2. O
ur understanding of the victimization of gang members pales in
comparison
to the vast body of literature establishing a relationship between
violence
commission and gang membership (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993;
Hagedorn,
1988; Klein, 1971; W. B. Miller, 1966; Thrasher, 1927).
Although research on the
gang-victimization link is limited, leading gang scholars agree
this is an important
area of empirical research (Decker, Katz, & Webb, 2008;
Melde, Taylor, & Esbensen,
2009; J. Miller, 1998, 2001; Taylor, 2008). In fact,
understanding the victimization of
gang members is considered “just as important” as studying
their criminal behavior
(Decker, Melde, & Pyrooz, 2013, p. 3). From a public health
and safety perspec-
tive, understanding the gang-victimization link has practical
implications for reduc-
ing gang membership and gang crime. For example, most gang
members admit that
seeking protection influenced their decision to join a gang
(Decker & Van Winkle,
1996). However, gangs do not actually shield members from
victimization (Melde et
al., 2009). Instead, when people are victimized or afraid, they
may join a gang, and
this leads to more victimization of other gang members and
sometimes the public. If
victimization of gang members can be reduced, it may lead to
fewer future offenses
against both gang members and the public by preventing ripple
effects that arise from
3. the initial situations.
Policymakers may not yet be concerned about the victimization
of gang members
because offenders are rarely characterized as victims. However,
recent political concern
about the sexual victimization of inmates (e.g., the Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003)
may signal a willingness on the part of legislators to make
policy to prevent the victim-
ization of offenders. One promising avenue for addressing the
gang-victimization link
1016 Fox
may be to expand the Gang Resistance Education and Training
(G.R.E.A.T.) curriculum
(for an overview of G.R.E.A.T., see Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor,
& Osgood, 2012). It may
be particularly helpful to use programs, including G.R.E.A.T.,
to teach youth that gangs
increase the risk of victimization rather than offer protection
from harm. In addition, the
G.R.E.A.T. program and others could incorporate general
coping strategies to teach youth
prosocial ways of dealing with gang- and non-gang-related
victimization from family,
peers, or within their communities. However, before policies
and programs can be effec-
tively implemented to address the gang-victimization link,
research must fine-tune our
understanding of if, how, and why gang members are victimized
at higher rates than their
non-gang counterparts.
4. Although the gang-violence relationship may be a more intuitive
connection, gang
members also experience victimization in several ways. Gang
members may be victim-
ized within their family of origin (Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995),
by their own gang and rival
gangs (Taylor, 2008), and as a result of their involvement with
risky behaviors (Taylor,
Freng, Esbensen, & Peterson, 2008). More specifically, some
gang members are raised in
violent or abusive homes during their childhood (J. Miller,
2001). Within their own gang,
members often experience victimization during the initiation
process, which may require
enduring physical assault (being “jumped in”) or sexual assault
(being “sexed in”), or they
may be victimized by fellow gang members as a result of
violating gang rules (Decker
& Van Winkle, 1996). Rivalries with other gangs present
additional victimization risks,
which may occur during fights over claims to specific territory
(i.e., “turf wars”) or drive-
by shootings (Taylor, 2008). In addition, criminal gang activity
(e.g., buying/selling drugs,
extortion, fighting) may enhance the risk of victimization
among gang members (Taylor
et al., 2008). Grounded in the more general literature on the
overlap between offending
and victimization (Lauritsen & Laub, 2007; Lauritsen, Laub, &
Sampson, 1992; Lauritsen,
Sampson, & Laub, 1991), there is reason to suspect that gang
members not only commit
crime but are also victimized by crime.
This underdeveloped line of inquiry will necessarily broaden
5. our understanding of the
lives and experiences of gang members. If gang members are
victimized significantly
more than non-gang members, there are important practical and
theoretical questions
that have received little or no scholarly attention to date. For
example, does this rela-
tionship hold among various types of property and violent
crimes (Fox, Lane, & Akers,
2010, 2013)? Are gang members victimized significantly more
before, during, or after
gang membership (Gibson, Miller, Swatt, Jennings, & Gover,
2009; Peterson, Taylor, &
Esbensen, 2004)? Are there gender differences (Gover,
Jennings, & Tewksbury, 2009) or
race differences (Savitz, Rosen, & Lalli, 1980) among the ways
gang members are victim-
ized? Does exposure to victimization prior to gang membership
contribute to the decision
to join a gang (Peterson et al., 2004)? Does victimization during
gang membership lead
to the decision to leave the gang? Are gang members afraid of
the risk of victimization
(Lane & Fox, 2012; Melde et al., 2009; Savitz et al., 1980)? If
so, how does their fear of
victimization shape their behavior? Can existing theories help
explain the increased risk
of victimization among gang members? Can antigang programs
reduce the risk of victim-
ization, in addition to reducing gang membership (e.g.,
G.R.E.A.T.)? Few studies have
attempted to answer some of these questions, and although it is
beyond the scope of this
study to do so, it is hoped that future research will advance the
field by addressing these
and related research questions.
6. The purpose of this study is to bring the current state of the
literature on the gang-
victimization link to the forefront. Following a discussion of the
general trends within this
The Gang-Victimization Link 1017
literature, this study reflects on the methodological and
theoretical advances and limitations
in the field. For scholars interested in moving this field
forward, specific recommendations
for future research are also presented.
EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE GANG-
VICTIMIZATION LINK
Qualitative research has been instrumental for sparking an
interest in the connection
between gang membership and victimization. Prior to
quantitative empirical tests, a
small number of gang studies initially hinted at the gang-
victimization relationship.
For example, Decker and Van Winkle (1996) noted a high level
of family and neigh-
borhood violence among their sample of active male gang
members. Furthermore,
interviews with youth gang members revealed that 55% of the
boys and 75% of the
girls reported being physically assaulted and 62% of the girls
had been sexually
assaulted (Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). Similarly, J. Miller’s
(2001) work indicates
that girl gang members experienced and witnessed more
7. violence in the home com-
pared to non-gang girls.
A limited body of qualitative research has focused more
specifically on the gang-
victimization link. Molidor (1996) notes that young female gang
members admit being
threatened with weapons, physically abused, and sexually
assaulted by members from
their own gang, in addition to exposure to violence from rival
gangs (e.g., being shot,
stabbed, assaulted). Isolating the differences between violence
within the gang versus
from rival gangs through survey and semistructured interviews,
J. Miller (1998) found
that female gang members can exploit their gender to decrease
their victimization risk
from rival gangs, although increasing their risk of victimization
within their gang.
J. Miller and Decker’s (2001) interviews with female gang
members in St. Louis (supple-
mented with official St. Louis homicide data) revealed that most
had witnessed guns fired
(96%) and had seen someone being murdered (74%). In terms of
experiencing victimiza-
tion, many of the female gang members reported being attacked
(48%), sexually assaulted
(44%), threatened with a weapon (59%), and stabbed (41%).
However, young women
gang members were less likely than young men to be victims or
targets of homicide
(J. Miller & Decker, 2001).
Based on the groundwork of qualitative research, quantitative
studies have begun to
examine the gang-victimization link. This relationship has been
8. supported among samples
of youth (Barnes, Boutwell, & Fox, 2012; Melde et al., 2009),
high school students (Gover
et al., 2009), recently arrested juveniles (Decker et al., 2008),
adult jail inmates (Fox, Lane,
et al., 2010, 2013), and prison inmates (Fox, Rufino, & Kercher,
2012; Rufino, Fox, &
Kercher, 2012). Furthermore, evidence suggests the gang-
victimization link remains
robust over time. Using five waves of data from the G.R.E.A.T.
program, Peterson et al.
(2004) found that gang members were significantly more likely
than non-gang members to
be victimized before, during, and after gang membership.
DeLisi et al.’s (2009) examina-
tion of two waves of the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (Add Health)
data supported the gang-victimization link before and after
implementing propensity score
matching, and this effect remained significant over time. Recent
social network analyses
also suggest gang members are at a greater risk of victimization.
The relationship between
social distance (e.g., connectedness to others) and the
probability of being shot is espe-
cially robust among gang members (Papachristos, Braga, &
Hureau, 2012). Indeed, gangs
whose members are often murdered are also more likely to
murder (Papachristos, 2009).
1018 Fox
However, other quantitative work casts doubt on the strength of
the gang-victimiza-
9. tion link. Savitz et al. (1980) were among the first to examine
this relationship and found
no significant differences among gang and non-gang boys’
experiences with robbery,
assault, or extortion. Some evidence suggests that the gang-
victimization link washes
out after controlling for relevant factors, or when using
different victimization measures.
Compared to non-gang youth, Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, and
Freng (2007) found that
gang youth experienced significantly more violent victimization
(aggravated assault
and robbery), significantly less general violent victimization
(simple assault, aggravated
assault, and robbery), and found no significant group
differences for individual victim-
ization rates (number of violent and general violent
victimization). In addition, account-
ing for delinquent and/or criminal behavior mediates the
relationship between gang
membership and victimization among some studies (Katz,
Webb, Fox, & Shaffer, 2011;
Spano, Frelich, & Bolland, 2008; Taylor et al., 2007; but for
exceptions, see DeLisi,
Barnes, Beaver, & Gibson, 2009; Fox et al., 2012; Rufino et al.,
2012). Prior to matching
gang and non-gang youth on several covariates, Gibson et al.
(2009) found support for
the gang-victimization link; however, after employing
propensity score matching, this
relationship became nonsignificant. Given the limited number of
studies on the gang-
victimization link, and the inconsistent findings, this study aims
to advance this line of
research by summarizing what we know and where future
research should go to better
10. understand the gang-victimization link.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY:
MOVING THE FIELD FORWARD
The mixed results that have emerged within this literature
emphasizes the need for future
research in this area. As Taleb (2010) points out, “the test of
originality for an idea is
not the absence of one single predecessor but the presence of
multiple but incompatible
ones” (p. 5). The multiple, but incompatible, findings within the
few published studies on
the gang-victimization link indicate the need for reconciliation
if we are to deepen our
understanding of the lives and experiences of gang members. In
this vein, this study aims
to promote additional scholarly attention to the gang-
victimization link by contributing a
series of promising avenues for future research.
Comprehensive searches using Academic Search Premier and
Cambridge Scientific
Abstracts1 were conducted to locate the 16 published studies on
the gang-victimization
link, which were examined in the analyses (see Table 1). In an
effort to move the field
beyond purely descriptive analyses, this study examined prior
gang-victimization research
that employed multivariate techniques. Therefore, descriptive
(e.g., univariate or bivariate)
rather than multivariate analyses testing the gang-victimization
link were excluded (Curry,
Decker, & Egley, 2002; Decker et al., 2008; Esbensen, Peterson,
Taylor, & Freng, 20102;
Katz, Maguire, & Choate, 2011; J. Miller & Decker, 2001;
11. Savitz et al., 1980). Related to
this study, two published studies have recently presented
reviews of the gang-victimization
link. Taylor’s (2008) review focused specifically on violence
among youth gangs and
Gibson, Swatt, Miller, Jennings, and Gover’s (2012) review
debates the use of propensity
score matching (e.g., Gibson et al., 2009 vs. Ozer & Engel,
2012). Although both stud-
ies are important, this study is unique in its focus on the
methodological and theoretical
contributions within the field. Similar in some ways to the
recent work by Decker and
The Gang-Victimization Link 1019
TABLE 1. Samples Used Among Prior Gang-Victimization
Research
Publication Sample Type Data Sample Size
Barnes et al. (2012) Youth in junior and
high school
Surveys (Add Health) 2,267 pairs
Childs et al. (2009) Youth in middle
school
Surveys (G.R.E.A.T.) 3,907
DeLisi et al. (2009) Youth in junior and
high school
12. Surveys (Add Health) 15,197
(Wave III)
to 20,745
(Wave I)
Fox, Lane, et al. (2010) Adult jail inmates Surveys (Florida)
2,414
Fox et al. (2013) Adult jail inmates Surveys (Florida) 2,414
Fox et al. (2012) Adult prison inmates Interview surveys
(Texas)
217
Gibson et al. (2009) Youth in middle
school
Surveys (G.R.E.A.T.) 953
Gover et al. (2009) Youth in high school Surveys (South
Carolina)
4,597
Katz et al. (2011) Youth arrestees Surveys (Arizona
ADAM)
909
Melde et al. (2009) Youth from 6th to
9th grade
Surveys (15 schools) 1,450
Ozer & Engel (2012) Youth in middle
13. school
Surveys (G.R.E.A.T.) 1,109
Peterson et al. (2004) Youth in 6th to
8th grade
Surveys (G.R.E.A.T.) 5,935 (8th
graders)
2,045 (6th
and 7th
graders)
Rufino et al. (2012) Adult prison inmates Interview surveys
(Texas)
217
Spano et al. (2008) Youth ages 9–19
years
Surveys (Alabama
MYS)
1,295
(Waves I
and II)
Taylor et al. (2007) Youth in 8th grade Surveys (G.R.E.A.T.)
5,935
Taylor et al. (2008) Youth in 8th grade Surveys (G.R.E.A.T.)
5,935
Note. Add Health 5 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
14. Health; G.R.E.A.T. 5
Gang Resistance Education and Training program; ADAM 5
Arrestee Drug Abuse
Monitoring program; MYS 5 Mobile Youth Survey.
1020 Fox
colleagues (in press) that reviews the state of the literature on
gang membership in general,
this study offers a synthesis focused specifically on the
victimization of gangs. This study
contributes to the gang and victimization literatures by (a)
synthesizing the methodological
and theoretical advancements and (b) offering recommendations
for studying the gang-
victimization link.
METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS AND LIMITATIONS
OF THE
GANG-VICTIMIZATION LITERATURE
The following presents an overview of the major
methodological advancements and limi-
tations within the gang-victimization literature, including: (a)
sampling and data collec-
tion procedures, (b) measuring gang membership, (c) measuring
crime victimization, and
(d) analyses and results.
Sampling and Data Collection Procedures
As shown in Table 1, data used to test the gang-victimization
link have used samples of
students in elementary, middle, and high schools (Barnes et al.,
15. 2012; DeLisi et al., 2009;
Gibson et al., 2009; Gover et al., 2009; Melde et al., 2009;
Peterson et al., 2004; Taylor
et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2007), youth in high-poverty
neighborhoods (Spano et al., 2008),
and offenders, including juveniles (Katz et al., 2011), jail
inmates (Fox, Lane, et al., 2010,
2013), and prison inmates (Fox et al., 2012; Rufino et al.,
2012). Most (n 5 12; 75%) of
the studies examine youth rather than adults (see Table 1).
Given that there are so few
gang-victimization studies, there are ample opportunities to
study unique samples. For
example, there are no published studies that examine the gang-
victimization link among
adults outside of jail or prison. Also, it may be especially wise
for future research to sam-
ple a higher proportion of delinquent or criminal individuals,
such as parolees, incarcer-
ated juveniles, or individuals listed on police gang member
identification cards. Relatedly,
the work on inmate misconduct may help further unpack the
effects of gang membership
(Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Worrall & Morris, 2012). Although
this literature focuses on
offending and misconduct behavior while incarcerated,
examining this from the perspec-
tive of inmate victimization (e.g., inmate-on-inmate violence)
will be particularly impor-
tant for advancing the field. Because only one sample of jail
inmates and another sample
of prison inmates have been collected to test the gang-
victimization link, more research
is needed from criminal or incarcerated groups. Inevitably,
these suggestions may require
collecting data from hard-to-access populations; however, some
16. recently published guides
may be useful for collecting data from within correctional
institutions (Fox, Zambrana, &
Lane, 2010; Lane & Lanza-Kaduce, 2007; Jeffords, 2007;
Jenness, Maxson, Sumner, &
Matsuda, 2010; Trulson, Marquart, & Mullings, 2004).
Prior research examining the gang-victimization link
exclusively relies on structured
self-reported surveys or interview surveys. In general, the
sample sizes among published
studies are substantial (see Table 1). With the exception of in-
person interview surveys with
prison inmates (Fox et al., 2012; Rufino et al., 2012), most of
the sample sizes among prior
research consist of more than 1,000 respondents. Large samples
are important given the
low prevalence rates of gang membership (detailed in the
following section) and in terms
of conducting analyses that distinguish among variations in
gang membership (e.g., current
gang members, ex-gang members, gang associates).
The Gang-Victimization Link 1021
Measuring Gang Membership
Accurately measuring gang membership is critical for
determining the necessary resources
for law enforcement and public policies to assist with antigang
efforts (Esbensen, Winfree,
He, & Taylor, 2001), and much attention has already been
devoted to the importance of
defining and measuring gangs (R. A. Ball & Curry, 1995;
17. Decker & Kempf-Leonard,
1991; Klein, 1995; Klein & Maxson, 2006). Within the gang
literature generally, and the
gang-victimization literature specifically, the self-report method
is considered common
and valid (Webb, Katz, & Decker, 2006; i.e., “Have you ever
been a gang member? Are
you now in a gang?”; see Table 2). Although the self-report
method remains an imperfect
technique, it has been determined to be “a particularly robust
measure of gang member-
ship capable of distinguishing gang from nongang youth”
(Esbensen et al., 2001, p. 124).
Based on self-report measures, scholars have operationalized
gang membership in
various ways (see Table 2). Some research compares current
versus non-gang members,
which necessarily categorizes ex-gang members with non-gang
members (Melde et al.,
2009; Peterson et al., 2004; Spano et al., 2008; Taylor et al.,
2008; Taylor et al., 2007).
A variation of this measure isolates those who have been a
member of a gang within the
past year from non-gang members (DeLisi et al., 2009; Gover et
al., 2009). Other research
combines current and former members into an “ever gang
member” measure (Barnes
et al., 2012; Fox, Lane, et al., 2010, 2013). Given the dynamic
nature of victimization, it
may be particularly important to isolate the effects of level of
gang membership includ-
ing current, former, associate, and non-gang members. To
illustrate this point, Katz and
colleagues (2011) found that gang members were victimized
significantly more than ex-
18. gang members, who were victimized significantly more than
gang associates, who were
victimized significantly more than non-gang members. Although
capturing these levels of
gang membership is ideal, collapsing groups (e.g., current and
ex-gang members) may be
necessary in some cases (e.g., increasing statistical power using
small samples).
Gang membership is a comparatively rare event (see Table 2).
Youth gang member-
ship ranges from about 2% (Peterson et al., 2004) to 17%
(Barnes et al., 2012). Among
prison inmates, strategic oversampling of gang members yielded
a 39% prevalence rate
(Fox et al., 2012; Rufino et al., 2012). As shown in Table 2,
lifetime measures of gang
membership yield higher prevalence rates (15%–17%) compared
to more restrictive gang
measures, such as prior year or current membership.
Approximately 15% of incarcerated
jail inmates (Fox, Lane, et al., 2010, 2013) and juveniles report
belonging to a street gang
(Katz et al., 2011). The low base rate of gang membership
highlights the importance
of examining larger sample sizes to obtain sufficient gang
samples (see VanVoorhis &
Morgan, 2007, for more on sample size and statistical power).
Measuring Crime Victimization
Types of Victimization Items Measured. The gang-victimization
literature also relies on
self-reported victimization, although there is wide variation
among the type of measures
(see Table 3). Although it is important to assess various
19. victimization types, this varia-
tion may contribute to the confusion about the strength of the
relationship between gang
membership and crime victimization. As shown in Table 3,
measures have primarily
focused on specific types of violent crime, including being
assaulted with and without a
weapon, robbed, threatened with a weapon, shot, and
cut/stabbed. More research is needed
that replicates these specific items in an effort to refine our
understanding of the gang-
victimization link. It is possible that gang members may be
more at-risk for experiencing
1022 Fox
T
A
B
L
E
2
.
G
an
g
M
em
b
65. certain types of crimes, but not others. Considering these
distinctions will advance this
area of research and may also result in prevention efforts
tailored to the specific needs of
gang members. Furthermore, very few studies have examined
property crime, which has
been measured as: theft of more than $50, theft in general and at
school, and theft and van-
dalism. Analyzing property and personal crime victimization
separately, Fox, Lane, et al.
(2010, 2013) found that gang members were victimized
significantly more than non-gang
members by personal crime but not by property crime. Given
this limited evidence that
the gang-victimization link may only exist for personal (and not
property) crime, future
research is needed to more fully examine this possibility.
Number of Victimization Items Measured. Table 3 also features
the number of items
used to measure crime victimization. Although many of the
studies have used as few as 2
or 3 items to measure victimization, some research examines up
to 13 items (see Table 3).
Measuring victimization with very few indicators presents
methodological challenges,
given the inability to adequately capture the true extent to
which gang members may
have been victimized. Drawing from the broader victimization
literature, the research on
interpersonal victimization offers important insight. Scales
based on multiple behaviorally
specific items (i.e., approximately 10–12 items) outperform a
single item (or even 2 or
3 basic items) for accurately measuring sexual assault (Kolivas
& Gross, 2007), stalking
66. (Fox, Nobles, & Fisher, 2011), and intimate partner violence
(Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998).
Therefore, using multiple-item measures of violent and/or
property crime victimization
will advance our understanding of the gang-victimization link.
Reliability and Validity of Victimization Measures. Prior
research on the gang-
victimization link has largely overlooked the reliability and
validity of victimization mea-
sures (see Table 3). Reliability, or the degree to which items are
consistently measuring a
similar concept (Carmines & Zeller, 1979), has been assessed in
only four (25%) of the
gang-victimization studies (e.g., Barnes et al., 2012; DeLisi et
al., 2009; Fox, Lane, et al.,
2010, 2013). Within the social science literature, Cronbach’s
(1951) alpha remains one of
the most robust indicators of the internal consistency among
multiple items; yet, research
is often published without reporting Cronbach’s alpha or other
measures of reliability
(Whittington, 1998), and this is also a problem with the gang-
victimization literature (see
Table 3). The lack of reliability estimates within the gang-
victimization literature offers a
gap for future investigation. However, it is important to note
that scales with many items
tend to enhance Cronbach’s alpha levels (DeVellis, 2003),
which means that higher levels
may simply be a reflection of more items rather than better
measures. Certainly, the goal
of advancing this literature should not rely on boosting alphas
while sacrificing quality
measures. In other words, future research must strike a balance
between a comprehensive
67. versus cluttered measure of victimization. Given that many
victimization scales are com-
prised of few items, intercorrelations will generally be low.
Indeed, alphas will increase as
the intercorrelations between items increase (Warner, 2008).
There is also a void of validity tests among the gang-
victimization studies (see Table 3).
Validity, or the accuracy with which a measure reflects the
construct it intends to mea-
sure (Carmines & Zeller, 1979), is generally conceptualized in
different ways, includ-
ing content, construct, and criterion-related validity. A detailed
discussion of validity is
beyond the scope of this article; however, it is worthwhile to
note that none of the studies
within the gang-victimization literature offer formal tests of
validity. As discussed ear-
lier, the use of limited victimization items, especially in terms
of property victimization,
has important implications for content validity. For example,
victimization scales lack
content validity when only two or three items are considered
(e.g., robbery and assault).
1024 Fox
T
A
B
L
E
132. Indeed, the dynamics of victimization require more rigorous
measures. Additionally, it
will be especially important for future research to validate
victimization scales separately
among gang and non-gang members.
Recall Timeframe for Victimization Measures. Similar to the
wide variety of victim-
ization types measured by prior research, the recall timeframe
also varies considerably
across studies (see Table 3). Some studies ask respondents to
disclose victimization
experienced over the lifetime (Fox, Lane, et al., 2010, 2013;
Katz et al., 2011), during the
past 2 years outside of prison (Fox et al., 2012; Rufino et al.,
2012), during the past year
(Barnes et al., 2012; DeLisi et al., 2009; Gibson et al., 2009;
Taylor et al., 2008; Taylor
et al., 2007), or during the past 90 days (Melde et al., 2009) or
past 30 days (Katz et al.,
2011). Others use different timeframes for different measures
within the same study. For
example, Gover et al. (2009) feature a lifetime measure for one
item (e.g., sexual assault
victimization) and a past year timeframe for the other two
measures (e.g., injured during a
fight and physically assaulted by a dating partner). Similarly,
Spano et al. (2008) employs
a 90-day timeframe for being threatened with a knife or gun and
a year timeframe for need-
ing medical attention for a cut and being shot at. The first wave
of data used by Peterson et
al. (2004) implemented a recall timeframe of 6 months for the
victimization items whereas
the next four waves increased to a 12-month period.
133. The variation among recall timeframes within and between
studies presents hurdles
for interpreting the extent to which gang members are
victimized and in terms of making
comparisons across studies. Understandably, some of these
studies are based on secondary
data and are not products of original data collection efforts
designed for the specific pur-
pose of examining the gang-victimization link (e.g., Add Health
data). Future research can
advance this literature by standardizing the victimization
measures and recall timeframe.
Data collected for the purpose of testing the gang-victimization
link may also benefit
by relying on multiple timeframes across all items, similar to
the data derived from the
ADAM program (Katz et al., 2011).
Analyses and Results
Prior literature on the gang-victimization link has already made
great strides for advanc-
ing our understanding of this complex relationship (see Table
4). Nearly half (n 5 7)
of the studies have already begun to use longitudinal data to test
the gang-victimization
relationship over time. Further use of cross-sectional data is
also important, particularly
when examining hard-to-access samples (e.g., homeless,
incarcerated, or recently released
offenders). In addition, about half (n 5 8) of the studies have
conducted analyses separately
among gang versus non-gang subsamples (see Table 4).
Examining the groups individually
is important for observing key differences that may be masked
when considering the sam-
134. ple as a whole. Nine studies (56%) control for the effect of
criminal behavior, which may
impact (or render spurious) the gang-victimization link (see
Table 4). Among the studies
that control for crime, results are mixed. Some studies find that
the gang-victimization
link holds even when controlling for crime (DeLisi et al., 2009;
Fox et al., 2012; Ozer &
Engel, 2012; Rufino et al., 2012), whereas others find that the
gang-victimization link
washes out after accounting for involvement in gang crime
(Katz et al., 2011; Spano et al.,
2008; Taylor et al., 2007). Future research using various
samples to more closely examine
the effect of crime on the gang-victimization link would
contribute to the field.
Despite these impressive advancements, there are also
analytical limitations among
the gang-victimization literature that warrant consideration.
Within the more general gang
The Gang-Victimization Link 1027
T
A
B
L
E
4
.
171. ch
in
g.
a S
am
pl
ed
m
al
es
o
nl
y.
1028 Fox
literature, there has been increasing attention to the importance
of gender and race differ-
ences (Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; J. Miller, 1998, 2001; Vigil,
2002). However, the gang-
victimization field has yet to fully examine the unique
experiences among men versus women
separately, and across different races and/or ethnicities. In fact,
only one study has examined
split models among men and women (Gover et al., 2009) and
another study analyzed Blacks
and Whites separately (Savitz et al., 1980). The overall lack of
172. attention to gender and race
differences within the gang-victimization link may be a function
of the recency of this line
of research as well as a limitation of low gang prevalence rates.
With only a small percent
of gang members in a sample, further reducing power by
splitting the sample by gender or
race/ ethnicity may not be a viable option in some cases.
Although most prior research treats
gender and race/ethnicity as control variables, the degree to
which demographic differences
emerge within the gang-victimization link leaves much
opportunity for future research.
THEORETICAL ADVANCEMENTS AND LIMITATIONS OF
THE
GANG-VICTIMIZATION LITERATURE
Many published studies on the gang-victimization link do not
conduct theoretical tests
to understand this relationship (see Table 5). However, theory
can inform the gang-
victimization relationship, just as theory has been instrumental
in contextualizing the
relationship between gang membership and delinquency and/or
crime (Wood & Alleyne,
2010). Testing theory is critical for moving the field forward
and for better understanding
why gang members might be more susceptible to victimization.
Theoretical applications
of the gang-victimization link also have important practical and
policy implications.
Knowing more about the theoretical connections between gang
membership and victim-
ization will help practitioners and policymakers improve the
lives of gang members who
173. are victimized. Akers and Sellers (2009) contend, “. . . the
better the theory explains the
problem, the better it is able to guide efforts to solve the
problem” (p. 11). If gang members
are victimized as a function of their risky routines, or self-
control, or dangerous neigh-
borhood, then programs and policies can be effectively tailored
to address the root of the
problem. Conducting theoretical tests is the first step toward
sharpening our understanding
of why gang members are at a greater risk of harm, and this
knowledge will be essential for
developing a road map for the prevention and reduction of
victimization.
One point of clarification is needed regarding studies grounded
in theory versus those
that test theory. Some research is grounded in theory, such as
lifestyle/routine activity and
collective liability, but do not empirically test these
perspectives (e.g., Katz et al., 2011;
Taylor et al., 2007). Similarly, Gibson et al. (2009) match youth
on various theoretically
relevant variables, including impulsivity, risk-seeking,
delinquent peers, school commit-
ment, and parental monitoring. Although these elements are
related to several theories (e.g.,
routine activity/lifestyle, self-control, social control/bond),
these studies were not designed
or conducted as theoretical tests. Thus, the following discussion
focuses more specifically
on research that empirically tests theories for understanding the
gang-victimization link.
As shown in Table 5, only seven of the gang-victimization
studies (44%) have tested
174. theory, including lifestyles/routine activity theory (Spano et al.,
2008; Taylor et al., 2008),
social disorganization (Fox, Lane, et al., 2010; Fox et al.,
2012), self-control (Childs et al.,
2009; Fox et al., 2013), and the biosocial perspective (Barnes et
al., 2012). The follow-
ing presents an overview of these preliminary theoretical tests
and offers recommenda-
tions for future theoretical tests. Space limitations preclude a
thorough discussion of the
The Gang-Victimization Link 1029
TABLE 5. Theory Tests of the Gang-Victimization Link
Publication Theory Tested Theory Result
Barnes et al. (2012) Biosocial
perspective
Mixed: Nonshared environment explained
significantly more gang membership and
victimization than genetics
Childs et al. (2009) Self-control Unsupported: self-control does
not mediate
the gang-victimization link; self-control
and gang membership do not have an
interactive effect on victimization
DeLisi et al. (2009) None None
Fox, Lane, et al.
(2010)
175. Social
disorganization
Mixed: social disorder explained property
victimization among gang members, but
not physical disorder or collective efficacy
Fox et al. (2013) Self-control Mixed: Lower self-control
explains personal
victimization and higher self-control
explains property victimization among
gang members
Fox et al. (2012) Social
disorganization
Mixed: Neighborhood dangerousness
significantly increased victimization
among gang members whereas the other
five disorganization items did not
Gibson et al. (2009) None None
Gover et al. (2009) None None
Katz et al. (2011) None None
Melde et al. (2009) None None
Ozer & Engel (2012) None None
Peterson et al. (2004) None None
Rufino et al. (2012) None None
176. Spano et al. (2008) Routine activity
theory
Supported: Gun carrying, employment
status, number of hours employed,
and criminal behavior mediated gang-
victimization link
Taylor et al. (2007) None None
Taylor et al. (2008) Lifestyles/routine
activities theory
Supported: Delinquency and availability of
drugs/alcohol mediated gang-victimization
relationship
Total 7 of 16 (44%)
1030 Fox
theories, their policy implications, and their application to the
gang-victimization link.
Instead, core theoretical concepts are highlighted in an effort to
spark further scholarly
interest and empirical investigation.
Lifestyle/Routine Activity Theory
Given that lifestyle and routine activity theories were originally
designed to explain vic-
timization, rather than offending, they were naturally the first to
be used to understand the
gang-victimization link. Essentially, lifestyles (Garofalo, 1987;
177. Hindelang, Gottfredson, &
Garofalo, 1978) and routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson,
1979) suggest that personal
and behavioral characteristics can influence the likelihood of
victimization. According to
routine activity theory, the convergence of motivated offenders,
suitable targets, and the
lack of capable guardianship increase the risk of victimization
(Cohen & Felson, 1979).
Extending these theories to understand the victimization of gang
members, Taylor (2008)
argues that “gang members may be viewed as suitable targets
lacking capable guardian-
ship for serious violent victimization but who often have
extensive interactions with
motivated offenders” (p. 131). If lifestyles or routine activities
influence gang members’
victimization, then prevention and intervention programs need
to address delinquent and
risky lifestyle behaviors (Taylor, 2008). Efforts that promote
healthy relationships within
the family could be worthwhile insomuch as they enhance time
spent with capable guard-
ians. Programs that aim to reduce interactions with motivated
offenders would also be
beneficial for reducing risk. Furthermore, avoiding the
appearance of being a suitable
target can also help reduce victimization. Admittedly, this is
easier said than done given
that addressing gang members’ lifestyles means completely
rewiring the gang mentality
and lifestyle. If lifestyles/routine activity theory matters for
enhancing the victimization
of gang members, then lifestyle changes will be necessary to
reduce that risk. As Felson
and Clarke (2010) point out, “we know very little about which
178. routine precautions work
and which do not,” largely because of the “sheer number of
routine precautions that people
employ” (p. 116). Future research will contribute to our
understanding of the routines
that most effectively reduce the risk of victimization among
gang members by examining
trends in risky gang behavior (i.e., going out at night,
associating with other gang mem-
bers, engaging in crime).
Given that only two studies have tested and found support for
lifestyle/routine activity
theories to explain the gang-victimization link (Spano et al.,
2008; Taylor et al., 2008),
much opportunity remains for future research. Taylor et al.
(2008) and Spano et al. (2008)
both studied school-based samples of youth, examined three
measures of victimization,
and treated gang membership as an independent variable rather
than estimating models
separately among gang and non-gang members. Therefore,
future research can extend
this line of work by testing lifestyle/routine activity theories
among other samples (e.g.,
delinquent youth, criminal samples, adults, homeless) and
expanding the number and
type of crime victimization measures. Furthermore, estimating
models separately for
gang/non-gang members, among men/women, and by
race/ethnicity will determine the
unique effects of lifestyles/routine activity on specific
subgroups that may be masked in
the full models.
In terms of lifestyle/routine activity measures, prior research
179. has already examined
an impressive array of theoretical variables. Spano et al. (2008)
used measures of gun
carrying, employment, hours per week employed, family
structure, parental monitoring,
violent behavior, and drinking/drug use. Taylor et al. (2008)
examined measures capturing
The Gang-Victimization Link 1031
prosocial and delinquent peer involvement, positive and
negative peer commitment, unsu-
pervised leisure time, availability of alcohol and/or drugs,
substance use, and delinquency.
Although these are sound theoretical measures, future research
that expands on these items,
particularly considering the unique nature of gang life, will
offer further precision to the
ways in which lifestyle/routine activities are conceptualized.
For example, promising gang-
related lifestyle/routine activities constructs could include
amount of time spent with gang
friends, exposure to gang-affiliated family members,
involvement in gang-related crime
(e.g., drive-by shootings, gang fights, gang-initiated home
invasion robbery), and emersion
in the gang lifestyle (e.g., leadership status, length of
membership, attachment to gang).
Social Disorganization Theory
At first glance, social disorganization theory may be considered
a less intuitive contribu-
tion to the gang-victimization link because of its origin as a
180. macrolevel theory designed
to understand offending. Central theoretical concepts suggest
that low socioeconomic
status neighborhoods containing a diverse racial mix of
residents who frequently move
in and out of the area are characteristic of social disorganization
that, in turn, results in
crime (Shaw & McKay, 1969). Socially disorganized
neighborhoods are subjected to a
breakdown of conventional community control, which also
results in a loss of collective
efficacy whereas neighbors are no longer trusting or cohesive
units committed to each
other (Sampson, 2004). Thrasher (1927) was among the first to
make the connection
between social disorganization and gangs, arguing that weak
economic conditions lead
to the deterioration of conventional institutions (producing
social disorganization), which
influenced youth to turn to street gangs. There are policy and
practical implications to
consider if social disorganization theory accounts for the
increased risk of victimization
among gang members. Certainly, knowing that the gang-
victimization link is caused by
social disorganization could be frustrating for policymakers
given the need for macrolevel
changes. However, some evidence suggests community-level
programs show promise
for reducing crime, including the following: monitoring of gang
offenders by community
workers, police, and probation officers; mentoring by Big
Brothers/Big Sisters of America;
and community-based after school recreation programs
(Sherman et al., 1998). If social
disorganization explains the victimization of gang members,
181. then future research would
contribute to this literature by examining the intervention and
prevention outcomes of
community-level programs.
Based on the connection between social disorganization and
gangs (Thrasher, 1927)
and social disorganization and victimization (Sampson &
Groves, 1989), two published
studies have examined and found limited support for the effects
of social disorganization
theory to explain the gang-victimization link (Fox, Lane, et al.,
2010; Fox et al., 2012).
Among jail inmates, Fox, Lane, et al. (2010) found perceptions
of neighborhood social
disorder to be significantly associated with gang members’
exposure to property crime
victimization and non-gang members’ exposure to personal
crime victimization (but not
physical disorder or collective efficacy). Among prison inmates,
Fox et al. (2012) found
that perceived neighborhood dangerousness was significantly
associated with victimiza-
tion among gang members compared to non-gang members;
however, other social disor-
ganization factors were not related to victimization (e.g.,
neighborhood quality, physical
disorder, and collective efficacy).
Despite the limited support garnered for social disorganization
theory’s ability to
explain victimization among gang members (especially in terms
of physical disorder and
182. 1032 Fox
collective efficacy), much remains unknown and worthy of
future research in this area. For
example, both studies examined cross-sectional samples of
incarcerated adult offenders
(Fox, Lane, et al., 2010; Fox et al., 2012), yet measures of
social disorganization were
based on the neighborhood outside of the carceral environment.
Although these studies are
important for understanding the impact of offenders’ community
context, it is equally as
important to examine the effects of disorganization from within
the jail or prison setting on
victimization among gang members (e.g., physical disorder,
social disorder, and collective
efficacy within the facility). Furthermore, considering the
community context necessary
for measuring neighborhood social disorganization, it is
particularly important to examine
other samples outside of an institutional setting (e.g., youth or
community samples).
Self-Control Theory
Given that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory of low self-
control has recently been
extended to explain gang membership (Hope & Damphousse,
2002; Kissner & Pyrooz,
2009; Peterson-Lynskey, Winfree, Esbensen, & Clason, 2000)
and victimization (Schreck,
1999), this theory has promise for accounting for the gang-
victimization link. The theory
claims that low self-control leads to criminal behavior if the
opportunity presents itself,
and an abundance of research supports the theory via the use of
183. both attitudinal and
behavioral self-control measures (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). If self-
control accounts for the
gang-victimization link, then the policy implications geared
toward addressing crime may
also be relevant for reducing victimization. For example,
programs designed to promote
two-parent families and effective child care have been shown to
increase the self-control
of children (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Piquero, 2010). As
Piquero (2010) points out,
these strategies (and others) that have been successful at
increasing self-control are cost-
effective compared to their consequences. Indeed, future
research that examines the policy
and program implications related to increasing self-control may
substantially advance our
understanding of the gang-victimization link.
The two studies that test this relationship reveal limited or no
support for the effect
of self-control to explain the victimization of gang members.
Among jail inmates, low
self-control was significantly related to personal crime
victimization among gang and
non-gang members (Fox et al., 2013). Low self-control was
significantly associated with
property victimization among non-gang members, whereas high
self-control was predic-
tive of property victimization among gang members (Fox et al.,
2013). Among youth,
self-control did not mediate the gang-victimization link and no
interactive effects were
found between self-control and gang membership on
victimization (Childs et al., 2009).
Certainly, more attention to the effects of self-control on the
184. gang-victimization link will
aid in our understanding of this relationship. Much remains
unknown about these effects
over time (e.g., using longitudinal data), among different
populations, in terms of gender
and race/ethnicity differences, and when accounting for
criminal behavior.
Biosocial Perspective
Although the “nature versus nurture” debate continues to be of
scholarly interest concerning
various phenomena, merging the biological, genetic, and
environmental literatures (e.g., bio-
social perspective) is a relatively recent line of inquiry within
the study of criminology and,
especially, within the study of victimization. Among samples of
twin adolescents, genetic
factors explained between nearly 40% (Beaver, Boutwell,
Barnes, & Cooper, 2009) and
73% (H. A. Ball, Arseneault, Taylor, Maughan, Caspi, &
Moffitt, 2008) of the variance in
The Gang-Victimization Link 1033
victimization compared to nonshared environmental factors.
Furthermore, evidence suggests
that gang membership is also attributable to genetics, by way of
the monoamine oxidase A
(MAOA) gene (Beaver, DeLisi, Vaughn, & Barnes, 2010).
Scholars have been hesitant to rec-
ommend biosocial-related policy implications given the ongoing
politically sensitive debate
about the alterability of genes. However, Beaver (2009,
185. emphasis in original) contends that
“genetic effects can be altered by altering the environment” (p.
203) and underscores the
importance of targeting “a confluence of genetic, biological,
and environmental factors” to
influence behavior (i.e., victimization). Promising biosocial
strategies for the prevention of
antisocial behavior include promoting healthy pregnancy
education, adequate prenatal health
care, and no-cost childhood development classes for new
parents (Beaver, 2009; Olds et al.,
1998; Wright et al., 2008). If the gang-victimization link can be
understood within the bio-
social framework, then an important next step for future
research will be to identify preven-
tion and intervention strategies to reduce gang members’
victimization risk.
Recently, Barnes et al. (2012) examined the genetic and
environmental effects of
gang membership and victimization among a national sample
(Add Health) comprising
identical twins, fraternal twins, full siblings, half-siblings, and
cousins. Findings revealed
that 26% of the variance in gang membership and 34% of the
variance in victimization
was attributable to genetic factors. In terms of the genetic
versus environmental effects
on the relationship between gang membership and victimization
over time, Barnes et al.
concluded that “even after controlling for heritable influences
on victimization (and
controlling for prior victimization experiences), gang
membership increased the risk of
victimization” (p. 238). Importantly, the authors point out that
determining the type of
186. genes that impact gang membership and victimization may be
the next most promising
direction for future research. Similar to the other preliminary
theoretical tests, the work by
Barnes and colleagues should encourage further investigation
into the biosocial impact on
the gang-victimization link.
Promising, Yet Untested, Theories to Explain the Gang-
Victimization Link
There are numerous untested theories that may be applied to
understand the complex rela-
tionship between gang membership and victimization. A more
thorough presentation of
all potential theoretical candidates extends beyond the focus of
this study; however, three
theories in particular are worth highlighting briefly as possible
avenues for future gang-
victimization research. More specifically, social learning,
control balance, and life course/
criminal career theories are promising explanations that have
not yet been tested within the
gang-victimization literature. These theories are selected for
further discussion given their
widespread empirical support (to explain crime) and importance
for policy implications
(e.g., Akers, 2010; Moffitt, 1993; Tittle, 2010).
Considering the social context of gang membership, social
learning theory may be
especially well suited to explain the gang-victimization link.
Akers’ (1973) social learning
theory combines Sutherland’s (1939) concept of differential
association with other key
components, including definitions/attitudes about crime,
187. differential reinforcement for
engaging in crime, and modeling/imitation of others’ criminal
behaviors. In other words,
spending time socializing with deviant peers who regard crime
as positive behavior with
more beneficial outcomes compared to detrimental
consequences, influences the likeli-
hood of adopting and imitating those deviant and criminal
behaviors. Social learning
theory has received much empirical support for its ability to
explain criminal behavior,
and the strength of social learning appears to hold even when
accounting for self-control
1034 Fox
(Pratt et al., 2000), although some theoretical elements
(differential association and
definitions/attitudes) appear to be more robust than others
(differential reinforcement and
modeling/imitation; Pratt et al., 2010). Given evidence that
emphasizes the importance
of social learning theory with regard to gang membership
(Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009) and
victimization (Fox, Nobles, & Akers, 2011), social learning
theory may be key for under-
standing the gang-victimization relationship.
Control balance theory may also be a promising area for future
researchers interested in
furthering our understanding of the gang-victimization link.
Control balance theory (Tittle,
1995, 2004) is a multifaceted, integrated theory of deviance
premised on the interplay
188. between perceived control one exerts on others compared to
control to which one is sub-
jected. According to Tittle’s (2004) theoretical
reconceptualization, imbalances in control
(e.g., control deficits and control surpluses) influence one’s
propensity to commit deviant or
criminal behavior, if other factors are considered (e.g., self-
control, morals, peers, provoca-
tion, motivation, constraints, control balance desirability).
Applying control balance theory
to the study of victimization, Piquero and Hickman (2003)
contend that people with control
deficits may be perceived as weak or vulnerable to
victimization, whereas those with con-
trol surpluses may put themselves in riskier situations that lead
to victimization because of
displays of superiority. These claims are supported by the
limited published tests of control
balance theory for successfully explaining crime victimization
(DeLisi & Hochstetler,
2002; Nobles & Fox, 2013; Piquero & Hickman, 2003).
Although prior research has not yet
applied control balance theory to the study of gangs, one could
argue that gang member-
ship is a form of deviance, and control balance theory was
originally designed to explain
any form of deviance. It may also be speculated that gang
members exhibit either control
surpluses (because of an inflated ego, sense of invincibility, or
heightened aggression) or
control deficits (because of disadvantaged social status,
dysfunctional or abusive family
background, or vulnerability to victimization). Considering
these preliminary and potential
linkages, control balance theory may help explain the
victimization of gang members.
189. In light of the dynamic nature of gang membership and
victimization, the life course/
criminal career perspective may be a favorable explanation for
the gang-victimization
link. The life course/criminal career perspective examines
trajectories of criminal behav-
ior over time, rather than treating criminal behavior as
disconnected events (Blumstein,
Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986; Piquero, Farrington, &
Blumstein, 2003; Sampson & Laub,
1993). Of primary concern is the participation, frequency,
seriousness, and length of
criminal behavior. Considering these theoretical components,
Farrell, Tseloni, Wiersema,
and Peace (2001) expanded the life course/criminal career
perspective to account for
“career victims,” which examines trajectories of victimization
over time. This provided
the groundwork for few studies to begin examining trajectories
of victimization over time,
focusing on the participation, frequency, seriousness, and length
of victimization (Nobles,
Fox, Piquero, & Piquero, 2009) or the desistance from
victimization (Daigle, Beaver, &
Hartman, 2008). Further extending this line of research to the
study of gangs, it is plausible
that the risk of victimization changes over time, especially in
conjunction with fluctua-
tions in gang status. In other words, future research should
examine whether the process of
desisting from gang membership (e.g., moving from active
member to ex-gang member)
is related to the desistance of victimization risk. Similarly,
increases in gang status (e.g.,
moving from non-gang to affiliate to member) may be
190. associated with an increase in vic-
timization. Furthermore, determining differences between gang
and non-gang members
in terms of participation, frequency, seriousness, and length of
victimization will be an
important step for future inquiry.
The Gang-Victimization Link 1035
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this paper was to synthesize the growing
literature on the gang- victimization
link and to highlight specific recommendations for future
research based on the strengths
and limitations within the field. The extant literature is quite
mixed about whether gang
members are victimized significantly more than non-gang
members or whether evidence
suggests other factors explain or confound the gang-
victimization link. These inconsistent
findings underscore the importance for further scholarly
investigation, and future research
that advances the methodological and/or theoretical examination
of the gang-victimization
link will be particularly valuable. The following briefly reviews
the recommendations
outlined in this study.
Recommendations for Methodologically Advancing the
Gang-Victimization Literature
1. Sample adults outside of jail/prison and sample
criminal/incarcerated adults or juveniles.
191. 2. Sample size should be large enough to maintain statistical
power for examining subgroup
differences (e.g., gang status, gender, race/ethnicity).
3. Include a variety of specific types of crime victimization
(including property crimes) in
an effort to (a) replicate and extend prior research, (b) assess
reliability and validity, and
(c) expand recall timeframe by including multiple indicators
(e.g., during past month, past year,
and during the lifetime), and (d) examine whether the gang-
victimization link is dependent on
the specific type of victimization, in addition to creating
general victimization indexes.
4. Analyses of the gang-victimization link should include (a)
examinations of longitudinal data,
(b) controls for delinquency/crime, (c) measures of gang status
(e.g., current member, former
member, associate), and (d) models that account for potential
gender and race/ethnic differences.
Recommendations for Theoretically Advancing the
Gang-Victimization Literature
5. Given the lack of theory tests to explain the gang-
victimization link, future research testing
any theoretical perspective will advance the literature.
6. Tests of lifestyle/routine activity theory should (a) examine
samples other than school-based
samples of youth, (b) include a variety of victimization
measures, (c) conduct analyses sepa-
rately by gang status, and (d) account for the effects of gang-
specific lifestyle/routine activities
192. (e.g., time spent with gang friends, exposure to gang-affiliated
family members, involvement
in gang-related crime, gang leadership status, length of
membership, and gang attachment).
7. Tests of social disorganization theory should (a) use
longitudinal data, (b) sample non-
incarcerated individuals, and (c) examine neighborhood-based
disorganization items among
community samples or institution-based disorganization items
among incarcerated samples.
8. Tests of self-control theory should (a) account for the effects
of opportunities for victimiza-
tion, (b) examine untested samples (e.g., youth), (c) examine
gender and/or race/ethnicity
differences, and (d) control for the effects of
delinquent/criminal behavior.
9. Tests of the biosocial perspective should (a) examine adult
samples and criminal or incarcerated
samples, (b) determine which genes predict gang membership
and victimization, and (c) analyze
gene-environment interactions in the prediction of gang
membership and victimization.
10. Test other theoretical perspectives to better understand the
gang-victimization link, such as
social learning theory, control balance theory, and the life
course/criminal career perspective.
1036 Fox
In conclusion, there are many avenues available for contributing
193. to this body of knowl-
edge. Future research will also deepen this line of research by
examining the victimization
of gang members internationally (e.g., see Katz et al., 2011).
The Eurogang Project could
serve as a foundation for beginning international work within
the gang-victimization
context. Regardless of the country scholars’ wish to study, it is
hoped that the recom-
mendations outlined here will help advance our understanding
of the relationship between
gang membership and crime victimization.
NOTES
1. Article searches were concluded in January 2013 using the
following search terms: gangs,
gang membership, youth gangs, violence, violent, and
victimization.
2. Although Esbensen et al. (2010) feature several multivariate
models in their book, analyses predicting
victimization do not include a measure of gang membership
(and vice versa). The only analyses related to
the gang-victimization link are bivariate analyses, which is why
the study is excluded in the current analyses.
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in
analysis.
Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning
approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L. (2010). Nothing is as practical as a good theory:
Social learning theory and the treat-
194. ment and prevention of delinquency. In H. D. Barlow & S. H.
Decker (Eds.), Criminology and
public policy: Putting theory to work (pp. 84–105).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories:
Introduction, evaluation, and
application. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ball, H. A., Arseneault, L., Taylor, A., Maughan, B., Caspi, A.,
& Moffitt, T. E. (2008). Genetic and
environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully-victims
in childhood. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 104–112.
Ball, R. A., & Curry, G. D. (1995). The logic of definition in
criminology: Purposes and methods for
defining ‘gangs.’ Criminology, 33, 225–245.
*Barnes, J. C., Boutwell, B. B., & Fox, K. A. (2012). A
biosocial examination of the gang-
victimization relationship. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,
10, 227–244.
Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: A primer.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Beaver, K. M., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., & Cooper, J. A.
(2009). The biosocial underpinnings
to adolescent victimization: Results from a longitudinal sample
of twins. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 7, 223–238.
Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Barnes, J. C.
(2010). Monoamine oxidase A genotype
195. is associated with gang membership and weapon use.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 51, 130–134.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., & Visher, C. A. (1986).
Criminal careers and “career criminals.”
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity
assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Childs, K. K., Cochran, J. K., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Self-
control, gang membership, and victim-
ization: An integrated approach. Journal of Crime and Justice,
32, 35–60.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate
trends: A routine activity approach.
American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A. (2002). Gang
involvement and delinquency in a middle
school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275–292.
Daigle, L. E., Beaver, K. M., & Hartman, J. L. (2008). A life-
course approach to the study of victim-
ization and offending behaviors. Victims and Offenders, 3, 365–
390.
The Gang-Victimization Link 1037
196. Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2008).
Understanding the black box of gang organiza-
tion: Implications for violence, drug sales, and violent
victimization. Crime & Delinquency,
54, 153–172.
Decker, S., & Kempf-Leonard, K. (1991). Constructing gangs:
The social definition of youth
activities. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 5(4), 271–291.
Decker, S. H., Melde, C., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). What do we
know about gangs and gang members
and where do we go from here? Justice Quarterly, 30, 369-402.
Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang:
Family, friends and violence. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
*DeLisi, M., Barnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., & Gibson, C. L.
(2009). Delinquent gangs and adolescent
victimization revisited: A propensity score matching approach.
Criminal Justice and Behavior,
36, 808–823.
DeLisi, M., & Hochstetler, A. L. (2002). An exploratory
assessment of Tittle’s control balance
theory: Results from the National Youth Survey. Justice
Professional, 15, 261.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and
applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Esbensen, F. A., & Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs, and
delinquency in a survey of urban youth.
Criminology, 31, 565–589.
197. Esbensen, F. A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Freng, A. (2010).
Youth violence: Sex and race differ-
ences in offending, victimization, and gang membership.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Esbensen, F. A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Osgood, D. W.
(2012). Results from a multi-site evalu-
ation of the G.R.E.A.T. program. Justice Quarterly, 29, 125–
151.
Esbensen, F. A., & Winfree, L. T. (1998). Race and gender
differences between gang and nongang
youth: Results from a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly, 15,
505–526.
Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001).
Youth gangs and definitional issues:
When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime &
Delinquency, 47, 105–130.
Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., Wiersema, B., & Peace, K. (2001).
Victim careers and ‘career victims’?:
Towards a research agenda. In G. Farrell & K. Pease (Eds.),
Repeat victimization. (Crime
Prevention Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 241–254). Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press.
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (2010). Routine precautions,
criminology, and crime prevention. In
H. D. Barlow & S. H. Decker (Eds.), Criminology and public
policy: Putting theory to work
(pp. 106–120). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
*Fox, K. A., Lane, J., & Akers, R. L. (2010). Do perceptions of
198. neighborhood disorganization predict
crime or victimization? An examination of gang versus non-
gang member jail inmates. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 38, 720–729.
Fox, K. A., Lane, J., & Akers, R. L. (2013). Understanding gang
membership and crime victimization
among jail inmates: A test of self-control theory. Crime &
Delinquency, 59, 764-787.
Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Is stalking a
learned phenomenon? An empirical
test of social learning theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39,
39–47.
Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Method to
the madness: An examination of stalk-
ing measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 74–84.
*Fox, K. A., Rufino, K., & Kercher, G. (2012). Crime
victimization among gang and non-gang
prison inmates: Examining perceptions of social
disorganization. Victims & Offenders, 7,
208–225.
Fox, K. A., Zambrana, K., & Lane, J. (2010). Getting in (and
staying in) when everyone else wants to
get out: 10 lessons learned from conducting research with
inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 22, 304–327.
Garofalo, J. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal
victimization. In M. Gottfredson &
T. Hirschi (Eds.), Positive criminology (pp. 23–42). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
199. *Gibson, C., Miller, J. M., Swatt, M., Jennings, W. G., &
Gover, A. R. (2009). Using propensity
score matching to understand the relationship between gang
membership and violent victimiza-
tion: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 26, 625–643.
1038 Fox
Gibson, C. L., Swatt, M. L., Miller, J. M., Jennings, W. G., &
Gover, A. R. (2012). The causal rela-
tionship between gang joining and violent victimization: A
critical review and directions for
future research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 490–501.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of
crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
*Gover, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Tewksbury, R. (2009).
Adolescent male and female gang mem-
bers’ experiences with violent victimization, dating violence,
and sexual assault. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 103–115.
Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang
affiliation on violence misconduct among
inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice
& Behavior, 33, 419–448.
Hagedorn, J. M. (1988). People and folks: Gangs, crime, and the
underclass in a rustbelt city.
Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.
Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims
200. of personal crime: An empirical
foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Hope, T. L., & Damphousse, K. R. (2002). Applying self-
control theory to gang membership in a
non-urban setting. Journal of Gang Research, 9, 41–61.
Jeffords, C. R. (2007). Gaining approval from a juvenile
correctional agency to conduct external
research. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 88–99.
Jenness, V., Maxson, C., Sumner, J., & Matsuda, K. (2010).
Accomplishing the difficult but not
impossible: Collecting self-report data on inmate-on-inmate
sexual assault in prison. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 21, 3–30.
Joe, K. A., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). Just every mother’s
angel: An analysis of gender and ethnic
variations in youth gang membership. Gender & Society, 9,
408–431.
Katz, C. M., Maguire, E. R., & Choate, D. (2011). A cross-
national comparison of gangs in the
United States and Trinidad and Tobago. International Criminal
Justice Review, 21, 243–262.
*Katz, C. M., Webb, V. J., Fox, K. A., & Shaffer, J. N. (2011).
Understanding the relationship
between violent victimization and gang membership. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 39, 48–59.
Kissner, J., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2009). Self-control, differential
association, and gang membership: A
theoretical and empirical extension of the literature. Journal of
201. Criminal Justice, 37, 478–487.
Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Klein, M. W. (1995). Basic issues. In M. W. Klein (Eds.), The
American street gang: Its nature,
prevalence and control (pp. 20–49). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and
policies. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Kolivas, E. D., & Gross, A. M. (2007). Assessing sexual
aggression: Addressing the gap between
rape victimization and perpetration rates. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 12, 315–328.
Lane, J., & Fox, K. A. (2012). Fear of crime among gang and
non-gang offenders: Comparing
the impacts of perpetration, victimization, and neighborhood
factors. Justice Quarterly, 29,
491–523.
Lane, J., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (2007). Before you open the
doors: Ten lessons from Florida’s faith
and community-based delinquency treatment initiative.
Evaluation Review, 31, 121–152.
Lauritsen, J. L., & Laub, J. H. (2007). Understanding the link
between victimization and offending:
New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies, 22,
55–75.
Lauritsen, J. L., Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1992).
202. Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications
for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents.
Violence and Victims, 7, 91–108.
Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link
between offending and victimization
among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.
*Melde, C., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2009). “I got your
back”: An examination of the protec-
tive function of gang membership in adolescence. Criminology,
47, 565–594.
Miller, J. (1998). Gender and victimization risk among young
women in gangs. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 429–453.
Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, & gender. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
The Gang-Victimization Link 1039
Miller, J., & Decker, S. H. (2001). Young women and gang
violence: Gender, street offending, and
violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115–140.
Miller, W. B. (1966). Violent crimes by city gangs. Annals of
the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 364, 96–112.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-
persistent antisocial behavior: A develop-
mental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
203. Molidor, C. E. (1996). Female gang members: A profile of
aggression and victimization. Social
Work, 41, 251–257.
Nobles, M. R., & Fox, K. A. (2013). Assessing stalking
behaviors in a control balance theory frame-
work. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 737–762.
Nobles, M. R., Fox, K. A., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R.
(2009). Career dimensions of stalking
victimization and perpetration. Justice Quarterly, 26, 476–503.
Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J.,
Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., . . . Powers, J.
(1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s
criminal and antisocial behavior:
15-year follow-up of a randomized control trial. Journal of
American Medicine, 280, 1238–1244.
*Ozer, M. M., & Engel, R. S. (2012). Revisiting the use of
propensity score matching to understand
the relationship between gang membership and violent
victimization: A cautionary note. Justice
Quarterly, 29, 105–124.
Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance
relations and the social structure of
gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74–128.
Papachristos, A. V., Braga, A. A., & Hureau, D. M. (2012).
Social networks and the risk of gunshot
injury. Journal of Urban Health, 89, 992–1003.
*Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2004). Gang
membership and violent victimization.
Justice Quarterly, 21, 793–815.
204. Peterson-Lynskey, D., Winfree, L. T., Esbensen, F. A., &
Clason, D. L. (2000). Linking gender,
minority group status, and family matters to self-control theory:
An analysis of key self-control
concepts in a youth-gang context. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal, 51, 1–19.
Piquero, A. R. (2010). A general theory of crime and public
policy. In H. D. Barlow & S. H. Decker
(Eds.), Criminology and public policy: Putting theory to work
(pp. 66–83. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The
criminal career paradigm. In M.
Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 30,
pp. 359–506). Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Piquero, A. R., & Hickman, M. (2003). Extending Tittle’s
control balance theory to account for
victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 282–301.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory
of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree L. T., Jr.,
Madensen, T., Daigle, L., . . . Gau, J. M. (2010).
The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis.
Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765–802.
*Rufino, K., Fox, K. A., & Kercher, G. (2012). Gang
membership and crime victimization among
prison inmates. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 321–
205. 337.
Sampson, R. J. (2004). Neighborhood and community:
Collective efficacy and community safety.
New Economy, 11, 106–113.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure
and crime: Testing social-
disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4),
774–802.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Savitz, L., Rosen, L., & Lalli, M. (1980). Delinquency and gang
membership as related to victimiza-
tion. Victimology: An International Journal, 5, 152–160.
Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-
control: An extension and test of a general
theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and
urban areas. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
1040 Fox
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J.,
Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D.
(1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s
promising. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice.
206. *Spano, R., Frelich, J. D., & Bolland, J. (2008). Gang
membership, gun carrying, and employment:
Applying routine activities theory to explain violent
victimization among inner city, minority
youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Quarterly, 25, 381–410.
Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principals of criminology (3rd ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly
improbable. New York, NY: Random House.
Taylor, T. J. (2008). “The boulevard ain’t safe for your kids . .
.”: Youth gang membership and violent
victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24,
125–136.
*Taylor, T., Freng, A., Esbensen, F. A., & Peterson, D. (2008).
Youth gang membership and serious
violent victimization: The importance of lifestyle/routine
activities. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 10, 1–24.
*Taylor, T., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F. A., & Freng, A. (2007).
Gang membership as a risk factor for
adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 44, 351–380.
Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Tittle, C. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory
of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tittle, C. R. (2004). Refining control balance theory.
Theoretical Criminology, 8, 395–428.
Tittle, C. R. (2010). Control balance theory and social policy.
In H. D. Barlow & S. H. Decker (Eds.)
207. Criminology and public policy: Putting theory to work (pp. 6–
24). Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and
consequences of violence against
women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women
Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Trulson, C. R., Marquart, J. W., & Mullings, J. L. (2004).
Breaking in: Gaining entry to prisons and other
hard-to access criminal justice organizations. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education, 15, 451–478.
VanVoorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding
power and rules of thumb for deter-
mining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for
Psychology, 3, 43–50.
Vigil, J. D. (2002). A rainbow of gangs: Street subcultures in
the mega-city. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.
Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate
through multivariate techniques. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Webb, V. J., Katz, C. M., & Decker, S. H. (2006). Assessing the
validity of self-reports by gang mem-
bers: Results from the arrestee abuse monitoring program.
Crime & Delinquency, 52, 232–252.
Whittington, D. (1998). How well do researchers report their
measures? An evaluation of measure-
208. ment in published educational research. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 58, 21–37.
Wood, J., & Alleyne, E. (2010). Street gang theory and
research: Where are we now and where do
we go from here? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 100–
111.
Worrall, J., & Morris, R. G. (2012). Prison gang integration and
inmate violence. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 40, 425–432.
Wright, J. P., Dietrich, K. N., Ris, M. D., Hornung, R. W.,
Wessel, S. D., Lanphear, B. P., . . . Rae,
M. N. (2008). Association of prenatal and childhood blood lead
concentrations with criminal
arrests in early adulthood. PLOS Medicine, 5, 732–740.
Acknowledgment. The author thanks Jodi Lane at the University
of Florida for helpful feedback on
an earlier draft.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to
Kathleen A. Fox, PhD, Arizona State
University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 411 N.
Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
85004. E-mail: [email protected]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
