Youth Gang Desistance

• Author: Dena C. Carson,Finn-Aage Esbensen,Dana Peterson
• Published date: 01 December 2013
• Date: 01 December 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016813511634

Article

Youth Gang Desistance:

An Examination of the Effect

of Different Operational

Definitions of Desistance

on the Motivations, Methods,

and Consequences

Associated With Leaving

the Gang

Dena C. Carson

1

, Dana Peterson

2

, and Finn-Aage Esbensen

1

Abstract

Following a noticeable absence, studies of gang desistance have begun to appearin the literature.

Spurredby results from panel studiesthat gang membership is a transitorystage for the majority of gang-

involvedyouth, researchershave begun to examinemotivations, methods,and consequences associated

with leavingthe gang. Relatively absentfrom these recent publicationsis attention to the operationaliza-

tion of gang desistance, an issue of particular importance in survey research. As with concernsabout

how to define gang membership, it is essential that we explore conceptual and methodological issues

associated withdefining gang desistance. In this article, we introduce three operationalizationsof gang

desistance and then examine how the characteristics of ‘‘desisters’’ and the expressed motivations,

methods, andconsequences for leaving thegang vary across the three differentoperational definitions.

Keywords

crime/delinquency theory, criminal organizations/gangs, other, juvenile justice

Introduction

The criminal career debate (e.g., Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986; Gottfredson & Hirschi,

1990; Horney, Osgood, & Marshall, 1995; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2003; Shover, 1996)

brought renewed attention to the various stages of the criminal career, albeit initiation, escalation,

1

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

2

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, 135 Western Ave, DR 219, Albany, NY 12222, USA

Corresponding Author:

Dena C. Carson, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis, One University Blvd.,

St. Louis, MO 63121, USA.

Email: carsondc@umsl.edu

Criminal Justice Review

38(4) 510-534

ª2013 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016813511634

cjr.sagepub.com

and maintenance continued to receive the bulk of criminological interest. Theoretical and empirical

interest in the processes of desistance or termination was slow to develop. Maruna’s (2001) author-

itative work on the process of ‘‘making good’’ (i.e., desisting from crime), in conjunction with

increased interest in restorative justice and issues associated with reentry, coincided with findings

from panel studies of youth, some of whom had been gang involved, to shift attention to processes

of gang desistance. The broader literature on desistance from crime focuses on the cessation of beha-

vior, whereas gang desistance attempts to understand and explain the leaving of a status. Of concern

and interest in the general discussion of desistance is, similar to the discussion of deterrence, whether

one defines desistance in absolute or relative terms. With respect to criminal activity, for example, is

a reduction in the severity or frequency of offending grounds for invoking the term desistance or

must there be a total cessation of the behavior? When discussing gang desistance, must all gangties

be cut or can the ex-membercontinue to associate with othergang members while claiming not to be a

current gang member? Just as there is confusion about how to classify desistance, there is also confu-

sion about howit is or should be measured. Whilewe discuss the definitionaldebate, our main focus is

on the operationaldefinition (OD) of gang desistance.So regardless of how desistance is defined,how

does one actually measure that definition, and what implications does measurement have?

Clearly, the topic of gang desistance is not without questions of conceptualization, definition, and

measurement. A body of research has tackled the motives, methods, and consequences of gang join-

ing (e.g., Battin, Hill, Abbott, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1998; Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Freng,

2010; Esbensen & Winfree, 2013; Howell & Egley, 2005; Krohn & Thornberry, 2008; Thornberry,

Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003), and many of the definitional and measurement issues have

been discussed at length (e.g., Aldridge, Medina-Ariz, & Ralphs, 2012; Ball & Curry, 1995; Bjer-

regaard, 2002; Curry & Decker, 1997; Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001; Matsuda, Esbensen,

& Carson, 2012; Medina, Aldridge, Shute, & Ross, 2013; Smithson, Monchuk, & Armitage, 2012;

Winfree, Fuller, Vigil, & Mays, 1992); the same cannot be said for the topic of gang desistance.

While some authors (see, e.g. Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011) have grappled

with the question of ‘‘when is an ex-gang member an ex-gang member?’’ questions of operationa-

lization and measurement remain. Little is also known about desistance (or disengagement) from

gangs for different demographic subgroupings (e.g., are the processes the same for males and

females, Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and others), for different types of gang members (e.g., core vs.

peripheral), or in terms of offending and victimization.

As the literature on gang desistance evolves, we believe it is important to examine ODs of gang

desistance and basic descriptive characteristics of gang desisters. That is, how should researchers

define desistance? Can a self-report measure of gang desistance be used similar to that relied upon

in much of the gang initiation literature? As with the process of gang joining, qualitative interviews

or observations of desistance processes may produce different responses to these questions than

quantitative survey research. Can the quantitative researcher rely upon responses to a question such

as ‘‘are you no longer a gang member?’’ While such an approach would be appealing, it may not be

suitable in the type of research described in this article. Most of the respondents in the current study

were neither current nor former gang members, although a sizable portion of the sample was or had

been gang members. How to operationalize these ‘‘desisters’’ is one of the topics of this article.

A second objective is to determine what effect, if any, the measurement of desistance has on the

motivations, methods, and consequences of gang leaving and on the characteristics of desisters

(e.g., demographic characteristics, gang embeddedness, and offending and victimization).

Gang Desistance

Publications on youth gangs have increased dramatically during the past two decades (since the early

1990s), and a number of reviews have summarized the current state of gang research (e.g., Decker,

Carson et al.511