Iouet ycmn

f K/i? 5

4 Page 1of 1

ti iu i _ / *H~Hil

i. . i~ . ~

i~ r '

Tx Vrin et eso

In,s j Eg,h g

7Help

aM , *ixji, iS an_i/N S .,~~ i lkB a a~i

A,' 2 of4 @ "ce r Mark article i

P b i h r If. u l s e no
A t c ef r a : I e t G a h c ril o m t Tx+rpis

IM J B

l~S]~R saves thisdocument as a Durable Link under"Results-Marked List" ~,igBI

etl Childhood r s f c o s f r adolescent gang membership: Results from the S a t e ik atr o S c a Development Project oil 9 9 a ] dl; i l e n The journal of Research i Crime and Delinquency; Beverly Hls Aug 1 9 ; K r G Iil . a n s il; C Howell; JDavjd Hawkins; S r R Battjn P a r o ; a" e_sn
36 Volume: 3 Ise su: S a t Pag@: tr 300-322 00224278 IS: SN Subject Terms: Gangs C i d e &y u h hlrn ot Teenagers J v n l delinquency ueie Research
Asrc: btat Adolescents who join gangs are more frequenfly involved i serious delinquency compared w t n ih those who do n t yet few studies have conducted a prospective examination ofr s f c o s f r o, ik a t r o gang membership. The present study uses l n i u i a data t predict gang membership i ogtdnl o n adolescence from f c o s measured i c i d o d atr n hlho.

Fl T x : ul e t
Copyright sage P b i a i n , I c Aug 1999 u l c t o s n. [Headnote]
Adolescents who J i gangs a e more f e u n l i v l e i s r o s delinquency compared w t those who do n t y t few rqety novd n eiu r ih o, e on s u i s have conducted a p o p c i e examination o r s f c o s f r gang membership. The present study uses l n i u i a tde rsetv f ik a t r o ogtdnl n data t p e i t gang membership i adolescence from f c o s measured i c i d o d Oata were from the S a t e S c a o rdc atr n hlho. etl oil Development P o e t an e h i a l d v r e genderbalanced sample ( = 808) f l o e p o p c i e y from age 10 t 18. tncly ies, rJc, olwd rsetvl o n L g s i regression was used t i e t f r s f c o s a ages 10 through 12 p e i t v o j i i g a gang between the ages o 13 oitc rdcie f onn o d n i y ik a t r t f and 1 . Neighborhood, f m l , s h o , p e , and i d v d a f c o s s g i i a t y predicted j i i g a gang i adolescence. Youth 8 aiy col er niiul atr infcnl onn n exposed t multiple f c o s were much more l k l t j i a gang. I p i a i n f r the development o gang prevention o atr mlctos o iey o o n f i t r e t o s are discussed. nevnin

Y L t v o e c , p o e t c i e and substance abuse r s l i enormous m n t r , s c a , and p r o a o'h ilne rpry rm, eut n o e a y oil esnl
c s s These and o h rc i i a a t have been c n i t n l l n e t gang membership ( o e l 1 9 ) Thus, ot. t e rmnl c s ossety ikd o Hwl 97.

i i i p r a tt l a nwhy y u h j i gangs and how t i t r u tti p o e s The p e e t s u y uses t s m o t n o er o t on o n e r p hs r c s . rsn td l n i u i a d t t p e i tgang membership i a o e c n e f o n i h o h o , f m l , s h o , p e , and ogtdnl a a o rdc n d l s e c , r m e g b r o d aiy c o l e r i d v d a f c o s measured i c i d o d niiul atr n hlho.

Gana members a e more lkl t a nonmembers t commit v o e to f n e and p o e t c i e and t use r iey h n o rpry r m iln f e s s o d u s ( p r e 1995; T o n e r 1998). B e r g a d and L z t e ( 9 5 f u d t a , when compared w t rg Segl hrbry jrear i o t 1 9 ) o n ht ih nongang members, gang members were more t a t i e a lkl t c r ya gun and t engage i s r o s h n w c s iey o a r o n eiu d l n u n y and more t a t r et m s as lkl t engage i d u s l s S m l r y Esbensen and H i i g eiqec iey o hn he i e n r g a e . iial, uzna ( 9 3 f u d measures o d u s l s and u e a w l a s r o s and m n rd l n u n y t be s b t n i l y 19) on f r g ae s , s el s e i u i o e i q e c , o usatal h g e f rgang members t a nongang members. B t i e a. ( 9 8 f u d t a gang membership ihr o hn atn t l 1 9 ) o n ht c n r b t d t c i i a b h v o o e and above t e c n r b t o o h v n d l n u n p e s The r l t o s i o t i u e o rmnl e a i r v r h otiuin f a i g e i q e t e r . eainhp between gang membership and c i e i r b s and has been r p r e i vrulyals u i s o gang b h v o rm s out e o t d n ital l t d e f eair i t e U i e S a e r g r l s o hsoia p r o , methodology and d s g , o sample ( o e l 1997). n h n t d t t s e a d e s f itrcl e i d ein r Hwl
I i i p r t v t l a nwhy y u h ji gangs t b t e u d r t n how t p e e tthem f o j i i g gangs, ts m e a i e o er o t on o etr n e s a d o rvn r m onn b tt i q e t o has n tbeen w l s u i d The frtgang t e r s sviewed gang d l n u n y a a r s l o u hs u s i n o el t d e . is hoit e i q e c s eut f

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document

f 4 Page 2 o 1

92 h a h r 12] 93. ra o s c a d s r a i a i n endemic t slum a e s (Shaw and McKay 1931, 1 4 ; T r s e [ 9 7 1 6 ) One oil i o g n z t o , s o t o h o y u g s i g h t n r no e i n e r o t r w h o ti ln o r a o i g was c n r l t e r , s g e t n t a e t y it d v a t p e groups i a u g o t f h s ie f e s n n f n t o o a l c o sca c n r le p r e c d b y u h (ish 1 6 ) D v a tg o p s c a g n sas u c i n f a k f oil o t o x e i n e y o t Hrci 9 9 . e i n r u s u h s a g lo rmnl e a i r r e r e h o t x o ifrnil s o i t o have been viewed as t e c n e t f rd f e e t a a s c a i n through which c i i a b h v o s a e l a n d d l n u n s b u t r s w t i t e l w r and e i q e t u c l u e ihn h o e hoit e c i e ( u h r a d and Cressey 1978). Other t e r s s d s r b d Steln hoit e i v d o h t h ale hr 95 w r i g l s communities (Cohen 1 5 ; Cohen and S o t 1958) t a t e e r i rChicago t e r s s b l e e t okncas eiqec r n ht o t o m t o . ilr 1 5 ) h rgn f be t e o i i o gang f r a i n M l e ( 9 8 suggested t a y u h who engage i gang d l n u n y a e ht e i q e c o s s e t i h o e - l s u t r . ial, tan h o i t n behaving i a manner c n i t n w t l w r c a s c l u e F n l y s r i t e r s ssuggested t a d l n u n y d p a i n o tutrl r s u e : l c e o v n i n l p o t n t e e d rs and gang involvement a i e as an a a t t o t s r c u a p e s r s b o k d c n e t o a o p r u i i s l a h u s i f a n h o g leiiae p o t n t e C o a d e d o nioil c s t f u t a i n which l a s t a t s c a a t and t e p r u t o g i t r u h i l g t m t o p r u i i s ( l w r o rsrto, e i e h o i l i o g n z t o rdto B r i hoy otiuos o hi and O l n 1960). Recent c n r b t r t gang t e r have r v v d t e s c a d s r a i a i n t a i i n ( u s k f oil tn h necas fe ur pre and Grasmick 1993; S e g l and C r y 1993), o t n embedding i i t e u d r l s concept o s c a 96 hr 96 nqaiy disadvantage and economic i e u l t (Fagan 1 9 ; S o t 1 9 ; Wilson 1987,1996).

RISK FACTORS FOR GANG MEMBERSHIP

f rdcos f e i q e c dniid e r f ogtdnl e e r h Reviews o t e ls 30 y a s o l n i u i a r s a c have i e t f e a number o p e i t r o d l n u n y f h at t 98 isy tl and v o e c (Hawkins e a. 1998; L p e and Derzon 1 9 ; Loeber e al.1991) and substance abuse ilne ese, ilr 9 2 aaao aaao 95 ( a k n , A t u , and C t l n 1 9 ; Hawkins, C t l n , and M l e 1 9 ; SimchaFagan, G r t n and H w i s rhr ih r o e i q e c , ilne Langner 1986). Although d l n u n y v o e c , and substance abuse a e n tsynonymous w t gang h rdcos f r d c o s f h s e a i r r v d trig o n o membership, p e i t r o t e e b h v o s p o i e a s a t n p i tfrexamining t e p e i t r o gang n r rdcos f e i q e c , ilne membership. These p e i t r o d l n u n y v o e c , and substance abuse a e summarized i Table 1.

rm n rso n o itnus S v r l o t e f c o s i T b e 1 have been f u d t d s i g i h gang f o nongang members i c o s e e a f h atr n a l viaiiy f r g C r y nld atr s c i n l s u i s ( e H w l 1997). These i c u e neighborhood f c o s such as a a l b l t o d u s ( u r etoa tde s e o e l s o r aiy o aiy atr and S e g l 1992, Hagedorn 1988, 1994a,1994b), f m l f c o s such a p o f m l management and l w pre 94 li 9 3 bonding t f m l ( d e , Ovando, and Hocevar 1 8 ; Bowker and K e n 1 8 ; Friedman, Mann, and o a i y Alr c o l atr s o o col Friedman 1 7 ; Maxson, W i l c , and K e n 1998), s h o f c o ssuch a l w commitment t s h o 95 htok li e r atr s o i t o ih e i q e t e r tl li 9 3 (Bowker and K e n 1 8 ; Maxson e a. 1998), p e f c o s such as a s c a i n w t d l n u n p e s (Fagan o v n i n l eif niiul atr t l 9 8 ii 1 9 ; Maxson e a. 1 9 ; Vgl and Yun 1990), and i d v d a f c o s such as fewer c n e t o a b l e s 90 t oiie tiue b u ( a a 1990) and p s t v a t t d s a o t gang membership (Friedman e al.1975). Fgn
l h u h i h u h eei Moore (1978, 1991) r t o p c i e yexamined f m l h s o i so gang members, a t o g w t o tt e b n f t a i y itre f ersetvl hi a e t , h l e o t d r q e t ofit ru. o acomparison g o p Gang members r p r e f e u n cnlc and abuse among terp r n s c i d f aiy rul ih h oie abuse, f m l member a c h l s and d u a d c i n and f m l t o b ew t t e p l c . looim r g dito, aiy
atcpto: h To d t , o l two l n i u i a s u i s have r p r e p o p c i e d t on gang p r i i a i n t e Rochester ogtdnl t d e eotd rsetv a a ae ny Y u h Development Study ( j r e a r and S i h 1 9 ; L z t ee a. 1 9 ; T o n e r e al.1993) and t e ot m t 9 3 iot t l 9 4 h r b r y t h Bergad uzna Denver Youth Survey (Esbensen and H i i g 1 9 ; Esbensen, H i i g , and Weiher 1993). I t e nh uzna 93 R c e t r S u y B e r g a d and Smith ( 9 3 examined f c o sa s c a e w t gang membership u i g o h s e td, jrear atr s o i t d i h sn 19) o 5 o n u s a t a iiaiy waves two and t r eo t e rs u y ( o e i g ages 13 t 1 ) and f u d s b t n i l smlrt among males and h e f hi t d c v r n atcpto. f m l s i t e rs f c o s a s c a e w t gang p r i i a i n They f u d ta, i R c e t r n i h rs c a e a e n h ik a t r s o i t d i h o n ht n o h s e , e t e o i l d s r a i a i n n rp v r ywas s g i i a t yr l t d t gang membership. However, t e acknowledged t a iognzto o oet infcnl e a e o hy ht iie. h td because t e s u y oversampled h g - i ky u h t e r n e o t e s c a d s r a i a i n v r a l swas l m t d ihrs o t , h a g f h oil i o g n z t o a i b e H v n l w e p c a i n frc m l t n s h o s g i i a t y p e i t d gang membership among f m l s b t a i g o x e t t o s o o p e i g c o l infcnl r d c e eae u n tamong males. H v n d l n u n p e s was s g i i a tfrb t groups. o infcn o o h aig eiqet er

i n f c n r d c o f ae N i h rattachment t p r n s n rf m l s p r i i n was a s g i i a tp e i t ro ltrgang membership. ete o a e t o aiy u e v s o infcnl e a e o neae o efete lo a l e u l ciiy Low s l - s e m a s was u r l t d t gang membership. E r ys x a atvt was s g i i a t y r l t d t infcnl t o g r o e a e h n o h soito gang membership frb t s x s and t e a s c a i nwas s g i i a t ys r n e frf m l s t a frmales. o oh ee, nlss These a a y e may be somewhat confounded, h w v r b t ef c t a t e p e i t r were drawn f o o e e , y h at h t h r d c o s rm wave t o o t e rs u y whereas gang membership was a measure t a combined waves two and t r e ht w f hi t d , he. rdcos r Thus, c e rs a e e t a t whether t e e f c o swere p e i t r o consequences o gang membership la t t m n s s o h s atr f a e dfiutt make f o t e e analyses. r ifcl o rm hs

I t e Denver sample, Esbensen e a. (1993) examined d f e e c sa wave t r e o t e rs u y ( a e and nh tl ifrne t h e f hi t d m l s f m l s ages 1 t 1 ) frt o e y u h who were e t e gang members, nongang s r e o f n e s eae, 1 o 7 o hs ot ihr tet f e d r ( o m t e r p , r b e y o a g a a e a s u t , o n i h ra wave f u ( g s 1 t 1 ) Compared w t c m i t d a e o b r , r g r v t d sal) r ete t or a e 2 o 8. ih n n f e d r , b t gang members and nongang s r e o f n e s r p r e ()h g e l v l o commitment t oofnes oh tet f e d r e o t d 1 i h r ees f o d l n u n p e s () l w rcommitment t p s t v p e s () h g e l v l o normlessness i t e f m l , e i q e t er; 2 o e o oiie e r ; 3 i h r ees f n h aiy peer g o p and s h o c n e t ()more n g t v l b l n b t a h r ; and ()h g e t l r n efrc i i a ru, c o l otx; 4 e a i e aeig y e c e s 5 i h r o e a c o rmnl atvt on t e p r o t e rp e s However, no d f e e c swere observed among t e t r e groups w t ciiy h a t f hi e r . ifrne h he ih r s e t t s c a i o a i n p r e v d l m t d o p r u i i s and s l - o c p measures. The o l f c o t a e p c o o i l slto, e c i e iie p o t n t e , efcnet n y atr ht

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

pocument

f 4 Page 3 o 1

e o t d infcnl ht r m tet f e d r d s i g i h d gang members f o s r e o f n e swas t a gang members r p r e sgiiaty more itnuse h he i o l a u s o n o ifrne n g t v l b l n by tert a h r . Esbensen and h sc l e g e f u d n d f e e c s among t e t r e e a i e a e i g hi e c e s o, tedn c o l g o p i teri v l e e ti a r n e o atvte (nldn s h o - e rj b summerj b a t n i gs h o , r u s n hi n o v m n n a g f ciiis icuig c o l y a o , e i i u ciiis. ciiis tltc, s h o a h e i s s h o atvte, community a h e i s community atvte, and r l g o satvte) They c o l t l t c , c o l ciiis ciiis il ht etn o t n o v d n h t h s i d n a l no u s i n h suggested t a t i f n i g c l s it q e t o t e assumption t a g t i g y u h i v l e i such atvte wl gang involvement. p e e t o reduce rvn r
" . q' u . . "* ~ *h$*4* * " hh*h w w t

. . h e Wk"*k " l* '**v4k **h-," i f * t4"df" k A '~t ' * - Frankit fw*" 4

" .

fit

*'9k-. w"_"*"

.1 . . .-4 -,. _* ****Nfi**-. ,*""k . : e * * ; . r a - . . *_ '

* a i *k "Ra
a 4kF t *** k n o W * W

* 4 i 4 h' t s d -f*d f * " ?

* _
f

*t.*_**

E l r e 200% nag

s 9 t " **tweiyf*~ '".* *?" W * 1 b k ? _ i44hfi-~t4*. Y ".'K W*4*VV . . .

i

***4 a % " A * k **_ tV4 irkedk"aa".Sd " a * * * S "

*kin i

e ] * * $ * , - * t*4 "4t~.$.&" tvt,NWW,#, wa,wk"*?, v*,w..,d, -

TABLE 1:

These s u i s p o i e a i p r a t base fre a i i g t e p e i t r o gang membership. However, a o x m n n h rdcos f tde rvd n motn iie o tde, f o s b e rdcos f l m t d number o p s i l p e i t r o gang membership have been s u i d and these have been l m t d t iie xet o f c o se t e j s p i rt o d r n t e t p c l p r o friiito o gang membership. The e t n t which a t r i h r u t r o o r u i g h y i a e i d o ntain f o c i d o d e p r e c s d r n t e e e e t r g a e p e i ta o e c n gang membership has n tbeen h l h o x e i n e u i g h l m n a y r d s rdc d l s e t rsetvl a g f h l h o rdcos f examined l n i u i a l . The p e e t s u y examines p o p c i e ya r n e o c i d o d p e i t r o rsn td ogtdnly a o e c n gang membership. dlset

METHOD
Sample
ur, 93; iy S e g l ite S a t e has been c a a t r z d a a "emerging gang ct"( p r e and C r y 1 9 ) however, ltl etl hrceie s n n etl. efrpre tde e p r c l r s a c has documented t e n t r o e t n o gang membership i S a t e S l - e o t d s u i s miia e e r h h aue r xet f n etl o t o u a i n conducted i t e 1970s and 1980s f u d t a t e p o o t o o gang members i S a t ey u h p p l t o s nh o n ht h r p r i n f o ecn s u i d ranged f o 10 p r e t ( i d l n , H r c i and Weis 1981) t 13 p r e t (Sampson 1986). tde e c n H n e a g ish, rm

sn o f onn rdcos r m rsn td The p e e ts u y examines p e i t r f o ages 10 t 12 o j i i g a gang between ages 13 and 18, u i g a a r r m utehi f rjc l n i u i a d t f o t e S a t e S c a Development P o e t(SSDP). D t a ef o a m l i t n csample o ogtdnl a a r m h e t l o i l atcpns n h is f h it olwd rsetvl r m males and females f l o e p o p c i e y f o 1985, when p r i i a t were i t e frtsemester o t e ffh er f olce grade ( g 1 ) t 1993, when p r i i a t were 18 y a s o age. D t on gang membership were c l e t d atcpns aa a e 0, o a n a l s a t n w t t e age 13 s r e . The sample c n i t o 808 f f h g a es u e t a t n i g 18 n u l y trig i h h osss f it-rd t d n s t e d n uvy f e t l n h al f eet h c o l , e e e t r s h o s s r i g h g c i e neighborhoods o S a t e i t efl o 1985. To s l c t e s h o s we l m n a y c o l evn ih r m met w t members o t e S a t e P l c Department t r v e neighborhood c i e saitc and t e r m ttsis f h etl oie o eiw hn ih approached t e f e e - l m n a y s h o s frt o e neighborhoods w t h g e c i e r t s The 18 i h i h r r m ae. h edreeetr col o hs e e e t r s h o s r p e e t d a p o i a e y 25 p r e to t e ttlnumber o e e e t r s h o s i lmnay col ersne prxmtl f lmnay col n e c n f h oa S a t ea t a t m . The 808 who c n e t d t p r i i a e i t e l n i u i a s u y r p e e t77 p r e t o e t l t ht i e o s n e o atcpt n h ogtdnl t d e r s n ecn f t e p p l t o o ffhg a e s i t e e s h o s s r i g h g - r m neighborhoods. Oft e 808 s u e t , 396 h o u a i n f it r d r n h s c o l e v n i h c i e tdns h eae ( 9 p r e t were f m l , 372 ( 6 p r e t were European American, 195 ( 4 p r e t were A r c n 4 ecn) fia 4 ecn) 2 ecn) American, 170 ( 1 p r e t were A i n American, 45 ( p r e t were N t v American, and t e r m i i g sa aie h eann 2 ecn) 2 ecn) 26 s u e t were o o h re h i backgrounds ( r m r l H s a i ) A s b t n i l p r i n o s b e t were f o tdns f te tnc rm piaiy i p n c . u s a t a o t o f u j c s l w i c m households. Median a n a f m l income i 1985 was a p o i a e y $25,000. F r y s xp r e t o-noe n u l aiy prxmtl n ot-i e c n o p r n s r p r e a maximum f m l income o l s t a $20,000 p ry a , and more t a h l o t e f aet eotd e er aiy f es h n h n af f h s u e t sample ( 2 p r e t had p r i i a e i t e N t o a S h o Lunch/School B e k a t Program a tdn atcptd n h a i n l c o l rafs t 5 ecn) o n n h it, i t , r e e t some p i t i t e ffh s x h o s v n h grade, i d c t n t a t e came f o f m l e lvn i p v r y niaig ht h y r m a i i s iig n o e t .

Assessments
D t were o t i e f o m l i l s u c s i c u i g t ey u h t e rp r n s o a u tc r t k r , t a h r , aa b a n d r m u t p e o r e , n l d n h o t , hi a e t r d l a e a e s e c e s s h o r c r s and K n County c u t r c r s D t were c l e t d i 1985 when most p r i i a t were 10 c o l eod, ig or eod. a a olce n atcpns y a s o d (M =10.3, SD =.52) and t e i t e s r n o each y a t r u h 1991. Data frt e p e e t s u y er l h n n h pig f er hog o h rsn td were c l e t d a a n i t e s r n o 1993 when most s b e t were 18 y a s o d and t o e p o r s i g olce g i n h pig f ujcs er l hs rgesn n r a l i s h o were g a u t n f o h g s h o . I Grades 5 and 6 s r e s i p o e ts h o s were omly n col rdaig rm ih col n , u v y n rjc c o l

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&,,. 07/11/2002

Document

f 4 Page 4 o 1

niiuly o rjc c o l n ls. g o p a m n s e e q e t o n i e completed i c a s Youth who ntp o e ts h o s were i d v d a l ru-diitrd usinars o neves niiuly n e v e e n e s n l tdns i t r i w d S a t n i 1988, als u e t were i d v d a l i t r i w d i p r o . The i t r i w asked fr n e v e e . trig n s h o ,a d col n t e y u h s c n i e t a r s o s s t a w d r n e o q e t o s r g r i gf m l , c m u i y h o t ' o f d n i l e p n e o i e a g f u s i n e a d n aiy o m n t , l o o , r g , r g eln, i l n e ih hi t i u e el p e s as w l as t e ra t t d s and experiences w t gangs, a c h l d u s d u s l i g v o e c , weapon er, o r al n h t d o t e e v d neves o k The i t r i w t o about one h u . E r y i t e s u y y u h r c i e a itmzto. u e delinquency, and v c i i a i n s, u i c s e t a e o h i a t c p t o ; ae h y e e v d s a l i c n i e ( . . an a d o a s t e t p ) frt e rp r i i a i n ltrt e r c i e monetary m l netv eg, h atcpns ecn f h ih atcpto ae compensation. P r i i a i n r t swere h g ; 94 p r e t o t e sample (757 p r i i a t ) completed t e age n diin hog band rm or e o d c o l oie n 18 assessment i 1993. S h o , p l c , and c u t r c r s were o t i e f o 1985 t r u h 1993. I a d t o , n e v e e t e r i m n n h al f h ujc' o h r a u tc r t k r ( 3 p r e t o whom were t e s b e t s m t e ) were i t r i w d a r c u t e t i t e fl o dl a e a e s 8 e c n f hog pig r m nuly 1 ) and a n a l each s r n f o 1986 t r u h 1991. 0 ffhgrade ( g it ae
Cntut osrcs

o rm aibe o h s n l s s t h rmr Gang membership was t e p i a y outcome v r a l frt e e a a y e . Iwas measured f o age 13 t 18 o itnus fh sh olwd y o b t e q e t o , "Do you belong t a gang?" f l o e b "What i t e name o t e gang?" t d s i g i h gangs y h usin eotd f h o t ro o o usin f o i f r a peer groups. Gang q e t o s were n tasked o t e y u h p i rt age 13. Youth who r p r e r m noml u i g ht s eogn o ol rvd f t a t e were a member o a gang and c u d p o i e a name were coded a b l n i g t a gang d r n t a ht h y icpe. h lc h l o s h rp, wave. The most commonly named gangs were t e B o d , t e C i s and t e B a k Gangster D s i l s The tde n iia u e o s l - e o tt determine gang membership has been used and advocated i s m l rgang s u i s and s f efrpr o t l 1 8 ; li uzna 95 93 b gang r s a c e s ( j r e a r and Smith 1 9 ; Esbensen and H i i g 1 9 ; Hindelang e a . 9 1 K e n y eerhr Bergad al 9 0 h r b r y t 1 9 ; Sampson 1 8 ; S v t , Rosen, and Lli 1 8 ; T o n e r e al.1993). 95 9 6 aiz

hog 2 o otnos t rdcos R s f c o s frgang membership. P e i t r were measured a ages 10 t r u h 1 . F rc n i u u i k atr o o h aeoia rdcos f aiy 2 aus hog fh measures, t e mean o t e age 10 t r u h age 1 v l e was used. F rt e c t g r c l p e i t r o f m l h b a n d r m ndph a i y tutr aus s r c u e and l a n n d s b e , t e fl 1985 v l e were used. F m l s r c u ewas o t i e f o i - e t tutr e r i g i a l d h al a e t booia r osrce: y h aet. ie aeois lvn c l n a s completed b t e p r n s F v c t g r e were c n t u t d two p r n s ( i l g c l o iig a e d r a e t iig i h t e aet ln, tpaet ilgcl a e t a o t v ) i home, one b o o i a p r n and one s e p r n , one p r n a o e one p r n lvn w t o h r dpie n aet n h n e t g t h osblt h t o s b e t a n s o i t d i h a u t , and no p r n s i t e home. To i v s i a et e p s i i i yt a p s i l s r i sa s c a e w t dls etd e d o i h r r b b l t f hl r b e s a i i s i h t p a e t b e d d f m l e might l a t h g e p o a i i yo c i d p o l m , f m l e w t a s e p r n were t s e l n e aiis s p r t l f o o h rt o p r n f m l e . F r h r o e t r p e e tt e c n e t o rs e p s r , al e a a e y r m t e w - a e t a i i s u t e m r , o e r s n h o c p f ik x o u e l p e i t rv r a l swere d c o o i e , where one r p e e t d b i g i t e h g e t q a t l o rs on t a rdco a i b e e r s n e e n n h i h s u r i e f ik h t ihtmzd p e i t rand z r r p e e t d t e r m i d r f l o i g F r i g o (1989, 1998). A nto t e e p e i t r rdco o f h s rdcos e o e r s n e h e a n e , olwn a r n t n and t e i d c t r t a o e a i n l z d them i p o i e i t ea p n i . s rvdd n h pedx h niaos ht p r t o a i e
sn aa n al F rt e p e e t a a y e , we s u h t o e a i n l z t ec n t u t summarized i T b e 1 u i g d t o h rsn nlss o g t o prtoaie h osrcs r d c o s f neet o t hs a a l b eon t e sample a ages 10 t r u h 12. Some p e i t r o i t r s were n tmeasured a t e e ages vial t hog h r u a , iln n o v m n n a o a l o nioil e a i r o ( . . community norms f v r b et a t s c a b h v o , l w autonomic a o s l s b i g i v l e e t i eg, g n s , a t o g t e were measured i ltrwaves o t e s u y Because t e p e e t s u y examines t e ag) lhuh hy f h td. h rsn td h n ae rdcos c i d o d p e i t r o a o e c n gang membership, p e i t r added i t e a o e c n i t r i w were n t h l h o rdcos f d l s e t n h d l s e t neves o i c u e i ti a a y i . n l d d n hs n l s s

S v r l p t n i l p e i t r were i c u e i t ea a y i t a have n t been c n i m d as rs f c o sfr e e a oeta r d c o s ofre n l d d n h n l s s ht o ik a t r o h oil h substance use, d l n u n y o v o e c . T e ra d t o was guided by t e s c a development model, t e e i q e c , r i l n e h i diin f t e r t a g i e t e S a t e S c a Development P o e t( a a a o and Hawkins 1996). The number o h o y ht u d s h e t l o i l rjc C t l n y u h i t o b e i t e neighborhood was added t examine t e i p c o neighborhood o p r u i i s fr o t n rul n h h mat f potnte o o t m a t aiy tutr nldd o a t s c a i v l e e t Bonding t f m l was added t examine isi p c , f m l s r c u ewas i c u e t nioil n o v m n . o o aiy nldd o t otiuin examine isc n r b t o , and r l g o ss r i e a t n a c was i c u e t examine t ec n r b t o o ti h o t i u i n f hs eiiu e v c t e d n e f r o i v l e e t i p o o i l atvte. o m f n o v m n n r s c a ciiis
Aayi nlss

r s e t v n e i n rdcig onn L g s i rand odds r t o . Alr g e s o swere p o p c i e i d s g , p e i t n j i i g a gang between t e oitc ais l e r s i n h ages o 13 and 18 f o c n t u t assessed a ages 10 t r u h 12. Given t edichotomous n t r o t e r m osrcs aue f h f t hog h uig dependent v r a l , gang membership d r n adolescence, lgsi r g e s o was used. aibe oitc e r s i n
F r i g o ( o b r F r i g o , S o t a e - o k r and Van Kammen 1998) has shown t a c r e a i n l arntn L e e , arntn t u h m r L c e , ht orltoa measures such a t e product-moment c r e a i n o t e lgsi r g v a m s e d n i p e s o o p e i t v s h o r l t o , r h oitc , i e i l a i g m r s i n f r d c i e e f c e c because t e a e g e t ya f c e b t e base r t so t e p e i t r and outcomes such t a t e fiiny h y r ral f e t d y h ae f h rdcos ht h maximum c r e a i n i o t n much l s t a 1.0. A t rr v e i g a v r e yo a t r a i e , F r i g o orlto s fe es h n fe e i w n ait f lentvs a r n t n concluded t a t e odds rtoi a p e e r d way o p e e t n p e i t v e f c e c because i i n ta f c e ht h ai s r f r e f r s n i g rdcie fiiny ts o fetd b sample s z , changes i base r t s o o h rf c o s Thus, two s r t g e were used i t e b v r a e y ie n ae, r t e atr. taeis n h iait lgsi r g e s o s Frt each r g e s o was r n u i g t e c n i u u measure o t e p e i t rand t e oitc e r s i n : is, ersin u sn h o t n o s f h rdco h lgsi rand s g i i a c were r c r e . N x , each r g e s o was r n u i g a d c o o i e h g - i k oitc infcne e o d d et ersin u s n i h t m z d ihrs

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document

4 Page 5 of 1

ntain n h ai o h oitc , i n f c n e rdco fh q a t l measure o t e same p e i t rand t e lgsi r s g i i a c , and odds rtofrgang iiito i t e urie eaae dniy h l h o r d c o s f d l s e t eodd group were r c r e . To i e t f c i d o d p e i t r o a o e c n gang membership, s p r t hg-ik ihrs b v r a elgsi r g e s o sw r r nfre c ptnilpeitr i a i t oitc e r s i n e e u o a h oeta rdco.

o u t p e ik f h fet f ban o u t p e ik a t r . E f c o exposure t m l i l rs f c o s To o t i an assessment o t e e f c so exposure t m l i l rs fet f f infcn h r a e ht ne ae i childhood on l t rgang membership, an i d x was c e t d t a counted t e number o s g i i a t n fcos atr urie h n i i e no o r rs f c o s t which each youth was exposed. Respondents were t e d v d d i t f u approximate q a t l s ik a t r o f ik f t i c t g r c l measure o number o rs hs a e o i a u n oitc e r s i n h i ee f ik on t e r l v lo r s exposure and a l g s i r g e s o was r n o o h urie f u c s i e e e f ik ih membership, w t each s c e s v l v l o rs compared t t e q a t l o f c o s and adolescent gang atr l w s rs. o e t ik

RESULTS
efrpre v r e o g n o ecn f h rvlne uuaiey Gang p e a e c . C m l t v l , 15.3 p r e t o t e sample s l - e o t d e e b l n i g t a gang between qa ams t 6 ecn) ih f t e ages o 13 and 18. Membership peaked a age 15 ( p r e t , w t about e u l percentages ( l o t 5 h rvlne f t p r e t r p r i g gang membership a ages 14, 16, and 18. The p e a e c o gang membership was much ecn) eotn e a e 8 6 ecn) w n y s x e c n f fia ecn) h n h g e among males (21.8 p r e t t a among f m l s ( . p r e t . T e t - i p r e t o A r c n ihr ecn f ot, ecn f sa dlset n h American a o e c n s i t e sample, 12 p r e to A i n American y u h 10 p r e t o European American o eotd aig e c n f t e r u s rmrl a i e y u h and n a l 20 p r e t o o h rg o p , p i a i y N t v Americans, r p r e h v n belonged t a ot, ery iey h n t e ot n l h u h fia aa r gang. These d t a e summarized i Table 2. A t o g A r c nAmerican y u h were more lkl t a o h r ioiy f h h y osiue e h i groups t j i gangs, t e c n t t t d a m n r t o t e sample who became gang members. tnc o on
t ai o rsns h f al at ik Gang membership by rs. The ls column o T b e 3 p e e t t e odds rtofrgang membership a ages n diin o f h rdcos t 1 t 18 a s c a e w t b i g i t ew r tq a t l on each o t e p e i t r a ages 10 t 12. I a d t o , 3 o s o i t d i h e n n h o s urie o h s n h o s urie n h rvlne f columns 3 and 4 i Table 3 show t e p e a e c o gang membership frt o e i t ew r t q a t l o each n e c n f h s eotn h epciey o fh p e i t rand frt e remainder o t e sample, r s e t v l . F rexample, 29.7 p r e to t o e r p r i g t e rdco o h ecn f ih o g e t s aalblt o m r j a a a ages 10 t 12 became gang members compared w t 10.6 p r e t o r a e t viaiiy f a i u n t o e s v i a l n hi n i o m n s t t o e who r p r e t a m r j a a was l s a a l b e i tere v r n e t a ages 10 t 12. hs e o t d ht a i u n

l o r s n s h oitc o h i h t m z d r d c o s o i t c e r s i n l o T b e 3 a s p e e t t e lgsi rfrt e d c o o i e p e i t r . L g s i r g e s o s a s were conducted al n l s s r v d d i i a oitc s vial. u i g t e fl c n i u u p e i t r where a a l b e These a a y e p o i e s m l rlgsi r and s n h ul o t n o s r d c o s s g i i a c s t t e rd c o o i e c u t r a t , a t o g o c s o a l t e c n i u u p e i t rlgsi rwas i n f c n e o h i i h t m z d o n e p r s l h u h c a i n l y h o t n o s r d c o oitc o rdce t fh osrcs s r n e . These r s l sa e n tt b e . Twenty-one o t e 25 c n t u t measured a ages 10 t 12 p e i t d togr eut r o a l d on n l rdcos f j i i g a gang a ages 13 t 18. P e i t r o gang membership were f u d i aldomains measured.l onn t o

Ti Xe

rm n h o u r i e f viaiiy f a i u n N i h o h o - e e p e i t r . Youth f o neighborhoods i t e t pq a t l o aalblt o m r j a a had e g b r o d l v l rdcos ai O ] hn h s r m te f onn t a t r e t m s g e t rodds o j i i g a gang t a t o e f o o h r neighborhoods (odds rto[ R = hn he i e rae

he i e rae epe n rul n S m l r y y u h f o neighborhoods i which many young p o l were i t o b e had t r e t m s g e t r iial, o t r m .) e e f t a h e t o h odds o j i i g a gang t a y u h f o o h rneighborhoods (OR= 3 0 . L v l o a t c m n t t e f onn hn o t r m te .) neighborhood was l s s r n l r l t dt gang membership (OR aa 1 5 . es togy eae o
F m l - e e p e i t r . F m l s r c u ep e i t d gang membership. When compared w t y u h lvn w t aiylvl r d c o s a i y tutr r d c e i h o t iig i h ot rm aet ih t o p r n s ( i h rb o o i a o a o t v ) y u h lvn w t one p r n (OR a: 2.4), y u h f o homes w t one w a e t e t e i l g c l r d p i e , o t iig i h aet n h rae p r n and o h ra u t (OR a: 3.0), and y u h w t no p r n s i t e home (OR =2.9) had g e t rodds o aet o t ih f te dls o infcnl iey tpaet ilgcl j i i g a gang. Youth f o f m l e w t one b o o i a and one s e p r n were n ts g i i a t y more lkl onn r m aiis ih a e t l tiue t a y u h lvn w t t o p r n s ( i l g c lo a o t v ) t become gang members. P r n a a t t d s h n o t iig i h w a e t b o o i a r d p i e o f l o r d c e ae f v r b e t v o e c when y u h were between t e ages o 10 and 12 a s p e i t d ltrgang membership aoal o ilne ot h rcie o r aiy .) .) s i iln n i o i l e a i r (OR =2.3), a d d s b i g a t s c a b h v o (OR a: 1 9 and p o f m l management p a t c s (OR ar 1 7 . Gang membership i adolescence was n ts g i i a t y p e i t d b p r n a d i k n o a t c m n t n o infcnl r d c e y a e t l r n i g r t a h e t o p r n s a ages 10 t 12. L g s i r g e s o swere r n s p r t l fra t c m n t mother and a t c m n aet t oitc e r s i n u eaaey o t a h e t o tahet o n t f t e , and r s l swere n ts g i i a t( o shown i Table 3 . o ahr ) eut o infcn nt
S h o - e e p e i t r . S h o - e a e v r a l s a ages 10 t 1 a s p e i t d ltrgang membership. c o l l v l rdcos c o l r l t d aibe t o 2 l o r d c e ae These i c u e b i g i e t f e as l a n n d s b e (OR =3 5 , p o academic achievement a assessed b s .) o r n l d d e n dniid erig i a l d y s a d r i e t s s o e (OR= 3.1), l w a t c m n t s h o (OR 2: 2.0), l w commitment t s h o (OR = t n a d z d et c r s o tahet o col o o col 1 8 , and l w e u a i n l a p r t o s (OR t 1 6 . .) o d c t o a siain .)

P e - e e p e i t r . F i n s engaged i problem b h v o s a assessed b how many o t e y u h s t r e erlvl rdcos r e d n eair, s y f h ot' he b s f i n s a ages 10 t 12 d d t i g t a g tthem i t o b ew t t et a h ro had tid a c h l w t o t e t red t o i h n s ht o n rul ih h e c e r re l o o i h u terp r n s knowledge, was s g i i a t ya s c a e w t ltrgang membership (OR =2 0 . hi a e t ' i n f c n l s o i t d i h ae .)

http://proquest.umi.condpqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document

4 Page 6 of 1

efrpre i l n e .) a i g re a i u n o I d v d a - e e p e i t r . A ages 10 t 12, h v n tid m r j a a (OR =3 7 and s l - e o t d v o e c as niiullvl rdcos t rdcie f 3 1 )were p e i t v o gang membership . itn e c e y ihig h o i g b e t , assessed b f g t n , t r w n o j c s and htig a t a h r (OR = o t i h n x e n l z n e a i r s a e y it- n i t - r d e c e s a o e 3 o a ages 1 t 18. Y u h h g i e t r a i i g b h v o a r t db ffh a d s x h g a et a h r h d m r t infcn ih te o t s f onn rae t a two times g e t rodds o j i i g a gang a compared w t o h ry u h (OR =2.6). Other s g i i a t hn .) e u a kls p e i t r i c u e r j c i n o c n e t o a b l e s (OR =2.0), poor r f s l sil (OR =1 8 , r d c o s n l d d eeto f o v n i n l eif idvda-ee niiullvl a l ntain f r n i g .) it-rd eces itae h p r c i i y as r t d by ffh and s x h g a e t a h r (OR =1 7 , and e r y iiito o d i k n (OR =1.6). yeatvt n o i o infcnl r d c t R l g o s s r i e attendance a ages 10 t 12 d d n t s g i i a t y p e i tgang membership i adolescence. eiiu evc

eae ik a t r ifrnil m a t f I t r c i n o rs f c o sw t gender. The dfeeta i p c o each rs f c o on males and f m l s was n e a t o s f ik a t r i h ik a t r l n i h neig h ul y o d c i g oitc e r s i n examined b c n u t n l g s i r g e s o s on t e fl sample e t r n each rs f c o a o g w t gender n e a t o e m r s l s o a l d . e u t n i a e u s a t a iiaiy h atr and t e F c o xGender i t r c i n t r ( e u t n tt b e ) R s l s i d c t d s b t n i l smlrt among h a i y tutr atcpto: i t e rs f c o s a s c a e w t gang p r i i a i n Only t e F m l S r c u ex Gender n h ik a t r s o i t d i h males and females h t h fet f i g e p r n infcn, i t r c i n t r was s g i i a t such t a t e e f c o s n l - a e t households on subsequent gang neato e m o t o g r o il h n t membership was s r n e frgrst a iwas frboys.
o u t p e ik a t r n h l h o n h mat f f u t p e ik a t r . The impact o m l i l rs f c o s To assess t e i p c o exposure t m l i l rs f c o s i c i d o d o f i n f c n ik a t r h r a e ht ne l t ra o e c n gang membership, an i d x was c e t d t a counted t e number o s g i i a t rs f c o s ae d l s e t on, crs 1 infcn r d c o s f ot t which each y u h was exposed. Because 2 s g i i a tp e i t r o gang membership were f u d s o e o urie f o t i i i l no rm o cul crs t 21. A t a s o e ranged f o 0 t 19, d v s b eit approximate q a t l so y u h o c u d r n ef o 0 ol a g r m u n hs a e o i a i k . oitc e r s i n exposed t 0 t 1 rs, 2 t 3 rss 4 t 6 rss and 7+ r s s A lgsi r g e s o was r n o t i c t g r c l o o ik o ik, o ik, oh e e f ik ih dlset f ik a t r measure o rs f c o exposure and a o e c n gang membership, w t each l v lo rs compared t t e u c s i e u r i e f ik h ht o eut r r s n e n a l o ik base 0 t 1 rs. These r s l sa e p e e t d i T b e 4. Note t a freach s c e s v q a t l o rs t e ik n o r ht h s o t i h prxmtl odds o j i i g a gang a p o i a e y doubled, such t a t o e y u h w t exposure t 7 o more r s s i f onn o o ik hn hs f onn ie rae hn e e e t r s h o had more t a 13 t m s g e t rodds o j i i g a gang t a t o e exposed t 0 t 1 rs. lmnay col ht n p t f f o ik n r a e h The f c t a exposure t more r s s i c e s d t e odds o gang membership suggests t a , i s i eo at h t f h s i n f c n a t r o t i u e o v r l ik o h s atr, p s i l c v r a i n among t e e f c o s each o t e e s g i i a tf c o sc n r b t d t o e a l rs f rgang osbe oaito membership.

DISCUSSION
rdcie f onn hog o d n i y ik a t r t L g s i r g e s o was used t ietf rs f c o sa ages 10 t r u h 12 p e i t v o j i i g a gang oitc e r s i n aiy f hlrns x e i n e t e atr rm vr f between t e ages o 13 and 18. F c o s f o e e y domain o c i d e ' e p r e c - h neighborhood, f m l , h togs rdcos t n dlsec. s h o , p e , and i d v d a - i n f c n l p e i t dj i i g a gang i a o e c n e The s r n e t p e i t r a col er niiulsgiiaty r d c e onn o t n rul, h viaiiy f a i u n n h ages 10 t 12 were t e aalblt o m r j a a i t e neighborhood, many neighborhood y u h i t o b e o aig a i g ntae a i u n n t e o p r n dl n h aet lvn w t one p r n and a o h r n n a e t a u ti t e home, h v n iiitd m r j a a use, h v n iig i h e n dniid s e r i g i a l d n c o l l f h engaged i v o e c , l w academic achievement, and b i g i e t f e a l a n n d s b e i s h o ; alo t e n ilne o ht h r s n o h s o t ih h s hrceitc. p e i t r had odds r t o between 3 and 4 frt o e y u h w t t e e c a a t r s i s Note t a t e p e e t rdcos ais etn utvrae h l h o r d c o s f ae a a y e assess t e independent c i d o d p e i t r o ltrgang membership. M l i a i t models t s i g nlss h e s n b e et tp sn i e a y n rdcos s e i i t e r t c l hypotheses u i g t m v r i g p e i t r would be a r a o a l n x s e . pcfc hoeia

Some o these r s l s r p i a e p e i t r i e t f e i p e i u l n i u i a s u i s o gang membership f e u t e l c t r d c o s dniid n r v o s o g t d n l t d e f loo s i a i n , e i q e t e r , ro e i q e c , oet, o ( a i y s r c u eand p v r y l w academic a p r t o s d l n u n p e s p i rd l n u n y and a c h l and fml t u t r r m s al r s n e u t n i a e h t h s a t r r d c ae d u u e . The p e e t r s l si d c t t a t e ef c o sp e i tltrgang membership f o a e r yas r g s) ages 10 t 12. I a d t o , ti s u y i e t f e f c o sp e i u l u s u i d i l n i u i a a a y e t a n d i i n hs t d d n i i d a t r r v o s y n t d e n o g t d n l n l s s h t o o t r n rul rg n p e i t d gang membership, i c u i g lvn i a neighborhood i which many y u h a e i t o b eand d u s rdce n l d n iig n r c i e , a e t r v o e t tiue, o a e a a l b e s b i g a t s c a b h v o , p o f m l management p a t c s p r n p o i l n a t t d s l w r v i a l , iln n i o i l e a i r o r a i y ih a t c m n and commitment t s h o , b i g i e t f e a l a n n d s b e , b i g r t d b t a h r as h g tahet o c o l e n dniid s e r i g i a l d e n a e y e c e s yeatvt, a i g o r e u a kls o e t r a i i g b h v o and h p r c i i y and h v n p o r f s lsil. n xenlzn e a i r
Hj"]~eXt4 G~ __l?Y_~4 ~

E l r e 200% nag a,. a; s a* j 5 ' :jY~~l~'ii E l r e 400% h 3 j ei:jij~j nag

TABLE 2:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document

4 Page 7 of 1

ii j i
.~ p g

*t '

'

-"--'---

E l r e 200% nag E l r e 400% nag

~ *

19 1,

li l

1 1

TABLE 3:

1@
;; i 2 F i ; ;il i ; g k Fl

:
%r
E l r e 200% nag
e-400 e-0/

ij1
*i k k k

J"k h k ii J k
~

g ll, h,k lh ll
~
(Wti ~

*ok R*?t"*W*n

k*dih, heN** $bq *kh*dhih*4**h*Wfiw*t nicer.

tt, Io"

v**cam h"* "v

" .

"
1* J

She'dhh h h d Uk**ehW*Sh*

**m"ga?

Ua th F"r $r

, * i a*t;*a*a" ;"

-. .. * g*,i,*4 i *FkWw4kW~ hick **Wh ~f ~mat(

B.-~a-.: .a.. E - *' F - -

.------.-----.--.

" ~

* ~

J Enlarge400% "
aji-

TABLE 4 :

f ik o rae o u t p e ik a t r n i a e h t A a y e o t e e f c o exposure t m l i l rs f c o si d c t d t a exposure t a g e t r number o rs n l s s f h fet f idns u p r n a gang i adolescence. These f n i g s p o t f c o s i c i d o d g e t y i c e s d t e rs o j i i g a t r n h l h o r a l n r a e h ik f o n n o u t p e ik i t r e t o s r t g e t a t r e y u h i n i h o h o s f m l e , o s h o s exposed t m l i l rs nevnin t a e i s ht agt o t n e g b r o d , aiis r c o l
fcos atr.

h viaiiy f rdcos f ee, h t o g s A t e community lvl t e s r n e t measured p e i t r o gang membership were t e aalblt o th o t n r u l , u p r i g r s - e t o a eut e o t d y f h m r J a a and t e number o neighborhood y u h i t o b e s p o t n c o s s c i n l r s l s r p r e b aiun potnte o i d n s u g s h t r v n i n fot h t ur S e g l and C r y (1993). These f n i g s g e t t a p e e t o efrst a reduce o p r u i i sfr pre e p n e u i g ae a t s c a i v l e e t i t e neighborhood may h l i r d c n ltrgang membership. nioil n o v m n n h

infcnl r d c e o r aiy ess w) F m l c m o i i n ( n p r n i t e home v r u t o and p o f m l management s g i i a t yp e i t d aiy o p s t o oe aet n h eut u p r i d n s r m r a h r i o. tahet o gang membership, whereas a t c m n t mother o f t e d d n t These r s l ss p o tf n i g f o lhuh hy Decker and VanWinkle's ( 9 6 e h o r p i i t r i w o gang members who, a t o g t e were more 1 9 ) t n g a h c neves f t f ocd o hi a i y v r h lkl t come f o s n l p r n homes, would choose terf m l o e t e gang if r e t choose. I does iey o r m ige a e t o hi ald o rvd aiis o hlrn r m h s a a ht n tappear f o t e e d t t a gangs p o i e new f m l e frc i d e who have f i e t bond t t e rown o e u e ik o hi h l r n kls o e t r f m l e . H l i g p r n st develop sil t b t e manage t e rc i d e may r d c r s sfrgang aiis e p n a e t o aet' rvoet tiue l o r d c e a t c l r y o il. i l n n i o i l e a i r membership, p r i u a l f rgrs S b i g a t s c a b h v o and p r n s p o i l n a t t d sa s p e i t d

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document

Page 8 o 1 f 4

ietd rdciey t h s aiy nlecs o a d n e v n i n fot ltrgang membership. i t r e t o efrsmay be d r c e p o u t v l a t e e f m l i f u n e t w r ae s o l r v n i e n e v n i n fot o e c h p e e t n gang membership i a g a , p e e t v i t r e t o e f r st r a h t e rvnig f gang membership. I younger s b i g o d l n u n a o e c n s a ecerys p o t d b t ep e e td t , a a ep r n - o u e i l n s f e i q e t d l s e t r lal u p r e y h r s n a a s r a e t f c s d ofit o v o e t ouin o aet o i t r e t o s t a encourage p r n s t adopt and express n n i l n s l t o s t problems and c n l c nevnin ht
stain. iutos

f l m n a y c o l x e i n e n r d c i g ae h aa These d t show t e importance o e e e t r s h o e p r e c s i p e i t n ltrgang membership. o l r d c e ae siain t col Poor s h o achievement, attachment, commitment, and a p r t o s a ages 10 t 12 alp e i t d ltrgang eut col d s b e i elementary s h o . These r s l s iald n i e n dniid s e r i g e r i g membership, as d d b i g i e t f e a l a n n l a n n h ik h t h i o l tdns c o l ht n r a e elementary s h o s t a i c e s academic success frals u e t can reduce t e rs t a t e r suggest t a ht s u e t wl ltrj i gangs. t d n s il ae o n
o infcn o t n h o m f eiiu e v c Note t a involvement i t e f r o r l g o ss r i e attendance a ages 10 t 12 was n t a s g i i a t ht atcpto n idns h s idn s neetn i e h p e i t ro ltrgang membership. T i f n i g i i t r s i g g v n t e mixed f n i g on p r i i a i n i r d c o f ae 95 Bibig 99 r l g o sa t v t e i p e e t n d l n u n y i adolescence ( a n r d e 1 8 ; Benda 1 9 ; Cochran, Wood, e i i u ciiis n r v n i g e i q e c n tl tr 99 ish t l 96 enus 95 re and A n k e 1994; Evans e a. 1 9 ; F r q i t 1 9 ; F e 1994; H r c i and S a k 1 6 ; Maxson e a. relv
19) 98.

a t s h t l 1 9 ) ihihs h m o t n e f h l h o e i q e c n Research b Mfit(1993) and B r u c e a. ( 9 7 h g l g t t e i p r a c o c i d o d d l n u n y i y oft tl iiitn a p t e n o lf c u s p r i t n a t s c a b h v o . F r h r o e r c n a a y e b Hawkins e a. ntaig a t r f ie o r e e s s e t n i o i l e a i r u t e m r , e e t n l s s y l o t l t e a l ik a t r o l o o f ntain f l o o ( 9 7 f u d t a a e r y age o iiito o a c h l mediated a m s alo h re r y rs f c o sf ra c h l 1 9 ) o n ht n a l eair i h h r s n i d n h t a l ntain f abuse a age 18. These s u i s coupled w t t e p e e t f n i g t a e r y iiito o problem b h v o s tde, t ihih h m o t n e f r v n i g r d c e ae s c a v o e c and m r j a a use p e i t d ltrgang membership, h g l g tt e i p r a c o p e e t n u h s ilne aiun o t on o d l y n iiito o such b h v o s w l b f r most y u h j i gangs. r e a i g ntain f e a i r el e o e
er aiis o eut r m n i o i l n l e c s n O e a l gang membership appears t r s l f o a t s c a i f u n e i neighborhoods, f m l e , and p e vrl, a l ntain f eair. n col ucsfly g o p ; fiuet become s c e s u l engaged i s h o ; and e r y iiito o problem b h v o s These r u s alr o o ei h u d o a t ni rvnin f n i g p o i e guidance f rgang p e e t o . We s o l n tw i utladolescence t b g n gang idns r v d o ol r s n eut u g s h t r v n i e n e v n i n n h l m n a y p e e t o efrs The p e e t r s l ss g e t t a p e e t v i t r e t o s i t e e e e t r grades c u d r v n i n fot: o e v r h s i d n s ihih h m o t n e dlset have a s g i i a t i p c on a o e c n gang membership. M r o e , t e e f n i g h g l g tt e i p r a c infcn m a t r v n i n t a e i s d r s i g ik c o s e e a o multiple-component p e e t o s r t g e a d e s n r s sa r s s v r l domains. f

[otoe Font]
h fie f u e i e u t c T i research was supported by a research grant (No. 2158) from t e O f c o J v n l J s i e and Delinquency Prevention hs h a i n l nttt (O33DP), a grant from t e N t o a I s i u e on Drug Abuse ( o 1R0IDA09679), and a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson N. dtra Foundation. The authors would l k t thank Robert Abbott and Cynthia Shaw f r l n i g t e r s a i t c l and e i o i l ie o o e d n h i ttsia e p r i e r s e t v l . Correspondence should be addressed t K r G Hl, S c a Development Research Group, U i e s t o xets, epciey nvriy f o a l . il o i l Washington, 9725 3rd Avenue, NE, Suite 401, S a t e WA 98115; phone: (206) 685-3859; e m i : khill@u.washington.edu. -al etl,

[otoe Fontl
NOTE

[otoe Font]
1 To examine the e f c o r s f c o s due t e r y gang e p r e c , i d v d a s who i d c t d gang membership a t e . niae t h x e i n e niiul o al f e t f ik a t r x l r t r nlss eut e r i s age t i question was a a l b e (age 1 ) were d l t d i an e p o a o y a a y i . R s l s from t i a a y i were alet vial eee n hs n l s s hs 3 c n i t n with those presented i the a t c e and a e a a l b e from t e frta t o . osset h is u h r n ril r vial

[eeec] Rfrne
REFERENCES

[eeec] Rfrne
Achenbach, T M. 1991. I t g a i e Guide f r the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF P o i e . B r i g o : U i e s t o vermont, . rfls u l n t n n v r i y f nertv o Fmla orlts f Department o P y h a r . A l r P t r C r o Ovando, and Dennis Hocevar. 1984. " a i i r C r e a e o Gang Membership: f scity de, ee, als An E p o a o y Study o Mexican-American Youth." H s a i J u n l o B h v o a Sciences 6:65-76. xlrtr f ipnc ora f eairl B i b i g , w l i m S 1989. "The R l g o s Ecology o Deviance." American S c o o i a Review 54(2):285-95. anrde ila . oilgcl f eiiu I B r u c , Dawn 3, Donald R Lynam, T r i E N " t , and P i A S l a 1997. " s Age Important? T s i g a General versus a atsh . . e r e . oit hl . i v . etn Developmental Theory o A t s c a B h v o . Criminology 35(1):13-48. f nioil e a i r "

[Reference]
B t i , Sara R , K r G Hl, Robert D Abbott, Richard F Catalano, and 3 David Hawkins. 1998. "The Contribution o Gang atn . a l . il . . . f Membership t Delinquency Beyond Delinquent F i n s ' Criminology 36(1):93-115. o red: Benda, Brent B 1995. "The E f c o R l g o on Adolescent Delinquency R v s t d J u n l o Research i Crime and . fet f eiin eiie" ora f n Delinquency 32(4):446-66. Bjerregaard, Beth and Alan 3 L z t e 1995. "Gun Ownership and Gang Membership." J u n l o C i i a Law and Criminology . iot. ora f rmnl 86:37-58.

[eeec] Rfrne
Bjerregaard, Beth and Carolyn Smith.1993. "Gender D f e e c s i Gang P r i i a i n Delinquency, and Substance Use." atcpto, ifrne n

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

pocument

f 4 Page 9 o 1

ueie "The E i l g o Female J v n l tooy f li. J u n l o Quantitative criminology 9:329-55. Bowker, Lee H. and Malcolm W. K e np 1983.o s " Adolescence 18:739-51. ora f oil tutrl x a a i f scooia A Test o P y h l g c l and S c a S r c u a E l n t n . Delinquency and Gang Membership: rm: aod . rsik B r i , R b r 3, 3. and H r l G G a m c . 1993. Neighborhoods and C i e The Dimen David Hawkins. 1996. "The S c a u s k o e t . r, oil . ihr ok oto. Community C n r l New Y r : Lexington Books. Catalano, R c a d E and 3 so o Efcie in f fetv . dtd n Behavior." Pp.149-97 i Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories, e i e by 3 f nioil Development Model: A Theory o A t s c a and ly . hi. . n v r i y rs. David Hawkins. New York: Cambridge U i e s t P e s Cloward, Richard A and L o d E O l n 1960. Delinquency rs. ok f Opportunity: A Theory o Delinquent Gangs. New Y r : Free P e s Sca oil I . . Cochran, John K , Peter B. Wood, and Bruce 3 Arneklev.1994. " s the Religiosity-Delinquency Relationship Spurious? Crime and Delinquency 31(1):92-123. n ora f Control Theories." J u n l o Research i

let . L re rs. utr f let Cohen, A b r K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The C l u e o the Gang. Glencoe, I: F e P e s Cohen, A b r K and ~Ames F f n S o t 1958. "Research i Delinquent Subcultures." Journal o hr. S c a Issues 14:20-37. oil rig . C r y G David. and I v n A Spergel.1992. "Gang Involvement and Delinquency among Hispanic and African-American ur, . n f Adolescent Males." Journal o Research i Crime and Delinquency 29:273-91. nvriy ok red, ie n ark . Decker, Scott H and B r i Van Winkle.1996. L f i the Gang: Family, F i n s and volence. New Y r : Cambridge U i e s t Pes rs. f n Esbensen, Finne-Aage and David Huizinga.1993. "Gangs, Drugs, and Delinquency i a Survey o Urban Youth." Criminology 31: 565-89. ifrne n Esbensen, Finne-Aage, David Huizinga, and Anne W. Weiher. 1993. "Gang and Non-Gang Youth: D f e e c s i Explanatory utc f V r a l s Journal o Contemporary Criminal J s i e 9:94-116. aibe" . ehnn. . . . . rni . uln Evans, T. David, F a c s T C l e , Velmer S Burton, Gregory R Dunaway, G L Payne, and Sesha R K t i e i 1996. " e i i n S c a Bonds, and Delinquency" Deviant Behavior 17(1):43-70. Rlgo, oil
n n p Sca f efe. Fagan, J f r y 1990. " o i l Process o Delinquency and Drug Use Among Urban Gangs." P . 183-219 i Gangs i America, ak . uf e i e by C. R H f . Newbury P r , CA: Sage. dtd . . uf d, n n p 1996. "Gangs, Drugs, and Neighborhood Change." P . 39-74 i Gangs i America, 2d e . edited by C R H f . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ery rdcos f dl F r i g o , David P.1989. " a l P e i t r o Adolescent Aggression and A u t Violence" Violence and Victims 4(2):79-100. arntn . utc, o. p n Peitr, orlts f 1998. " r d c o s Causes, and C r e a e o Male Youth Violence" P . 421-75 i Crime and J s i e V l 24, edited by M rs. nvriy f Tonry and M. H Moore. Chicago: U i e s t o Chicago P e s .
*
*

[Reference]

[eeecl Rfrne

eiist soito F r q i t Robert M. 1995. "A Research Note on the A s c a i n Between R l g o i y and Delinquency." Deviant Behavior 16 enus, (2):169-75. ueie Rlgoiy e i i u o col . F e , Marvin D 1994. " e i i s t , R l g o s Conservatism, Bonds t S h o , and J v n l Delinquency Among Three re lrd . . ak rdia sr. Categories o Drug U e s " Deviant Behavior 15(2):151-70. Friedman, C t c , F e r c Mann, and A f e S Friedman.1975. "A f P o i e o J v n l S r e Gang Members."Adolescence 10:563-607. rfl f u e i e t e t rs. n u t e t iy ok: . Hagedorn, John M 1988. People and F l s Gangs, Crime and the Underclass i a R s b l C t . Chicago: Lakeview P e s ak. i n s eis 1994a "Homeboys, Dope F e d , L g t , and New J c s " Criminology 32:197-217.

[eeecl Rfrne

n raiain" ora f - 1994b. "Neighborhoods, Markets, and Gang Drug O g n z t o . J u n l o Research i Crime and Delinquency 31:264-94. . n p aaao rhr ihr ihe Hawkins, 3 David, M c a l W. A t u , and R c a d E C t l n . 1995. "Preventing Substance Abuse" P . 343-427 i Crime and . rvnin dtd o o. 9 u l i g a e o i t : t a e i J s i e A Review o Research: V l 1 . B i d n a S f r S c e y S r t g c Approaches t Crime P e e t o , e i e by M. Tonry utc: f rs. nvriy f and D. Farrington. Chicago: U i e s t o Chicago P e s rtcie atr o loo . ilr19. Rs . . Hawkins, 3 David, Richard F Catalano, and Janet Y M l e . 9 2 " i k and P o e t v F c o s f rA c h l and Other Drug r v n i n " s c o o i a ultn mlctos o al Problems i Adolescence and E r y Adulthood: I p i a i n f r Substance Abuse P e e t o . P y h l g c l B l e i 12:64-105. n aaao . . [SDRG #86] Hawkins, 3 David, John W Graham, Eugene Maguin, Robert D Abbott, and Richard E C t l n . 1997. "Exploring ora f loo scooil ik atr ntain f loo the E f c s o Age o A c h l Use I i i t o and P y h s c a R s F c o s on Subsequent A c h l Misuse." J u n l o Studies on fet f . . . arntn . A c h l 58:280-90. Hawkins, 3 David, Todd Herrenkohl, David P F r i g o , Devon D Brewer, Richard F Catalano, and Tracy loo Rs Fcos ik atr s r e f i lf u e i e n n il c e f fP e i t r d W. Harachi.1998. "A Review o e r d c o s o Youth V o nn e " Pp.10646 i Serious and V o e t J v n l O . . . . arntn nevnin, dtd and Successful I t r e t o s e i e by R Loeber and D P F r i g o . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hindelang, Michael 3, T a i H r c i and Joseph G. Weis.1981. Measuring Delinquency. Bev r v s ish, e l Hls CA: Sage. r y il, tr. f e i q e c . e k l y n v r i y f aiona rs. ish, r v s H r c i T a i . 1969. Causes o D l n u n y B r e e : U i e s t o C l f r i P e s H r c i T a i and Rodney S a k 1969. ish, rvs " e l i e and Delinquency" S c a Problems Hlfr oil 17(2):202-13. f .. o nevnin ilne . H w l , tames C 1997. "Youth Gang V o e c Prevention and I t r e t o : What Works." Report t the U S Department o oel rvnin J s i e O f c o J v n l J s i e and Delinquency P e e t o . utc, fie f u e i e utc
n v r i y rs. isy ok tet K e n Malcolm. 1995. The American S r e Gang. New Y r : Oxford U i e s t P e s L p e , Mark W. and fames H. Derzon. li, Peitr f iln r f ogtdnl al n 1998. " r d c o s o V o e t o Serious Delinquency i Adolescence and E r y Adulthood: A Synthesis o L n i u i a . ucsfl nevnin, dtd iln ueie fedr: ik atr p n Research." P . 86-105 i Serious and V o e t J v n l O f n e s R s F c o s and S c e s u i t r e t o s e i e by R . eoir, . . iot, . . arntn Loeber and D P F r i g o . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. L z t e Alan 3, James M T s r e o Terence P Thornberry, and Pten f of s. utc u r e l Marvin D Krohn.1994. " a t r s o Adolescent Firearms Ownership and U e " J s i e Q a t r y 11:51-73. Loeber, R l , . nioil elh . B r i g o , David P , Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda, and Van Kammen, Welmoet B 1998. A t s c a behavior and mental h a t arntn . 3 s o i t s n. of problems: Explanatory f c o s i childhood and adolescence. Mahwah, N : Lawrence Eribaum A s c a e , I c Loeber, R l , atr n Iiito, s a a i n n arntn Magda S. Stouthamer-Loeber, Welmoet Van Kammen, and David P F r i g o . 1991. " n t a i n E c l t o , and Desistance i orlts" ora f rmnl J v n l Offending and Their C r e a e . J u n l o C i i a Law and Criminology 82:36-82. ueie Vleaiiy o tet mlctos o Maxson, Cheryl L , Monica L Whitlock, and Malcolm W. Klein.1998. " u n r b l t t S r e Gang Membership: I p i a i n f r . . iiu f ls utr P a t c . S c a Service Review 72:70-91. M l e , Walter B 1958. "Lower C a s C l u e as a Generating M l e o Gang rcie" oil ilr . o r a f oil Delinquency." J u n l o S c a Issues 14:5-19. i e C u s - e s s e t nioil M f i t T r i E 1993. "Adolescent-Limited and L f - o r e P r i t n A t s c a Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy." oft, e r e .

[eeec] Rfrne

Ieeec] Rfrne

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document

4 Page 1 of l 0

nvriy rs. o e i l n h r e hldlha o h aro - 1991. Going Down t t e B r i : Homeboys and H m g r s i C a g . P i a e p i : Temple U i e s t P e s . Efcs f fiil o ueie . Sampson, Robert 3 1986. " f e t o Socioeconomic Context on O f c a Reaction t J v n l Delinquency." American S c o o i a Review 5:876-85. oilgcl

rsn n aro f o Psychological Review 100:674-701. Moore, Loan W. 1978. Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs and P i o i the B r i s o L s Angeles. Philadelphia Temple University Press.

o itmzto. al. . s v t , Leonard D , Lawrence Rosen, and Michael Lli 1980. "Delinquency and Gang Membership as Related t V c i i a i n " aiz oil atr n ueie lfod . Victimology 5:152-60. Shaw, C i f r R and Henry D. McKay. 1931. S c a F c o s i J v n l Delinquency. Report on the .. f o L Causes o Crime, V l I National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. Washington, DC: U S Government Pitn Ofc. rnig fie nvriy f . r rs. h r , .1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: U i e s t o Chicago P e s S o t fames F , 3. 1996. Gangs and f ilne o Adolescent V o e c . Boulder, CO: Center f r the Study and Prevention o V o e c . ilne Ery f . Simcha-Pagan, Ora, Joanne C. Gersten, and Thomas S Langner. 1986. " a l Precursors and Concurrent Correlates o f Patterns of IlctDrug Use i Adolescence." Journal o Drug Issues 16:7-28. n lii

[Reference]

[eeec] Rfrne
s e g l Irving.1995. The Youth Gang Problem. New Y r : Oxford U i e s t P e s Spergel, I v n A and G David C r y pre, nvriy rs. ok rig . . ur. 1993. "The N t o a Youth Gang Survey: A Research and Development P o e s " P . 359-400 i The Gang I t r e t o rcs. p ainl nevnin n Handbook, edited by A G l s e n and C R H f . Champaign, I : Research P e s Sutherland, Edwin and Donald Cressey. . odti L . . uf rs. 1978. P i c p e o Criminology. IOth e . New Y r : L p i c t . rnils f d o k ipnot

[eeec] Rfrne
Thomberry, Terence P.1998. "Membership i Youth Gangs and Involvement i Serious and V o e t Offending." P . 147-66 i n n iln p n Serious and V o e t J v n l Offenders: R s F c o s and S c e s u I t r e t o s e i e by R Loeber and D P Farrington. ucsfl nevnin, dtd ik atr iln ueie . . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomberry, Terence P Marvin D Krohn, Alan 3 L z t e and Deborah Chard-Wierschem. 1993. , . . iot, "The R l o J v n l Gangs i F c l t t n Delinquent Behavior." J u n l o Research i Crime and Delinquency 30:55-87. oe f ueie ora f n aiiaig n Thrasher, F e e i M [1927] 1963. "The Gang: A Study o 1,313 Gangs i Chicago." Abridged with a new i t o u t o by 3 F f rdrc . n nrdcin . S o t 3. Chicago: U i e s t o Chicago P e s V g l James D and Steve C Yun. 1990. "Vietnamese Youth Gangs i Southern hr, r nvriy f r s . ii, . . n Clfri. aiona" P . 146-62 i Gangs i America, e i e by C R H f . Newbury P r , CA: Sage. W l o , W l i m 3.1987. The T u y p dtd n n . . uf ak isn ila rl Disadvantaged: The Inner C t , the U d r l s , and P b i P l c . Chicago: U i e s t o Chicago. .1996. When Work iy necas u l c oiy nvriy f Disappears. New Y r : Knopf. ok

[Author n t ] oe
s r R Battin-Pearson, M.Ed., i an analyst on the O f c o Juvenile J s i e and Delinquency Prevention-funded study "Early aa . s fie f utc Onset Offending: Development and Consequences" i the S a t e S c a Development P o e t Her e p r i e i i n e t l oil rjc. xets s n
measurement, s a i t c , and research design, and her research i t r s s i c u e the e i l g o adolescent delinquency, ttsis neet nld tooy f substance u e and mental h a t problems. s, elh

[Author n t l oe
3 David Hawkins, Ph.D., i a professor o s c a work and d r c o o t e S c a Development Research Group a the U i e s t . s f oil ietr f h oil t nvriy o Washington. H s research focuses on understanding and preventing c i d and adolescent f i hl

[Author n t ] oe
h a t and behavior problems. He i a s conmitted t t a s a i g r s a c i t e f c i e p a t c and p l c t improve elh s lo o r n l t n e e r h no f e t v r c i e oiy o adolescent h a t and development. Since 1981 he has been conducting t , S a t e S c a Development P o e t a l n i u i a elh h etl oil rjc, ogtdnl prevention study based on H s t e r t c l work. i hoeia

[ u h rn t ] A t o oe
K r G Hl, Ph.D., i the p o e t d r c o o the S a t e S c a Development P o e t C r e t y he d r c s a t v t e o the O f c a l . il rjc ietr f s etl oil rjc. u r n l , i e t ciiis f fie o J v n l J s i e and Delinquency Prevention-funded s u i s "The Developmental Dynamics o Gang Membership and f ueie utc tde f Ery Delinquency" and " a l Onset Offending: Development and Consequences" and the N t o a I s i u e on Drug Abuse-funded a i n l nttt Ery study " a l Adulthood Consequences o Adolescent Substance U e " H s research focuses on a social-developmental, lf span f s. i ie approach t the development o p o and a t s c a b h v o s o f rnioil e a i r .

[Author n t ] oe
fames C Howell, Ph.D., i former d r c o o research and program development a t e O f c o J v n l J s i e and . s ietr f t h fie f u e i e utc Delinquency P e e t o . He i c r e t y an adjunct researcher a the N t o a Youth Gang C n e . I a d t o t t i work, he rvnin s urnl t ainl e t r n d i i n o hs i conducting research on youth gangs and a s s i g j r s i t o s a r s the country on r s a c and program development s sitn uidcin c o s eerh d a i g w t s r o s v o e t and c r n c o f n e s e l n i h e i u , iln, hoi fedr.

[Appendix]
APPENDIX
Item L s f r Measures o P e i t r o Gang Membership it o f rdcos f

DEMOGRAPHICS
Gender (youth i t r i w neve)

Female, Male

http://proquest.umi.cofvpqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document
neve) E h i i y (youth i t r i w tnct

4 Page 1 of 1 1

piaiy a i e m r c n fia Asian American, A r c n American, European American, European American, Other ( r m r l N t v A e i a )
NEIGHBORHOOD
A a l b l t o marijuana (youth interview) viaiiy f

re Do you know anyone who has t i d marijuana?

ol e o f h o r Have you ever had a chance t t y marijuana? I you had t e money, and wanted t get marijuana, do you think you c u d g t some?
Neighborhood youth i t o b e (youth i t r i w n rul neve)

r n rul. L t o k d i my neighborhood a e i t o b e os f is n
Low neighborhood attachment (youth i t r i w neve)
Iknow many people i my neighborhood. n Il k my neighborhood. ie If e s f i my neighborhood. FAMILY el a e n
Poverty (parent i t r i w neve)
Approximately what i your f m l ' t t l y a l income b f r taxes? s a i y s oa e r y eoe

Family s r c u e (parent i t r i w tutr neve)

The v r e y of f m l structures i the sample were combined i t the f l o i g f v c t g r e : ait aiy n no o l w n ie a e o i s

both parents ( i l g c l or adoptive) a home, booia t

one b o o i a parent and one stepparent, ilgcl one parent a o e ln,

one parent with other a u t l v n i home, and d l s iig n
o h r a u t only ( o p r n s . te dls n aet)

The l s f u family s r c u e were each compared w t t e case i which the c i d had both parents ( i l g c l o adoptive) at o r tutrs ih h n hl booia r a home. t
Parent drinking (parent i t r i w neve)

How o t n do you d i k b e , wine, o l q o ? fe rn er r iur

I you are l v n w t a spouse o p r n r how o t n does your spouse o p r n r d i k b e , wine, o l q o ? S b i g a t s c a f iig i h r ate, fe r ate rn er r iur iln nioil behavior (youth i t r i w neve)

I you Have brothers and s s e s do any o them smoke c g r t e ? f itr, f iaets

Do any o your brothers o s s e s smoke marijuana? f r itr

Have any o your brothers and s s e s ever been suspended from school? f itr
Have any o your b o h r o s s e s ever been picked up o a r s e by the p l c ? f r t e s r itr r retd oie

Poor f m l management (youth i t r i w aiy neve)

http://proquest.umi.comlpqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Qocument
you are with? r When you are away from home, do your parents know where you a e and who

4 2 Page 1 of 1

a i y r la. a e t r v o e t t i u e y u h n e v e ) ue n The r l s i my f m l a e c e r P r n p o i l n a t t d s ( o t i t r i w
o i itn r el el o How do you think your parents f e ( r would f e ) about you h t i g o threatening t h t someone?
neve) Low attachment to parents (youth i t r i w
s f ie o Would you l k t be the kind o person your mother i ?

elns Do you share your thoughts and f e i g with your mother?

s id f ie o Would you l k t be the k n o person your father i ?

elns Do you share your thoughts and f e i g with your father?

SCHOOL
neve) Low educational aspirations (youth i t r i w
ie o a n col a I you could go as f r as you wanted i s h o , how f r would you l k t go? f

neve) col Low s h o commitment (youth i t r i w

n ls. r v r e ) Ido extra work on my own i c a s ( e e s d
t ni t s i i h d r o o When Ihave an assignment t d , Ikeep on working on i u t l i i f n s e . ( e versed)

neve) Low school attachment (youth i t r i w

ie c o l Il k s h o . (reversed)
o col rvre) o ok Most mornings Il o forward t going t s h o . ( e e s d

hs e r r v r e ) Il k my teacher t i y a . ( e e s d ie

Il k my c a s t i year. ( e e s d ie l s hs rvre)
col sho eod) n Low academic achievement i elementary s h o ( c o l r c r s

f he raig s c o l eod) aiona o Score f r the C l f r i Achievement Test (from s h o r c r s . This i a combined score o t r e subtests ( e d n , math, and language).
erig iald sho eod) I e t f e as l a n n d s b e ( c o l r c r s dniid

col eod) erig iald S e i l Education designation as l a n n d s b e (from s h o r c r s . pca

neve) n PEER Association with f i n s who engage i problem behavior (youth i t r i w red
n f h e e t red, r v d n h red f T i s a e r f e t the mean amount o time a student spends with each o t r e b s f i n s p o i i g t e f i n gets i h s c l elcs r rns t o b e with the teacher, o d i k . rul
n rul ih r hns ht e e t red Does your b s f i n do t i g t a g t her o him i t o b e w t the teacher?

t i r e aet i r iur e t red re e r Has your b s f i n t i d b e , wine, o l q o when h s o h r p r n s d d not know about i?

et red How o t n do you see your b s f i n ? fe

n rul r Does your second b s f i n do things that get her o him i t o b e with the teacher? e t red

i r iur t Has your second best f i n t i d b e , wine, o l q o when h s o her parents d d not know about i? r e d re e r i r

How o t n do you see your second best f i n ? red fe

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

Document
n rul ih r ht red hr Does your t i d best f i n do things t a get her o him i t o b e w t the teacher?

f 4 Page 1J o 1

bu i r e aet i o h r e t r e d re e r i e r i u r Has your t i d b s f i n t i d b e , w n , o l q o when hs o h r p r n s d d n t know a o t

red hr How often do you see your t i d best f i n ?

i? t

INDIVIDUAL
neve) R l g o s service attendance (youth i t r i w eiiu
eiiu How often do you attend r l g o s services?
t f o neve) s t A t s c a b l e s (youth i t r i w I i okay t take something without asking i you can get away with i? nioil eif

ih. r o To get ahead you have t do some things that a e not r g t

red. o ue f iln o o You have t be w l i g t break some r l s i you want t be popular with your f i n s
t red e o I a f i n asked t copy your exam, would you lt your f i n copy i? f red

o ha. ts At s h o , sometimes i i okay t c e t col

neve) rnig o r I i f n t do things you a e not supposed t . Respondent d i k n (youth i t r i w ts u o

iur i, r Have you ever drunk beer, wine, whiskey, g n o other l q o ?
iur i, r er at How many times i the p s month have you drunk b e , wine, whiskey, g n o other l q o ? n
neve) ntain Respondent marijuana i i i t o (youth i t r i w

neve) Have you ever smoked marijuana? Violence (youth i t r i w

ih at How many times i the p s year have you picked a f g t with someone? n

s o k r ote t as r bet n How many times i the past year have you thrown o j c s such a r c s o b t l s a c r o people?
at n How many times have you h t a teacher i the p s year? i
Etraiig(ece itriw) xenlzn tahr neves

elcig xenlzn cl ossig f Achenbach's (1991) broad-band e t r a i i g s a e c n i t n o 66 teacherrated items r f e t n the subdimensions " n t e t v "nervous-overreactive," and "aggressive." I t r a i i g (teacher i t r i w ) iatnie neves nenlzn
elcig h Achenbach's (1991) broad-band i t r a i i g s a e c n i t n o 25 teacherrated items r f e t n t e subdimensions "anxious" nenlzn cl ossig f sca and " o i l withdrawal."
Hyperactive (teacher i t r i w ) neves

s fdey" rsls, yeatv cl ossig f eg, Achenbach's (1991) s a e c n i t n o teacher-rated h p r c i e behavior ( . . items such a " i g t , " e t e s " and
"itatd) dsrce".

Poor r f s l s i l (youth i t r i w e u a kls neve)

olwn cnro novn f o Items included i t i s a e assessed the appropriateness o responses t the f l o i g s e a i s i v l i g peer pressure f r n hs c l o a t s c a behavior: nioil
I you were a a party and one o your f i n s o f r d you a b e , what would you do? f f er red fee t

I one o your f i n s asked you t s i s h o , what would you do? f f o kp col red

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&... 07/11/2002

])ocument

Page 1 of 1 4 4

u t e e r d c i n r itiuin s r h b t d oyih ih emsin Reproduced w t p r i s o ofthe c p r g t owner. F r h rr p o u t o o d s r b t o i p o i i e without

prtsin eiiso.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000043479854&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=2&...

07/11/2002