Criminal Justice Review

Criminal Justice Review http://cjr.sagepub.com/

Preventing Youth Gang Joining and Facilitating Desistance: Recent Contributions to a Growing Field Terrance J. Taylor Criminal Justice Review 2013 38: 429 DOI: 10.1177/0734016813513104 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/38/4/429

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Published in Association with Georgia State University, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology

Additional services and information for Criminal Justice Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/38/4/429.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 15, 2014 What is This?

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS on February 6, 2014

Editorial

Preventing Youth Gang Joining and Facilitating Desistance: Recent Contributions to a Growing Field

Criminal Justice Review 38(4) 429-431 ª 2013 Georgia State University Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734016813513104 cjr.sagepub.com

Terrance J. Taylor1

In 2006, Malcolm Klein and Cheryl Maxson published a fantastic book highlighting the current state of the field regarding youth gang research and practice. Although it is a few years old now, it is an incredible resource. The authors make the case that research and policy are intertwined, and we—as scholars and policy makers—must understand the linkages between the two if we are to make important inroads in reducing youth gangs and their criminal activity. In their book, Klein and Maxson document recent patterns of youth gang membership and activities, present an overview of the research why these patterns exist, assess a number of popular antigang strategies, and provide a series of theoretically driven, empirically supported policy recommendations for antigang efforts to be pursued in the future. My hope in designing this special issue is that readers keep the interconnectedness of these topical areas in mind when assessing each article and the overarching themes. In short, I have asked each of the authors of the current studies to answer not just, ‘‘What did you do in your study?’’ and ‘‘What did you find?’’ but also focus on ‘‘What should we do with this new information?’’ In this vein, each of the authors included in this special issue have spent considerable effort in tying their study into the broader research on youth gang theory and policy. More specifically, the purpose of this special issue was to tackle two topics important to the field of youth gangs. On one hand, scholars should (and have) devoted considerable efforts during the past several decades to understanding why some youth join gangs while others do not, even when they are faced with similar social settings and opportunities. In short, much of the research during the past few decades has focused on how individual differences affect youth gang joining. While these studies have, in many ways, taken a departure from earlier gang research on group processes, such examinations have also provided considerable information relevant to evidence-based prevention practices (i.e., those designed to keep youth from becoming gang members) that focus on individual change strategies, which have grown increasingly popular among practitioners. I strongly encourage readers to explore Klein and Maxson’s (2006) work as they comprehensively and elegantly tackle both the strengths and the weaknesses of such approaches. 1

University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

Corresponding Author: Terrance J. Taylor, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121-4400, USA. Email: [email protected]


430

Criminal Justice Review 38(4)

On the other hand, there continue to be significant efforts underway to develop effective intervention efforts (i.e., those designed to divert gang members away from gangs and gang activity). Unfortunately, empirical research has not had as much influence in shaping intervention policies, primarily because there has been less study of why and how youth leave gangs. The study of gang desistance—leaving gangs—is nowhere near as well understood as the study of gang joining. The second purpose of this special issue is to add to the new but growing knowledge about factors affecting youths’ leaving gangs. Rojek, Decker, Alpert, and Hansen take the lead by examining the prevalence of gangs in a unique setting—college sports. Using data collected as part of a national survey of college athletic directors and campus police chiefs and interviews with student athletes at two large universities, Rojek and his colleagues identify that a large majority of respondents believe that gang members are active in college sporting programs. Fewer respondents, however, reported that gang members were active in the programs at their universities. The first of its kind, this study makes an important contribution to the existing literature as there has recently been concern about the role that gangs are playing in public institutions, such as the military. Their findings also highlight some of the shortcomings with the approach that providing youth with social opportunities is the ‘‘golden egg’’ in getting youth out of gangs. Continuing along the line of research in unique settings, Winfree examines youth gang membership in attending public schools in the Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Netherlands, and Germany. Winfree’s work builds upon the Eurogang Program of Research (see http://www.umsl.edu/ccj/Eurogang/euroganghome.html for more) which has led the way in efforts to systematically examine youth gangs and other violent youth groups across the United States and several European nations. The cross-cultural comparisons such as the current study by Winfree highlight that there are shared risk factors for gang membership across different settings, while also highlighting that the ‘‘youth gang problem’’ often varies in its scope and features across contexts. Winfree argues that it is important that antigang program efforts take into account the importance of both context and personal risk factors if they are to be successful. We next turn to the issue of gang desistance. Carson, Peterson, and Esbensen start off by tackling an area that has to this point been relatively ignored: framing the topic. Their study starts by asking, ‘‘What exactly is gang desistance?’’ Furthermore, they ask, ‘‘Why do definitions and measurement matter?’’ Their findings illustrate that different definitions and measures affect both the scope of what proportion of youth gang members desist as well as the nature of the gang desistance process. In so doing, these authors raise important points about both theoretical approaches to understand gang desistance, as well as presenting evidence documenting how necessary intervention efforts truly are in getting youth out of gangs. In my opinion, these questions are very insightful and likely to influence future scholarly efforts to understand gang desistance. Perhaps equally importantly, their results raise several important questions about ‘‘commonsense wisdom’’ about the gang desistance process. Continuing the line of research on gang desistance, Bolden presents findings from an ethnographic study of gangs in Bexar County, Texas, and Orange County, Florida. His study provides a fascinating glimpse into the world of gangs in these two areas. Bolden presents rich, descriptive data pertaining to the two main topical areas explored in this special issue—gang joining and gang desistance. The processes described by Bolden and the way that he ties them into the broader theoretical and practical context of existing youth gang research raises important concerns about why we need more evidence (rather than stereotypes and ‘‘commonsense’’) to shape policy. In short, Bolden argues that what people often think they know about gangs does not conform with the evidence that has been found in previous studies, thus hindering the development of antigang policy efforts. This special issue concludes with a review essay by Rebecca Peterson and James ‘‘Buddy’’ Howell. Their efforts are determined to address three questions: (1) What do we know about how


Taylor

431

gender shapes the gang phenomenon? (2) What anti-gang strategies exist? and (3) What are the implications for current gender-specific and gender-neutral antigang strategies? Their presentation has incredible practical utility, is very timely, and truly innovative. Arguing that both genderspecific and gender-neutral approaches are necessary and that the choices should be structured based on the key theoretically defined and empirically supported risk and protective factors deemed to be the most important drivers of the component of the ‘‘gang problem’’ targeted, Peterson and Howell present a number of examples aimed at policy makers who are followers of the evidence-based practices approach advocated in this special issue. In conclusion, I hope readers get a sense of the intersection between research and policy from the pieces presented in this special issue. I think the evidence is clear at this point: Social policies that are theoretically and empirically driven are much more likely to reduce social harm than policies that do not have these foundations. Gangs are no different. While we are unlikely to be able to eradicate the gang problem in contemporary society, we can certainly alleviate it through focused prevention and intervention efforts. It is important, however, to focus our efforts on a carefully defined target, look to previous evidence as to ‘‘what works and why,’’ and implement logical policies that address key risk and protective factors for gang joining and desistance. My hope in editing this special issue is that research such as that conducted by the current authors advances this agenda. Reference Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
