The Contribution of Gang Membership to the Victim–Offender Overlap

Abstract

Objective: Although a vast literature has investigated the consequences of gang membership for offending and victimization, little is known about the contribution of gang membership to the victim-offender overlap. We advance a group process theoretical model and provide an empirical extension of the victim-offender overlap to gang membership. Method: Using data gathered from 621 respondents in five cities, the contribution of gang membership to the victim-offender overlap is determined by examining (1) a typology of four victim-offender arrangements using multinomial logistic regression modeling and (2) the latent propensity for violent offending and victimization using multilevel item response theory modeling. Results: Gang members were over twice as likely as nongang members to be both victims and offenders, even after adjusting for low self-control, adherence to street codes, and routine activities. Neither contemporary theoretical perspectives on the overlap

Uncovering the Pathways Between Gang Membership and Violent Victimization

“…Indeed, the victim-offender overlap finds itself on the short list of criminological facts. This observation is especially strong within the context of gangs, which Pyrooz et al (2014) aligned with the gang-related group process perspective. We expanded on this observation with a supplementary model estimated without delinquency as a mediator.…”

“…Katz et al 2011), and partial mediation (e.g. Pyrooz et al 2014). Our findings fall in the camp of full mediation.…”

“…A growing list of empirical studies have established a link between gang membership and violent victimization (Barnes et al 2012;Childs et al 2009;Decker and Pyrooz 2010;DeLisi et al 2009;Fox et al 2013;Gibson et al 2009;Gover et al 2009;Katz et al 2011;Ozer and Engel 2011;Pyrooz et al 2014;Rufino et al 2012;Sweeten et al 2013;Spano et al 2008;Taylor et al 2007Taylor et al , 2008Zavala and Spohn 2013). Drawn from wide and diverse research designs that span a range of demographic groups and sampling frames, this body of evidence is large enough that few would dispute the fact that gang members are victims of violence at a rate that is much higher than their peers who are not in gangs.…”

“…These mechanisms operate at multiple levels of explanation (Short 1998), including micro-level gang processes and individual-level personal changes. Pyrooz et al (2014) provided a theoretical elaboration of endogenous gang processes by arguing that after adjusting for individual-level factors any residual relationship between gang membership and violent victimization was a product of gang-related group processes, such as collective identity, normative orientations toward criminal involvement, status acquisition and maintenance, and extra-individual liabilities (see also Decker 1996;Hughes 2013;McGloin and Decker 2010;Short and Strodtbeck 1965). Papachristos (2009) and Papachristos et al (2013) have modeled the spatial and network processes of violence between rival gangs in Boston and Chicago, finding that symbolic threats, geographic proximity, and ongoing network conflicts between rival gangs triggered violence and reciprocity in violence, all of which operates above and beyond individual-level motivations.…”

“…Examples include self-control(Childs et al 2009;Fox et al 2013;Pyrooz et al 2014;Taylor et al 2007Taylor et al , 2008, neutralizations and peer commitmentTaylor et al 2007Taylor et al , 2008, routine activities and lifestyles(Katz et al 2011;Pyrooz et al 2014;Taylor et al 2007Taylor et al , 2008Zavala and Spohn 2013), and social controls(Taylor et al 2007Zavala and Spohn 2013).…”