boys Opa Locka Outlaws Multiple Cities/Counties P Stone Nation Multiple Cities/Counties Pagans Multiple Cities/Counties Parson's Gang West Palm Beach P-Dogs Tampa Peckerwoods Jacksonville People In Control Tampa

51

People Nation Multiple Cities/Counties Pine Manor Posse Ft. Myers Pompano Bloopers Pompano Pompano Boys Tampa Port Of Tampa Gang Tampa Project Boys Quincy Quincy Jaw Jackers Quincy Red Revolutionary Militia Washington CI Righteous Gangster Disciples Tampa Rockbrook Boys Tallahassee Rollin 20's Crips Panama City, Tallahassee Romans Of Fowler Ave Tampa Rude Boys Ft. Pierce Second Power Kendall Shower Posse Jacksonville Side by Side Boys Miami Simon City Royals Multiple Cities/Counties Skidrow Pompano Beach Skie Row Pompano Skinhead (Racist) Multiple Cities/Counties Skullheads Miami Solidos Multiple Cities/Counties Southside Neighborhood Gp Tallahassee Spanish Cobras Miami Spanish Gangsters Multiple Cities/Counties Spanish Law Boyton Beach Spanish Lords Multiple Cities/Counties Stoners Lake Wales Street Action Posse Miami Sureno 13 Multiple Cities/Counties

52

Sur XIII Multiple Cities/Counties T.N.S. Dade Tampa Boyz Tampa Tampa Posse Tampa T-Dogs Titusville Terror Of Dome Immokalee Texas Syndicate Prison The Konneticut Kids Miami The Unforgiven Prison Thug Life Pensacola Thunder Cats Palm Beach Town & Country Villains Tampa Tre Duce Folk Pensacola Tres D Tampa Truman Arms Posse Pensacola Twin Colts Okeechobee Unforgiven Multiple Cities/Counties United Kings Multiple Cities/Counties Us ******s Love Violence Ft. Lauderdale Vados Locos Miami Venice Shoreline Crips Lee County Vice Lords Multiple Cities/Counties Victory Park Zoe Pound Miami VIP Tampa W/B-Boys Clearwater Warlocks MG Multiple Cities/Counties West Side Crips Lake Wales Westside Boys Hialeah Westside Duce Tampa Westside Folk Disciples Lee County

53

Westside Gangsters Deerfield Westside Locos Bradenton Westside Mafia Jacksonville White Aryan Resistance Multiple Cities/Counties Aryan Nations sheild White Aryan Resistance White Fence Coral Springs White Pride Kissimmee Worldwide Folk Multiple Cities/Counties Y.L.O. Dade Young Bloods Ft. Walton Beach Young Folk Hillsborough Young Gun Tallahassee Young Riders Webster Zoe Pound Miami Zoo ****** Multiple Cities/Counties Zulus Multiple Cities/Counties

54

APPENDIX C

MEASURES/SCALE OF RISK FACTORS BY DOMAIN

INDIVIDUAL

Deviant Attitudes How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to – take a handgun to school? steal anything worth more than $5? pick a fight with someone? attack someone with the idea of seriously hurting them? stay away from school all day when their parents think they are at school?

Prior Delinquency How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: been arrested? been suspended from school? stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle such as a car or motorcycle? attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them? carried a handgun? taken a handgun to school?

Alcohol and Drug Use How many times in the past year (12 months) have you been drunk or high?

Drug Trafficking How many times in the past year (12 months) have you sold illegal drugs?

55

PEER

Friends Drug Use Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year (12 months), how many of your best friends have: smoked cigarettes? tried beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey or gin) when their parents didn’t know about it? used marijuana? used LSD, cocaine, amphetamines, or other illegal drugs?

Interaction with Delinquent Peers Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year (12 months), how many of your best friends have: been arrested? been suspended from school? carried a handgun? sold illegal drugs? stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle such as a car or motorcycle? been arrested? dropped out of school?

Friends who are Gang Members How many of your 4 best friends belong in a gang?

FAMILY

Family Management My parents ask if I’ve gotten my homework done. My parents want me to call if I’m going to be late getting home.

56

When I am not at home, one of my parents knows where I am and who I am with. The rules in my family are clear. My family has clear rules about alcohol and drugs.

Family Antisocial Behavior Has anyone in your family ever had a severe alcohol or drug problem? Have any of your brothers or sisters ever: drunk beer, wine or hard liquor? smoked marijuana? taken a handgun to school? been suspended or expelled from school? About how many adults have you known personally who in the past year have: used marijuana, crack, cocaine or other drugs? sold or dealt drugs? done other things that could get them in trouble with the police like stealing, selling stolen goods, mugging or assaulting others

Attachment to Parents Do you feel very close to your mother? Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your mother? Do you feel very close to your father? Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your father?

SCHOOL

Academic Failure Putting them all together, what were your grades like last year? Are your school grades better than the grades of most students in your class?

Commitment to School

57

How often do you feel that the school work you are assigned is meaningful and important? How interesting are most of your courses to you? How important do you think the things you are learning in school are going to be for your later life? Now, thinking back over the past year in school, how often did you: Enjoy being in school? Hate being in school? Try to do your best in schoolwork? During the last four weeks how many whole days have you missed because you skipped or “cut”?

COMMUNITY

Neighborhood Attachment I’d like to get out of my neighborhood. I like my neighborhood. If I had to move, I would miss the neighborhood I now live in.

Community disorder How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood: crime and/or drug selling fights lots of empty or abandoned buildings lots of graffiti I feel safe in my neighborhood

Community disorganization and residential mobility Have you changed homes in the past year? How many times have you changed homes since kindergarten?

58

Have you changed schools in the past year? How many times have you changed schools since kindergarten?

Availability of Drugs in Neighborhood If you wanted to get _____, how easy would it be to get? some beer, wine or hard liquor? some cigarettes? some marijuana? a drug like cocaine, LSD or amphetamines?

Availability of Firearms in Neighborhood If you wanted to get a handgun, how easy would it be to get?

59

APPENDIX D

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY HUMAN SUBJECT COMMITTEE APPROVAL

60

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 3/26/2009

To: Karla Johanna Dhungana

Address: Hecht House, 634 W. Call Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306 Dept.: CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research The Palm Beach Youth Violence Reduction Project and the Gangs of Palm Beach County: A Risk and Protective Factors Assessment

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the research proposal referenced above has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee at its meeting on 11/12/2008. Your project was approved by the Committee.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 11/11/2009 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Sarah Bacon, Advisor HSC No. 2008.1927

61

REFERENCES

Adler, P., Ovando, C. & Hocevar, D. (1984). Familiar Correlates of Gang Membership: An Exploratory Study of Mexican-American Youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 6:65-76.

Akers, R.L., Krohn, M.D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior. A specific test of a general theory. American Socialogical Review, 44:636-655.

Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D., Pollard, J.A., Catalano, R.F. & Baglioni, A.J. Jr. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors. Evaluation Review, 26, 6:575-601.

Ball, R.A., & Curry, G.D. (1995). The logic of definition in criminology: Purposes and methods for defining gangs, Criminology, 33, 3:225-245.

Battin-Pearson, S.R., Thornberry, T.P., Hawkins, J.D., & Krohn, M.D. (1998). Gang membership, delinquent peers, and delinquent behavior (Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Youth Gang Series). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Benson, M.L. (2002). Crime and the Life Course. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Bjerregaard, B. (2002). Self-definitions of Gang Membership and Involvement in Delinquent Activities. Youth & Society, 34, 1:31-54.

Bjerregaard, B., & Lizotte, A.J. (1995). Gun ownership and gang membership. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86:37-58.

Bjerregaard, B., & Smith, C. (1993). Gender differences in gang participation, delinquency and substance use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9:329-355.

Bowker, L. H., & Klein, M.W. (1983). The Etiology of Female Juvenile Delinquency and Gang Membership: A Test of Psychological and Social Structural Explanations. Adolescence, 18:739-51.

Catalano, R.F., & Hawkins, J.D. (1996). The Social Development Model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In JD Hawkins (Ed.) Delinquency & Crime: Current Theories. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L.E. & Vila, B.J. (1996). Self-control and social control: An exposition of the

62

Gottfredson-Hirschi/Sampson-Laub debate. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 5:125-150.

Curry, G.D., & Decker, S.H. (1998). Confronting gangs: Crime and community. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Curry, G.D., & Spergel, I.A. (1988). Gang homicide, delinquency, and community. Criminology 26:381–405.

Curry, G.D., & Spergel, I.A. (1992). Gang involvement and delinquency among Hispanic and African American adolescent males. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29:273-291.

Decker, S. & Kempf-Leonard, K. (1995). Constructing gangs: The social definition of youth activities. In The Modern Gang Reader, Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L & Miller, J. (Eds). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Decker, S.H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Elder, G.H. (1985). Perspectives on the life course. In G.H. Elder (Ed.). Life Course Dynamics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Egley, A., Jr., Howell, J.C., and Major, A. K. (2006). National Youth Gang Survey: 1999- 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Esbensen, F. (2000). Preventing adolescent gang involvement: Risk factors and prevention strategies (Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Youth Gang Series). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Esbensen, F. & Huizinga. D. (1993). Gangs, Drugs, and Delinquency in a Survey of Urban Youth. Criminology, 31, 4:565-589.

Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., & Weiher A.W. (1993). Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9:94–116.

Esbensen, F., & Winfree, L.T. Jr. (1998). Race and gender differences between gang and nongang youth: Results from a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly, 15: 505- 526.

Esbensen, F., Winfree, L.T. Jr., He, N. & Taylor, T.J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 47, 1:105-130. 63

Esbensen, F., Winfree, L.T. Jr., He, N. & Taylor, T.J. (2004). American Youth Gangs at the Millenium. Long Grove: Illinois: Waveland Press.

Esbensen, F., Osgood, D.W., Taylor, T.J., Peterson, D., & Freng, A. (2001). How great is GREAT: Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminology and Public Policy, 1: 87-118.

Fagan, J.E. (1989). The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs. Criminology 27:633–669.

Fagan, J.E. (1990). Social process of delinquency and drug use among urban gangs. In Gangs in America, C.R. Huff (Eds.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Fagan, J.E. (1996). Gangs, drugs, and neighborhood change. In Gangs in America, C.R. Huff (Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Farrington, D.P. (1977). The effects of public labeling. British Journal of Criminology, 17:112-125.

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2008). Crime in the United States, 2007. online at - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/07cius.htm.

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2009). Violent Gangs. Available online at - http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/ngic/violent_gangs.htm

Fleisher, M. S. (1998). Dead End Kids: Gang Girls and the Boys They Know, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Florida Department of Corrections. (2009). Gang and Security Threat Group Awareness. Available online at - http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/

Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (2007). 2007 Gang Survey Results. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Statewide Intelligence.

Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (2008). Firearm Involved Violent Crime, by FDLE Region, 2008. Available online at – http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/6dcf8a34-8940-4738-b8ac- 5923642d32af/firearms_2008.aspx

Florida Legislature. (2009). Florida Statute 874.03. Available online at - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search _String=&URL=Ch0874/Sec03.HTM

Florida Supreme Court. (2007). First Interim Report of the Statewide Grand Jury: 64

Criminal Gangs and Gang Related Violence. West Palm Beach, FL: Eighteenth Statewide Grand Jury, Case No. SC 07-1128.

Florida Department of Children and Families. (2008). Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2008.

Friedman, C. J., Mann, F. & Friedman. A. S. (1975). A Profile of Juvenile Street Gang Members. Adolescence 10:563-607.

Gatti, U., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R.E., & McDuff, P. (2002). Youth gangs and violent behavior: Results from the Montreal longitudinal experimental study. Paper presented at the XV World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, Montreal, July 2002.

Hagan, J. (1993). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology, 31, 4: 465-491.

Hagedorn, J.M. (1994a). Homeboys, dope fiends, legits, and new jacks. Criminology, 32:197–217.

Hagedorn, J.M. (1994b). Neighborhoods, markets, and gang drug organization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31:264–294.

Hagedorn, J.M. (1998). People and folks: Gangs, crime and the underclass in a rustbelt city. Chicago: Lakeview.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J.Y. (1992). Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 1:64- 105.

Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T.I., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D.D., Catalano, R.F., & Haraschi, T.W. (1998). A review of predictors of youth violence. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hildelang, M.J., Hirschi, T. & Weis, J.G. (1981). Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

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.

Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive 65

Framework, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howell, J. C., Moore, J. P., & Egley, A. (2002). The changing boundaries of youth gangs. In Gangs in American III, Ronald, H.C. (Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Huff, C.R. (1998). Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youths. Research in Brief. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. National Institute of Justice.

Klein, M. W. (1971). Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Klein, M.W. (1995). The American Street Gang. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Klein, M. W. (2002). Street Gangs: A Cross-National Perspective. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America III. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Klein, M.W., Gordon, M.A., & Maxson, C.L. (1986). The impact of police investigation on police-reported rates on gang and nongang homicide. Criminology, 2: 489-512.

Klein, M.W., Kerner, H.J., Maxson, C.L., & Weitekamp, E.G. M. (Eds). (2001). The Eurogang paradox: Street gangs and youth groups in the U.S and Europe. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Klein, M.W., & Maxson, C.L. (1989). Street gang violence. In Violent Crime, Violent Criminals, Wolfgang, M.W. & Weiner, N.A. (Eds). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., & Cunningham, L.C. (1991). Crack, street gangs and violence, Criminology, 29:623-650.

Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, F. R., & Gui, J. (1996). The development dynamics of gang initiation: When and why young people join gangs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.

Krohn, M.D., Thornberry, T.P., Collins-Hall, L., & Lizotte, A.J. (1995). School dropout, delinquent behavior and drug use: An examination of the causes and consequences of dropping out of school. In Drugs, Crime and other Deviant Adaptations: Longitudinal Studies, Kaplan, H.B. (Ed.), New York: Plenum Press.

Lahey, B.B., Gordon, R.A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D.P. (1999). Boys who join gangs: A prospective study of first gang entry. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27: 261-276.

66

Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J.H. (1998). Predictors of Violent or Serious Delinquency in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., Howell, J.C., Tobin, K., & Howard, G.J. (2000). Factors influencing gun carrying among young urban males over the adolescent-young adult life course. Criminology, 38: 811-834.

Lizotte, A.J., Tesoriero, J.M., Thornberry, T.P., & Krohn, M.D. (1994). Patterns of adolescent firearms ownership and use. Justice Quarterly, 11:51-73.

Loeber, R, & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.) (2001). Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Loeber, R. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1987). Prediction. In the Handbook of juvenile delinquency, Quay, Herbert C. (Ed). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Matsueda, R.L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family structure, and delinquency: A test of differential association and social control. American Sociological Review, 52, 6: 826-840.

Maxon, C.L., & Klein, M.W. (1990). Street gang and violence: Twice as great, or half as great? In R. Huff (Eds). Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Maxson, C.L., Whitlock, M.L. & Klein, M.W. (1998). Vulnerability to Street Gang Membership: Implications for Practice. Social Service Review 72:70-91.

Miller, W.B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14:5–19.

Miller, W.B. (1966). Violent crimes in city gangs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 364:96–112.

Miller, W.B. (1975). Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. NCJ 137446.

Miller, W.B. (1992). Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. NCJ 156221.

Miller, W. B. (2001). The growth of youth gang problems in the United States: 1970-

67

1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Moore, J.W. (1990). Gangs, drugs, and violence. In Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences, by De La Rosa, M.. Lambert, E.Y. & Gropper, B. (Eds.). Research Monograph No. 103. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Moore, J.W. (1991). Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Moore, J.W. (1998). Understanding youth street gangs: Economic restructuring and the urban underclass. In M.W. Watts (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on youth and violence. Stamford, CT: JAI.

Moore, J.W., & Hagedorn, J. (2001). Female Gangs: A Focus on Research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Moore, J.W., Vigil D., & Garcia, R.(1983). Residence and territoriality in Chicano gangs. Social Problems 31:182–194.

Mrazek, P.B. & Haggerty, R.J. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

National Poverty Center. (2006). Poverty in the United States: Frequently Asked Questions. Available online at - http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/#_ftn2

Newton, G.D., & Zimring, F.E. (1969). Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Office of the Attorney General of Florida. (2007). Florida Gang Reduction Strategy 2008-2012. Tallahassee, FL.

Office of the Attorney General of Florida. (2007). Gang Reduction Strategy Summit Summary Reports.

Palm Beach Post. (2008). Gangs of Palm Beach County: Interactive Map. Available at – http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/interactives/gangmap.ht ml

Palm Beach Post. (2007). http://www.wpbf.com/news/10785798/detail.html

Parker, R. (2009). Five Year Crime Comparison. Miami-Dade Police Department Press 68

Conference Presentation delivered on February 18, 2009.

Robbins, L.N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult antisocial behavior: Replications from longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 8: 611-622.

Rutter, M., Quinton, D., & Hill, J. (1990). Adult outcomes of institution-reared children: Males and females compared. In Straight and Devious Pathways from Childhood to Adulthood, Robins, L. & Rutter, M. (Eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, R.J. & Laub, J.H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55:609-627.

Sampson, R.J. & Laub, J.H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Sampson, R.J. & Laub, J.H. (1995). Understanding variability in lives through time: Contributions of life-course criminology. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 4:143-158.

Sampson, R.J., Laub, J.H., & Allen, L.C. (2001). Explaining crime over the life course: Toward a theory of age-graded informal social control. In Criminological theory: Context and consequences, Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (Eds.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 5328: 918-924.

Sheley, J.F., & Wright, J.D. (1993). Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Sheley, J.F., & Wright, J.D. (1995). In the Line of Fire: Youth, Guns and Violence in Urban America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Short, J. F. Jr., Tennyson, R.A. & Howard, K.I. (1963). Behavior dimensions of gang delinquency. American Sociological Review, 28, 3: 411-428.

Short, J.F., Jr., & Strodtbeck, F.L.(1965). Group Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Slater, Stephanie. (2007). “The Gangs of Palm Beach County.” Palm Beach Post, April 12, 2007.

Small, S.A. & Luster, T. (1994). Adolescent Sexual Activity: An Ecological, Risk-Factor 69

Approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 1:181-192.

Spergel, I. A. (1995). The Youth Gang Problem, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, C.S. (1989). Dangerous Society. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Taylor, C.S. (1990). Dangerous society. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Thornberry, T. P. (1998). Membership in Youth Gangs and Involvement in Serious and Violent Offending. In Loeber, R. & Farrington, D.P. (Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thornberry, T.P., & Krohn, M. (1997). Peers, drug use and delinquency. In D.M. Stoff, J. Breiling and J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior, New York: Wiley.

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., & Chard-Wierschem, D. (1993). The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30:55–87.

Thornberry, T.P. Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., Smith, C.A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thrasher, F.M. (1927/2000). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tremblay, R.E., Pihl, R.O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P.L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51: 732-739.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). National Gang Threat Assessment 2009.

Vigil, J.D. (1988). Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Vigil, J.D., & Long, J.M. (1990). Emic and etic perspectives on gang culture. In Gangs in America, C.R. Huff (Ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

70

Vigil, J.D. & Yun, S.C. (1990). Vietnamese Youth Gangs in Southern California. In Gangs in America, C. R. Huff (Eds.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wang, Z. (1995). Gang affiliation among Asian-American high school students: A path analysis of a social developmental model. Journal of Gang Research 2:1– 13.

Warr, M. & Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology, 29, 4:851-866.

Weisel, D. L. (2002). The evolution of street gangs: An examination of form and variation. In Reed, W. & Decker, S. (Eds.), Responding to Gangs: Evaluation and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 25-65.

Winfree, L.T. Jr., Backstorm, T.G., & Mays, G.L. (1994). Social learning theory, self reported delinquency and youth gangs: A new twist on a general theory of crime and delinquency. Youth and Society, 26: 147-177.

71

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Karla Johanna Dhungana

Karla Johanna Dhungana completed her Bachelors in Psychology with a minor in Art History from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, CA during fall, 2006. She began attending Florida State University in the fall of 2007 as a graduate student in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Under the advisement of Prof. Sarah Bacon, she obtained her Master’s degree in Criminology during the summer of 2009. She is currently continuing her work towards a PhD in Criminology.

Karla’s research interests include gangs, the life-course perspective, public policy, program evaluation, policing, international criminology, as well as the influence of gender, race, class and economic factors on crime.

72