uncorrected proofs

203

Gangs, Schools, and Education in the United States

PR O

Kendra J. Clark, David C. Pyrooz, and Ryan Randa

O

School of Hard Knocks

FS

10

Introduction

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

The presence of youth gangs in the United States and their wide‐ranging consequences for individuals and communities are well established (Curry, Decker, and Pyrooz 2014; Esbensen 2010; Howell and Griffiths 2015; Klein and Maxson 2006; Thornberry 2003). Life in the gang is often thought of as being insular and all‐consuming, making it easy to forget that youth gang members are sons and daughters, churchgoers, employees, citizens, and students (Decker and Van Winkle 1996; Miller 2011; Moore 1991; Thrasher 1927). This is not to say that gang life does not have an attractive and obsessive quality. Indeed, gang membership influences youth in significant ways, from their peer n etworks to their attitudes and behaviors (Melde, Berg, and Esbensen 2014; Matsuda et al. 2013; Medina‐Ariza et al. 2013; Melde and Esbensen 2011; Sweeten, Pyrooz, and Piquero 2013; Weerman, Lovegrove, and Thornberry 2015). Rather, gang members are embedded within the context of larger social institutions, including families, neighborhoods, the labor market, churches, and – the focus of this chapter – schools. Education and the school environment intersect with gangs and gang membership in important ways. Since the ages at which youths are most likely to be in gangs are closely associated with the middle and high school years, it should come as no surprise that gangs and gang members are found in schools. Although only a small portion of the population is involved in gangs, it is especially important to understand gangs and gang membership in school settings. This is particularly true in terms of violence, v ictimization, and fear in and around schools. Indeed, school is a setting where members of multiple gangs are forced to interact with each other for extended periods of time, multiple days a week. Occupying the same space – where school boundaries rarely align with gang territorial boundaries – can have serious implications in terms of violence and victimiza tion in and around schools (Brunson and Miller 2009; Knox, Laske, and Tromanhauser 1992). Keeping in mind that teachers and non‐gang‐involved students are also exposed to this heightened tension between gang‐involved students, it becomes increasingly important for teachers and school administrators to be adequately p repared to ease ten sions and foster an environment where all students can learn. Unfortunately, researchers have found that “educators are not well enough informed about gang culture to foster behaviors that result in successful academic performance” (Vigil 1999, 270).

The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions, First Edition. Edited by Harvey Shapiro. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

0003397103.INDD 203

10-01-2018 18:32:49

204

The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

In terms of gang violence, schools that report a presence of gangs also report higher levels of violence and victimization in both frequency and severity (Ralph et al. 1995). However, more recent research suggests that the relationship between gang members and increased violence and victimization within schools is indirect rather than direct, as many researchers previously believed (Estrada et al. 2014). In other words, rather than a student’s risk of offending and victimization being a direct product of his/her involvement in gangs, their risk is actually indirectly influenced by their involvement in school risk behaviors (i.e., truancy, substance use, negative peer association) and the school’s protective measures and supports (i.e., school connectedness, safety, and support). Therefore, while an individual’s involvement in gangs does not necessarily increase his/her level of violence or instances of victimization, when a gang member skips school, hangs out with troublesome peers, or uses drugs, their likelihood of v iolent perpetration and victimization increases. This is particularly true in schools with limited levels of protective measures and supports. The focus of this chapter will be to outline the ways in which gangs, schools, and violence interact, and how these interactions are related to the life outcomes of youth. In addition, literature concerning the ways the presence of gangs in schools may be affecting both gang and non‐gang members will be reviewed. Much concern surrounds how the education of non‐gang members suffers as a result of fear of victimization by gangs. However, little attention is focused on the ways that gang members’ educational attainment may be impeded by the same culture of fear. It is important to understand which groups are most affected by the presence of gangs in schools, and in what ways, in order to provide administrators with best practice solutions. This chapter will also review state gang‐related school legislation gathered by the National Gang Center and provide a synthesis organized by policy, programming, punishment, training, and dis cretion. Finally, an analysis and critique of selected gang prevention and intervention programs is provided, followed by suggestions for program development and future research.

O R

Gangs and Gang Membership in the United States

U

N

C

According to the National Gang Center, administrator of the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS) to law enforcement agencies, 850,000 individuals in the United States were identified as gang members in 2012 – less than one‐third of 1% of the population (Egley, Howell, and Harris 2014). Despite this low prevalence, the NYGS indicated that 2,363 homicides were gang‐related, accounting for a disproportionately high 16% of nationwide homicides that year (Egley, Howell, and Harris 2014). Although many individuals who become involved with gangs are deviant prior to gang membership (Thornberry 2003), an individual’s involvement in deviant and criminal behavior increases greatly after joining a gang (Pyrooz et al. 2016). In addition to an increased likelihood of offending once involved in a gang, researchers have also found there to be an increased likelihood of victimization (Gibson et al. 2012; Katz et al. 2011). Decker and Pyrooz (2010) report that gang members face a homicide victimization rate 100 times greater than that of the general population, and others have identified gang membership as a risk factor for untimely mortality (Hagedorn 1998; Levitt and Venkatesh 2001; Loeber and Farrington 2011).

0003397103.INDD 204

10-01-2018 18:32:49

School of Hard Knocks: Gangs, Schools, and Education in the US

205

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

The NYGS states that there are 3,100 jurisdictions in the United States that report a presence of gangs in their communities – about 30% of jurisdictions (Egley, Howell, and Harris 2014). Although these numbers are useful to some extent, self‐report data – which are often used by criminologists to gain a more accurate understanding of crime and victimization in the United States – may provide a more inclusive picture of gangs in America for two reasons. First, the accuracy of official report data may be compromised by individual and institutional bias throughout the data collection process (Esbensen and Huizinga 1993; Thornberry and Krohn 2000). Second, official report data do not consider the dark figure of crime – or those crimes that go unreported or undiscovered (Gibbons 1979). The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) is a nationally represen tative, longitudinal study of youth behavior that contains the largest subsample of youth gang members that have been collected to date. Because of the large gang mem ber subsample size and the nationally representative sample that eliminates the risk of selection bias for gang membership, the NLSY97 provides some of the most inclusive and useful self‐report data available for research. By integrating the prevalence of gang membership from the self‐report data in the NLSY97 with the 2010 US Census Bureau, Pyrooz and Sweeten (2015) estimate that there were 1,059,000 youth gang members in the United States in 2010. This estimate from self‐report data of gang membership is over 1.4 times larger than the 756,000 gang members estimated in the 2010 NYGS, and it is only considering members who are adolescents (Egley, Howell, and Harris 2014). Furthermore, it is estimated that roughly 70% of youth gang mem bers were male and 42% were racial and ethnic minorities, leaving women to repre sent nearly 30% and white youth to represent about 58% of youth gang members (Pyrooz and Sweeten 2015). The fact that the majority of youth gang members are white and that a significant p ortion of them are female may come as a surprise to individuals who use popular media or official report data to help them conceptualize gangs in America: while minorities are disproportionately represented in gangs, they are not the majority. Another interesting aspect of gangs in the United States is that the prevalence of membership has proven to be strongly age‐graded (Lacourse et al. 2003; Miller 2011; Pyrooz and Sweeten 2015; Pyrooz 2014b). Results from the NLSY97 indicated that 1 in 12 individuals will self‐report having been involved in a gang throughout his/her life time and that 1 in 50 youth aged 5–17 will report active gang membership (Pyrooz 2014b; Pyrooz and Sweeten 2015). The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) – a longitudinal survey including 808 multiethnic students attending schools in high‐crime neighborhoods – found that 15 was the average age adolescents joined gangs and that 19 years of age was the oldest any student reported joining a gang (Gilman, Hill, and Hawkins 2014). The age‐gradedness of gang membership and the potential c onsequences of such gradedness could have serious implications for gang‐involved adolescents, the individuals who regularly interact with gang‐involved adolescents, and the settings in which these two groups frequently interact. Schools are perhaps the setting most frequented by adolescent gang members, teachers, and other students, creating an environment of necessary interaction between the three. Understanding the ways in which schools, teachers, and gang members interact with one another is imperative for providing a safe learning environment that fosters the learning of every student, regard less of their gang membership status.

0003397103.INDD 205

10-01-2018 18:32:49

206


Gang Membership, Schooling, and Educational Attainment

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

Gangs are present in schools throughout the United States. Robers et al. (2014) found that 19% of public and 2% of private schools reported a gang presence in 2011. The Educational Longitudinal Study shows that just over 25% of students report gang activity in their schools (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/). At the individual level, Gottfredson and Gottfredson (2001) looked at gang membership nationally and found that, on average, 3.6% of female students and 7.1% of male students report gang member ship. In addition, multiple studies have gained insight into student gang membership in specific cities and regions. Naber et al. (2006) conducted a study in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana public schools and found that the prevalence of gang membership may be as high as 22.2% of schools having a presence of gangs. Esbensen (2010) gathered data con cerning gang membership among eighth grade students in 11 cities across the country and found varying levels of gang involvement ranging from 3.8% all the way up to 15.4%. Based on seventh and eighth grade students in the Rochester, New York public school district, Thornberry and Burch (1997) concluded that 30% of students reported gang membership at some point during their secondary education. While these varying results indicate there is heterogeneity between schools and school districts, it is nonetheless evident that gangs are present in schools across the nation. One implication of gang presence in American schools is the differential levels of academic attainment between gang and non‐gang members that has resulted from a lack of inclusion, integration, and motivation of gang‐involved students. Being a gang member is enough to influence teachers to interact differently with these students than they do with non‐gang‐involved students, creating a very different – usually less benefi cial – learning environment and experience for youth in gangs (Lee 1999; Miller 2011; Reep 1996). The educational disparities for those who become involved in the gangs and the criminal justice system at an early age have been explored by researchers, and the consequences of these disparities are not only concerning for those individuals, but for schools, neighborhoods, and the labor market at large. Gang membership during adolescence significantly decreases the likelihood of completing important educational milestones (Gilman, Hill, and Hawkins 2014; Pyrooz 2014a), which creates further obstacles to success later in life (Hout 2012). For instance, Gilman and colleagues (2014) found that individuals who joined a gang during adolescence were half as likely to earn a high school diploma than non‐gang members with similar life circumstances. Thornberry (2003) found that males who had been involved with a gang for either a short‐term (one year or less) or long‐term period (more than one year) were 11.6% and 37.9%, respectively, more likely to drop out of high school than their non‐gang member counterparts. Thornberry (2003) also reports that females who had become members of gangs were 16.5% more likely to drop out than females who had never been in a gang. Levitt and Venkatesh (2001) suggest that gang members were 25% less likely to graduate from high school than youth who were not involved with gangs. Finally, using nationally representative data, Pyrooz (2014a) found that gang members were 30% less likely to graduate from high school and 58% less likely to earn a four‐year college degree than their non‐gang‐affiliated counterparts. With lower levels of education, gang‐involved youth become limited in the types of jobs they will be able to obtain in post‐industrial America (Moore 1991). Whereas blue‐ collar jobs have traditionally given those with a high school education or less the

0003397103.INDD 206

10-01-2018 18:32:49


207

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

opportunity to work and make a living, today’s job market presents few job opportuni ties for those with a limited education (Crutchfield and Pitchford 1997). This increased difficulty in obtaining employment leaves those with minimal education without a means to acquire basic necessities for living. The decision to drop out of school is often driven by a lack of motivation and inability to relate to course material (Lee 1999; Miller 2011). Gang members have reported that their lack of motivation in school is due to low expectations set for them by their teachers (Reep 1996). Students who are involved in gangs often report that teachers perceive them to be violent and unwilling/unable to learn – sometimes even leaving them out of class activities– even if the student’s behavior in the classroom does not reflect these assumptions (Lee 1999). When gang‐involved students feel that their teachers do not expect anything from them – whether they truly do or not – the student may in turn feel that they have little or no incentive to try to be successful in school. Furthermore, the curriculum in most public schools across the nation is based on a culture where upward mobility is both possible and desired. Therefore, for gang members who foresee their entire lives being lived as members of the lower class, the standard curriculum does very little to prepare them for their futures (Miller 2011). This lack of interest in traditional school curricula and minimal adult positive engagement leaves these individuals to spend their time at school with their own, usually gang‐associated, itineraries. Research has found that gang members’ primary reason for attending school is for social reasons – seeing friends, fighting with rival gang members, and recruiting (Boyle 1992; Decker and Van Winkle 1996). Although research has suggested some potential explanations for the reasons gang members struggle to be successful in or complete school, it is important to remember the difficulties gang membership present in the classroom. The fact that gang‐involved students often end up spending the school day defying authority makes them very diffi cult to deal with in the school setting. To maintain order in the classroom, many districts have come up with ways to help teachers and administrators control those students who do not conform to the rules and requirements of the school. One example of such attempts are alternative schools. Over time, each state board of education has designed and implemented alternative schools as a way to remove these more problematic – typically gang‐involved – students from the traditional classroom. Alternative schools are public facilities where students who have been deemed as dangerous or a threat to other students can go to get an education (Garot 2009). In theory, alternative schools would offer at‐risk students an environment where they could flourish and learn in a way they were unable to in a traditional classroom; however, researchers have suggested a very different outcome of alternative schools. When every non‐conforming student in a district is sent to one school, not only does it create a situation with a concentrated level of rival gang m embers, but it also eliminates opportunities for prosocial interaction for these students (Gottfredson 2001; Vigil 1999). These concerns about alternative schools suggest that isolating at‐risk students may not be the best option for combating schools’ gang and violence problems and highlight a need for a more comprehensive, inclusive solution. Although considerable research focuses on the negative impact of gang membership on educational opportunities, some exceptions have highlighted the trajectories of gang members who have overcome the odds and continued into higher education. After Miller’s (2011) findings that school athletics are sometimes the only positive aspect of

0003397103.INDD 207

10-01-2018 18:32:49

208


PR O

O

FS

high school aged at‐risk youth’s educational experiences, Rojek et al. (2013) studied the presence of gang‐involved individuals who made it to college and participated in colle giate athletics. They found that although gang‐member collegiate athletes are not sweeping the nation, nearly 13% of collegiate athletic directors and campus police chiefs indicate that there are gang members on their athletic teams – mainly basketball and football (Rojek et al. 2013). Rios (2011) and Durán (2013), are both former gang members who have earned their PhDs and published highly acclaimed books, Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys and Gang Life in Two Cities: An Insider’s Journey, respectively. These works highlight the potential for gang members to be successful in graduate school and beyond. These examples demonstrate that youth who have become involved in gangs have proven it is possible to overcome the barriers they face to achieve academic success and a conventional lifestyle. Although research concerning the lives of gang members who have left the street life is less common, studies that do exist have demonstrated that upward mobility is possible among this population.

Gangs, Violence, and Fear of Victimization in Schools

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

Gang violence in and around schools closely reflects the trends for gang violence on the street; schools that report a presence of gangs also report higher levels of violence and victimization (Ralph et al. 1995). Robers, Zhang, Morgan, and Musu‐Gillette (2015) report that in 2013 students were over twice as likely to be violently victimized while at school than while away from school. Furthermore, students who are male, urban‐minority youths who attend public schools experience higher victimization rates than those reported for the general student population. Gottfredson and Gottfredson (2001) found that both male and female gang members reported higher rates of violent threats involv ing a weapon and were significantly more likely to carry a weapon themselves than non‐gang members. Joseph (2008) found that gang members were responsible for a disproportionate level of delinquent acts in schools. Her study showed that gang members were consistently more likely to be responsible for violent offenses than non‐ gang members (Joseph 2008). Brunson and Miller (2009) completed a study that found that every student in their sample from a St. Louis, Missouri high school had encountered violence as either offenders, victims, or witnesses – 89%, 87%, and 100%, respectively – and that the majority of these violent incidents were gang related. This victim–offender overlap is well established (Berg 2012; Pyrooz, Moule, and Decker 2014), and is of utmost importance as criminologists continue to study violence, victimization, and fear within US schools. Understanding the relationship between those who are committing acts of violence and those who are being victimized will provide insight into the various mechanisms that need to be addressed in order to combat violence at school. Schools tend to be tense environments for gang members. As previously discussed, schools present settings where members of multiple gangs are brought together at close quarters and are required to maintain this close proximity for sustained periods of time. For gang members, there may be only one environment that is comparable to school in terms of forcing interaction with rivals and limiting the ability to escape such interac tion: prison. This heightened level of interaction ultimately increases the likelihood of confrontation and conflict between members of different gangs during school hours (Brunson and Miller 2009; Knox, Laske, and Tromanhauser 1992). Gang members and

0003397103.INDD 208

10-01-2018 18:32:49


209

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

non‐gang members alike are aware of the increased tension between gangs during the school day, which generates a culture of fear within schools. Furthermore, these tensions are escalated as gang members make the transition into high schools because high schools contain more students from a much wider geographical boundary than elementary and middle schools. This transition not only causes an increased number of gang members to be kept together for long durations of time, but it can also require them to travel through rival gang territory to get to and from school each day (Brunson and Miller 2009). Traveling through rival territories forces gang‐on‐gang interaction and increases the likelihood that students will carry a weapon for protection during their travels – weapons that then end up with them at school. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 1989 3.5% of students reported that they had been victimized at school during the previous six months. Despite this low rate of victimization, 14.7% of students feared being attacked while traveling to or from school and 21.8% of students feared being attacked while at school (National Center for Education Statistics 1995). Students who attended schools where there was a presence of gangs were about twice as fearful of being attacked as those students who attended gang‐free schools; however, these data cannot indicate whether increased fear is a product of a previously violent environment or the presence of gangs (National Center for Education Statistics 1995). When looking at temporal trends of fear of violent victimization in schools, we see a gradual decline in the percentage of students reporting being fearful at school between 1995 (11.8%) and 2013 (3.5%) (Robers et al. 2015). However, as Lane and Meeker (2003) point out, there are no data indicating the change in fear of gang victimization over time. It is also important to note that a decrease in the overall level of fear among students does not necessarily mean that there had been a decrease in the level of violence and criminality. These changes in temporal trends and comparisons between fear of victimization between schools with and with out gangs shine a light on multiple gaps in the literature concerning the fear of gang violence and victimization. Despite the decades of research on violence, victimization, and fear in schools, it is unclear what the consequences of such fear may be. Some researchers emphasize the negative consequences that a culture of fear may have on US schools (Thompkins 2000), whereas others argue that this culture of fear may be having a more positive impact (Melde, Berg, and Esbensen 2014). Among those who foresee more negative conse quences of fear in schools, Thompkins (2000) highlights the importance of recognizing that such a culture of fear is not rational in all American schools. There has been a moral panic, largely caused by the media’s disproportionate reporting of violence in schools, that has caused students and teachers nationwide to fear being victimized by gangs while at school (Thompkins 2000). A few violent offenses in schools that took place in the 1990s caused the media to turn its attention to the unprecedented violence that was occurring within schools, much of which was blamed on gang members (Thompkins 2000). Despite the fact that the acts of school violence the media focused on in the 1990s were mostly school shootings in rural/suburban schools – like the ones in Littleton, CO, Edinboro, PA, and Springfield, OR – and completely unrelated to gangs, an increased fear of gang violence swept the nation and school systems’ responses have only exacerbated the problem (Thompkins 2000). Schools all around the nation – urban, rural, and suburban – started cracking down with increased security measures, including installing metal detectors and cameras and

0003397103.INDD 209

10-01-2018 18:32:49

210


U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

hiring security guards (Thompkins 2000). Although this increase in security measures may help deter a small number of violent acts in a small proportion of schools (mainly the urban schools where gangs are more commonly present), the largest effect these security measures have had is an increased, irrational fear of victimization among stu dents and teachers (Thompkins 2000). In the rural and suburban schools, where there is a lower presence of gangs, these increased security measures make students and teachers feel that there is something they need to be protected from and instill an unnecessary sense of fear. In schools where gangs are present, this increased fear of victimization that students and teachers have adopted in response to the added security measures only gives gang members more power over those who are fearful (Thompkins 2000). Furthermore, research has shown that when students are fearful and feel unsafe in their school environment they may be up to three times more likely to join a gang themselves as a form of protection (Lenzi et al. 2015). These findings suggest that this moral panic of gang violence and victimization not only could cause unnecessary secu rity measures and fear in rural and suburban teachers and students, but may also be influencing an increase in gang membership within schools where gangs are present. These implications highlight the negative consequences of fear within schools and the importance of gaining a full and factual understanding of the ways that gangs, schools, and violence interact before acting upon assumptions and implementing policies that are not evidence based. Whereas some schools are in extreme need of programing and intervention to combat the effects of gang membership on their students, others can be significantly damaged if they respond to problems that are not present in their schools. While the negative consequences of fear have been studied for many years, researchers have begun to explore the potential positive consequences of fear of violence and victimiza tion. Among the first to empirically study the functional components of fear, Jackson and Gray (2009) found that roughly one‐quarter of their sampled residents who were fearful of crime were able to translate that emotion into practicing more precautionary behaviors. These precautionary behaviors left them feeling safer in their neighborhoods and did not impact their quality of life. Melde, Berg, and Esbensen (2014) took this idea of positive/ functional consequences of fear one step further and found that increased fear of crime – and the consequences that come with committing crimes – could lead to precau tionary behaviors that decrease the overall level of fear and decrease the overall likelihood of becoming a violent offender or victim. In other words, whether or not an individual perceives a high risk of victimization, if he or she is fearful of the consequences of victimiza tion or offending, it will result in risk‐averse behaviors that are likely to reduce their overall likelihood of becoming involved in violent encounters – either as a victim or an offender. When thinking about positive consequences of fear in terms of gang violence in schools, the frameworks of Jackson and Gray (2009) and Melde, Berg, and Esbensen (2014) are important to consider. Using this framework could help shine a light on the positive outcomes of the increased security measures that many American schools expe rienced in the 1990s as a response to a few isolated violent incidents in schools (Thompkins 2000). First, Thompkins (2000) suggests that the added security measures in schools are causing a culture of fear among teachers and students. However, frame works that focus on the positive consequences of fear would argue that although this fear may be irrational in some schools, it also serves as a protective factor that heightens awareness and encourages risk‐averse behaviors that will ultimately make fearful teach ers and students feel safer (Jackson and Gray 2009; Melde, Berg, and Esbensen 2014).

0003397103.INDD 210

10-01-2018 18:32:49


211

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

Second, increased surveillance (i.e., security officers, metal detectors, security cameras, etc.) could also help deter offending and victimization. As previously discussed, it is well established that the largest predictive factor in determining an individual’s likelihood of violent victimization is that individual’s own violent behavior. In other words, those who are actively participating in violent offending are also the ones who are most frequently victims of violence themselves (Melde, Berg, and Esbensen 2014). By combining the victim–offender overlap with Melde et al.’s (2014) idea that fear of criminal consequences can serve as a deterrent to violence, the fear that these added security measures are causing may be providing a protective factor not only for non‐violent students and teachers but gang members as well. The added security measures in schools where gang violence is common are likely to not only decrease the likelihood of these members offending – because surveillance increases their likelihood of getting caught – but also decrease the level of violent victimization within schools because of the victim–offender overlap (Melde, Berg, and Esbensen 2014; but see Chapter 13, this volume). These studies highlight the importance of considering all possible factors and outcomes of fear before policy makers and school administrators attempt to combat gang violence in schools. Although researchers have made empirical and persuasive arguments for both the positive and negative consequences of fear, much more research is needed to deter mine which of these possible consequences and factors are most salient when considering school violence. In addition, more research is needed that looks specifically at gangs and what portion of students’ fear is attributable to gang presence. By gaining a more accurate understanding of how students’ and teachers’ fears are being developed, researchers, school administrators, and policy makers will be better equipped to design and imple ment effective school programs aimed at the prevention of and intervention in gang membership within American schools.

R

Zero Tolerance Policies and Gang Legislation

U

N

C

O R

In addition to added security measures as a response to the increased fear of violence and victimization, many schools and school districts across the country have implemented punishment policies – commonly known as zero tolerance policies – related to gang involvement, violence, and behavior (see Chapter 12, this volume). Although having such policies may be important for protecting students from harm, many of these policies are so ambiguous in nature that they give school administrators considerable discretion in decid ing what is “gang related” (see Chapter 11, this volume; Morrison et al. 2001). This discrep ancy becomes problematic when school administrators lack the knowledge and training to accurately detect gang involvement and activity among students, potentially creating dis proportionately harsh punitive measures for rather minor actions (Skiba and Knesting 2001). Scholars have recognized that when acts of violence threaten the security and stabil ity of a school, administrators are likely to respond with reactive disciplinary procedures in an attempt to address public concern about the school’s safety (Morrison et al. 2001). These disciplinary practices are often ineffective in addressing the source of the problem, but because they satisfy public demand for safe schools they have become standard procedure. One of the main reasons for these policies is a shift toward the tough‐on‐crime policies of the 1980s and 1990s (American Psychological Association 2006; Cobb 2009). As of 2001, 80% of US schools had at least one element of the typical zero tolerance

0003397103.INDD 211

10-01-2018 18:32:49

212


U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

policy in their disciplinary policies and procedures and they continue to become more common as schools continue to be sites of violence (Skiba and Knesting 2001). In 2006, the American Psychological Association conducted a review to determine the effective ness of zero tolerance policies’ ability to increase safety in schools and found that not only were they ineffective at increasing safety, but they were inconsistently utilized and actually increased delinquency in schools (American Psychological Association 2006). This inconsistency in application is perhaps one of the most problematic issues with zero tolerance policies, because they can result in disproportionate minority referrals to the juvenile courts (Cobb 2009). School administrators and criminal justice officers are typically white (Gates, Ringel, and Santibanez 2003; Maciag 2015) and much older than the students in their charge. Cultural and generational unfamiliarity has the potential to lead administrators to misinterpret the actions and attitudes of their racial/ethnic minor ity students. In turn, misinterpretation can lead to unjustified negative perceptions and continued racial stereotyping of these students. Complicating matters is the well‐ established fact that racial/ethnic minorities are overrepresented in US gangs. This may result in the application of zero tolerance policies to disproportionately target minorities, significantly hindering these already disadvantaged populations. Unfamiliarity between racially, ethnically, and generationally disconnected administrators and students results in zero tolerance policies that ultimately target minority students. These students can be disproportionately suspected to be involved with gangs, which can have the effect of pre mature involvement in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the combination of zero tolerance policies and early entry into the criminal justice system fosters low self‐efficacy and a limited, negative perception of future life outcomes for these students (Cobb 2009). One example of ambiguous and inconsistent zero tolerance policies can be found in the Atlanta public school system. Specifically, Atlanta public schools employ a zero tolerance policy concerning gang activity on school property or at school events (Atlanta Public Schools 2015). While this appears to be a well‐intentioned policy implemented to protect the students and staff, the list of what qualifies as “gang related” activity is so vague that any behavior, clothing, action, or conversation could be classified as “gang related.” For example, gang‐related behaviors include “the use of certain hand signals or gestures that may, in any way, be linked to a gang or gang‐related activity or behavior” (Atlanta Public Schools 2015, 1). Another example of ambiguous zero tolerance policies can be found in one Michigan school district where policy recognizes that “gang activity by its nature is often subtle or covert” and states that “the administration reserves the right to determine which behaviors, dress, or activities are gang related” (Muskegon Public Schools 2015, 1). These examples are only two of the thousands of zero tolerance policies that exist in the United States and they illustrate how much discretion school administrators have to determine what is a gang‐related action or behavior. This much discretion risks allowing administrators to punish according to stereotypes, biases, and prejudices. Figure 10.1 displays which states have formal, state‐wide legislation that addresses gangs in and around US schools (National Gang Center 2015). Twenty‐seven states have state‐mandated legislation regarding gang‐related programming, policy, punish ment, and training. It is important to understand that while formal legislation may provide guidelines for the school districts in each state, these guidelines are only mini mum requirements. In other words, each school and school district has the f reedom to enhance their gang‐related practices as long as the state‐regulated guidelines are satis fied in the process. On that same note, it is equally important to understand that while

0003397103.INDD 212

10-01-2018 18:32:49


213

Color

Key No state legislation State legislation

PR O

O

FS

U.S.A

D

Figure 10.1 Map of United States indicating which states have formal legislation addressing gangs in schools (National Gang Center 2015).

●●

C

●●

Programming‐based legislation has been defined as any law enforcing schools to fund and/or implement any sort of gang prevention or intervention program in the school. Policy‐based legislation requires schools to have some sort of gang‐related pol icy – usually concerning gang‐associated clothing, colors, symbols, etc. – in their school handbook. Punitive‐based legislation includes laws with special punitive measures for gang‐ related activities and behaviors. Training‐based legislation has been defined as any legislation that requires school administrators, faculty, staff, etc. to receiving training on various gang‐related fea tures such as detecting and responding to gang‐related behavior and activities. Discretion‐based legislation refers to legislative language that leaves culpability and punishment to the discretion of school administrators.

O R

●●

R

EC TE

23 states are without formal state legislation concerning gangs in schools, adminis trators in these states have a great deal of discretion to develop their own gang‐related policies, programs, and practices. Table 10.1 reports what type of gang‐related policy/policies – as defined and catego rized by the authors of this chapter – have been implemented in each state: program ming‐based, policy‐based, punishment‐based, training‐based, and discretion‐based. Our operational definitions are as follows:1

U

N

●●

●●

1 We assessed the inter-rater reliability in recording this legislation classification using two techniques: (i) percent agreement and (ii) Cohen’s kappa. Between three raters, there was an 88% agreement in the classifications of each state’s gang legislation. A kappa coefficient of .2979 was calculated for the combined agreement of state gang legislation categorization between the three raters – which controls for agreement that can be expected by chance. A kappa coefficient of .2979 is considered to be a fair strength of agreement (Landis and Koch 1977).

0003397103.INDD 213

10-01-2018 18:32:50

214


Table 10.1 States with gang‐related school legislation, by type (National Gang Center 2015). Additional information at: https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Legislation/Schools. State

Programming

Alabama

Policy

Punishment

X

X

Training

Discretion

None

X

Alaska

X

Colorado

X

X

X

X

X

Connecticut

X

Delaware

X

Florida Georgia

X

Hawaii Idaho Illinois Iowa

X

Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan

O R

Minnesota

X

R

Kansas

Mississippi

X

X

Missouri

X

X X X

X

EC TE

X

D

Indiana

X

PR O

California

O

Arkansas

X

FS

X

Arizona

X X X X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

Nebraska

X

C

Montana

N

Nevada

X

U

New Hampshire New Jersey

X X

X

New Mexico

X

New York

X

North Carolina

X

North Dakota

X

Ohio

X

Oklahoma

0003397103.INDD 214

X

X

10-01-2018 18:32:50


215

Table 10.1 (Continued) State

Programming

Oregon

Policy

Punishment

Training

Discretion

X

Pennsylvania

X

Rhode Island

X

South Dakota

FS

X

South Carolina

X

Texas

X

X

X

X

Virginia

X

Washington

X

X

X

X

West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 34%

24%

EC TE

18%

X

PR O

X

D

Utah Vermont

X

O

X

Tennessee

Total %

None

X

X X X

14%

6%

46%

U

N

C

O R

R

It bears repeating that only state‐level legislation is being reported. In other words, this table is not exhaustive, and the number of gang‐related policies and practices are expected to vary considerably by school, and from one school district to another within each of these states. As previously discussed, determining whether a student’s behavior should be considered gang related or not can result in major disparities in the severity of the punishment imposed on that student. State legislation that addresses how to handle gang activity in schools varies by state; however, most states consistently punish gang members more harshly than non‐ gang members. For example, in Arizona a gang‐involved student who commits a felony on school property can be sentenced up to five years more than the maximum sentencing for a crime, while a non‐gang member can only face one additional year in confinement for committing a felony at school. This increased sentencing is part of a broader trend of gang enhancement penalties applied to gang members (National Gang Center 2015). This insist ence on harsher punishments for gang members not only results in disproportionate racial/ ethnic minority contact with punitive intuitions – c onsidering these minorities are over represented in gangs – but it increases the number of barriers to educational attainment that gang members encounter (see Chapter 9, this volume). As discussed above, racial/ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the group of stu dents who receive disciplinary action as a result of zero tolerance policies at the school district and state level (Cobb 2009; National Gang Center 2015; Short and Sharp 2005). These same individuals are also those in most desperate need of positive adult guid ance and a stable environment. However, zero tolerance policies fail to consider situa tional influences and respond punitively to actions that may be a cry for help (Cobb 2009; Morrison et al. 2001; Skiba and Noam 2001). Removing such students from the

0003397103.INDD 215

10-01-2018 18:32:50

216


PR O

Prevention and Intervention

O

FS

classroom by suspending or expelling them eliminates what little prosocial interaction they had, encourages further delinquent behavior, and forces them to fall behind in coursework (Skiba and Knesting 2001; Morrison et al. 2001). The lack of empirical support for zero tolerance policies suggests that policy makers and school officials should pursue alternatives that are more likely to foster a positive, safe learning environment. Such alternative policies would primarily feature restorative and rehabilitative focuses that would respond to each student’s specific needs with compassion and understanding. Such changes would allow schools to help all of their students succeed academically, rather than only those who do not have to worry about how their actions and behaviors are being perceived by those who look differently than themselves (Cobb 2009; Graves and Mirsky 2007).

●●

●●

C

●●

Gang Resistance Education and Training program (GREAT) (Esbensen et al. 2001); Revised Gang Resistance Education and Training program (GREAT II) (Esbensen et al. 2013); Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach program (GPTTO) (Arbreton and McClanahan 2002); National Youth Gang Drug Prevention program (NYGDP) (Cohen et al. 1995); Logan Square Prevention project (LSP) (Godley and Velasquez 1998); Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development program (BUILD) (Thompson and Jason 1988).

O R

●●

R

EC TE

D

Another common response to heightened awareness of violence in schools during the latter portion of the twentieth century were various prevention and intervention pro grams that were targeted toward violence in schools – often specifically targeting gang violence – created by federal, state and local governments, as well as various non‐profit organizations (Wong et al. 2016). Prevention and intervention programs were attractive to government and community officials because they offered a way to be proactive in addressing gangs (i.e., prevention of gang formation in schools), rather than the reactive responses many schools had traditionally used for addressing gangs (i.e., suppressing the problem, punishing individuals after violence occurs, ignoring small acts of gang crime/violence, etc.) (Thompkins 2000). Although Gottfredson and Gottfredson (2001) reported that there are over 941,000 school‐based gang prevention and intervention programs, Wong et al. (2016), based on a recent meta‐analytic review of the literature, identified the following as undergoing formal evaluation:

●●

N

●●

U

Table 10.2 reports the treatment and whether each program increased, decreased, or did not change the level of gang membership. Although nearly all of the programs revealed that their treatment groups maintained lower rates of gang membership, only the second evaluation of GREAT reported a sta tistically significant different likelihood of gang membership between students who completed the GREAT II program and students who did not (Esbensen et al. 2013; Wong et al. 2016). The potential shown by GREAT II is important for school adminis trators to consider while determining ways to handle gang presence in their schools; therefore, a more in‐depth coverage of the program is provided below.

0003397103.INDD 216

10-01-2018 18:32:50


217

Table 10.2 Summary of results from various gang prevention programs. Change in gang membership

Study

Treatment

Gang Resistance Education and Training program (GREAT)

Police teach nine weekly lessons to middle school students covering topics such as crime/ victim rights, cultural sensitivity/prejudice, conflict resolution, meeting basic needs, dangers of drugs, responsibility, and goal setting

Gang Resistance Education and Training –Revised program (GREAT II)

Police teach 13 weekly lessons to middle school students on topics such as gang violence, community responsibility, goal setting, decision making, communication, listening, body language, peer pressure, anger management, calming others, and conflict resolution

Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach program (GPTTO)

Promotes activities for hard‐to‐reach, at‐risk youth such as after‐school activities, social skills classes, conflict resolution workshops and education programs

No change

National Youth Gang Drug Prevention program (NYGDP)

Promotes community efforts to prevent youth gang involvement

No change

Logan Square Prevention project (LSP)

Provides activities such as gang prevention seminars, recreational activities, school‐based life skills programs, drug abuse treatment, counseling with families, and after‐school/ summer activities to inner‐city youth

No change

Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development program (BUILD)

Targets at‐risk students during school activities; provides after‐school activities, job skills training and educational programs for at‐risk youth

No change

FS

No change

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

Decrease

O R

Note: Indicates whether the change in the likelihood of gang membership was statistically different than zero according to the results of Wong et al. (2016).

U

N

C

GREAT II is a nationwide, school‐based gang and violence prevention program that was created as a revision to the original design of the GREAT program (Esbensen 2015). The GREAT II program was designed with three goals in mind: (i) to reduce gang membership among students, (ii) to reduce violent and criminal activity in schools, and (iii) to increase positive relationships with local law enforcement officers. The program includes 13 cumulative lessons which are designed to address the three goals listed above and various risk factors that are thought to be linked to these three goals (i.e., “school commitment, school performance, association with conventional and/or delinquent peers, susceptibility to peer influence, involvement in conventional activities, empathy, self‐control, perceived guilt, neutralization techniques, and moral disengagement”) (Esbensen 2015, 380). GREAT II focuses on these risk factors as a result of the original GREAT research study’s finding that the more specific risk factors a student has, the more likely they are to join a gang or become involved in violent situ ations (Esbensen et al. 2001). As such, the hope was that GREAT II would address these

0003397103.INDD 217

10-01-2018 18:32:50

218


U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

risk factors and be more effective in achieving its goals of lowering gang membership and violence in schools (Esbensen 2015). A recently completed four‐year follow‐up on the students who completed GREAT II found that there was a significant difference between those who did complete the GREAT II program and those who did not (Esbensen 2015). Overall, those who completed the pro gram were 24% less likely to have joined a gang. In addition, those who completed the program were also more likely to have positive attitudes toward local police officers. In contrast to these two successes, the four‐year follow‐up of GREAT II did not show a signifi cant decrease in the amount of violence and delinquency among those who completed the program and those who did not. In terms of risk factors, students who completed GREAT II had more negative attitudes about gangs, were more risk averse, has better control over their anger, used fewer neutralization techniques for violent behavior, used more refusal techniques, and had higher levels of altruism and collective efficacy (Esbensen 2015). Overall, GREAT II has been found to be the most successful gang membership and violence prevention program thus far (Wong et al. 2016). The program was successful in accomplishing two of the three goals – helping students avoid gang membership and improving attitudes and relationships with local police officers – and was also success ful in addressing multiple risk factors students face that may impact their ability to avoid gang membership. GREAT II has not gone without some criticism. First, some have suggested that the effect sizes produced by the GREAT II program are relatively small. However, Maxson (2013) states that any positive and significant effect size is satisfying as proof that the program has an effect on membership – especially considering the cost effectiveness of the program. A second criticism of GREAT II is that the program was not successful in addressing its third goal – decreasing violence and criminality in schools (Esbensen 2015; Esbensen et al. 2013). This is a particularly salient point, as reducing youth violence and delinquency is arguably the main reason for attempting to decrease gang membership in the first place. Pyrooz (2013) recognized that gang members are not inherently violent; therefore, successfully decreasing the number of people who label themselves as gang members but failing to decrease the number of people who are violent presents some concern. This disconnect leads criminologists to question their understanding of gang membership and violent offending. It is possible that the outcomes of GREAT II support the indirect interaction model presented by Estrada et al. (2014) where an individual’s risk of violent offending is indirectly influenced by an individual’s school risk behaviors and the school’s protective measures, rather than directly related to the individual’s involvement in a gang. It is also possible that GREAT II has taught gang members to present their membership covertly, rather than actually decreasing membership – which would help explain why violence was unaffected by the otherwise successful program. One additional possibility is that GREAT II is not approaching/measuring violence and delinquency in a way that would allow a full and factual understanding of the effects of the program on participants. Thus, although GREAT II has proven to be the most effec tive program in addressing gangs in schools, the program’s failure to decrease violence and delinquency indicates a need for continued improvement of the GREAT program. One final critique of the design of GREAT II is that it might target the wrong popula tion. By failing to sample from those adolescents who are at risk of joining gangs, Klein and Maxson (2006) indicate that the vast majority of the sampled students would not have joined a gang even had they gone without GREAT II intervention. This issue with

0003397103.INDD 218

10-01-2018 18:32:50


219

the sampling of GREAT II raises doubt about the validity of the study’s ability to decrease gang membership (Klein and Maxson 2006). The shortfalls of this study point to the need for more research investigating the trajectories into gang membership, as well as the relationship between gang membership and violent offending.

FS

Conclusion

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

This chapter has highlighted many shortcomings in the way that schools and society currently address gangs and has made some suggestions on how to improve upon those shortcomings. Working to address the issue of gangs and violence in schools can result in many improvements; however, more empirical research is needed to determine how to adequately and appropriately handle gangs and violence in schools. The current lack of empirical research focusing on the effects of gang membership on violence – and other risky behaviors such as truancy, substance abuse, and so on – makes it difficult for schools and administrators to effectively identify the true source of the problem. This lack of research has also left schools with few evidence‐based programs and policies that address violence within school settings. The authors of this chapter see an immediate need for empirical work that seeks to understand the association between gang membership and violence, as well as gang membership and other risky behaviors suggested by Estrada et al. (2014). There is also a need for research that will provide a more systematic explanation of the various consequences of fear – both positive and negative – in a school setting. By addressing these two areas of research, much progress may be made in developing evidence‐based programs and policies that can address gang membership and violence proactively and productively. While much more work by researchers is needed, this chapter also points to some necessary changes that can be made by educational practitioners. As indicated by the previous discussion about zero tolerance policies and gang‐related state legislation, there is an urgent need for a reform in the policies and practices surrounding gangs and violence in schools. While the authors of this chapter in no way disagree with the clear necessity for rules and guidelines that address violence in schools, they do disagree with the use and ambiguity of zero tolerance policies in practice. Skiba and Knesting (2001) have made some suggestions for how to reduce ambiguity and disparities while disci plining students for gang‐related and violent behaviors. These suggestions include:

C

Only use zero tolerance‐based disciplinary practices for the most severe violent actions and behaviors and have clear definitions of what actions and behaviors are considered the most severe. Generate disciplinary procedures that are stratified so that the punishment is propor tionate to the action/behavior that was committed, rather than using one‐size‐fits‐all punishments. Implement more options for schools when dealing with students who have behaved violently. Create preventative measures in schools that can be proactive in addressing violence and that can work to reintegrate students who have been alienated as a result of reac tionary punishment. Conduct evaluations of school disciplinary practices and policies to ensure only those that are having a positive and productive effect are being maintained.

N

●●

U

●●

●●

●●

●●

0003397103.INDD 219

10-01-2018 18:32:50

220


References

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

These suggestions are important starting points for educators who are dealing with violence in their schools. What is especially important is the need for proactive, rather than reactive, policies in schools dealing with violence and gang membership. As indi cated by the gang‐related state legislation discussed previously, a large number of schools are creating policies and punishments specifically aimed at dealing with gang members in a reactive/punitive way; however, very few states are working to deal with gang‐involved students in a proactive way that will decrease their likelihood of remain ing involved in a gang or of being violent. Furthermore, it is imperative that schools evaluate their policies and practices to be sure that they are having a positive impact on the students and serving their intended purpose. As this chapter has highlighted, further research is needed to fully understand the ways that gangs and gang members exist within schools, and how the fear of violence and crime caused by gang members could be helping and/or hindering students at school. Further research is also needed to better understand how and why the third goal of GREAT II – decreasing violence and delinquency in schools – fell short of its objec tives. While working with these deviant and oftentimes violent students who are involved in gangs, it is important to remember that they are not a throwaway popula tion. Indeed, the obstacles that youth gang members face are often more significant than the obstacles faced by their non‐gang‐involved counterparts. They can still over come the educational and life setbacks they may face during their gang membership years and continue on to higher education and more conventional lifestyles if they are allowed the opportunity to do so.

U

N

C

O R

R

American Psychological Association. 2006. “Zero Tolerance Policies Are Not as Effective as Thought in Reducing Violence and Promoting Learning in School.” Press release. http:// www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2006/08/zero‐tolerance.aspx (last accessed October 12, 2017). Arbreton, Amy J. A. and McClanahan, Wendy S. 2002. “Targeted Outreach: Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s Approach to Gang Prevention and Intervention.” Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Atlanta Public Schools. 2015. “Gangs (Secret Societies) & Gang‐Like Activity.” http:// atlantapublicschools.us/page/4767 (last accessed October 12, 2017). Berg, Mark T. 2012. “The Overlap of Violent Offending and Violent Victimization: Assessing the Evidence and Explanations.” In Violent Offenders: Theory, Research, Policy, and Practice, edited by Matt DeLisi and Peter J. Conis, pp. 17–38. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Boyle, Kathleen. 1992. “School’s a Rough Place: Youth Gangs, Drug Users, and Family Life in Los Angeles.” Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, ED 360 435. Brunson, Rod K. and Miller, Jody. 2009. “Schools, Neighborhoods, and Adolescent Conflicts: A Situational Examination of Reciprocal Dynamics.” Justice Quarterly 26(2), 183–210. DOI: 10.1080/07418820802245060. Cobb, Heather. 2009. “Separate and Unequal: The Disparate Impact of School‐Based Referrals to Juvenile Court.” Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 44, 581.

0003397103.INDD 220

10-01-2018 18:32:50


221

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

Cohen, Marcia, Williams, Katherine, Bekelman, Alan, and Crosse, Scott. 1995. “Evaluation of the National Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program.” In The Modern Gang Reader, edited by Malcolm W. Klein, Cheryl L. Maxson, and Jody Miller, pp. 266–275. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Crutchfield, Robert D. and Pitchford, Susan R. 1997. “Work and Crime: The Effects of Labor Stratification.” Social Forces 76(1), 93–118. Curry, G. David, Decker, Scott H., and Pyrooz, David. 2014. Confronting Gangs: Crime and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Decker, Scott H. and Pyrooz, David C. 2010. “Gang Violence Worldwide: Context, Culture, and Country.” Small Arms Survey 5, 129–155. Decker, Scott H. and Van Winkle, Barrik. 1996. Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Durán, R. 2013. Gang Life in Two Cities: An Insider’s Journey. New York: Columbia University Press. Egley, Arlen Jr., Howell, James C., and Harris, Meena. 2014. Highlights of the 2012 National Youth Gang Survey. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and US Department of Justice. Esbensen, Finn‐Aage. 2010. Youth Violence: Sex and Race Differences in Offending, Victimization, and Gang Membership. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Esbensen, Finn‐Aage. 2015. “The Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program.” In The Handbook of Gangs, edited by Scott H. Decker and David C. Pyrooz, pp. 369–391. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Esbensen, Finn‐Aage and Huizinga, David. 1993. “Gangs, Drugs, and Delinquency in a Survey of Urban Youth.” Criminology 31(4), 565–589. Esbensen, Finn‐Aage, Osgood, D. Wayne, Taylor, Terrance J., Peterson, Dana, and Freng, Adrienne. 2001. “How Great Is G.R.E.A.T.? Results for a Longitudinal Quasi‐ Experimental Design.” Criminology & Public Policy 1(1), 87–118. Esbensen, Finn‐Aage, Osgood, D. Wayne, Peterson, Dana, Taylor, Terrance J., and Carson, Dena C. 2013. “Short‐ and Long‐Term Outcome Results from a Multisite Evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. Program.” Criminology & Public Policy 12(3), 375–411. DOI: 10.1111/1745‐9133.12045. Estrada Jr., Joey Nuñez, Gilreath, Tamika D., Astor, Ron Avi, and Benbenishty, Rami. 2014. “Gang Membership, School Violence, and the Mediating Effects of Risk and Protective Behaviors in California High Schools.” Journal of School Violence 13(2), 228–251. DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2013.846860. Garot, Robert. 2009. “The Gang’s School: Challenges of Reintegrative Social Control: New Approaches to Social Problems Treatment.” In New Approaches to Social Problems Treatment (Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 17), edited by Mark Peyrot and Stacy Lee Burns, pp. 149–176. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Gates, Susan M., Ringel, Jeanne S., and Santibanez, Lucrecia. 2003. Who Is Leading Our Schools?: An Overview of School Administrators and Their Careers (No.1679). Rand Corporation. Gibbons, Don C. 1979. The Criminological Enterprise: Theories and Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gibson, Chris L., Swatt, Marc L., Miller, Mitchell, Jennings, Wesley G., and Gover, Angela R. 2012. “The Causal Relationship between Gang Joining and Violent Victimization: A Critical Review and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Criminal Justice 40(6), 490–501.

0003397103.INDD 221

10-01-2018 18:32:50

222


U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

Gilman, Amanda B., Hill, Karl G., and Hawkins, J. David. 2014. “Long‐Term Consequences of Adolescent Gang Membership for Adult Functioning.” American Journal of Public Health 104(5), 938–45. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301821. Godley, Mark D. and Velasquez, Rick. 1998. “Effectiveness of the Logan Square Prevention Project: Interim Results.” Drugs & Society 12(1–2), 87–103. DOI: 10.1300/J023v12n01. Gottfredson, Denise C. 2001. Schools and Delinquency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gottfredson, Gary D. and Gottfredson, Denise C. 2001. “Gang Problems and Gang Programs in a National Sample of Schools.” Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc. Graves, Doug and Mirsky, Laura. 2007. “American Psychological Association Report Challenges School Zero Tolerance Policies and Recommends Restorative Justice.” International Institute for Restorative Practices. https://www.iirp.edu/eforum‐ archive/4370‐american‐psychological‐association‐report‐challenges‐school‐zero‐ tolerance‐policies‐and‐recommends‐restorative‐justice (last accessed October 12, 2017). Hagedorn, John M. 1998. “Gang Violence in the Postindustrial Era.” Crime and Justice 24, 365–419. Hout, Michael. 2012. “Social and Economic Returns to College Education in the United States.” Annual Review of Sociology 38 (August), 379–400. DOI: 10.1146/annurev. soc.012809.102503. Howell, James C. and Griffiths, Elizabeth. 2015. Gangs in America’s Communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jackson, J. and E. Gray. 2009. “Functional Fear and Public Insecurities about Crime.” British Journal of Criminology 50(1), 1–22. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azp059. Joseph, Janice. 2008. “Gangs and Gang Violence in School.” Journal of Gang Research 16(1), 33–50. Katz, Charles M., Webb, Vincent J., Fox, Kate, and Shaffer, Jennifer N. 2011. “Understanding the Relationship between Violent Victimization and Gang Membership.” Journal of Criminal Justice 39(1), 48–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.10.004. Klein, Malcolm W. and Maxson, Cheryl L. 2006. “Gang Structures, Crime Patterns, and Police Responses.” National Criminal Justice Reference Service. https://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/nij/grants/188511.pdf (last accessed October 12, 2017). Knox, George, Laske, David L., and Tromanhauser, Edward D. 1992. Schools Under Siege. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Lacourse, Eric, Nagin, Daniel, Tremblay, Richard E., Vitaro, Frank, and Claes, Michel. 2003. “Developmental Trajectories of Boys’ Delinquent Group Membership and Facilitation of Violent Behaviors during Adolescence.” Development and Psychopathology 15(01), 183–197. DOI: 10.1017.S0954579403000105. Landis, J. Richard and Koch, Gary G. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33(1), 159–174. Lane, Jodi and Meeker, James W. 2003. “Fear of Gang Crime: A Look at Three Theoretical Models.” Law & Society Review 37(2), 425–456. DOI: 10.2307/1555134. Lee, P.W. 1999. “In Their Own Voices: An Ethnographic Study of Low‐Achieving Students within the Context of School Reform.” Urban Education 34(2), 214–244. DOI: 10.1177/0042085999342005.

0003397103.INDD 222

10-01-2018 18:32:50


223

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

Lenzi, Michela, Sharkey, Jill, Vieno, Alessio, Mayworm, Ashley, Dougherty, Danielle, and Nylund‐Gibson, Karen. 2015. “Adolescent Gang Involvement: The Role of Individual, Family, Peer, and School Factors in a Multilevel Perspective.” Aggressive Behavior 41(4), 386–397. DOI: 0.1002/ab.21562. Levitt, Steven D. and Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. 2001. “Growing Up in the Projects: The Economic Lives of a Cohort of Men Who Came of Age in Chicago Public Housing.” American Economic Review 91(2), 79–84. Loeber, Rolf and Farrington, David P. 2011. “Young Male Homicide Offenders and Victims: Current Knowledge, Beliefs, and Key Questions.” In Young Homicide Offenders and Victims. Springer. Maciag, Mike. 2015. “Diversity on the Force: Where Police Don’t Mirror Communities.” Governing. http://www.governing.com/topics/public‐justice‐safety/gov‐police‐ department‐diversity.html (last accessed October 27, 2017). Matsuda, Kristy N., Melde, Chris, Taylor, Terrance J., Freng, Adrienne, and Esbensen, Finn‐Aage. 2013. “Gang Membership and Adherence to the ‘Code of the Street.’” Justice Quarterly 30(3), 440–468. DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2012.684432. Maxson, Cheryl L. 2013. “Do Not Shoot the Messenger: The Utility of Gang Risk Research in Program Targeting and Content.” Criminology & Public Policy 12(3), 421–426. DOI: 10.1111/1745‐9133.12052. Medina‐Ariza, Juan J., Cebulla, Andreas, Aldridge, Judith, Shute, Jon, and Ross, Andy. 2013. “Proximal Adolescent Outcomes of Gang Membership in England and Wales.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51(2), 168–199. Melde, Chris, Berg, Mark T., and Esbensen, Finn‐Aage. 2014. “Fear, Social Interactions, and Violence Mitigation.” Justice Quarterly 1–29. DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2014.928348. Melde, Chris and Esbensen, Finn‐Aage. 2011. “Gang Membership as a Turning Point in the Life Course.” Criminology 49(2), 513–552. Miller, Walter B. 2011. “City Gangs.” http://gangresearch.asu.edu/walter_miller_library/ walter‐b.‐miller‐book/city‐gangs‐book. Moore, Joan W. 1991. Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Morrison, Gale M., Anthony, Suzanne, Storino, Meri H., Cheng, Joanna J., Furlong, Michael J., and Morrison, Richard L.. 2001. “School Expulsion as a Process and an Event: Before and after Effects on Children at Risk for School Discipline.” New Directions for Youth Development 92, 45–71. Muskegon Public Schools. 2015. “Gang Policy.” http://www.muskegonpublicschools.org/ schools/muskegon/Our_School/policiesprocedures/gangpolicy/. Naber, Patricia A., May, David C., Decker, Scott H., Minor, Kevin I., and Wells, James B. 2006. “Are There Gangs in Schools?” Journal of School Violence 5(2), 53–72. DOI: 10.1300/J202v05n02. National Center for Education Statistics. 1995. “Gangs and Victimization at School.” Press release. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/95740.pdf (last accessed October 27, 2017). National Gang Center. 2015. “Gang‐Related Legislation – Gangs and Schools.” https:// www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Legislation/Schools (last accessed October 27, 2017). Pyrooz, David C. 2013. “Gangs, Criminal Offending, and an Inconvenient Truth: Consideration for Gang Prevention and Intervention in the Lives of Youth.” Criminology & Public Policy 12(3), 427–436. DOI: 10.1111/1745‐9133.12053.

0003397103.INDD 223

10-01-2018 18:32:50

224


U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

Pyrooz, David C. 2014a. “From Colors and Guns to Caps and Gowns? The Effects of Gang Membership on Educational Attainment.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51(1), 56–87. DOI: 10.1177/0022427813484316. Pyrooz, David C. 2014b. “‘From Your First Cigarette to Your Last Dyin’ Day’: The Patterning of Gang Membership in the Life‐Course.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 30(2), 349–372. DOI: 10.1007/s10940‐013‐9206‐1. Pyrooz, David C., Moule Jr., Richard K., and Decker, Scott H. 2014. “The Contribution of Gang Membership to the Victim–offender Overlap.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51(3), 315–348. Pyrooz, David C. and Sweeten, Gary. 2015. “Gang Membership Between Ages 5 and 17 Years in the United States.” Journal of Adolescent Health 56(4), 414–419. Pyrooz, David C., Turanovic, Jillian J., Decker, Scott H., and Wu, Jun. 2016. “Taking Stock of the Relationship Between Gang Membership and Offending: A Meta‐Analysis.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 43(3), 365–397. DOI: 10.1177/0093854815605528. Ralph, John H., Colopy, Kelly W., McRae, Christine, and Daniel, Bruce. 1995. “Gangs and Victimization at School.” National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Reep, Beverly B. 1996. “Lessons from the Gang.” School Administrator 53(2), 26–29. Rios, Victor M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: NYU Press. Robers, Simone, Kemp, Jana, Rathbun, Amy, and Morgan, Rachel E. 2014. “Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013.” National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces. ed.gov/pubs2014/2014042.pdf (last accessed October 12, 2017). Robers, Simone, Zhang, Anlan, Morgan, Rachel E., and Musu‐Gillette, Lauren. 2015. “Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014.” National Center for Education Statistics. DOI: 10.1037/e541412012‐001. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015072.pdf (last accessed October 12, 2017). Rojek, Jeff, Decker, Scott H., Alpert, Geoffrey P., and Hansen, J. Andrew. 2013. “Is the Quarterback a ‘Crip’?’: The Presence of Gangs in Collegiate Athletics Programs.” Criminal Justice Review. DOI: 10.1177/0734016813512202. Short, Jessica and Sharp, Christy. 2005. “Disproportionate Minority Contact Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.” Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc. Skiba, Russell J. and Knesting, Kimberly. 2001. “Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School Disciplinary Practice.” New Directions for Youth Development 92, 17–43. Skiba, Russell J. and Noam, Gil G. 2001. Zero Tolerance: Can Suspension and Expulsion Keep Schools Safe? Jossey‐Bass. Sweeten, Gary, Pyrooz, David C.,and Piquero, Alex R. 2013. “Disengaging from Gangs and Desistance from Crime.” Justice Quarterly 30(3), 469–500. Thompkins, Douglas E. 2000. “School Violence: Gangs and a Culture of Fear.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 567(1), 54–71. DOI: 10.1177/0002716200567001005. Thompson, David W. and Jason, Leonard A. 1988. “Street Gangs and Preventive Interventions.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 15(3), 323–333. DOI: 0803973233. Thornberry, Terence P. 2003. Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

0003397103.INDD 224

10-01-2018 18:32:50


225

U

N

C

O R

R

EC TE

D

PR O

O

FS

Thornberry, Terence P. and Burch II, James H. 1997. “Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Thornberry, Terence P. and Krohn, Marvin D. 2000. “The Self‐Report Method for Measuring Delinquency and Crime.” Criminal Justice 4(1), 33–83. Thrasher, Frederic M. 1927. The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Vigil, James D. 1999. “Streets and Schools: How Educators Can Help Chicano Marginalized Gang Youth.” Harvard Educational Review 69(3), 270–288. Weerman, Frank M., Lovegrove, Peter J., and Thornberry, Terence. 2015. “Gang Membership Transitions and Its Consequences: Exploring Changes Related to Joining and Leaving Gangs in Two Countries.” European Journal of Criminology 12(1), 70–91. DOI: 10.1177/1477370814539070. Wong, Jennifer, Gravel, Jason, Bouchard, Martin, Descormiers, Karine, and Morselli, Carlo. 2016. “Promises Kept? A Meta‐Analysis of Gang Membership Prevention Programs.” Journal of Criminological Research, Policy, and Practice. DOI: 10.1108/ JCRPP‐06‐2015‐0018.

0003397103.INDD 225

10-01-2018 18:32:50

FS O PR O D EC TE R O R C N U 0003397103.INDD 226

10-01-2018 18:32:50