Diagrama de despliegue

The three demographic variables examined in the current study include age (in years), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), and ethnicity (1 = Aboriginal; 0 = others).¹⁰ Given that several U.S. studies found that youths who were already involved in deviant behaviour (e.g., alcohol and drug use) (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Thornberry et al., 1993) and general delinquency (Curry & Spergel, 1992; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993;

10 In British Columbia both government and Aboriginal political policy have increasingly reflected concerns over the dramatic increase in the number Aboriginal gangs and numbers

Thornberry et al., 2004) were more likely to join a gang, a drug-use exposure index prior to gang involvement was created. This index is based on the self-report of the total number of different drugs participants were exposed to before their gang involvement (e.g., alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, crack, heroin, and ecstasy) (0 to 6) (α = 0.63). A general delinquency index (0 to 9) (α = 0.81) also is a control variable. All respondents were asked to identify whether they were involved (as individuals) in one or more of the following nine delinquent activities prior to their gang involvement: (1) drug possession or trafficking; (2) theft, (3) break-and-enter; (4) motor vehicle theft; (5) threats or intimidation; (6) assault; (7) assault with a weapon; (8) robbery; and (9) manslaughter.

In addition, a variable was created to control for the total time spent in custody during their membership period.

Motivations for membership and motivation index

The respondents were asked to specify why they decided to join a gang. Based on the extensive gang literature, 6 options were provided: (1) for money, (2) for respect, (3) for protection, (4) to make friends, (5) to deal drugs, and (6) was forced to join by others. Multiple motives were allowed and recorded because a key gang hypothesis is that there is likely an association between the motivational factors in joining gangs and the type of initiation experienced. In other words, the pattern of motivational factors is important in understanding the relevance of the type of initiating that occurs (see Decker

& Curry, 2000; Jankowski, 1991; Thornberry et al., 2003, Thrasher, 1927; Vigil, 1988).

For this reason, a summary index was calculated to profile the number of different motivations reported by the participants (0 to 6).

Criminal social capital

Participants were asked to identify specific factors related to how they were introduced to gangs. These factors included (1) friends, (2) siblings, (3) parents, (4) cousins, (5) neighbourhood, (6) school, (7) jail, and (8) other. Also a summary index was calculated to profile the number of different sources that facilitated gang affiliation (0 to 8). As well, given the emphasis in the gang literature on family and friends as key recruitment factors, an additional variable was created: (1) by friends and (2) by family.

This involved regrouping the siblings and parents variables into one variable titled

“introduced by immediate family”. It should not be assumed, however, that where this factor obtains that either the friends or the family were themselves gang involved. There

is another question that explored whether any family members were also involved in gangs (0 = no; 1 = yes). Approximately two thirds (68.5%) or 50 participants answered positively.

This familial pattern has been central to theories of gang recruitment in part because from the theoretical perspective, it is the families that are the key social capital component for most youth when they make many life choices, whether antisocial or conventional. Still there is limited research concerning the criminal structure of this form of social capital. Among the most important studies, Decker and Curry (2000) and Miller (2001) found a strong intra-family pattern of gang membership among the family members of their respondents in the United States. It is necessary to explore further the relationship of different forms of social capital and decisions to enter a gang in the Canadian context, particularly regarding Aboriginal youth, because it has been argued that gang recruitment for them is based on a particular form of social capital – that is, joining a gang provides a sense of belonging to a family, status, and employment (Spergel, 1992; Totten, 2008).

Participants were also asked to identify in the past 12 months how often did they commit crimes with people who are not members of their gang: never, once or twice, several times, or often. This variable was recoded into frequent co-offending (= 1) with non-gang members by merging the several times or often responses, and infrequent co-offending (= 0) by merging never and once or twice responses. Although Hagedorn (1998) argued that over time the gang social structure tends to be exclusively composed by gang members, Decker and Curry (2000) found that gangs of their sample did not exclude their members from maintaining relationships with non-gang friends. It is important to verify whether or not the structure of the gang to which belong the participants of the study allows such relationships, it can have an important influence in the disengagement process.

Gang composition items

Klein (1971) asserted early that gangs vary along several compositional,

“Approximately how many members belong to your gang?” The distribution of this variable is enormously skewed. The minimum value was 5 and the maximum was 5000;

for example, at least 5 individuals reported being in a gang larger than 1,000. Because this variable is log normally distributed, a natural log transformation was applied.

Second, gang duration was determined through the answer to the question “How long has your gang been active (in months)?”. Third, the average age of gang members was determined by asking participants “What is the average age of the members in your gang?” Fourth, gang ethnicity involved the question “What is the major ethnic background of your gang?” In the Canadian context of this study, there are seven main categories: Caucasian, Aboriginal, African-Canadian, Asian, South Asian/East Indian, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern. However, even though the questions prompted them to identify a primary ethnic group belonging to their gangs, most participants identified more than one ethnicity to describe their gangs. Accordingly, the four subsequent gang membership categories created were (1) exclusively composed of Caucasian gang members, (2) exclusively composed of aboriginal gang members, (3) exclusively composed of one ethnicity other than Caucasian and Aboriginal, and (4) mixed ethnicities. The latter categories are particularly important in British Columbia because adult criminal gangs in this province are typically composed of mixed ethnicities and also recruit adolescent members. As well, Aboriginal adult gangs particularly include adolescents and are also more ethnically homogeneous than non-Aboriginal-dominated gangs (Cohen & Corrado, 2011; Totten, 2009).

Gang organization items

Based on previous research on gang organization (Bouchard & Spindler, 2010;

Decker, 2001; Decker, Bynum & Weisel, 1998; Decker & Curry, 2000; Decker et al., 2008; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Peterson et al., 2001; Vigil, 1988), eight gang organization characteristics are utilized in the current study. Respondents were, therefore, asked whether their gang had any or all of these characteristics: (1) gang name; (2) established leaders; (3) adopted specific gang symbols; (4) regular meetings;

(5) specific territory; (6) hierarchy (e.g., positions/status within the organization); (7) rules of conduct (e.g., no drug use, no snitching); and (8) hierarchy (e.g., positions/status within the organization). An additional characteristic assessed is whether a gang uses violence to enforce its rules and maintain order. This characteristic has been identified

as central to establishing a more organized gang (Decker et al., 1998; Decker et al., 2008; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996).