Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vot. 20, N:~. 5, 1992
The Family Relations, Peer Relations, and Criminal Activities of Caucasian and Hispanic-American Gang Members Jean-Marie Lyon, ~,4 Scott Ilenggeler, e and James A. llall 3
Juvenile gang members" pres'enl s'erious problems to soc&ty, yet jew empirical studies have examined their criminal activity, family relations, and peer relations in comparison with other highly antisocial youths. I n a 2 (Gang Membership) x 2 (Ethnicity: Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian) design, 13I incarcerated male juvenile offenders were administered a battery assessing criminal activity, family relations, and peer relations. Results demonstrated (a) higher rates of criminal behavior (i.e., general delinquency, index offenses, school delinquency) among gang members than among offenders who did not belong to gangs, (b) higher rates of general delinquency and home delinquency among Caucasian offenders than among Hispanic-American offenders, and (c) greater aggression and less social maturity in the peer relations of gang members" than in the peer relations of offenders who did not belong to gangs. In addition, gang membership mediated sociocultural differences in hard drug use. Findings are integrated with the extant literature.
Juvenile gang members are thought to have become increasingly violent as participation in drug trafficking has increased (California Counci~ on Criminal Justice, 1989). Likewise, Klein and Maxson (1989) suggested that juvenile offenders who are gang members have higher rates of violent Manuscript received in final form March 16, 1992. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and advice of Dr. Michael Schumacher; the Honorable C. Robert Jameson, Gwen Kurz, Don Hallstrom, Jane Carmichael, and Drs, Malcolm Klein, Rae Newton, and James Madero. 1Health Care Agency/EGU, County of Orange, Orange, California 92668. 2School of Human Behavior, United States International University-San Diego, San Diego~ California. 3Department of Community and Family Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California~ 4All correspondence, including requests for reprints, to Jean-Marie Lyon, County of Orange~ Health Care Agency/EGU, 301 City Drive South, Orange, California 92668. 439 0091-4)627,9Z0000-4~39506.50/0 #-~ 1992 Plenum Publishing Corpcra~o~
440
Lyon, Ilenggeler, and llall
criminal activity than offenders who are not gang members. In light of the increased tendency for gang members to continue their gang affiliation into adulthood (Hagedorn, 1988) and the extremely detrimental emotional, physical, and economic effects that violent crime has on victims, victims' families, and the community as well as on gang members themselves (Gottfredson, 1989; Thompson & Jason, 1988), a better understanding is needed of delinquent youths who comprise juvenile gangs. Studies of the correlates and causes of delinquency have consistently implicated the significance of family relations and peers relations (Henggeler, 1989; Quay, 1987). Indeed, the numerous correlates of antisocial behavior in adolescents have prompted the development of multidimensional structural models of delinquency (for a review, see Henggeler, 1991), at least two of which examined the predictors of serious criminal activity. In a national probability sample, Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton (1985) found that involvement with delinqucnt peers directly predicted self-reported in dex offenses, and family difficulties predicted involvement with delinquent peers. Similarly, in a survey of violent delinquents, Fagan and Wexler (1987) found that association with deviant peers was the strongest predictor of violent criminal activity. Findings such as these demonstrate the significance of family relations and peer relations in the study of juvenile offenders. In the general delinquency literature, the pertinence of low family cohesion and ineffective parental monitoring/discipline are well-documented (Henggeler, 1989; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Regarding family correlates of gang membership, Vigil (1988) suggested that parents of gang members frequently are unable to provide adequate supervision for their children, and gangs provide emotional support that is often lacking in the family. Few studies, however, have used standardized measures to assess the family relations of gang members, and such relations have not been contrasted with the family relations of juvenile offenders who do not belong to gangs. The peer relations of gang members have been viewed as highly adaptive and cohesive by some investigators and as quite dysfunctional by others. Several theorists and reviewers (e.g., Hagedorn, 1988; Quicker, 1983; Vigil, 1988) have suggested that many gang members experience an intense emotional closeness born of children growing up together on the streets and turn to each other for support in times of need. In contrast, other authors (e.g., Johnstone, 1983; Klein, 1971; Spergel, 1991) have argued that the socioemotional deficits of gang members restrict their capacity for genuine friendships. Moreover, Short and Strodtbeck (1965/1974) viewed aggression and mistrust as the underlying themes of gang members' interactions, especially considering the constant threat of having to prove oneself.
Gang Members
441
This study has several purposes. First, as suggested by Klein and Maxson (1989), we assessed whether juvenile offenders who are gang members report more frequent and serious criminal activity than offenders who do not belong to gangs. Second, we examined the unique family and peer correlates of gang membership, and whether such correlates are mediated by ethnicity (Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian). Hispanic-American youths are the most rapidly increasing incarcerated population (Martinez, 1987), but little evidence suggests that the correlates of antisocial behavior differ among ethnic groups. On the other hand, Rodriguez and Zayas (1990) proposed that Hispanic cultural norms concerning parental respect and loyalty to family are likely to attenuate rates of criminal behavior among Hispanic-American youth. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study to evaluate the social systems of gang members with standardized instruments while conlrolling for the presence of serious anlisocial beh:lvior.
METHOD
Participants Participants meeting all screening criteria included 131, 13- to 18-yearold incarcerated male juvenile offenders divided into four groups in a 2 (Gang Membership) x 2 (Ethnicity: Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian) design. Thus, groups were comprised of Hispanic-American gang members (HG; n = 50), Hispanic-Americans who did not belong to a gang (HN; n = 26), Caucasian gang members (WG; n = 25), and Caucasians who did not belong to a gang (WN; n = 30). Across groups, the mean adolescent age was 16.1 years (SD = 1.1), 64% of youths were from two-parent families (both biological parents or one biological parent and a mate), and the mean social status (Hollingshead, 1975) score was 34 (SD = 14), reflecting skilled craft workers, clerica!,. and sales workers. Between-groups differences were not observed for age and family structure, but Caucasian youths were of higher social status than Hispanic-American youths, F(1, 127) = 86.33, p < .001. Consequently, social status was used as a covariate in subsequent analyses.
Procedure Adjudicated minors, recently referred to a county Assessment Center that serves several juvenile detention facilities, were screened for ethnicib (Hispanic-American or Caucasian). Next, a researcher, who was a mental health professional, met with eligible youths (either individually or in pairs)
Lyon, Ilenggeler, and llall
442
to explain the purpose of the study. Procedures to guarantee confidentiality were emphasized, and eventual anonymity was assured. The researcher stressed that participation was completely voluntary and would have no bearing on services provided by the Center. If agreeable, the participants signed the consent form and were administered an assessment battery. Ninety-six percent of the eligible youths agreed to participate. Because reading difficulties are widespread among delinquents, all items were read aloud by the researcher while the participants read along. Four youths lacked sufficient command of the English language and were excluded from the study. Each youth was given a soft drink at the completion of the 45min assessment session.
Independent Variables' Ethnicity. Ethnicity was determined by self-report responses on a demographic questionnaire. The majority of minors committed to the county's detention facilities a r e Caucasian (non-Hispanic; 42%) or Hispanic-American (44%). Youths of other ethnic backgrounds were excluded. Gang Membership. Status as a gang member was based on criteria of the county Gang Violence Suppression Unit. To be considered a gang member, the youth must have admitted gang membership and must have responded affirmatively to at least two other criterion items (e.g., tatoos related to a gang, a particular style of dress or grooming related to a gang). Youths were defined as not belonging to a gang if they denied gang membership and did not meet the other criteria for gang membership. As noted above, these criteria identified 75 gang members and 56 youths not belonging to a gang. Twelve other youths were excluded from the study because they did not fit the criteria either for gang membership or no gang membership (e.g., youth denied gang membership but responded affirmatively to two criterion items). Dependent Variables" Criminal Activity. Criminal activities during the past year (excluding time incarcerated) were assessed with the Self-Report Delinquency (SRD; Eiliott & Ageton, 1980) scale used in the National Youth Survey. The SRD includes a broad range of criminal acts and is the most well-validated of the self-report delinquency indices (Henggeler, 1989). Four summary scales were examined: general-delinquency, index offenses, school delinquency (e.g., hit teacher, strongarmed students), and home delinquency (e.g., dam-
Gang Members
443
aged family property, stole from family). In addition the hard drug use offense-specific scale was evaluated. Arrest histories were not included for two primary reasons. First, ro guarantee anonymity after the assessment, increase participalion rates, and enhance internal validity, participant names were not written on research forms and a master list matching names with identification numbers was not compiled. Second, we were concerned about possible biases in arrest records (see e.g., Fagan, Slaughter, & Hartstone, 1987). Family Relations. The 20-item Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-Ill (FACES-Ill; Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985) assesses two central dimensions of family relations: cohesion and adaptability. The validity of FACES has been supported in numerous studies of juvenile offenders (e.g., Biaske, Borduin, Henggeler, & Mann, 1989; Henggeler, BurrHarris, Borduin, & McCallum, 1991; Tolan, 1988). In light of debate regarding the linearity vs. curvilinearity of the subscales (Henggeler et al., 1991), analyses determined that the subscales were linearly associated with the SRD summary scales. Thus, the scales are treated linearly in subsequent analyses. The 30-item Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI-30; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1988) is a brief version of the CRPBI (Schaefer, 1965) and assesses three important dimensions of mother-adolescent and of father-adolescent relations: acceptance, psychological control, and firm control. Such dimensions have been consistently linked with antisocial behavior in adolescents (Henggeler, 1989; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). The CRPBI-30 subscales are highly correlated with their counterparts in the CRPBI-108, have high test-retest reliabilities (all rs > .94), and acceptable internal consistencies (alpha coefficients >.63). Peer Relations. The 13-item Missouri Peer Relations Inventory (MPRI; Borduin, Blaske, Treloar, Mann, & Hazelrigg, 1989) evaluates three qualitative dimensions of adolescent friendships: emotional bonding~ aggression, and social maturity. The inventory was normed on juvenile of_ fenders and normal controls and recent studies have supported its validity with serious delinquents (Blaske et al., 1989) and hearing impaired adolescents (Henggeler, Watson, & Whelan, 1990).
RESULTS A 2 (Gang Status) • 2 (Ethnicity: Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian) multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA), with social status as a ~ variate, was performed on the subscales of each research instrument. Whe:~
444
Lyon, ilenggeler, and llall
the multivariate effect was significant, an ANCOVA was conducted on each measure in the set.
Criminal Activity Significant multivariate effects for gang status, F(4, 123) = 14.92, p < .001, and ethnicity, F(4, 123) = 2.89, p < .05, emerged for the SRD summary scales. Univariate analyses revealed significant gang status effects for general delinquency, F(1, 126) = 13.28, p < .001, index offenses, F(1, 126) = 41.44, p < .001, and school delinquency, F(1, 126) = 16.78, p < .001. In each case, gang members reported much higher rates of criminal activity than did youths who did not belong to gangs (see Table I). Univariate ethnicity effects emerged for general delinquency, F(1,126) = 8.36, p < .01, and home delinquency, F(1, 126) = 4.40, p < .05, with Caucasian youths reporting higher rates of criminal behavior than Hispanic-American youths. In addition, a significant interaction effect, F(1, 126) = 6.92, p < .01, and a main effect for ethnicity, F(1, 126) = 8.89, p < .01, emerged for hard-drug use. Post hoe" comparisons showed that Hispanic-American offenders who did not belong to gangs reported significantly less hard drug use than their counterparts in each of the other groups.
Family Relations Separate MANCOVAs were conducted on the FACES-III (cohesion and adaptability), the CRPBI-30 for mother (acceptance, psychological control, and firm control), and the CRPBI-30 for father. No significant multivariate effects were observed. Although the primary purpose of conducting multivariate analyses was to limit Type 1 error, one univariate finding emerged (the only significant univariate effect among the family relations measures) that has important implications for interpreting ethnicity differences in self-reported delinquency. Hispanic-American youths reported significantly more psychological control from their mothers than did Caucasian youths, F(1,126) = 5.63, p < .02.
Peer Relations A significant multivariate effect for gang status, F(3, 124) = 3.33, p < .05, emerged for the MPRI. Gang status univariate effects were observed for aggression, F(1,126) = 5.53, p < .05, and social maturity, F(1, 126) =
Gang Members
445
Table !. Group Means, Standard Deviations, and Analyses for Dependent Measures a Significant effects HG SRD General delinquency Index offenses School delinquency Home delinquency Hard-drug use CRPBI-30: Mother Acceptance Psychological control Firm control CRPBI-30: Father Acceptance Psychological control Firm control FACES-II[ Cohesion Adaptability MPRI Emotional bonding
Aggression Social maturity
HN
WG
WN
Multivariate
Univariate
E, G M SD M SD
359 (289) 73 (68)
110 (21 I) 16 (45)
448 (424) 73 (83)
366 (339) 39 (74)
E, G
M SD
67 (58)
18 (27)
83 (94)
53 (54)
G
M SD M SD
4 (9) 33 62
2 (5) 5 25
4 (7) 24 43
9 (14) 47 72
E
M SD
24.8 (4.5)
25.8 (6.0)
24.3 (5.5)
24.7 (4.8)
M SD M SD
20,9 (4.6) 19,2 (4.4)
20.6 (4.7) 20.2 (3.8)
18.0 (4.5) 18.9 (5.6)
18.4 (5.0) 20.4 (4.1)
M SD
21,6 (5.7)
23.1 (6.6)
20,7 (7,3)
20.4 (5.1)
M SD M SD
20.7 (4.2) 20.4 (5.7)
18.7 (4.4) 20.5 (3.9)
19.0 (4.9) 23.4 (5.6)
19.1 (6.7) 22.0 (6.0)
M SD M SD
32.7 (9.5) 24.4 (5.8)
34.8 (8.6) 23.1 (5.6)
29.6 (9.8) 22.6 (6.2)
32,8 (9.4) 24.2 (5.8)
G
EG, G n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
G
M SD M SD M SO
16.8 (3.3) 12.8 (3.1) 9.6 (1.7)
17.3 (2.5) 12.4 (3.8) 10.5 (1.7)
17,9 (2.5) 14.1 (3.7) 10.6 (2.0)
17.6 (2_4) 11.7 (2.6) 11.1 (2.0)
G
G
aNote: HG = Hispanic-American gang members; HN = Hispanic-American offenders who are not gang members; WG = Caucasian gang members; WN = Caucasian offenders who are not gang members. G = main effect for gang membership; E = main effect for ethnicity; EG = interaction effect. SRD = Self-Report Delinquency scale; CRPBI-30 = 30-item Children's Report of Parental Behavior; FACES-Ill = 20-item Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-Ill; MPRI = Missouri Peer Relations Inventory,
l,yon, Ilenggeler, and llall
446
4.80, p < .05. The friendships of gang members were more aggressive and less socially mature than the friendships of offenders who did not belong to gangs.
DISCUSSION The first purpose of this study was to evaluate the view that gang members present an inordinately high rate of serious antisocial behavor (Klein & Maxson, 1989; Spergel, 1991). Results clearly demonstrated a higher rate of reported criminal behavior among incarcerated gang members than among incarcerated youths who were not gang members. For example, gang members reported a mean of 73 index offenses during the past year, which was more than twice that reported by serious offenders who were not gang members. As another point of comparison, the mean number of index offenses reported by adolescents in the National Youth Survey was less than 1.0 (Elliott, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1983). Moreover, because gang membership may enhance the probability of incarceration due to increased scrutiny by the juvenile justice system (Zatz, 1985), between-groups differences in reported offenses are even more striking. In addition, results revealed that Caucasians reported more general delinquency and home delinquency than did their Hispanic-American counterparts. The finding for general delinquency may reflect underreporting on self-report indices by minorities (e.g., Dunford & Elliott, 1984), racial discrepancies in decisions to arrest and incarcerate (e.g., Huizinga & Eiliott, 1987), greater psychological control exercised by Hispanic-American mothers (as suggested in the results section), and/or better monitoring via larger extended families and more cohesive ethnic neighborhoods among Hispanic-Americans. Regarding home delinquency, findings may reflect the greater respect for parental authority reported for Hispanic-American families (Rodriguez & Zayas, 1990) as well as the aforementioned use of psychological control by mothers of Hispanic-American youths. The finding that hard drug use was relatively low among Hispanic-Americans who did not belong to gangs is consistent with extant sociocultural differences in substance abuse (Delgado, 1990). Moreover, the high rate of hard drug use reported by Hispanic-American gang members suggests that gang membership mediates this sociocultural difference. The second purpose of this study was to assess the family relations and peer relations of gang members in comparison to juvenile offenders who do not belong to a gang, and to determine whether such relations were mediated by ethnicity. Between-groups differences were not observed
Gang Members
447
for family relations, mother-adolescent relations, or father-adolescent relations. The lack of between-group differences does not discount the important role of family relations in serious antisocial behavior, but such findings suggest that family problems are no more associated with gang membership than with serious antisocial behavior in general. Regarding peer relations, gang members were more aggressive and less socially mature than offenders who did not belong to gangs. These findings support Short and Strodtbeck's (1965/1974) view that aggression underlies the friendships of gang members, and that much of the pseudoaggression (e.g., body-punching) displayed in gang members' relationships may be due to social disabilities that prelude more mature ways of relating. Similarly, Romig, Cleland, and Romig (1989) reported that incarcerated gang members presented poor social and interpersonal skills. Interestingly, in contrast to previous qualitative research, gang members did not report greater emotional bonding with their friends than did offenders who did not belong to gangs. The social contexts of gang members were not moderated by ethnicity. All groups reported similar family relations, and Hispanic-American gang members reported similar peer relations as Caucasian gang members. Such findings support the view that the correlates and causes of serious antisocial behavior are similar across ethnic groups (Henggeler, 1989). Finally, the limitations of this study are noted, and directions for future research are suggested. First, the use of an incarcerated sample limits the external validity of the study, though a very high percentage of eligible youths agreed to participate. Second, the inclusion of a nondelinquent control group might have improved internal validity. However, we were primarily interested in the unique correlates of gang membership, and, consequently, the present comparison group was most pertinent. Third, construct validity was limited by use of only one measurement method (i.eo, adolescent self-report). Nevertheless, this represents the first study to use standardized instruments to evaluate the social systems of gang members while controlling for the presence of serious antisocial behavior. Future investigators should consider the inclusion of community samples and the assessment of constructs from multiple perspectives (e.g., parent and peer reports).
REFERENCES Blaske, D. M., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Mann, B. J. (1989). Individual, family, and peer characteristics of adolescent sex offenders and assaultive offenders~ Developmental Psychology, 25, 846-855.
448
Lyon, llenggeler, and tlall
Borduin, C. M., Blaske, D. M., Trcloar, L., Mann. B. J., & Hazelrigg, M. (1989). Development and validation of a measure of ado&scent peer relations. Unpublished .manuscript, University of Missouri, Department of Psychology, Columbia. California Council on Criminal Justice. (1989). State task force on gangs and drugs. Sacramento: Author. Delgado, M. (1990). Hispanic adolescents and substance abuse: Implications for research, treatment, and prevention. In A. R. Stiffman & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Ethnic issues h~ adolescent mental health (pp. 303-320). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dunford, F. W., & Elliott, D. S. (1984). Identifying career offenders using self-reported data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 57-86. Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110. Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B. A., & Canter, R. J. (1983). The prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior: 1976-1980 (Project Report No. 26). Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fagan, J., Slaughter, E., & Hartstonc, E. (1987). Blind justice? The impact of race on the juvenile justice process. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 244-258. Fagan, J., & Wexler, S. (1987). Family origins of violent delinquents. Criminology, 25, 643-669. Gottfredson, G. D. (1989). The experience of violent and serious victimization. In N. Ao Weiner & M. E. Wolfgang (Eds.), Pathways to criminal violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hagedorn, J. M. (1988). People and folks: Gangs, crime, and the underclass in a rustbeh city. Chicago: Lake View Press. Henggeler, S. W. (1989). Delinquency in adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Henggeler, S. W. (1991). Multidimensional causal models of delinquent behavior. In R. Cohen & A. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Henggler, S. W., Burr-Harris, A. W., Borduin, C. M., & McCallum, G. (1.991). Use of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales in child clinical research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 53-63. Henggeler, S. W., Watson, S. M., & Whelan, J. P. (1990). Peer relations of hearing-impaired adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 721-731. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). The four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1987). Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offender incidence, and arrest rates by race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206-223. Johnstone, J. W. C. (1983). Recruitment to a youth gang. Youth and Society, 14, 281-300. Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Engtewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (1989). Street gang violence. In N. A. Weiner & M. E. Wolfgang (Eds.), Violent crime, violent criminals (pp. 198-234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martinez, O. (1987). Minority youth and crime. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 325-328. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-IlL St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of Family Social Science. Quay, H. C. (Ed.). (1987). Handbook of juvenile delinquency. New York: Wiley. Quicker, J. C. (1983). Seven decades of gangs: What has been learned, what has been done, and what shouM be done. Sacramento: California Commission on Crime Control and Violence Prevention. Rodriguez, O., & Zayas, L. H. (1990). Hispanic adolescents and antisocial behavior: Sociocultural factors and treatment implications. In A. R. Stiffman & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Ethnic issues in adolescent mental health (pp. 147-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Romig, D. A., Cleland, C. C., & Romig, L. J. (1989). Juvenile delinquency: Visionary approaches. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 38, 417-424.
Gang Members
449
Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1988). Notes on the CRPB1-30. Unpublished manuscript, University of Manitoba, Department of Psychology, Winnipeg, Canada. Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1974). Group process and gang delinquency (4th impression). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1965). Snyder, J., & Patterson, G. R. (1987). Family interaction and delinquent behavior. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 216-243). New York: Wiley. Spergel, I. A. (1991). Youth gangs: Problem and response. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, Chicago. Thompson, D. W., & Jason, L. A. (1988). Street gangs and preventative interventions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 323-333. Tolan, P. (1988). Socioeconomic, family, and social slress correlates of adolescent antisocial and delinquent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 317-331. Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs. Austin: The University of Texas Press. Zatz, M. S. (1985). Los Cholos: Legal processing of Chicano gang members. Social Problems, 33, 13-30.
The Family Relations, Peer Relations, and Criminal Activities of Caucasian and Hispanic-American Gang Members Jean-Marie Lyon, ~,4 Scott Ilenggeler, e and James A. llall 3
Juvenile gang members" pres'enl s'erious problems to soc&ty, yet jew empirical studies have examined their criminal activity, family relations, and peer relations in comparison with other highly antisocial youths. I n a 2 (Gang Membership) x 2 (Ethnicity: Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian) design, 13I incarcerated male juvenile offenders were administered a battery assessing criminal activity, family relations, and peer relations. Results demonstrated (a) higher rates of criminal behavior (i.e., general delinquency, index offenses, school delinquency) among gang members than among offenders who did not belong to gangs, (b) higher rates of general delinquency and home delinquency among Caucasian offenders than among Hispanic-American offenders, and (c) greater aggression and less social maturity in the peer relations of gang members" than in the peer relations of offenders who did not belong to gangs. In addition, gang membership mediated sociocultural differences in hard drug use. Findings are integrated with the extant literature.
Juvenile gang members are thought to have become increasingly violent as participation in drug trafficking has increased (California Counci~ on Criminal Justice, 1989). Likewise, Klein and Maxson (1989) suggested that juvenile offenders who are gang members have higher rates of violent Manuscript received in final form March 16, 1992. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and advice of Dr. Michael Schumacher; the Honorable C. Robert Jameson, Gwen Kurz, Don Hallstrom, Jane Carmichael, and Drs, Malcolm Klein, Rae Newton, and James Madero. 1Health Care Agency/EGU, County of Orange, Orange, California 92668. 2School of Human Behavior, United States International University-San Diego, San Diego~ California. 3Department of Community and Family Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California~ 4All correspondence, including requests for reprints, to Jean-Marie Lyon, County of Orange~ Health Care Agency/EGU, 301 City Drive South, Orange, California 92668. 439 0091-4)627,9Z0000-4~39506.50/0 #-~ 1992 Plenum Publishing Corpcra~o~
440
Lyon, Ilenggeler, and llall
criminal activity than offenders who are not gang members. In light of the increased tendency for gang members to continue their gang affiliation into adulthood (Hagedorn, 1988) and the extremely detrimental emotional, physical, and economic effects that violent crime has on victims, victims' families, and the community as well as on gang members themselves (Gottfredson, 1989; Thompson & Jason, 1988), a better understanding is needed of delinquent youths who comprise juvenile gangs. Studies of the correlates and causes of delinquency have consistently implicated the significance of family relations and peers relations (Henggeler, 1989; Quay, 1987). Indeed, the numerous correlates of antisocial behavior in adolescents have prompted the development of multidimensional structural models of delinquency (for a review, see Henggeler, 1991), at least two of which examined the predictors of serious criminal activity. In a national probability sample, Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton (1985) found that involvement with delinqucnt peers directly predicted self-reported in dex offenses, and family difficulties predicted involvement with delinquent peers. Similarly, in a survey of violent delinquents, Fagan and Wexler (1987) found that association with deviant peers was the strongest predictor of violent criminal activity. Findings such as these demonstrate the significance of family relations and peer relations in the study of juvenile offenders. In the general delinquency literature, the pertinence of low family cohesion and ineffective parental monitoring/discipline are well-documented (Henggeler, 1989; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). Regarding family correlates of gang membership, Vigil (1988) suggested that parents of gang members frequently are unable to provide adequate supervision for their children, and gangs provide emotional support that is often lacking in the family. Few studies, however, have used standardized measures to assess the family relations of gang members, and such relations have not been contrasted with the family relations of juvenile offenders who do not belong to gangs. The peer relations of gang members have been viewed as highly adaptive and cohesive by some investigators and as quite dysfunctional by others. Several theorists and reviewers (e.g., Hagedorn, 1988; Quicker, 1983; Vigil, 1988) have suggested that many gang members experience an intense emotional closeness born of children growing up together on the streets and turn to each other for support in times of need. In contrast, other authors (e.g., Johnstone, 1983; Klein, 1971; Spergel, 1991) have argued that the socioemotional deficits of gang members restrict their capacity for genuine friendships. Moreover, Short and Strodtbeck (1965/1974) viewed aggression and mistrust as the underlying themes of gang members' interactions, especially considering the constant threat of having to prove oneself.
Gang Members
441
This study has several purposes. First, as suggested by Klein and Maxson (1989), we assessed whether juvenile offenders who are gang members report more frequent and serious criminal activity than offenders who do not belong to gangs. Second, we examined the unique family and peer correlates of gang membership, and whether such correlates are mediated by ethnicity (Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian). Hispanic-American youths are the most rapidly increasing incarcerated population (Martinez, 1987), but little evidence suggests that the correlates of antisocial behavior differ among ethnic groups. On the other hand, Rodriguez and Zayas (1990) proposed that Hispanic cultural norms concerning parental respect and loyalty to family are likely to attenuate rates of criminal behavior among Hispanic-American youth. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study to evaluate the social systems of gang members with standardized instruments while conlrolling for the presence of serious anlisocial beh:lvior.
METHOD
Participants Participants meeting all screening criteria included 131, 13- to 18-yearold incarcerated male juvenile offenders divided into four groups in a 2 (Gang Membership) x 2 (Ethnicity: Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian) design. Thus, groups were comprised of Hispanic-American gang members (HG; n = 50), Hispanic-Americans who did not belong to a gang (HN; n = 26), Caucasian gang members (WG; n = 25), and Caucasians who did not belong to a gang (WN; n = 30). Across groups, the mean adolescent age was 16.1 years (SD = 1.1), 64% of youths were from two-parent families (both biological parents or one biological parent and a mate), and the mean social status (Hollingshead, 1975) score was 34 (SD = 14), reflecting skilled craft workers, clerica!,. and sales workers. Between-groups differences were not observed for age and family structure, but Caucasian youths were of higher social status than Hispanic-American youths, F(1, 127) = 86.33, p < .001. Consequently, social status was used as a covariate in subsequent analyses.
Procedure Adjudicated minors, recently referred to a county Assessment Center that serves several juvenile detention facilities, were screened for ethnicib (Hispanic-American or Caucasian). Next, a researcher, who was a mental health professional, met with eligible youths (either individually or in pairs)
Lyon, Ilenggeler, and llall
442
to explain the purpose of the study. Procedures to guarantee confidentiality were emphasized, and eventual anonymity was assured. The researcher stressed that participation was completely voluntary and would have no bearing on services provided by the Center. If agreeable, the participants signed the consent form and were administered an assessment battery. Ninety-six percent of the eligible youths agreed to participate. Because reading difficulties are widespread among delinquents, all items were read aloud by the researcher while the participants read along. Four youths lacked sufficient command of the English language and were excluded from the study. Each youth was given a soft drink at the completion of the 45min assessment session.
Independent Variables' Ethnicity. Ethnicity was determined by self-report responses on a demographic questionnaire. The majority of minors committed to the county's detention facilities a r e Caucasian (non-Hispanic; 42%) or Hispanic-American (44%). Youths of other ethnic backgrounds were excluded. Gang Membership. Status as a gang member was based on criteria of the county Gang Violence Suppression Unit. To be considered a gang member, the youth must have admitted gang membership and must have responded affirmatively to at least two other criterion items (e.g., tatoos related to a gang, a particular style of dress or grooming related to a gang). Youths were defined as not belonging to a gang if they denied gang membership and did not meet the other criteria for gang membership. As noted above, these criteria identified 75 gang members and 56 youths not belonging to a gang. Twelve other youths were excluded from the study because they did not fit the criteria either for gang membership or no gang membership (e.g., youth denied gang membership but responded affirmatively to two criterion items). Dependent Variables" Criminal Activity. Criminal activities during the past year (excluding time incarcerated) were assessed with the Self-Report Delinquency (SRD; Eiliott & Ageton, 1980) scale used in the National Youth Survey. The SRD includes a broad range of criminal acts and is the most well-validated of the self-report delinquency indices (Henggeler, 1989). Four summary scales were examined: general-delinquency, index offenses, school delinquency (e.g., hit teacher, strongarmed students), and home delinquency (e.g., dam-
Gang Members
443
aged family property, stole from family). In addition the hard drug use offense-specific scale was evaluated. Arrest histories were not included for two primary reasons. First, ro guarantee anonymity after the assessment, increase participalion rates, and enhance internal validity, participant names were not written on research forms and a master list matching names with identification numbers was not compiled. Second, we were concerned about possible biases in arrest records (see e.g., Fagan, Slaughter, & Hartstone, 1987). Family Relations. The 20-item Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-Ill (FACES-Ill; Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985) assesses two central dimensions of family relations: cohesion and adaptability. The validity of FACES has been supported in numerous studies of juvenile offenders (e.g., Biaske, Borduin, Henggeler, & Mann, 1989; Henggeler, BurrHarris, Borduin, & McCallum, 1991; Tolan, 1988). In light of debate regarding the linearity vs. curvilinearity of the subscales (Henggeler et al., 1991), analyses determined that the subscales were linearly associated with the SRD summary scales. Thus, the scales are treated linearly in subsequent analyses. The 30-item Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI-30; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1988) is a brief version of the CRPBI (Schaefer, 1965) and assesses three important dimensions of mother-adolescent and of father-adolescent relations: acceptance, psychological control, and firm control. Such dimensions have been consistently linked with antisocial behavior in adolescents (Henggeler, 1989; Snyder & Patterson, 1987). The CRPBI-30 subscales are highly correlated with their counterparts in the CRPBI-108, have high test-retest reliabilities (all rs > .94), and acceptable internal consistencies (alpha coefficients >.63). Peer Relations. The 13-item Missouri Peer Relations Inventory (MPRI; Borduin, Blaske, Treloar, Mann, & Hazelrigg, 1989) evaluates three qualitative dimensions of adolescent friendships: emotional bonding~ aggression, and social maturity. The inventory was normed on juvenile of_ fenders and normal controls and recent studies have supported its validity with serious delinquents (Blaske et al., 1989) and hearing impaired adolescents (Henggeler, Watson, & Whelan, 1990).
RESULTS A 2 (Gang Status) • 2 (Ethnicity: Hispanic-American vs. Caucasian) multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA), with social status as a ~ variate, was performed on the subscales of each research instrument. Whe:~
444
Lyon, ilenggeler, and llall
the multivariate effect was significant, an ANCOVA was conducted on each measure in the set.
Criminal Activity Significant multivariate effects for gang status, F(4, 123) = 14.92, p < .001, and ethnicity, F(4, 123) = 2.89, p < .05, emerged for the SRD summary scales. Univariate analyses revealed significant gang status effects for general delinquency, F(1, 126) = 13.28, p < .001, index offenses, F(1, 126) = 41.44, p < .001, and school delinquency, F(1, 126) = 16.78, p < .001. In each case, gang members reported much higher rates of criminal activity than did youths who did not belong to gangs (see Table I). Univariate ethnicity effects emerged for general delinquency, F(1,126) = 8.36, p < .01, and home delinquency, F(1, 126) = 4.40, p < .05, with Caucasian youths reporting higher rates of criminal behavior than Hispanic-American youths. In addition, a significant interaction effect, F(1, 126) = 6.92, p < .01, and a main effect for ethnicity, F(1, 126) = 8.89, p < .01, emerged for hard-drug use. Post hoe" comparisons showed that Hispanic-American offenders who did not belong to gangs reported significantly less hard drug use than their counterparts in each of the other groups.
Family Relations Separate MANCOVAs were conducted on the FACES-III (cohesion and adaptability), the CRPBI-30 for mother (acceptance, psychological control, and firm control), and the CRPBI-30 for father. No significant multivariate effects were observed. Although the primary purpose of conducting multivariate analyses was to limit Type 1 error, one univariate finding emerged (the only significant univariate effect among the family relations measures) that has important implications for interpreting ethnicity differences in self-reported delinquency. Hispanic-American youths reported significantly more psychological control from their mothers than did Caucasian youths, F(1,126) = 5.63, p < .02.
Peer Relations A significant multivariate effect for gang status, F(3, 124) = 3.33, p < .05, emerged for the MPRI. Gang status univariate effects were observed for aggression, F(1,126) = 5.53, p < .05, and social maturity, F(1, 126) =
Gang Members
445
Table !. Group Means, Standard Deviations, and Analyses for Dependent Measures a Significant effects HG SRD General delinquency Index offenses School delinquency Home delinquency Hard-drug use CRPBI-30: Mother Acceptance Psychological control Firm control CRPBI-30: Father Acceptance Psychological control Firm control FACES-II[ Cohesion Adaptability MPRI Emotional bonding
Aggression Social maturity
HN
WG
WN
Multivariate
Univariate
E, G M SD M SD
359 (289) 73 (68)
110 (21 I) 16 (45)
448 (424) 73 (83)
366 (339) 39 (74)
E, G
M SD
67 (58)
18 (27)
83 (94)
53 (54)
G
M SD M SD
4 (9) 33 62
2 (5) 5 25
4 (7) 24 43
9 (14) 47 72
E
M SD
24.8 (4.5)
25.8 (6.0)
24.3 (5.5)
24.7 (4.8)
M SD M SD
20,9 (4.6) 19,2 (4.4)
20.6 (4.7) 20.2 (3.8)
18.0 (4.5) 18.9 (5.6)
18.4 (5.0) 20.4 (4.1)
M SD
21,6 (5.7)
23.1 (6.6)
20,7 (7,3)
20.4 (5.1)
M SD M SD
20.7 (4.2) 20.4 (5.7)
18.7 (4.4) 20.5 (3.9)
19.0 (4.9) 23.4 (5.6)
19.1 (6.7) 22.0 (6.0)
M SD M SD
32.7 (9.5) 24.4 (5.8)
34.8 (8.6) 23.1 (5.6)
29.6 (9.8) 22.6 (6.2)
32,8 (9.4) 24.2 (5.8)
G
EG, G n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
G
M SD M SD M SO
16.8 (3.3) 12.8 (3.1) 9.6 (1.7)
17.3 (2.5) 12.4 (3.8) 10.5 (1.7)
17,9 (2.5) 14.1 (3.7) 10.6 (2.0)
17.6 (2_4) 11.7 (2.6) 11.1 (2.0)
G
G
aNote: HG = Hispanic-American gang members; HN = Hispanic-American offenders who are not gang members; WG = Caucasian gang members; WN = Caucasian offenders who are not gang members. G = main effect for gang membership; E = main effect for ethnicity; EG = interaction effect. SRD = Self-Report Delinquency scale; CRPBI-30 = 30-item Children's Report of Parental Behavior; FACES-Ill = 20-item Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-Ill; MPRI = Missouri Peer Relations Inventory,
l,yon, Ilenggeler, and llall
446
4.80, p < .05. The friendships of gang members were more aggressive and less socially mature than the friendships of offenders who did not belong to gangs.
DISCUSSION The first purpose of this study was to evaluate the view that gang members present an inordinately high rate of serious antisocial behavor (Klein & Maxson, 1989; Spergel, 1991). Results clearly demonstrated a higher rate of reported criminal behavior among incarcerated gang members than among incarcerated youths who were not gang members. For example, gang members reported a mean of 73 index offenses during the past year, which was more than twice that reported by serious offenders who were not gang members. As another point of comparison, the mean number of index offenses reported by adolescents in the National Youth Survey was less than 1.0 (Elliott, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1983). Moreover, because gang membership may enhance the probability of incarceration due to increased scrutiny by the juvenile justice system (Zatz, 1985), between-groups differences in reported offenses are even more striking. In addition, results revealed that Caucasians reported more general delinquency and home delinquency than did their Hispanic-American counterparts. The finding for general delinquency may reflect underreporting on self-report indices by minorities (e.g., Dunford & Elliott, 1984), racial discrepancies in decisions to arrest and incarcerate (e.g., Huizinga & Eiliott, 1987), greater psychological control exercised by Hispanic-American mothers (as suggested in the results section), and/or better monitoring via larger extended families and more cohesive ethnic neighborhoods among Hispanic-Americans. Regarding home delinquency, findings may reflect the greater respect for parental authority reported for Hispanic-American families (Rodriguez & Zayas, 1990) as well as the aforementioned use of psychological control by mothers of Hispanic-American youths. The finding that hard drug use was relatively low among Hispanic-Americans who did not belong to gangs is consistent with extant sociocultural differences in substance abuse (Delgado, 1990). Moreover, the high rate of hard drug use reported by Hispanic-American gang members suggests that gang membership mediates this sociocultural difference. The second purpose of this study was to assess the family relations and peer relations of gang members in comparison to juvenile offenders who do not belong to a gang, and to determine whether such relations were mediated by ethnicity. Between-groups differences were not observed
Gang Members
447
for family relations, mother-adolescent relations, or father-adolescent relations. The lack of between-group differences does not discount the important role of family relations in serious antisocial behavior, but such findings suggest that family problems are no more associated with gang membership than with serious antisocial behavior in general. Regarding peer relations, gang members were more aggressive and less socially mature than offenders who did not belong to gangs. These findings support Short and Strodtbeck's (1965/1974) view that aggression underlies the friendships of gang members, and that much of the pseudoaggression (e.g., body-punching) displayed in gang members' relationships may be due to social disabilities that prelude more mature ways of relating. Similarly, Romig, Cleland, and Romig (1989) reported that incarcerated gang members presented poor social and interpersonal skills. Interestingly, in contrast to previous qualitative research, gang members did not report greater emotional bonding with their friends than did offenders who did not belong to gangs. The social contexts of gang members were not moderated by ethnicity. All groups reported similar family relations, and Hispanic-American gang members reported similar peer relations as Caucasian gang members. Such findings support the view that the correlates and causes of serious antisocial behavior are similar across ethnic groups (Henggeler, 1989). Finally, the limitations of this study are noted, and directions for future research are suggested. First, the use of an incarcerated sample limits the external validity of the study, though a very high percentage of eligible youths agreed to participate. Second, the inclusion of a nondelinquent control group might have improved internal validity. However, we were primarily interested in the unique correlates of gang membership, and, consequently, the present comparison group was most pertinent. Third, construct validity was limited by use of only one measurement method (i.eo, adolescent self-report). Nevertheless, this represents the first study to use standardized instruments to evaluate the social systems of gang members while controlling for the presence of serious antisocial behavior. Future investigators should consider the inclusion of community samples and the assessment of constructs from multiple perspectives (e.g., parent and peer reports).
REFERENCES Blaske, D. M., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Mann, B. J. (1989). Individual, family, and peer characteristics of adolescent sex offenders and assaultive offenders~ Developmental Psychology, 25, 846-855.
448
Lyon, llenggeler, and tlall
Borduin, C. M., Blaske, D. M., Trcloar, L., Mann. B. J., & Hazelrigg, M. (1989). Development and validation of a measure of ado&scent peer relations. Unpublished .manuscript, University of Missouri, Department of Psychology, Columbia. California Council on Criminal Justice. (1989). State task force on gangs and drugs. Sacramento: Author. Delgado, M. (1990). Hispanic adolescents and substance abuse: Implications for research, treatment, and prevention. In A. R. Stiffman & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Ethnic issues h~ adolescent mental health (pp. 303-320). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dunford, F. W., & Elliott, D. S. (1984). Identifying career offenders using self-reported data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 57-86. Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110. Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B. A., & Canter, R. J. (1983). The prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior: 1976-1980 (Project Report No. 26). Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fagan, J., Slaughter, E., & Hartstonc, E. (1987). Blind justice? The impact of race on the juvenile justice process. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 244-258. Fagan, J., & Wexler, S. (1987). Family origins of violent delinquents. Criminology, 25, 643-669. Gottfredson, G. D. (1989). The experience of violent and serious victimization. In N. Ao Weiner & M. E. Wolfgang (Eds.), Pathways to criminal violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hagedorn, J. M. (1988). People and folks: Gangs, crime, and the underclass in a rustbeh city. Chicago: Lake View Press. Henggeler, S. W. (1989). Delinquency in adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Henggeler, S. W. (1991). Multidimensional causal models of delinquent behavior. In R. Cohen & A. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Henggler, S. W., Burr-Harris, A. W., Borduin, C. M., & McCallum, G. (1.991). Use of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales in child clinical research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 53-63. Henggeler, S. W., Watson, S. M., & Whelan, J. P. (1990). Peer relations of hearing-impaired adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 721-731. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). The four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1987). Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offender incidence, and arrest rates by race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206-223. Johnstone, J. W. C. (1983). Recruitment to a youth gang. Youth and Society, 14, 281-300. Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Engtewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (1989). Street gang violence. In N. A. Weiner & M. E. Wolfgang (Eds.), Violent crime, violent criminals (pp. 198-234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martinez, O. (1987). Minority youth and crime. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 325-328. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-IlL St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of Family Social Science. Quay, H. C. (Ed.). (1987). Handbook of juvenile delinquency. New York: Wiley. Quicker, J. C. (1983). Seven decades of gangs: What has been learned, what has been done, and what shouM be done. Sacramento: California Commission on Crime Control and Violence Prevention. Rodriguez, O., & Zayas, L. H. (1990). Hispanic adolescents and antisocial behavior: Sociocultural factors and treatment implications. In A. R. Stiffman & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Ethnic issues in adolescent mental health (pp. 147-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Romig, D. A., Cleland, C. C., & Romig, L. J. (1989). Juvenile delinquency: Visionary approaches. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 38, 417-424.
Gang Members
449
Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1988). Notes on the CRPB1-30. Unpublished manuscript, University of Manitoba, Department of Psychology, Winnipeg, Canada. Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1974). Group process and gang delinquency (4th impression). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1965). Snyder, J., & Patterson, G. R. (1987). Family interaction and delinquent behavior. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 216-243). New York: Wiley. Spergel, I. A. (1991). Youth gangs: Problem and response. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, Chicago. Thompson, D. W., & Jason, L. A. (1988). Street gangs and preventative interventions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 323-333. Tolan, P. (1988). Socioeconomic, family, and social slress correlates of adolescent antisocial and delinquent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 317-331. Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs. Austin: The University of Texas Press. Zatz, M. S. (1985). Los Cholos: Legal processing of Chicano gang members. Social Problems, 33, 13-30.
