DOI: 10.3886/icpsr38685
title: Disrupting the Pathways to Gang Violence for Youth of Color, Oregon, 2002-2022
title: Archival Version

description: Guided by a life course perspective, this study used a mixed methodological approach (i.e., quantitative administrative data and qualitative interviews) to identify the differences in events, motivations, and experiences related to gang affiliation and the differences across (a) system-documented, gang-involved individuals, (b) system-documented gang-involved individuals who have gang-involved family members, and (c) other high-risk youth who are suspected of involvement. The overall goal of this research was to identify distinct pathways to gang activity that could inform practitioners and policymakers about useful intervention strategies. The study context was specific to Multnomah County, Oregon. To achieve this, separate and distinct juvenile and adult systems databases were integrated to create critical linkages between juvenile services data (including risk assessments), adult community corrections data, and federal corrections data (n=2,210 individual records). This allowed for the examination of the trajectory of each individual - regardless of gang system documented gang status - from juvenile services through state adult corrections through federal adult corrections. It also permitted the investigation into the similarities or differences among different system-identified groups (i.e., gang involved, suspected gang involved, or no documentation of gang involvement). Additionally, the inclusion of familial and peer criminal justice records and system gang identification enabled the research team to control for family and peer influences while focusing on how the father's criminality and gang status might be a risk factor for youth criminal legal involvement and escalation into the adult system. Research questions for the quantitative data collection were: What aspects of early criminal offending and other problematic behaviors differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth? Are there significant differences in the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth? Are there consistent age-related trends in risk as measured by the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) tool? Do these trends vary by gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth? What is the timing of important life events across the life course of justice-involved youth? Does the timing differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth? Does the close proximity of the timing of these life events increase the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System? Do these predictions differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth? How do parental offending and incarceration patterns predict their child's likelihood of becoming gang-affiliated and likelihood of escalation into the adult criminal justice system? How do the answers to the above research questions vary by youth race, ethnicity, geography, and offense type? In addition to quantitative measures of gang pathways, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two groups: gang-affiliated and gang-involved youth supervised in the Department of Community Justice Gang Unit during the study time period (n=32), and corrections staff who had current or previous experience working with gang-affiliated or gang-involved youth (n=12). Original research questions for the qualitative data collection were: What are the critical transition periods for becoming gang-affiliated, and how are they experienced as an emotional event and/or a deliberate decision? How do these differ between individuals who have no criminal justice system involved family members, individuals with criminal justice involved family members, and individuals with gang-affiliated family members? What is the relational and emotional experience of recruiting a familial relation to gang affiliation, and of being recruited by a familial relation to gang affiliation and gang activities? What are the motivations for recruiting a familial relation into gang affiliation, and for allowing oneself to be successfully recruited by a family member? What are the methods employed by gang-affiliated individuals in recruiting their family members? Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in the event and experience of recruitment into gang affiliation and activities? Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in their views and experiences of the criminal justice system? Qualitative data will be made available in a future update.
description: The overall purpose of the study was to investigate the life trajectories of youth who identify as gang members or are affiliated with gangs, using both longitudinal life event and familial/peer influence data as well as primary motivations and decision-making that underlie gang affiliation and involvement.
description: Quantitative data were collected from various administrative databases: Multnomah County Bureau of Emergency Communications (BOEC), Oregon State Corrections Information System (CIS), Multnomah County Criminal Records Information Management and Exchange System (CRIMES), Oregon County Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS), Oregon State Law Enforcement Database Systems (LEDS), and Federal Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS). Parts of the quantitative model building occurred concurrently with qualitative data collection. Coarsened exact matching (CEM) was used to create matched samples of youth based on gang documentation category (documented, suspected, or not involved). Qualitative data collection occurred in two phases. The initial phase occurred between November 2018 and March 2019. The research team worked with corrections staff to identify potential participants of those youth being supervised in the Department of Community Justice Gang Unit. Parole and probation officers informed youth arriving for supervision meetings about the study. If individuals were interested and consented to participate, research team members conducted a semi-structured interview that was audio-recorded. Based on analysis of the initial interview data, the research team modified the study protocol to better align theoretical assumptions with the study participants' lived experiences. In the second phase of in-depth interviews, the research team invited corrections staff and community partners who had previous or current experience working with gang-involved individuals, relying on convenience and snowball sampling. Staff interviews were conducted between October 2021 and August 2022. The research team also conducted in-depth interviews with gang-affiliated youth between September and December 2022. In both phases, interviews were transcribed then analyzed in NVivo using inductive and deductive coding techniques.
description: Administrative records data: Outcome variables: gang membership/involvement, escalation into a youth commitment facility or adult prison as a youth, any arrest as an adult within the state of Oregon, any state probation or prison sentence, any prison as an adult, and any federal probation sentence as an adult Criminogenic factors: age of first criminal referral, number of criminal referrals, days in detention, risk assessment score from Oregon's Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) tool, if youth had any charges, and level of 911 calls for shots fired as a proxy for neighborhood violence Familial and peer influences: criminal and gang involvement for same-generation family members, peers, and father Life events: number of status referrals, city violations, child dependency cases, home changes, and school disruptions (e.g., expulsions, withdrawals, dropouts) Demographics: race and ethnicity Interview data: Themes for youth participants: recruitment, beliefs and initial perceptions about gang life, life events, gang activities, and exiting gang life Themes for staff participants: background experience and training, caseload, differences between working with a gang unit versus other types of supervision, when supervision goes well versus poorly, perceptions on supervisees' pathways into gangs and into the criminal justice system, and supervisee service needs
description: Two weight variables were derived by coarsened exact matching (CEM) based on gang status--not involved, suspected, or documented--and were applied to specific regressions (refer to the Summary field for research question numbering): <b>WEIGHTS1</b>, applied only to research question #5 regression on the outcome adult probation <b>WEIGHTS2</b>, applied to all research question #2 regressions and to the research question #5 regressions on outcomes that were not adult probation <b>WEIGHTS3</b> was derived by CEM on father gang documentation and was applied to research question #6 regressions.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Not applicable.
description: Administrative data: The final population was all youth who identified as male, had completed a risk assessment, had an adjudicated disposition during 2002-2017, and received their first criminal referral in Multnomah County during 2002-2017 (n=2,210). The study population was limited to boys based on early qualitative interviews indicating that girls' gang participation significantly differed from that of boys. The research team also limited the population to youth who had received a juvenile risk assessment (implemented in late 2006). Interview data: Twelve interviews with youth documented or suspected of gang involvement were conducted during the initial interview phase. During the second phase, 12 staff members and 20 youth were interviewed. Four youth from the first phase were interviewed again for a total of 24 youth interviews.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Administrative Records Data DS2: Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) Assessment Data
description: Youth who were gang-affiliated or gang-involved (suspected or documented) under supervision during the study time period, and corrections staff who had experience working with gang-affiliated or involved youth. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: record abstracts; face-to-face interview