Assignment: Scope and Activities of Criminal Organizations
Success50
READINGMATERIAL2.pdf
Victims & Offenders, 12:43–70, 2017 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 online DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2014.989557
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization
Kathleen A. Fox
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Abstract: Gang scholars have recently turned their attention to a unique and under- developed line of inquiry: the victimization of gang members. However, the gang-vic- timization link remains unclear, especially in terms of how gang men and women are violently victimized in different—or similar—ways. Using a sample of 2,345 adult jail inmates incarcerated in Florida (ages 18–84), this study explores the role of gender in terms of (1) the forms of violent crimes gang members experience more than nongang members, (2) who victimizes gang members, and (3) if gang members’ risky lifestyles explain victimization risk. Findings reveal more similarities than differences among gang men (n = 300) and women (n = 53). Gang men and women are generally victim- ized by the same violent crimes, and while the offenders who target gang members vary, there are no significant gender differences. Female gang members were significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted by members of their own gang and nonmembers (compared to members of rival gangs). The gang-victimization link remains significant for both men and women even after accounting for demographic characteristics, gang membership, and risky lifestyles—including violent offending.
Keywords: victimization, victims, gang/subculture
INTRODUCTION
Criminologists have long established that gang members commit more crime and violence than do nongang members (Curry, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2014; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, & Chard-Wierschem, 1993; Thrasher, 1927). The link between gang affiliation and violent behavior is so well established that many gang scholars are turning their attention to other gang-related issues, such as the international influence (Esbensen & Maxson, 2012; Katz, Maguire, & Choate, 2011; Klein, 2011; Pyrooz & Decker, 2013) and the implications of social networking (Papachristos, 2009; Papachristos, Hureau, & Braga, 2013; Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2013) on gang membership. In addition to
Address correspondence to Kathleen A. Fox, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004. E-mail: [email protected]
43
44 K. A. Fox
these important advancements, arguably the most unconventional and unre- solved development within the gang literature in the past decade concerns the victimization of gang members. The idea that gang members are both offend- ers and victims is unconventional because it challenges the traditional view that people fall exclusively into one distinct category (for an overview of the victim-offender overlap see Lauritsen & Laub, 2007). Because gang members undoubtedly occupy the “offender” category, it is often uncomfortable for crim- inal justice personnel, policy makers, and the public to view gang members simultaneously as “victims.” Despite this resistance, an underdeveloped line of inquiry within this literature concerns the fact that recent evidence shows gang members also are crime victims (Fox, 2013).
Yet there are several key problems with the emerging gang-victimization literature. First, the gang-victimization link has been called into question given mixed findings. While some evidence supports a significant relationship between gang membership and victimization (Decker, Katz, & Webb, 2008; DeLisi, Barnes, Beaver, & Gibson, 2009; Peterson, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2004) other evidence offers limited or no support (Gibson, Miller, Swatt, Jennings, & Gover, 2009; Spano, Frelich, & Bolland, 2008; Taylor, Freng, Esbensen, & Peterson, 2008). In stark comparison to our understanding of the gang-crime link, the strength of the gang-victimization relationship remains unresolved.
Second, despite the attention to gender within the broader gang liter- ature (Campbell, 1984/1991; Chesney-Lind & Hagadorn, 1999; Esbensen, Deschenes, & Winfree, 1999; Miller, 2001; Miller & Brunson, 2000; Peterson, Miller, & Esbensen, 2001; St. Cyr & Decker, 2003), very little consideration has been devoted to understanding gender similarities or differences within the gang-victimization link. This has left a surprising gap within the crimino- logical literature. Because men and women experience both gang membership and victimization differently (Miller, 2001), it is critical to examine these groups separately. While this could imply that gender differences would be expected, feminist perspectives have argued for gender differences (Belknap, 1996) and similarities (Epstein, 1988; Steffensmeier & Haynie, 2000) with respect to correlates of human behavior, generally, and criminal involvement, more specifically. By treating gender as a statistical control, rather than exam- ining these groups individually, the quantitative gang-victimization literature has been rather silent on the issue of if gender impacts the victimization of gang members.
Finally, we know very little about the context of gang victimization, espe- cially regarding what types of crimes members experience, who victimizes gang members, and why gang members might be victimized more than those who are nonmembers. To date, theory tests within the gang-victimization literature are still quite limited (see the review by Fox, 2013). Of the few theories that have been tested, lifestyle/routine activities remains the most successful for explaining gang members’ increased risk of victimization (see Katz, Webb, Fox,
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 45
& Shaffer, 2011; Spano et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). Because these studies focus exclusively on youth and do not examine the effects of lifestyles/routine activities separately by gender, much remains unknown about the importance of risky routines on the gang-victimization link.
The purpose of the current study, therefore, is to focus on the impact gender has, if any, on the violent victimization of gang members. More specifically, this study examines gender similarities and differences in terms of the following questions: (1) What forms of violent crimes do gang members experience more than nongang members? (2) Who victimizes gang members? and (3) Do gang members’ risky lifestyles explain the increased victimization risk? Among a large sample of active offenders incarcerated within jails throughout the state of Florida, this study offers an exploratory look at the victimization of gang members. The following section approaches the state of the literature with a wide conceptual lens by considering the connections of the if, what, who, and why surrounding the context of gang victimization—and what impact, if any, gender has on this link.
THE CONTEXT OF VICTIMIZATION AND GANG MEMBERSHIP
The Unresolved Gang-Victimization Link Among Men and Women Gang life is at times dangerous, violent, and unsafe. A long line of cutting-
edge work within the past century has shaped our understanding about these key aspects of gang life (Curry et al., 2014; Decker, Melde, & Pyrooz, 2013; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Klein, 1971; Klein & Maxson, 2006; Miller, 2001; Miller, 1966; Spergel, 1966; Thornberry et al., 1993; Thrasher, 1927). Although the gang literature has naturally focused on crime, a closer read of many classic works hints at the flip side of the coin— that gang members are also victims. Among gang men, Decker and Van Winkle (1996, p. 178) noted that wearing gang “colors make a person a target, a vic- tim, and a victimizer.” Since Decker and Van Winkle’s (1996) research took place, nearly one-third of the gang members in the study are known to have violently died (Decker, personal communication, April 18, 2013). Additionally, Campbell’s (1984/1991) classic ethnographic study of female gang members is sprinkled with reports of violence during childhood as well as attempted and completed rape, and completed rape (see also Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Miller, 2001).
These studies have recently inspired a small, but growing, body of litera- ture to quantitatively test the gang-victimization link. Support has been gar- nered for the gang-victimization link among samples of elementary school stu- dents (Barnes, Boutwell, & Fox, 2012; DeLisi et al., 2009; Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Freng, 2010; Peterson et al., 2004; Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, &
46 K. A. Fox
Freng, 2007), high school students (Gover, Jennings, & Tewksbury, 2009), arrested youth (Decker et al., 2008), jail inmates (Fox, Lane, & Akers, 2010, 2013), and prison inmates (Fox, Rufino, & Kercher, 2012; Rufino, Fox, & Kercher, 2012). This link appears relatively robust for various forms of violent victimization (e.g., robbed, physically assaulted, cut/stabbed), yet the majority of studies examine a combination of items rather than isolating specific types of violence (for an overview see Fox, 2013). Yet other research casts doubt upon the strength of the gang-victimization relationship. Some evidence shows the link depends upon certain factors, including the operationalization of victim- ization or statistically controlling for criminal behavior. Furthermore, a small handful of studies indicate the gang-victimization link washes out after con- trolling for criminal behavior, including violent crime and drug use (Spano et al., 2008), gang-related offending (Katz, Webb et al., 2011), and delinquency (Taylor et al., 2008). Still other evidence suggests that matching gang and nongang youth on a number of covariates renders the gang-victimization link spurious (Gibson et al., 2009; see Ozer & Engel’s [2012] methodological critique and Gibson, Swatt, Miller, Jennings, & Gover’s, [2012] rebuttal).
Further contributing to the uncertainty about the victimization of gang members, little is understood about whether gender matters. Ethnographic accounts of male and female gang youth offer convincing evidence that gen- der influences victimization risk. For example, interviews with gang women indicate problems with sexual victimization during childhood (Joe & Chesney- Lind, 1995; Moore, 1991). Miller’s (2001, p. 152) interviews reveal that the extent of violent victimization among gang girls, compared to nongang girls, is “alarming” given that nearly half of the gang girls had been attacked (42%), sexually assaulted (52%), and threatened with a weapon (56%) (see also Miller, 1998; Miller & Decker, 2001). While the evidence clearly shows gang women are victimized (Miller, 1998), the next step concerns whether there are gender differences or similarities among these high rates of victimization.
To further complicate matters, the few studies that compare the victim- ization of gang men and women find contradictory results. On one hand, qualitative interviews with male and female gang members highlight impor- tant differences in the way gender impacts victimization risk. For example, Miller and Brunson’s (2000) interviews revealed that while gang women were at risk of victimization (especially kidnapping and sexual assault), gang men were more likely to be victims of lethal violence. On the other hand, the only quantitative study to examine men and women separately found gender sim- ilarities in terms of the relationship between gang membership and violent victimization (e.g., needing medical attention for wounds caused by a physical fight, dating violence, and sexual assault) (Gover et al., 2009). At this point, much remains unknown about the relationships between gender, gangs, and violent victimization. To put this in broader context, the following examines which parties are more likely to victimize gang members.
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 47
Who Victimizes Gang Men and Women? It is paradoxical that many young men and women join gangs for protec-
tion or to escape abuse only to become victimized more often, yet they feel less afraid of victimization than nongang members (Lane & Fox, 2012, 2013; Melde, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2009). While the gang offers a sense of camaraderie and a feeling that there is “safety in numbers,” it also exposes members to other gang members who are dangerous and violent. This is illustrative of “homophily”— or the idea that people socialize with others like themselves (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954; see also Blau, 1977; Harris, 1995). And while gang members are likely to associate with other dangerous people, thus increasing their victim- ization risk, those violent associates could be a number of people—including members of their own gang, members of a rival gang, or even nongang mem- bers. To further disentangle the gang-victimization link, the next step within the literature is to understand who victimizes gang members.
Some evidence suggests gang men and women are at risk of victimization from different perpetrators. To a large degree, gang men are violently victim- ized by rival gang members (Miller & Brunson, 2000). Indeed, gang men are often targets of retaliatory violence due to intergang rivalries (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Alternatively, a substantial amount of gang violence is com- mitted by nongang members and by members within the gang. Decker and Curry (2002) found that Blood and Crip gang members were most likely to be murdered by a nongang member; yet when gang members were killed by gang members, the perpetrator was more likely to be a member of their own gang rather than a rival gang, which calls into question the orthodox view of gangs as loyal, protective, and organized (see also Klein, 1995). Gang members also are victimized by members of their own gang during the initiation process (e.g., being “jumped in”) or as punishment for breaking rules or norms (Taylor, 2008). Even after leaving the gang, ex-gang members are victimized, albeit less so than during gang membership (Sweeten, Pyrooz, & Piquero, 2013), yet lingering ties to the gang still influence victimization risk (Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2014).
Alternatively, gang women are sexually victimized much more than gang men. In-depth interviews with gang women reveal considerable sexual vic- timization by caregivers during childhood, by rival gang members, and by members of their own gangs (Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Miller, 2001; Miller & Brunson, 2000; Molidor, 1996). Due to the humiliation of gang men “sexing in” gang women (e.g., requiring women to have sex as initiation into the gang) or “running trains” on gang women (e.g., gang rape), gang women rarely admit to this sexual victimization (Miller, 2001). Indeed, some gang women even endorse these inequitable gender roles, which serves to further disem- power them and perpetuate and legitimize their sexual victimization (Miller, 2001). Combined, this evidence underscores the importance of further studying gender within the gang-victimization link.
48 K. A. Fox
Theoretical Framework: Risky Lifestyles and the Gang-Victimization Link If gang members are more likely to be victimized than nongang members,
then another logical question concerns why this relationship exists. Only a small number of studies have conducted theory tests for understanding this link and, again, support is rather mixed (see Fox, 2013 for review). While theoretical tests of the gang-victimization link have produced limited support for the biosocial perspective (Barnes et al., 2012), social disorganization the- ory (Fox et al., 2012), and self-control theory (Fox et al., 2013), support has been generated for lifestyles and routine activities theories (Spano et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2008).
Intended as theories of victimization, lifestyle/exposure theory (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978) and routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) suggest that victims exhibit personal qualities and behaviors that place them at risk for victimization. According to routine activity theory, enhanced proximity to motivated offenders, a lack of capable guardians for protection, and increased target attractiveness converge to increase victimization risk (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Put differently, routine activity theory suggests that people engage in patterns of opportunities cre- ated by routine behaviors that put them at increased risk of becoming crime victims (see Meier & Miethe, 1993 for an overview). Indeed, many empirical tests support the effect of routine activities on victimization (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Miethe & McDowall, 1993; Miethe, Stafford, & Long, 1987; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999; Reyns, 2013; Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2011; Tillyer, Tillyer, Miller, & Pangrac, 2011).
Applied to the gang-victimization link, then, lifestyle and routine activities theory suggests that gang members are victimized more than nonmembers because of their risky routines. And as mentioned earlier, gang life is risky. Gang members are more likely than nonmembers to engage in a variety of crimes, including car theft, drug sales, drive-by shootings, and homicide (Huff, 1998). And increased involvement in deviant and criminal behavior puts gang members in close proximity to other motivated offenders, increases their attractiveness as targets, and leaves them without capable guardians. While members might mistakenly believe that being accompanied by fellow gang members provides some safety, this type of guardianship increases—rather than decreases—one’s risk of victimization.
A small handful of studies suggest the risky behavior that matters most for understanding the victimization of gang members is involvement in delinquent or criminal behavior. More specifically, these studies show that controlling for criminal behavior washes out—or renders spurious—the relationship between gang membership and violent victimization among youth (Katz, Webb et al., 2011; Spano et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). While these studies offer
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 49
important theoretical contributions, unanswered questions remain regarding the importance of risky routines given some methodological constraints. For example, Taylor and colleagues (2008) examine a large sample of youth in schools using the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) data, which naturally excludes perhaps the most risky, or deviant, youth who have been expelled, dropped out, or do not attend school regularly (e.g., potentially absent on the days of data collection). While Spano et al. (2008) and Katz, Webb, and colleagues (2011) examine high-risk youth, these samples are nec- essarily restricted to either high-poverty, inner-city, African American youth in Alabama (Spano et al., 2008) or youth arrested in Arizona (Katz, Webb et al., 2011). Furthermore, these studies do not estimate models separately among boys and girls, so any potential gender differences could be obscured in the full samples. Therefore, the current study is among the first to quantitatively test the strength of the gang-victimization link among adult men and women separately by accounting for the effects of risky behavior, including offending.
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The current study offers an exploratory look at the violent victimization of gang men and women. Three broad research questions guide this study, includ- ing: (1) What forms of violent crimes do gang members experience more than nongang members? (2) Who victimizes gang members? and (3) Do gang mem- bers’ risky lifestyles explain the increased victimization risk? Importantly, these research questions are assessed among men and women separately in an effort to determine whether gender differences or similarities exist. The following presents the hypothesized relationships within each of these broad research questions.
First, this study examines whether gang members are more likely than nongang members to be victimized by a variety of violent crimes at the bivariate level, and if gender differences emerge. Given that every study published to date finds a significant link between gang membership and vic- timization at the bivariate level (see the review by Fox, 2013), this leads to the first hypothesis as a foundation for the current study:
Hypothesis 1: (a) Gang membership will significantly increase the risk of expe- riencing a variety of violent crimes at the bivariate level. (b) Among the full sample, and among gang members in particular, men will be violently victimized significantly more than women.
To gain a better understanding of gang members’ risk of victimization, the current study examines who victimizes gang members (e.g., nongang members, members from their own gang, or rival gang members) and if there are gen- der differences. Drawing broadly from the concept of homophily (Lazarsfeld
50 K. A. Fox
& Merton, 1954; see also Blau, 1977), it is anticipated that gang members will be at greater risk of victimization by other gang members compared to nongang members. Expectations about gender differences are drawn from ethnographic evidence that suggests the gang may protect women from being harmed by those outside of their gang, yet increases women’s risk of victimiza- tion by members of their own gang (Miller, 2001). Thus, the second hypothesis anticipates that:
Hypothesis 2: (a) Gang members will be victimized more often by their own and rival gang members and least often by nongang members. (b) Women gang members will be victimized most often by members of their own gang whereas men gang members will be victimized most often by rival gang members.
Finally, the current study examines the effect of risky lifestyles on the gang-victimization link. A small handful of studies have recently suggested that involvement in criminal behavior explains why gang members are at an increased risk of victimization (Katz, Webb et al., 2011; Spano et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2008), yet few studies that examine the gang-victimization link have controlled for offending. When considering how gender might impact these relationships, theoretical expectations dictate that women are less likely to be victimized because they engage in fewer risks and associate with less risky people (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986). Thus, gender differences should dis- appear when accounting for risky lifestyles. This preliminary evidence leads to the third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: (a) Gang membership will significantly increase the likelihood of violent victimization prior to controlling for risky lifestyles. However, once risky lifestyles are accounted for, the relationship between gang membership and victimization will no longer be statistically significant, sig- naling the gang-victimization link is spurious. (b) No gender differences are expected.
IMPORTANCE OF THE CURRENT STUDY
First, the current study contributes to the literature by examining how gen- der impacts the victimization of gang members (Gover et al., 2009; Miller & Brunson, 2000). Because men and women experience victimization (Lauritsen & Carbone-Lopez, 2011) and gang membership differently (Miller, 1998), it is important to determine if there are gender differences—or similarities— among the ways gang men and women are violently victimized. This has important practical implications for understanding the complex dynamics of gang life. For example, if there are differences between gang men and women
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 51
in terms of victimization, then programs and policies (e.g., GREAT) aimed at reducing gang membership and victimization might be more effective if they employ a gendered approach.
Second, gang-victimization-gender issues are examined using a unique sample of jail inmates. Jail inmates might be considered in some ways a con- venient sample of offenders, yet this population was targeted because they are active offenders who were only recently removed from the street. For exam- ple, unlike prison inmates who are incarcerated long term, nearly 80% of the sample had been in jail for six months or less. Indeed, the importance and challenges associated with collecting data from incarcerated populations was recently confirmed by distinguished scholar John Hepburn (2013) during his keynote address at the Western Society of Criminology conference (see also Fox, Zambrana, & Lane, 2011).
Third, this study is among the first to examine the broader context of victimization. In particular, the present study is concerned with what types of crimes members experience, who victimizes gang members, and why gang members might be victimized more than those who are nonmembers. Lifestyle/routine activity theory has explained the gang-victimization link among samples of juveniles (Katz, Webb et al., 2011; Spano et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2008), yet the current study is among the first to examine the impact of risky routines on gang victimization among a sample of adult offenders.
DATA
The current study examines original data from a large sample of inmates incar- cerated within 14 of the 20 largest jails in Florida (70% of the target sample). The largest jails in urban areas across the state were targeted, given that gangs and gang crime are more prevalent in urban areas (Egley & Howell, 2012). The sample of inmates was incarcerated for a variety of reasons, includ- ing awaiting trial (n = 774; 34%), serving a jail term (n = 442; 19%), and parole/probation violation (576; 25%), among other reasons. When asked about their current charge, respondents reported being charged or convicted of com- mitting property crimes (n = 579; 25%), personal crimes (n = 523; 23%), and drug crimes (n = 641; 28%), among other crimes. Only 6% of the inmates (n = 135) indicated they were not currently charged or convicted of any crime (e.g., court witness).
In 2008 and 2009, the research team invited inmates to complete a self-administered survey pertaining to their experiences with gangs, crime, victimization, and a variety of other perceptual and experiential domains1. Given concerns about illiteracy among jail inmates (Knox, 1993) survey ques- tions and response options were read aloud in both English and Spanish (n = 212; 9% completed the Spanish version). However, most participants elected
52 K. A. Fox
to complete the survey on their own at a faster pace. Inmates were informed that their participation was anonymous, voluntary, and would not result in any compensation2. Per university review board approval, inmates were informed of their participation rights verbally and via a written consent form, which participants retained without signing in an effort to protect their identities. Based on the preferences of staff within each jail, surveys were administered in a variety of settings (e.g., day rooms, multipurpose rooms, recreation areas). Although the location of the survey administration varied across the jails, standard procedures were employed consistently to ensure the privacy of sur- vey responses. For example, correctional staff were not present during survey administration and they did not view or handle the surveys. Also, inmates were spaced adequately from each other so they could not view each other’s responses. The response rate ranged from 13% to 35% (with an average of 25%) across the jails which, while low, is consistent with other research that sam- ples incarcerated inmates (Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby, & Donaldson, 1996). Of the 2,414 inmates who participated, 69 cases were dropped due to missing data pertaining to gender, and the final sample consisted of 2,345 men and women.
MEASURES
Dependent Variable: Violent Victimization Respondents were asked if they had ever (yes = 1, no = 0) been victimized
by 12 violent crimes. More specifically, the survey inquired about experiences with being threatened with a weapon, assaulted without a weapon, assaulted with a weapon, sexually assaulted, stabbed, shot at, shot, robbed, carjacked, drive-by shootings, witness intimidation, and home invasion (see Table 1). For the descriptive analyses, these dichotomous items were examined separately in an effort to identify gender differences or similarities across items. Then, the multivariate models examined a variety index of violent victimization wherein the 12 items are summed (α = .767)3.
The survey also contained follow-up questions to assess who perpetrated each crime. For example, respondents who answered affirmatively to each victimization question were then asked “who did this to you?” and response options included (1) it was not a gang member, (2) a member from my gang, (3) a member from another gang, or (4) I don’t know. Given the possibility that some respondents were victimized several times by different perpetrators, the survey permitted the selection of multiple categories (e.g., gang and nongang offenders). Missing data were excluded from the analyses (e.g., “I don’t know” response option).
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 53
Table 1: Survey items.
Construct Survey Item(s)
Violent victimization Threatened with a weapon Have you ever been threatened with a weapon? Assaulted without a weapon Have you ever been attacked without a weapon? Assaulted with a weapon Have you ever been attacked with a weapon? Sexually assaulted Have you ever been sexually assaulted or raped? Stabbed Have you ever been stabbed? Shot at Have you ever been shot at but not hit (not military-related)? Shot Have you ever been shot (not military-related)? Robbed Has someone ever used a weapon or force to steal money or
property from you? Drive-by shooting Have you ever been the victim of a drive-by shooting? Carjacked Have you ever been the victim of a carjacking? Witness intimidation Have you ever been threatened by someone so you did not act
as a witness in court? Home invasion Have you ever been the victim of a home invasion?
Gang status Gang member Are you currently or have you ever been in a gang?
Risky lifestyles Unemployment Before you entered this jail, how often were you working? Impulsivity Please rate yourself on the following items . . .
I often act on the spur of the moment without thinking I don’t think much about the future I often do whatever is fun now, even at the cost of some
distant goal I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short
run than in the long run Risk seeking Please rate yourself on the following items . . .
Sometimes I will take a risk just for fun I like to do things that might get me in trouble I like to test myself by taking risks every once in a while Excitement and adventure are more important to me than
security Violent offending Have you ever . . .
Threatened someone with a weapon? Attacked someone without a weapon? Attacked someone with a weapon? Sexually assaulted or raped someone? Stabbed someone? Shot at someone but not hit them (not military-related)? Shot someone (not military-related)? Used a weapon or force to steal money or property from someone? Participated in a drive-by shooting? Carjacked someone? Threatened someone that you did not want to act as a witness in court? Committed a home invasion?
Independent Variables
Gang Membership
Consistent with the gang literature, respondents were asked to self-report whether they currently or ever belonged to a gang (yes = 1, no = 0) (Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001; Webb, Katz, & Decker, 2006). Current and for- mer gang members were collapsed into a single item for both men and women, which is common within the gang literature (Esbensen et al., 1999; Peterson et al., 2001; Pyrooz & Decker, 2013; Winfree, Backstrom, & Mays, 1994).
54 K. A. Fox
Importantly, this measure captures street gang members rather than prison or jail gang members. For example, gang members were asked a follow-up ques- tion regarding whether their gang was inside the jail only, outside the jail only, or both inside and outside. Only four gang members reported that their gang was inside the jail only (two of whom were ex-gang members at the time of the survey); therefore, these few respondents were retained in the analysis as gang members given that results remained unchanged with their removal.
Risky Lifestyles
The current study examines the effects of risky lifestyles, including unemployment, impulsivity, risk seeking, and violent offending (see Table 1). Because employment may increase or decrease the likelihood of victimization (Spano et al., 2008), the multivariate models include a measure of unemploy- ment that dichotomized unemployment/illegal employment (coded as 1) and employment (e.g., full time, part time, seasonal, or temporary) (coded as 0). Impulsivity and risk seeking were assessed by slightly modifying Grasmick, Tittle, Bursick, & Arneklev’s (1993) scale based on feedback from clients at a local drug court during a pilot test of the survey. Respondents were asked to rate themselves on four impulsivity items and four risk seeking items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The impulsivity items were summed and divided by four to create a scale such that higher values indicate more impulsivity (α = .656). Similarly, the risk seeking items were summed and divided by four and the scale was coded where higher values represent more risk seeking (α = .769). Violent offending was included to assess whether criminal behavior explains the increased victimization of gang members. Identical to the violent victimization variety index, responses regarding whether respondents had ever (yes = 1, no = 0) committed the same 12 violent crimes were summed to create a violent offending index (α = .853).
Sample Characteristics Age (continuous variable) and race (white = 1; nonwhite = 0) were included
as statistical control variables.
ANALYTIC STRATEGY
The following first highlights the qualities of the sample, then explores the descriptive nature of violent victimization among gang members, and finally presents results from a series of multivariate regression models. Bivariate correlations (not shown) indicate no potential issues with multicollinearity. Using stata version 12, bivariate relationships were examined (e.g., chi-square, t-tests) and regression models were estimated among the full sample to deter- mine the importance of gender for understanding violent victimization. Finally,
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 55
models are estimated among men and women separately to assess gender differences or similarities that may be obscured in the full sample. Negative binomial regression models were estimated given that the dependent variable (violent victimization index) represents overdispersed count data with many zero values (see Hilbe, 2007, for a more through discussion of negative binomial regression analysis).
Several diagnostic tests were conducted to determine the appropriate- ness of negative binomial regression. First, a histogram visually displayed the dependent variable as positive/right-skewed, indicating a violation of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression assumptions regarding normal distribution. Second, the variance to mean ratio revealed the variance was twice the size of the mean (7.00 versus 3.59, respectively). Finally, model fit estimates con- firmed negative binomial regression is more suitable than Poisson regression (e.g., likelihood-ratio test of alpha rejected the null across models). In an effort to determine if the results changed using other forms of regression, models were reestimated (not shown) among men and women using OLS and Poisson analyses. Although the basic assumptions of OLS and Poisson regression were violated (e.g., due to the zero-inflated overdispersed dependent variable), and thus inadvisable, results from these supplemental analyses confirmed findings from the negative binomial analyses presented below given that the same sig- nificant findings emerged across models. To account for the possibility that the results might be biased due to the clustered nature of the data (i.e., individ- uals are nested within jails), models also employ robust standard errors for clustered data4.
RESULTS
Sample Descriptive Statistics Descriptive properties of the independent variables and sample charac-
teristics are presented in Table 2 in three parts. Descriptive data is first presented among the full sample for men and women, then among men gang and nongang members, and finally among women gang and nongang mem- bers. In terms of significant age differences across the subsamples, women were older than men, men nongang members were older than men gang mem- bers, and women nongang members were older than women gang members. The only significant race difference across subsamples emerged among the full sample such that women were significantly more likely to be white than men. Men were significantly more likely to be gang members than women (17% ver- sus 9%, respectively). Significant differences emerged across the subsamples for each of the risky lifestyle indicators. Unemployed respondents were signifi- cantly more likely to be women (compared to men) and gang men (compared to nongang men). Gang men and gang women were significantly more impulsive
Ta b
le 2:
D e
sc rip
ti v e
st a
ti st
ic s
a m
o n
g th
e fu
ll sa
m p
le a
n d
m e
n a
n d
w o
m e
n se
p a
ra te
ly .
N u
m b
e r
(% )/
M e
a n
(S ta
n d
a rd
D e
vi a
tio n
)
Fu ll
sa m
p le
M e
n W
o m
e n
n =
2, 34
5 n
= 1,
74 6
n =
59 9
M e
n W
o m
e n
G a
n g
N o
n g
a n
g G
a n
g N
o n
g a
n g
V a
ri a
b le
s (n
= 1,
74 6;
74 %
) (n
= 59
9; 26
% )
(n =
30 0;
17 %
) (n
= 1,
44 6;
83 %
) (n
= 53
; 9%
) (n
= 54
6; 91
% )
D e
m o
g ra
p h
ic s
A g
e 3
1 .7
5 (1
1 .4
7 )
3 2
.9 9
(1 0
.4 3
)∗ 2
8 .0
0 (.
5 3
) 3
2 .5
3 (.
3 1
)∗ 2
8 .0
2 (1
.1 7
) 3
3 .4
3 (.
4 6
)∗ R
a c
e 7
0 2
(4 0
% )
2 8
8 (4
8 %
)∗ 1
0 7
(3 6
% )
5 9
4 (4
1 %
) 2
2 (4
2 %
) 2
6 5
(4 9
% )
G a
n g
st a
tu s
G a
n g
m e
m b
e r
3 0
0 (1
7 %
)∗ 5 3
(9 %
) −
− −
− R
is k
y lif
e st
y le
s U
n e
m p
lo y m
e n
t 3
5 4
(2 0
% )
2 0
3 (3
4 %
)∗ 8
5 (2
8 %
)∗ 2
6 9
(1 9
% )
1 6
(3 0
% )
1 8
7 (3
4 %
) Im
p u
ls iv
it y
2 .2
2 (.
6 5
) 2
.2 4
(. 6
3 )
2 .3
6 (.
0 4
)∗ 2
.1 9
(. 0
2 )
2 .4
8 (.
0 8
)∗ 2
.2 2
(. 0
3 )
R is
k se
e ki
n g
2 .2
0 (.
7 1
) 2
.1 4
(. 7
2 )
2 .4
8 (.
0 4
)∗ 2
.1 4
(. 0
2 )
2 .5
5 (.
0 9
)∗ 2
.1 0
(. 0
3 )
V io
le n
t o
ff e
n d
in g
2 .7
8 (2
.9 3
)∗ 1
.5 8
(2 .1
7 )
5 .2
1 (.
1 9
)∗ 2
.2 8
(. 0
7 )
3 .1
2 (.
4 7
)∗ 1
.4 3
(. 0
8 )
N o
te .P
e rc
e n
ts a
re ro
u n
d e
d to
n e
a re
st w
h o
le n
u m
b e
r. A
g e
ra n
g e
s fr
o m
1 8
–8 4
,i m
p u
ls iv
it y
a n
d ris
k se
e ki
n g
ra n
g e
fr o
m 1
–4 ,a
n d
v io
le n
t o
ff e
n d
in g
ra n
g e
fr o
m 0
–1 2
. A
st e
ris ks
d e
n o
te si
g n
ifi c
a n
t d
iff e
re n
c e
s b
e tw
e e
n m
e n
v e
rs u
s w
o m
e n
a n
d g
a n
g v e
rs u
s n
o n
g a
n g
m e
m b
e rs
a t
p <
.0 5
.
56
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 57
and risky compared to their nongang counterparts. Men and gang men and women committed significantly more violent crime.
Turning to the full sample column in Table 3, the data reveal that vio- lent victimization is not a rare event for the inmates in this sample. With the exception of sexual assault, men were significantly more likely than women to be victimized by every violent crime. While it was expected that women would be sexually victimized more than men, the prevalence of sexual assault among women was surprisingly high. For example, half of the women in the sample (50%) and only 7% of the men reported being sexually assaulted. Men also were victimized by a significantly greater variety of violent crimes com- pared to women (means of 3.73 versus 3.18, respectively). Collectively, these gender differences underscore the importance of further exploring the gang- victimization link separately among men and women. The following section discusses the findings from the remaining columns from Table 3, pertaining to the victimization of gang versus nongang men and women.
What Violent Crimes do Gang Members Experience? The first hypotheses predicted that (1) gang membership will significantly
increase the risk of experiencing a variety of violent crimes at the bivariate level and (2) among the full sample, and among gang members in particu- lar, men will be violently victimized significantly more than women. Table 3 presents the prevalence of each type of violent victimization among gang ver- sus nongang members separately by gender. Among men, gang members are victimized by every violent crime significantly more than nongang members. And the risk of victimization for gang men is especially high for some crimes. For example, gang men are nearly twice as likely to be stabbed (48% versus 26%), be shot at (71% versus 37%), be shot (29% versus 14%), experience a drive-by shooting (60% versus 24%), be the victim of witness intimidation (8% versus 4%), and experience a home invasion (21% versus 13%) than those who are not in a gang. Gang men are victimized by a significantly greater vari- ety of violent crimes compared to nongang men (means of 5.36 versus 3.40, respectively).
Among women, gang members are significantly more likely than nongang members to experience eight of the twelve violent crimes (see Table 3). Gang women are more likely to be threatened with a weapon (70% versus 50%), assaulted with a weapon (62% versus 33%), stabbed (42% versus 15%), shot at (51% versus 14%), shot (21% versus 5%), robbed (42% versus 26%), the vic- tim of a drive-by shooting (38% versus 10%), and carjacked (17% versus 6%) compared to nongang women. Gang women were sexually assaulted more than nongang women (58% versus 49%), yet this difference was not statistically sig- nificant. In line with the results among men, gang women are victimized by a significantly greater variety of violent crimes compared to nongang women (means of 5.28 versus 2.97, respectively). The results also indicate that gang
Ta b
le 3:
V io
le n
t v
ic ti m
iz a
ti o
n o
f g
a n
g v e
rs u
s n
o n
g a
n g
m e
m b
e rs
b y
g e
n d
e r.
N u
m b
e r
(% )/
M e
a n
(S ta
n d
a rd
D e
vi a
tio n
)
Fu ll
sa m
p le
M e
n W
o m
e n
n =
2, 34
5 n
= 1,
74 6
n =
59 9
M e
n W
o m
e n
G a
n g
N o
n g
a n
g G
a n
g N
o n
g a
n g
V io
le n
t V
ic tim
iz a
tio n
(n =
1, 74
6; 74
% )
(n =
59 9;
26 %
) (n
= 30
0; 17
% )
(n =
1, 44
6; 83
% )
(n =
53 ;
9% )
(n =
54 6;
91 %
)
Th re
a te
n e
d w
it h
a w
e a
p o
n 1
,1 1
3 (6
4 %
)∗ 3
1 3
(5 2
% )
2 4
7 (8
2 %
)∗ 8
6 6
(6 0
% )
3 7
(7 0
% )∗
2 7
2 (5
0 %
) A
ss a
u lt e
d w
it h
o u
t a
w e
a p
o n
1 ,1
2 3
(6 4
% )∗
3 4
1 (5
7 %
) 2
3 1
(7 7
% )∗
8 9
1 (6
2 %
) 3
7 (7
0 %
) 3
0 2
(5 5
% )
A ss
a u
lt e
d w
it h
a w
e a
p o
n 8
8 5
(5 1
% )∗
2 1
8 (3
6 %
) 2
0 7
(6 9
% )∗
6 7
7 (4
7 %
) 3
3 (6
2 %
)∗ 1
8 2
(3 3
% )
Se xu
a lly
a ss
a u
lt e
d 1
2 5
(7 %
) 3
0 1
(5 0
% )∗
3 0
(1 0
% )∗
9 4
(7 %
) 3
1 (5
8 %
) 2
6 6
(4 9
% )
St a
b b
e d
5 2
0 (3
0 %
)∗ 1
0 5
(1 8
% )
1 4
4 (4
8 %
)∗ 3
7 6
(2 6
% )
2 2
(4 2
% )∗
8 1
(1 5 %
) Sh
o t
a t
7 5
3 (4
3 %
)∗ 1
0 8
(1 8
% )
2 1
4 (7
1 %
)∗ 5
3 8
(3 7
% )
2 7
(5 1
% )∗
7 9
(1 4 %
) Sh
o t
2 9
6 (1
7 %
)∗ 4
2 (7
% )
8 6
(2 9
% )∗
2 0
9 (1
4 %
) 1
1 (2
1 %
)∗ 3 0
(5 %
) R
o b
b e
d 6
4 8
(3 7
% )∗
1 6
4 (2
7 %
) 1
4 8
(4 9
% )∗
4 9
9 (3
5 %
) 2
2 (4
2 %
)∗ 1
4 0
(2 6
% )
D riv
e -b
y sh
o o
ti n
g 5
2 2
(3 0
% )∗
7 5
(1 3
% )
1 7
9 (6
0 %
)∗ 3
4 2
(2 4
% )
2 0
(3 8
% )∗
5 5
(1 0 %
) C
a rja
c ke
d 1
0 1
(6 %
) 4
2 (7
% )
2 5
(8 %
)∗ 7
6 (5
% )
9 (1
7 %
)∗ 3 3
(6 %
) W
it n
e ss
in ti m
id a
ti o
n 8
7 (5
% )∗
6 0
(1 0
% )
2 3
(8 %
)∗ 6
4 (4
% )
8 (1
5 %
) 5
2 (1
0 %
) H
o m
e in
va si
o n
2 5
4 (1
5 %
) 8
6 (1
4 %
) 6
4 (2
1 %
)∗ 1
9 0
(1 3
% )
1 0
(1 9
% )
7 5
(1 4
% )
V io
le n
t v
ic ti m
iz a
ti o
n in
d e
x 3
.7 3
(2 .6
7 )∗
3 .1
8 (2
.5 4
) 5
.3 6
(2 .4
3 )∗
3 .4
0 (2
.5 9
) 5
.2 8
(2 .8
1 )∗
2 .9
7 (2
.4 3
)
N o
te .P
e rc
e n
ts a
re ro
u n
d e
d to
n e
a re
st w
h o
le n
u m
b e
r. Si
g n
ifi c
a n
t d
iff e
re n
c e
s a
re e
xa m
in e
d a
t th
e b
iv a
ria te
le v e
lb e
tw e
e n
m e
n v e
rs u
s w
o m
e n
a n
d g
a n
g v e
rs u
s n
o n
g a
n g
m e
m b
e rs
. ∗ p
< .0
5 .
58
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 59
men are at the highest risk of victimization, followed by gang women, then nongang men, and finally nongang women. Consistent with the first hypoth- esis, the findings confirm that for both men and women, gang membership significantly increases the risk of experiencing a variety of violent crimes at the bivariate level.
Who Victimizes Gang Members? The next step of the analyses aims to identify who victimizes gang mem-
bers. The second hypothesis expected that (1) gang members will be victimized more often by their own and rival gang members and least often by nongang members and (2) women gang members will be victimized most often by mem- bers of their own gang, whereas men gang members will be victimized most often by rival gang members. Separately among gang men and women, Table 4 reveals the prevalence of being victimized by nongang members, members from their own gang, and rival gang members. Across all violent crime types, gang men are least likely to be victimized by members of their own gang. While gang men are certainly victimized by nongang members, the greatest risk of violent victimization generally appears to be from rival gang members. However, gang men are more likely to be targeted by nongang members for sexual assault (7%), carjacking (3%), and witness intimidation (3%).
Table 4 illustrates more varied victimization patterns among gang women compared to men. For instance, gang women are more likely to be targeted by nongang members for some violent crimes (e.g., threatened with a weapon, assaulted with and without a weapon, stabbed, and home invasion). Yet gang women are targeted by members of their own gang for other crimes (e.g., drive- by shooting and carjacking)—and gang women are victimized by rival gang members for still other crimes (e.g., shot at, shot, robbed, and witness intim- idation). Gang women are at risk of being sexually assaulted equally among nongang members and from members of their own gang (42%).
This begs the question: Are there significant differences between gang men and women in terms of these perpetrators? Although this study examines a large sample, statistical power is limited when the analyses are reduced to gang members, then split by gender, and finally partitioned by perpetrator type. Therefore, Table 4 allows more nuanced findings to emerge for each form of violent victimization, yet statistical differences are not presented given the low counts in some cells. However, supplemental analyses (not shown) indicate that when violent victimization is treated dichotomously (e.g., experienced any of the 12 violent crimes = 1 or none = 0), no gender differences emerge for being targeted by a nongang member (X 2 = 1.372; p > .05), a member from within the gang (X 2 = .341; p > .05), or rival gang members (X 2 = .911; p > .05)5. Thus, the results do not support the second hypothesis.
60 K. A. Fox
Table 4: Gang members victimized by nongang, own gang, and rival gang members by gender.
Gang men Gang women (n = 300) (n = 53)
Victimized by
Violent Victimization Nongang Member
Own Gang
Member
Rival Gang
Member Nongang Member
Own Gang
Member
Rival Gang
Member
Threatened with a weapon
83 (28%) 23 (8%) 125 (42%) 16 (30%) 4 (8%) 10 (19%)
Assaulted without a weapon
88 (29%) 24 (8%) 132 (44%) 13 (25%) 9 (17%) 11 (21%)
Assaulted with a weapon
74 (25%) 11 (4%) 111 (37%) 16 (30%) 1 (2%) 11 (21%)
Sexually assaulted 21 (7%) 0 2 (1%) 22 (42%) 22 (42%) 4 (8%) Stabbed 48 (16%) 7 (2%) 58 (19%) 11 (21%) 2 (4%) 6 (11%) Shot at 58 (19%) 7 (2%) 112 (37%) 8 (15%) 1 (2%) 17 (32%) Shot 27 (9%) 2 (1%) 34 (11%) 3 (6%) 2 (4%) 5 (9%) Robbed 43 (14%) 8 (3%) 46 (15%) 5 (9%) 2 (4%) 6 (11%) Drive-by shooting 39 (13%) 6 (2%) 101 (34%) 6 (11%) 16 (30%) 12 (23%) Carjacked 8 (3%) 1 ( < 1%) 3 (1%) 1 (2%) 8 (15%) 3 (6%) Witness intimidation 8 (3%) 3 (1%) 5 (2%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%) 5 (9%) Home invasion 20 (7%) 3 (1%) 23 (8%) 5 (9%) 0 2 (4%)
Note. Percents are rounded to nearest whole number. Significance testing was not conducted given low numbers in some categories.
Do Risky Lifestyles Explain Victimization Among Gang Members? The third and final hypothesis anticipated that (1) gang membership
will significantly increase the likelihood of violent victimization prior to con- trolling for risky lifestyles; however, once risky lifestyles are accounted for, the relationship between gang membership and victimization will no longer be statistically significant, signaling the gang-victimization link is spurious. Furthermore, gender differences are expected. Turning to the multivariate analyses, Table 5 predicts the violent victimization variety index among the full sample and the subsamples of men and women by first entering gang mem- bership into the models (partial models) and then accounting for the effects of risky lifestyles (full models). Among the full sample, significant gender differences emerged in the partial model (but not the full model), which sig- nals the importance of estimating models separately among men and women. Consistent with the bivariate effects examined earlier among the 12 distinct violent victimization items, it is expected that gang membership will signif- icantly increase the likelihood of violent victimization (variety index) before controlling for risky lifestyles among both men and women in the partial mod- els. However, it is also anticipated that controlling for risky lifestyles in the full models will render the gang-victimization link spurious. That is, gang
Ta b
le 5:
N e
g a
ti v e
b in
o m
ia lr
e g
re ss
io n
m o
d e
ls p
re d
ic ti n
g v io
le n
t v ic
ti m
iz a
ti o
n a
m o
n g
th e
fu ll
sa m
p le
, m
e n
, a
n d
w o
m e
n (w
it h
ro b
u st
st a
n d
a rd
e rr
o rs
).
C o
e ffi
c ie
n t
(R o
b u
st St
a n
d a
rd Er
ro r)
Fu ll
sa m
p le
M e
n W
o m
e n
n =
2, 34
5 n
= 1,
74 6
n =
59 9
V a
ri a
b le
s Pa
rt ia
lM o
d e
l Fu
ll M
o d
e l
Pa rt
ia lM
o d
e l
Fu ll
M o
d e
l Pa
rt ia
lM o
d e
l Fu
llM o
d e
l
D e
m o
g ra
p h
ic s
Se x
.1 2
1 (.
0 3
9 )∗
∗ −.
0 1
3 (.
0 3
3 )
− −
− −
A g
e −.
0 0
0 (.
0 0
2 )
.0 0
6 (.
0 0
2 )∗
∗∗ −.
0 0
1 (.
0 0
3 )
.0 0
6 (.
0 0
3 )∗
.0 0
2 (.
0 0
4 )
.0 0
6 (.
0 0
3 )
R a
c e
−. 0
1 3
(. 0
2 5
) .0
0 7
(. 0
2 0
) −.
0 4
4 (.
0 2
9 )
−. 0
1 2
(. 0
2 2
) .0
8 6
(. 0
5 0
) .0
8 3
(. 0
7 3
) G
a n
g st
a tu
s G
a n
g m
e m
b e
r .4
6 9
(. 0
6 0
)∗ ∗∗
.1 1
6 (.
0 2
5 )∗
∗∗ .4
4 7
(. 0
5 4
)∗ ∗∗
.0 9
9 (.
0 2
4 )∗
∗∗ .5
9 3
(. 1
0 5
)∗ ∗∗
.2 6
2 (.
1 1
7 )∗
R is
k y
lif e
st y
le s
U n
e m
p lo
y m
e n
t −.
0 3
8 (.
0 2
7 )
−. 0
5 3
(. 0
2 9
) −.
0 0
4 (.
0 8
5 )
Im p
u ls
iv it y
.0 0
7 (.
0 3
3 )
−. 0
1 4
(. 0
3 3
) .0
8 9
(. 0
5 2
) R
is k
se e
ki n
g .0
5 4
(. 0
2 5
)∗ .0
3 5
(. 0
2 5
) .0
8 5
(. 0
5 6
) V
io le
n t
o ff e
n d
in g
.1 3
2 (.
0 0
8 )∗
∗∗ .1
2 9
(. 0
0 9
)∗ ∗∗
.1 5
2 (.
0 1
7 )∗
∗∗
∗∗ ∗ p
< .0
0 1
. ∗∗
p <
.0 1
. ∗ p
< .0
5 .
61
62 K. A. Fox
membership should become nonsignificant for both men and women once risky lifestyles are included in the models.
The partial models reveal that gang membership significantly increases the risk of violent victimization among the full sample and among men and women separately, net of control variables. This finding is consistent with the bivariate results and prior research (Peterson et al., 2004). Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero’s (1998) coefficient comparison test indicates no significant gender differences in the effect of gang membership on violent victimization (z = -1.237)6. The full models test the extent to which risky lifestyles account for the victimization of gang members. Among both men and women, violent offending significantly increases the risk of violent victim- ization. Although the current study anticipated the effects of risky lifestyles would wash out the gang-victimization link, gang membership remains sta- tistically significant. In other words, gang membership significantly increases the risk of violent victimization among men and women despite involvement in violent offending. Consistent with expectations, coefficient comparison tests demonstrate no significant gender differences in terms of the effect of gang membership (z = -1.365) or violent offending (z = -1.196) on violent victimization in the full models.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which gender impacts the violent victimization of gang members. Among a large sample of jail inmates, the analyses addressed the following research questions: (1) What forms of violent crimes do gang members experience more than nongang members? (2) Who victimizes gang members? and (3) Do gang members’ risky lifestyles explain increased victimization risk? The following further contextualizes the key findings.
First, the findings confirm that gang membership significantly increases the risk of violent victimization. This finding is consistent with hypothesized expectations and prior literature that also examines this bivariate relationship (e.g., Curry, Decker, & Egley, 2002; Decker et al., 2008; Miller & Decker, 2001). Taking this a step further, the current study is among the first to quanti- tatively explore the gang-victimization link separately among both men and women (see also Gover et al., 2009). To be sure, gang men are significantly more likely than nongang men to be victimized across all forms of violence. And gang women are significantly more likely than their nongang counterparts to experience most forms of violence (8 of 12 violent crimes).
The differential gender findings with regard to sexual violence are partic- ularly noteworthy. This was the one and only type of victimization that women experienced significantly more than men. Yet gang women were not sexually
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 63
victimized significantly more than nongang women. While it was expected that the gang would enhance the risk of sexual assault among women, other evidence suggests that the prevalence of sexual victimization among young women who are “at-risk” and delinquent is similar to that among gang women. For example, compared to Miller’s (2001) study of gang women where 52% had been sexually assaulted, her subsequent interviews with at-risk urban African American young women reveal that 54% had been sexually victimized, of which 29% had been raped (Miller, 2008). It is beyond the scope of the current study to test the gendered reasons for these staggeringly high rates of sexual violence among women. As Miller (2008) and others point out, the answers are likely compounded by many layers of deep-seated inequalities faced by young women (e.g., racial, structural, financial, familial, institutional). However, findings from the current study indicate that compared to the patterns that emerged for other forms of violent crime, sexual violence operates very differently among men and women in general, and gang men and women more specifically.
Another key finding revealed that gang men are most likely to be violently victimized by rival gang members, followed by nongang members, and then—to a much smaller degree—by members of their own gang. However, gang women were victimized by a variety of offenders (e.g., nongang, rival, and their own gang members) and this varied based on the crime type. These findings are largely consistent with ethnographic work that suggests gang men are more likely to be targeted by rival gang members whereas gang women are often vic- timized during their childhood (presumably by nongang family members), by members of their own gang, and by rival gang members (Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Miller, 2001; Miller & Brunson, 2000). Again, sexual assault reveals different patterns than the other types of violence crimes. Of the gang men and women who admitted being sexually assaulted, most were victimized by nongang members (although gang women were targeted equally by nongang and members of their own gang). More specifically, female gang members were significantly more likely to be sexually victimized by members of their own gang and nonmembers and less likely to be sexually victimized by members of rival gangs.
Finally, the current study examined whether the gang-victimization link was strong enough to emerge even while considering the effects of risky lifestyles. Surprisingly, risky lifestyles did not render spurious the gang- victimization link among adult offenders, which contradicts findings from studies of youth (Katz, Webb et al., 2011; Spano et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). Yet it is interesting that the most robust risky lifestyle indicator for explaining violent victimization—for both men and women—was offend- ing behavior. In other words, gang men and women are significantly more likely than nongang members to be violently victimized regardless of their risky lifestyles. Knowing this, future research could contribute to the liter- ature by testing other theoretically driven questions. For example, is gang organization/structure responsible for influencing the victimization of gang
64 K. A. Fox
members? Are social networks important for explaining the gang-victimization link? How does the process of desisting from the gang impact victimization among men and women? And even though risky lifestyles do not wash out the gang-victimization relationship among this sample of adults, are these characteristics important among international gangs?
The current study can also be viewed as a stepping-stone for future research to build upon. It is important to note that, as with any empiri- cal study, the data and measures are necessarily limited; therefore, caution should be exercised in terms of generalizing the findings. Because these cross- sectional data cannot distinguish the time ordering between victimization and risky routines, future research using longitudinal data will be useful. Additionally, there are numerous ways to capture risky lifestyles, and the four indicators used here are certainly not exhaustive measures (i.e., unem- ployment, impulsivity, risk seeking, and violent offending). While this study examined 12 distinct forms of violent victimization, which is the most any gang-victimization study has examined (for review, see Fox, 2013), some forms of victimization are not specifically captured (e.g., intimate partner vio- lence, child maltreatment, witnessing parental abuse, and offenses committed in public versus private). Indeed, a series of victimization types may have occurred at one point in time; however, distinguishing between single versus multiple victimization incidents was not a key focus of the current study.
As mentioned earlier, current and former gang members were necessar- ily combined to boost statistical power. While many studies also collapse these groups (Esbensen et al., 1999; Peterson et al., 2001; Pyrooz & Decker, 2013; Winfree et al., 1994), it would be important to determine if any mean- ingful differences exist based on gang status (e.g., current member, former member, gang affiliate). This would help determine when the victimization occurred with respect to gang status (e.g., before, during, or after gang mem- bership). The gang-victimization link also might be further understood with other theories, among various racial/ethnic groups, and among other samples (e.g., nonoffenders). Also noted earlier, the response rate across jails was low (ranging from 13% to 35% with an average of 25%), yet is consistent with other research that samples incarcerated inmates (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). Until the intertwining of gangs, gender, and violent victimization are examined among other samples, the findings from this sample of jail inmates should not be generalized. While nearly 7 million people within the United States were supervised by adult correctional systems in 2012 (Glaze & Herberman, 2013), certainly not all gang members are incarcerated and it would be important to replicate this study among street or community samples.
In light of these limitations, the current study presents opportunities for future research to continue fine-tuning our understanding about the lives of gang members. The findings support the need for future research to further uncover gendered patterns among the gang-victimization link. Given that gang men and women are significantly more likely than nongang members to be
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 65
violently victimized regardless of their risky lifestyles, future research that continues to test theoretical explanations for the gang-victimization link will be particularly important. In the end, this study answered questions about if, what, who, and why surrounding the context of gang victimization. Perhaps the most interesting conclusion is that while some important differences emerged, there also are many surprising similarities in terms of violent victimization among gang men and women.
NOTES
1. Of the six jails that did not agree to participate, three declined due to the inability to provide the research team with correctional officers as escorts and the other three facilities were unresponsive to multiple requests to permit the research.
2. All inmates were eligible to participate, except those in solitary confinement, communicable disease units, and psychiatric units. Due to limited availability of correctional officers to accompany the research team, two jails restricted data collection to a single day and this limited the number of participants from these two facilities.
3. Although the survey also asked respondents to report the number of times they had experienced each type of victimization, it was determined that a variety index would avoid potential issues with influential outliers within the count data. For example, a handful of respondents reported large numbers that substantially skewed the distri- bution (e.g., 400, 1,000, and 1 million). An additive index that sums the number of times respondents experienced each victimization type could result in an overinflated and inaccurate measure. A variety index, which simply sums the types of victimiza- tions experienced, has the advantage of measuring the uninflated extent to which respondents have been violently victimized.
4. Additionally, zero-inflated negative binomial regression models and logistic regres- sion models were estimated and the substantive findings across models generally remained unchanged (e.g., significant variables remained significant).
5. With few exceptions (e.g., sexual assault), women and men generally report simi- lar rates where the identity of their assailant was unknown. For example, women and men (respectively) report that the identity was unknown for the following: being threat- ened with a weapon (27% versus 26%), attacked without a weapon (36% versus 24%), attacked with a weapon (22% versus 21%), sexual assault (17% versus 2%), stabbed (8% versus 12%), shot at (12% versus 25%), shot (4% versus 8%), robbed (29% versus 24%), drive-by shooting (12% versus 20%), carjacked (8% versus 4%), witness intimi- dation (2% of both women and men), and home invasion (10% versus 7%). The survey allowed respondents to select multiple offender identification categories (e.g., rival gang member, member of own gang, nongang member, and identity unknown).
6. Paternoster and colleagues’ (1998) test is often used post-hoc to allow for the inter- pretation of the strength of significant effects. Applied here, coefficient comparison tests can determine whether the effect of one variable (e.g., gang membership) on another variable (e.g., violent victimization) is stronger, or matters more, for men or women.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Jodi Lane and Scott Decker for very helpful comments on earlier drafts. The author also acknowledges the jail administrators and
66 K. A. Fox
inmates who participated in this research as well as Kathy Zambrana and Jen Klein for their assistance collecting data.
FUNDING
This research was supported by a grant from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Viewpoints expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the funding agency.
REFERENCES
Barnes, J. C., Boutwell, B. B., & Fox, K. A. (2012). A biosocial examination of the gang- victimization relationship. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 227–244.
Belknap, J. (1996). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. New York, NY: Wadsworth.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Campbell, A. (1984/1991). The girls in the gang. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Hagadorn, J. (1999). Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs, and gender. Chicago, IL: Lake View Press.
Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency in a middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275–292.
Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2014). Confronting gangs: Crime and community (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Decker, S. H., & Curry, G. D. (2002). Gangs, gang members and gang homicides: Organized crimes or disorganized criminals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 343–352.
Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2008). Understanding the black box of gang organization: Implications for violence, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 153–172.
Decker, S. H., Melde, C., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). What do we know about gangs and gang members and where do we go from here? Justice Quarterly, 30, 369–402.
Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
DeLisi, M., Barnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Delinquent gangs and adolescent victimization revisited: A propensity score matching approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 808–823.
Egley, A., Jr., & Howell, J. C. (2012). Highlights of the 2010 National Youth Gang Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Epstein, C. F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 67
Esbensen, F. A., Deschenes, E. P., & Winfree, L. T. (1999). Differences between gang girls and gang boys: Results from a multisite survey. Youth & Society, 31, 27–53.
Esbensen, F. A., & Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology, 31, 565–589.
Esbensen, F. A., & Maxson, C. L. (2012). Youth gangs in international perspective: Results from the Eurogang program of research. New York, NY: Springer.
Esbensen, F. A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Freng, A. (2010). Youth violence: Sex and race differences in offending, victimization, and gang membership. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and defini- tional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 47, 105–130.
Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3–19.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victim- ization in a national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 257–308.
Fox, K. A. (2013). New developments and implications for understanding the victimiza- tion of gang members. Violence & Victims, 28, 1015–1040.
Fox, K. A., Lane, J., & Akers, R. L. (2010). Do perceptions of neighborhood disorga- nization predict crime or victimization? An examination of gang versus non-gang member jail inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 720–729.
Fox, K. A., Lane, J., & Akers, R. L. (2013). Understanding gang membership and crime victimization among jail inmates: A test of self-control theory. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 764–787.
Fox, K. A., Rufino, K., & Kercher, G. (2012). Crime victimization among gang and non- gang prison inmates: Examining perceptions of social disorganization. Victims & Offenders, 7, 208–225.
Fox, K. A., Zambrana, K., & Lane, J. (2011). Getting in (and staying in) when everyone else wants to get out: 10 lessons learned from conducting research with inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 304–327.
Gibson, C., Miller, J. M., Swatt, M., Jennings, W. G., & Gover, A. R. (2009). Using propensity score matching to understand the relationship between gang member- ship and violent victimization: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 26, 625–643.
Gibson, C. L., Swatt, M. L., Miller, J. M., Jennings, W. G., & Gover, A. R. (2012). The causal relationship between gang joining and violent victimization: A critical review and directions for future research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 490–501.
Glaze, L. E., & Herberman, E. J. (2013). Correctional populations in the United States, 2012 (NCJ 243936). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Gover, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Adolescent male and female gang members’ experiences with violent victimization, dating violence, and sexual assault. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 103–115.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursick, R. J., Jr., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458–489.
Hepburn, J. R. (2013). Get dirty. Western Criminology Review, 14, 1–5.
68 K. A. Fox
Hilbe, J. M. (2007). Negative binomial regression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Huff, C. R. (1998). Criminal behavior of gang members and at-risk youths. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Research Preview. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000190.pdf
Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity. Violence and Victims, 1, 85–99.
Joe, K. A., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). Just every mother’s angel: An analysis of gender and ethnic variations in youth gang membership. Gender & Society, 9, 408–431.
Katz, C. M., Maguire, E. R., & Choate, D. (2011). A cross-national comparison of gangs in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago. International Criminal Justice Review, 21, 243–262.
Katz, C. M., Webb, V. J., Fox, K. A., & Shaffer, J. N. (2011). Understanding the rela- tionship between violent victimization and gang membership. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 48–59.
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.
Klein, M. W. (2011). Who can you believe? Complexities of international street gang research. International Criminal Justice Review, 21, 197–207.
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Knox, G. W. (1993). Findings from the 1993 jail survey: A preliminary report of the National Gang Crime Research Center. Washington, DC: National Gang Crime Research Center.
Lane, J., & Fox, K. A. (2012). Fear of crime among gang and non-gang offenders: Comparing the impacts of perpetration, victimization, and neighborhood factors. Justice Quarterly, 29, 491–523.
Lane, J., & Fox, K. A. (2013). Fear of property, violent, and gang crime: Examining the shadow of sexual assault thesis among male and female offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 40, 472–496.
Lauritsen, J. L., & Carbone-Lopez, K. (2011). Gender differences in risk factors for violent victimization: An examination of individual-, family-, and community-level predictors. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 538–565.
Lauritsen, J. L., & Laub, J. H. (2007). Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies, 22, 55–75.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
Meier, R. F., & Miethe, T. D. (1993). Understanding theories of criminal victimization. Crime and Justice, 17, 459–499.
Melde, C., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2009). “I got your back”: An examination of the protective function of gang membership in adolescence. Criminology, 47, 565–594.
Gangs, Gender, and Violent Victimization 69
Miethe, T. D., & McDowall, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71, 741–759.
Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Long, T. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194.
Miller, J. (1998). Gender and victimization risk among young women in gangs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 429–453.
Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Miller, J. (2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Miller, J., & Brunson, R. K. (2000). Gender dynamics in youth gangs: A comparison of male and female accounts. Justice Quarterly, 17, 801–830.
Miller, J., & Decker, S. H. (2001). Young women and gang violence: Gender, street offending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115–140.
Miller, W. B. (1966). Violent crimes by city gangs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 364, 96–112.
Molidor, C. E. (1996). Female gang members: A profile of aggression and victimization. Social Work, 41, 251–257.
Moore, J. (1991). Going down the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5, 43–62.
Ozer, M. M., & Engel, R. S. (2012). Revisiting the use of propensity score matching to understand the relationship between gang membership and violent victimization: A cautionary note. Justice Quarterly, 29, 105–124.
Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74–128.
Papachristos, A. V., Hureau, D. M., & Braga, A. A. (2013). The corner and the crew: The influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. American Sociological Review, 78, 417–447.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.
Peterson, D., Miller, J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2001). The impact of sex composition on gangs and gang member delinquency. Criminology, 39, 411–439.
Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2004). Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 21, 793–815.
Pyrooz, D. C., & Decker, S. H. (2013). Delinquent behavior, violence, and gang involvement in China. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 217–250.
Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Webb, V. J. (2014). The ties that bind: Desistance from gangs. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 491–516.
Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). Continuity and change in gang mem- bership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 272–299.
70 K. A. Fox
Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expand- ing routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 216–238.
Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1149–1169.
Rufino, K., Fox, K. A., & Kercher, G. (2012). Gang membership and crime victimization among prison inmates. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 321–337.
Spano, R., Frelich, J. D., & Bolland, J. (2008). Gang membership, gun carrying, and employment: Applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Quarterly, 25, 381–410.
Spergel, I. A. (1966). Street gang work: Theory and practice. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
St. Cyr, J. L., & Decker, S. H. (2003). Girls, guys, and gangs: Convergence or divergence in the gendered construction of gangs and groups. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 423–433.
Steffensmeier, D., & Haynie, D. (2000). Gender, structural disadvantage, and urban crime: Do macrosocial variables also explain female offending rates? Criminology, 38, 403–438.
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 67–76.
Sweeten, G., Pyrooz, D. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Quarterly, 30, 469–500.
Taylor, T. J. (2008). “The boulevard ain’t safe for your kids . . . ”: Youth gang membership and violent victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 125–136.
Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., Esbensen, F. A., & Peterson, D. (2008). Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: The importance of lifestyle/routine activities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 1–24.
Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F. A., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 351–380.
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.
Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tillyer, M. S., Tillyer, R., Miller H. V., & Pangrac, R. (2011). Reexamining the correlates of adolescent violent victimization: The importance of exposure, guardianship, and target characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2908–2928.
Webb, V. J., Katz, C. M., & Decker, S. H. (2006). Assessing the validity of self-reports by gang members: Results from the arrestee abuse monitoring program. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 232–252.
Winfree, L. T., Backstrom, T. V., & 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 & Society, 26, 147–177.
Copyright of Victims & Offenders is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
