Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An

Overview of the Literature

Matthew Valasik and Shannon E. Reid

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Defining Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Situating Violence in Gang Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Joining a Gang and Gang Member Violent Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Violent Victimization of Female Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Trends in Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Temporal Patterns in Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Spatial and Social Distribution of Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Facilitating Violence with Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Interventions Aimed at Reducing Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Gang Activity Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Gang Activity Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Abstract
Over the last 25 years, the overall levels of violent crime rate dramatically
declined in the United States, yet, in major urban centers, gang-related violence
continues to be a serious concern. In order to understand gang violence, it is
necessary to consider the complicated relationship violence has with gang iden-
tity, victimization, participation, gender, spatial proximity, and social distance.

M. Valasik (*)
Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
e-mail: mvalasik@lsu.edu
S. E. Reid
Criminal Justice and Criminology College, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte,
NC, USA
e-mail: s.reid@uncc.edu

© The Author(s) 2019 1

R. Geffner et al. (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_105-1
2 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

Gang violence plays an important role in the creation and maintenance of the
group’s collective identity. Additionally, gang violence is not limited to only
symbolic purposes (e.g., reputation) but can also serve instrumental (e.g., profit
generation) purposes for a group. At the individual level, the risk/protective
factors (e.g., gender, age, education) attributed to participation in gang violence
and being a victim of gang violence are important to consider. At the group level,
gang violence is defined by two unique features: social and spatial dependence.
That is, both a gang’s geographic territory and the social distance to a rival
contribute to gang violence. Due to the group-based nature of gang violence, a
variety of interventions exist. Gang activity prevention focuses on disrupting the
antisocial behaviors of gangs to reduce their overall harm to the community (e.g.,
civil gang injunctions, crime prevention through environmental design). Gang
activity suppression programs are often deterrence-based and follow the “pulling
levers strategy” emphasizing arrest and imprisonment through targeted police and
prosecution provisions (e.g., Operation Ceasefire). These programs attempt to
minimize future levels of gang violence and victimization by reducing gang
member participation with the group.

Keywords
Street gangs · Gang violence · Homicide · Space · Social media · Victimization ·
Gang interventions · Gang injunctions · CPTED

Introduction

Gangs thrive on conflict. The canon of street gang research has established that a
strong, positive relationship exists between gangs and violence, persisting over time
and consistent across places (Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and Maxson 2006).
Since the time of Thrasher (1927), research has shown that gangs flourish where
discord and threat, whether real or perceived, between groups are present (Howell
and Griffiths 2018; Klein and Maxson 2006). In fact, threat and conflict are two
necessary components for the creation and maintenance of a gang. Violence or the
fear/perception of violence serves an important function in creating group cohesion
and solidifying connections between members (Klein and Maxson 2006). For
instance, the threat of violence from rival groups increases overall group solidarity,
encourages fearful youth to join a local gang, and provides an opportunity for gang
members to participate in violent acts that may otherwise not have occurred. Gang
violence also has a mythmaking quality as stories and events are retold and exag-
gerated, amplifying a gang’s identity and reputation on the street and embellishing
the group’s activities in the media (Esbensen et al. 2001; Howell and Griffiths 2018).
As gang members are socialized into a group, undergoing shared experiences with
violence and absorbing the mythology of the group, they began to adhere to and
embrace the gang’s norms, mores, and behaviors that encourage violence (Decker
1996; Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and Maxson 2006). Research regularly finds
that gang members, compared to non-gang members, are more likely to engage in
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 3

criminal and/or violent acts, to possess and carry a weapon or firearm, and are at
greater risk of being victimized (Decker 1996; Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and
Maxson 2006; Taylor et al. 2007; Wu and Pyrooz 2016).
This chapter provides an overview of the literature on gang violence to stress just
how vital violence is to the subculture of gang life and identity. The first step in this
narrative is defining gang violence. How violence is situated in the daily lives of
gang members is discussed next. Gang members exposure to violent victimization
follows, with particular attention paid to gender differences between males and
females. Then, trends in gang violence are explored with focus on the temporal
patterns, the spatial and social distribution, and technology’s facilitation of gang
violence. The chapter concludes with a discussion of successful interventions that
are designed to reduce gang violence by targeting the gang as a group, referred to as
gang activity regulation strategies (Gravel et al. 2013).

Defining Gang Violence

Even though gang-related homicides account for anywhere from 30 to 50% of total
homicides in large metropolitan areas (Howell and Griffiths 2018), debate remains
on how gang-related violence should be defined (see Esbensen et al. 2001; Klein and
Maxson 2006; Rosenfeld et al. 1999). Traditionally, gang-related violence has been
defined with either a member- or motive-based definition. A motive-based definition
requires that an act of violence result as a direct function of gang activity (e.g.,
retaliation, territoriality, recruitment, etc.), while an affiliated- or member-based
designation is more broadly defined to include any act of violence in which either
participant, victim, or suspect is affiliated with a gang (Klein and Maxson 2006;
Rosenfeld et al. 1999). A member-based definition errs by including violent inci-
dents that may be solely driven by an individual gang member’s motivation (e.g.,
domestic dispute), “after all, gang members can and do act of their own accord”
(Papachristos 2009, p. 86). Conversely, a motive-based definition samples “too
heavily on the dependent variable by capturing only those cases in which a group
motive was determined” (Papachristos 2009, p. 86). All motive-based acts of gang
violence represent just a subsample of member-based acts of gang violence. As such,
the restricting of defining gang-related violence to a subsample could potentially
eliminate valuable information (Pyrooz 2012). Prior research also indicates that
applying either a member- or motive-based definition to gang homicides statistically
differentiates the characteristics of a gang-related incident from that of non-gang
incident, with comparisons between member- or motive-based defined homicides
being indistinguishable (Klein and Maxson 2006). That being said, the importance in
how gang violence is defined is not just theoretically important but has practical
implications in how local stakeholders and law enforcement comprehend and
respond to gang violence in a jurisdiction (Rosenfeld et al. 1999).
Law enforcement agencies classify acts of violence as gang-related by definitions
similar or identical to those outlined above. The “Chicago definition” classifies an
incident as gang-related only if it is an act where the motivation benefits the gang (i.
4 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

e., recruitment retaliation or territoriality). Thus, the “Chicago definition” is a more

restrictive as an incident must be motivated by group concerns of the gang to be
labeled a gang-related crime (Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and Maxson 2006).
In contrast, the “Los Angeles definition” considers an incident to gang-related if
either the suspect or victim is an active or affiliate gang member or if circumstances
of the crime are consistent with gang activity (Klein and Maxson 2006). Obviously,
the definition a police agency uses will influence the amount of gang-related
violence reported in a given jurisdiction. Upon comparing these definitions with
homicide data, Klein and Maxson (2006) highlight that under the “Los Angeles
definition,” there were twice as many gang-related incidents than under the “Chicago
definition.” From a policy standpoint, such a substantial disparity should be consid-
ered when a jurisdiction is considering how to address gang violence (Klein and
Maxson 2006).
Given that there are over 18,000 police jurisdictions in the United States and no
uniform definition is used/agreed upon between agencies, it is difficult to fully
understand national trends in gang violence let alone be able to produce meaningful
comparison between any two jurisdictions (Rosenfeld et al. 1999). The lack of law
enforcement agencies, policymakers, and academics to develop and adhere to a
universal definition of what constitutes a gang-related crime or act of violence
remains a concern for public policy (Esbensen et al. 2001). For instance, the
allocation of resources to address gang violence will look different based upon the
estimated amount of gang-related violence. An over- or underestimate of the gang
violence is not a trivial matter, especially for jurisdictions with sparse finances.
Additionally, the fear of gangs and gang violence by the public is influenced in
large part by what is being reported by law enforcement and the media which can be
driven by definitional vagueness (Esbensen et al. 2001).

Situating Violence in Gang Life

Research has shown that violence is strongly associated with life in a gang (Decker
1996; Klein and Maxson 2006). It is not uncommon for gangs to have an initiation
process where members entering the group are “jumped in,” being assaulted by
established members, or tasked with attacking a member from a rival gang (Short
and Strodtbeck 1965; Klein and Maxson 2006; Vigil 2003). Furthermore, violence
may be utilized by the gang to enforce collective norms or rules and dissuade their
violation by members (Decker 1996; Klein and Maxson 2006). Generally, much of
the violence perpetrated by a gang is not hidden from the public but instead
broadcast to the community. Violence serves as an overt statement by a gang to
strengthen their reputation and status in the local neighborhood, reify territorial
borders, intimidate community residents, and exhibit dominance over rival gangs
(Brantingham et al. 2012; Papachristos et al. 2013). Feuds between rival gangs that
are persistent over time can fester into retaliatory cycles of violence which are
capable of ensnaring gang members who were not involved in the initial act of
violence (Decker 1996; Papachristos 2009; Papachristos et al. 2013; Short and
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 5

Strodtbeck 1965). It is also customary for retaliatory gang violence to spill into the
non-gang population of a community, as gang members have high levels of
entitativity, viewing all individuals within a particular area as being involved with
the local rival gang and blameworthy of whatever violence is meted out (Vasquez et
al. 2015). Leovy (2015, p. 206) documents this pattern in South Central Los Angeles
stating that “a black assailant looking to kill a gang rival is looking before anything
else, for another black male . . . a presumed combatant, conscripted into a dismal
existence ‘outside the law’ whether he wanted to be or not.” Violence and fear of
violence remain central features of a gang life, as most members are likely to
experience an attack from a rival gang. While the exposure and prevalence of
violence in daily life differentiates gang members from other residents in the
community, it is important to stress though, as illustrated by Leovy’s (2015) quote,
gang-related violence directly impacts more than just gang members but also non-
gang individuals in the community, and the neighborhood as a whole, and indirectly
affects gang members’ families.
While it is true that joining a gang is likely to increase an individual’s penchant
for violence and criminal activity, it should be noted that not all gang members are
equally situated within the gang (Decker 1996; Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and
Maxson 2006). That is, there are members which are more committed to and
embedded in the gang then others. These core members are more likely to participate
in delinquent activities, aggressive behaviors, and violence than members that are on
the periphery (Klein and Maxson 2006). For instance, research indicates that core
members at least twice as likely to participate in gang activities have 70% more
arrests and engage in more acts of violence and have longer criminal careers that last
longer (Klein and Maxson 2006). While core members do not differ from fringe
members in regard to intelligence, family educational, family structure, family
income, or residential origin, however, these groups do differ with respect to
individual deficiencies (e.g., low impulse control, low school performance, more
truancy, etc.), aggression (e.g., more willingness to fight, low desire for rehabilita-
tion, etc.), and group involvement (e.g., participate in spontaneous activities, con-
tribute more to the group, desire to lead, etc.) (Klein and Maxson 2006). Thus, as a
gang becomes more cohesive, an increase in core membership, then the gang is more
likely to increase their levels of delinquency and engage in more violence and
retaliatory attacks with rival gangs (Klein and Maxson 2006).
As patterns of violence become intergenerational between rival gangs, new
members of a gang are readily provided with a preestablished target to attack.
Group solidarity is a central feature of reciprocal violence between gangs, with an
attack on one member of a group being an attack on the entire group. As such, gangs
adhere to a perspective of collective responsibility for the actions of any one member
being a representation of the actions of the larger group (Densley 2013). As
individual members adhere to the mores of the gang, norms related to the use and
acceptance of violence to deal with adverse situations can intensify minor incidents
of disrespect (e.g., derogatory looks, insults, etc.) and transform them into serious
infractions that need to be responded to with violence (Decker 1996). Using violence
as a response to symbolic threats, primarily to maintain one’s reputation and status,
6 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

reinforces these acts as “norms of reciprocity” (Papachristos 2009, p. 76). In fact,

Klein and Maxson (1989, p. 224) examination of homicides in the city of Los
Angeles identifies that such norms of reciprocity are so paramount to gang life that
the fear of retaliation motivates nearly three times more gang-related homicides than
compared to other homicide types.
Similar to the organizational structure of a gang being on spectrum (see Ayling
2011; Densley 2013), gang-related violence is also on a spectrum. Initially a gang
may use violence for symbolic purposes (e.g., status, reputation, intimidation, etc.)
but may progress over time to using violence for more instrumental purposes as a
group corporatizes (Densley 2013). For instance, the activities of entrepreneurial
gangs are primarily focused on economic pursuits and could use violence as
deliberate strategy to move demand of secure and lucrative drug selling spaces
from rival gangs. As such, gang-related violence is not solely utilized for expressive
purposes but employed instrumentally to operate profit-generating spaces (e.g.,
street corner, business, etc.).

Joining a Gang and Gang Member Violent Victimization

Understanding why individuals join a gang has been a central theme examined by
gang scholars. Research has shown that there are two opposing forces that propel
individuals into becoming a member of gang: pull risk factors and the motivations
that attract individuals to join a gang. Push risk factors are those features that drive
individuals toward gang life. Common risk factors that pull individuals to joining a
gang are respect, entertainment, and filling some life void (Howell and Griffiths
2018; Klein and Maxson 2006). That void for females is the craving for an
emotionally satisfying familial group which is lack at home, while males are
routinely having a hankering for adventure and excitement (Klein and Maxson
2006). Additionally, many gang members have a home life filled with domestic
discord (i.e., abuse or violence) or come from a nontraditional household (e.g., single
parent) (Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and Maxson 2006). Recurring push factors
that propel individuals to join a gang is the desire for a similar social identity,
economic incentives, and living in a socioeconomic disadvantaged community
(Densley 2013; Short and Strodtbeck 1965; Curry and Spergel 1988). Probably the
push risk factor that is most important for individuals joining a gang is protection or
safety from abusive family members or local bullies (Howell and Griffiths 2018).
Research has identified that being a member of a gang increases the likelihood
that an individual will participate in a criminal act, and those crimes are more likely
to be of a serious nature when compared to individuals who are not involved in a
gang (Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and Maxson 2006; Pyrooz et al. 2016). Such
findings have been revealed across multiple studies and through a variety of meth-
odologies. Most of the research on gang violence focuses on the role of the gang
members as the perpetrator of violence and ignores the fact that gang members are
also victims. Research consistently finds that in addition to gang members having a
greater likelihood to engaging in violence, they also have a greater likelihood of
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 7

being victimized by violence (Wu and Pyrooz 2016). For instance, gang-related
homicides alone are responsible for 13% of all homicides in the United States and for
more than 20% in large metropolitan areas (population over 200,000) (Howell and
Griffiths 2018). While research has clearly shown that gang members are victimized
more frequently than non-gang members, however, the mechanisms that facilitate
gang members to experience increased vulnerability to victimization remain a
generally understudied phenomenon (Wu and Pyrooz 2016). Wu and Pyrooz
(2016) find that joining a gang (i.e., selection model) and being a gang member (i.
e., facilitation model) are actually both (i.e., enhancement model) contributing to
high rates of victimization. Even though “gang membership increases the victimi-
zation beyond sources of selection,” it is important to indicate that gang members
that engaged in delinquent acts were more likely to be victimized (Wu and Pyrooz
2016, p. 548).
Given that gang members have greater involvement in delinquent and criminal
activities, compared to their non-gang peers, it suggests that differences in lifestyle
would be enough to increase an individual’s risk of victimization (Taylor et al. 2007,
2008). Furthermore, gang research clearly highlights that overlap exists between not
only criminal offending and gang membership but also between criminal offending
and victimization (Pyrooz et al. 2016; Taylor et al. 2007, 2008). The transitive
property of this suggests that a strong, positive relationship should exist between
gang membership and the vulnerability to being victimized. That being said, there
are important risk factors that are beyond the subculture of violence that could
influence a gang member’s vulnerability to violent victimization, including individ-
ual-, family-, and school-level characteristics (Taylor et al. 2007, 2008). Risk factors
at the individual level may include demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender,
etc.) or an individual’s level of self-control (Sutton 2017). Risk factors at the family
level could include measures of parental monitoring or an individual’s level of
attachment to his/her parents (Taylor et al. 2007, 2008; Wu and Pyrooz Wu and
Pyrooz 2016). Risk factors at the school level include measures such as the atmo-
sphere of a school or an individual’s commitment to acquiring an education (Sutton
2017; Taylor et al. 2007).
Regardless of the presence of any aggravating risk factor, gang members may just
be more susceptible to being a suitable target for being involved in a gang (Taylor et
al. 2007). Research has revealed that situational characteristics may also contribute
to gang members increased vulnerability to violent victimization. For instance, being
around places where drugs and alcohol are accessible significantly increases a gang
members’ propensity to being victimized (Taylor et al. 2007). Additionally, partic-
ipating in criminal and violent acts is also likely to exacerbate the likelihood of
experiencing violent victimization as gang members are exposed to more situations
where motivated offenders (e.g., rival gang members) are present and capable
guardians are absent (Taylor et al. 2007, 2008; Wu and Pyrooz Wu and Pyrooz
2016). It is also more likely that gang members will refrain from reporting an attack
to the police and drawing attention to their gang status or illicit activities further
exacerbating their exposure to violent victimization (Howell and Griffiths 2018).
8 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

Lastly, the retaliatory cycle of violence between rival gangs reifies the routine nature
of violence in gang members everyday life (Papachristos 2009).
Conversely, gang members may be at more risk of violent victimization from
their claimed gang than from a rival gang. For example, it is not uncommon for gang
members to be involved with an initiation process, being “jumped in,” into the gang
that requires an entering member to be assaulted by recognized members (Short and
Strodtbeck 1965; Klein and Maxson 2006; Vigil 2003). Similarly, members are also
likely to be victimized by if and when they decide to leave the group (Decker 1996;
Vigil 2003). Violence may be used to enforce collective rules or reify group norms in
an attempt to maintain order within the gang (Decker 1996; Taylor et al. 2007).
Ironically, a principal reason driving the motivations of many to join a gang is to feel
safe and protected from their local community (Howell and Griffiths 2018; Klein and
Maxson 2006).

Violent Victimization of Female Members

While a substantial number of gang members are male, research has discerned that
an individual’s gender produces substantial differences to both the risk and type of
victimization experienced by female members (Klein and Maxson 2006; Sutton
2017). In fact, studies reveal that many female gang members experience an
excessive amount of victimization prior to joining a gang (Sutton 2017). Abuse of
drugs and alcohol by parents or guardians is a common characteristic shared by
many female gang members (Howell and Griffiths 2018; Sutton 2017). Female gang
members often have a history of abuse at home, both physical and sexual, by older
males, either family members or family friends (Howell and Griffiths 2018; Sutton
2017). In addition to having unstable home lives, many female gang members reside
in neighborhoods with high levels of socioeconomic deprivation and community
isolation, which, similar to males, act as factors that push or encourage an individual
to join a gang (Gibson et al. 2012; Sutton 2017). Gangs routinely serve as refuges
from family pressures or victimization by loved ones with female members craving a
fulfilling familial group that is able to provide protection from both violence and
everyday issues (Gibson et al. 2012; Howell and Griffiths 2018; Sutton 2017). Even
though females may seek out a gang as a sanctuary that safeguards them from
abusive family members, friends, or a hostile community, research indicates that
female gang members are actually at greater risk of being victimized, particularly
sexual, by their male peers in the gang (Gibson et al. 2012; Sutton 2017).
Gangs remain a male-oriented group focused on masculinity. As such, unequal
gender norms are prevalent which produces an imbalance in power between male
and female gang members (Howell and Griffiths 2018). In gangs where males are the
predominant group, female gang members are regularly treated as inferior and
constrained to subservient roles. In such gangs, female gang members are regarded
as objects of sexual exploitation (Gibson et al. 2012; Sutton 2017). For instance,
females initiated into a majority male gang have a greater risk of being sexually
assaulted, or being forced to have sex with multiple male members (Gibson et al.
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 9

2012). Not surprisingly female gang members are also significantly more likely to
experience rape and intimate partner violence (Gibson et al. 2012).
Research on the victimization of gang members highlights that gender differences
exist, shaping the risk and type of victimization experienced by male and females.
For example, the principal risk factor for male gang members is exposure to violence
in the neighborhood, but for female gang members, the greatest risk of victimization
is from fellow male members of significant others in the gang (Sutton 2017). As
female gang members have different risk factors and the forms of victimization they
experience are unique, there have been calls for the implementation of gender-
specific prevention and intervention programs (Howell and Griffiths 2018). Further-
more, Howell and Griffiths (2018) contend that as female gang membership
increases and the gender ratio in a gang becomes more equitable, it is likely that
the type of victimization female gang members are at risk of experiencing will
consequently shift. Continued research is needed to better understand how changing
membership dynamics impacts gang life.

Trends in Gang Violence

Temporal Patterns in Gang Violence

Historically, no uniform nationwide trend of street gang emergence in the United

States exists, with the four major geographic regions (i.e., Northeast, Midwest, West,
and South) undergoing uneven development, particularly in the southern United
States which generally lacked macro-historical (e.g., delayed urbanization) and
macrostructural processes (e.g., ethnic succession) (Howell and Griffiths 2018). In
the last 50 years, however, there has been a more consistent pattern of gang activity
throughout urban America. Since the 1970s, street gangs have become neighbor-
hood institutions that provide alternatives to individuals marginalized from society
(Vigil 2003). Street gangs continued to flourish through the mid-1990s, reaching its
peak of 40% of local policing agencies across the country revealed having gang
problems, with street gangs being in all 50 states and District of Columbia (Howell
and Griffiths 2018). In 1996 there were estimated to be 30,800 gangs nationwide;
this number has declined to a low of 20,100 in 2003 and rebounded to 30,700 in
2012 (Howell and Griffiths 2018). Yet, gang violence is not randomly distributed
across states but is concentrated in large urban areas. About 67% of gang homicides
that transpire in the United States occur in large metropolitan areas (having a
population over 100,000), and 17% occur in proximate suburban counties (Howell
and Griffiths 2018). In 248 cities with a population over 100,000 residents between
1996 and 2012, Howell and Griffiths (2018) find that within the sampled cities
(65.3%), gang-related homicides annually contribute to approximately 30 to 40% of
all known homicides. Thus, it is the largest cities (over 50,000 residents) in the
United States that experience the greatest amount of gang activity, followed by
suburban counties, smaller cities (between 2500 and 49,999 residents), and lastly
rural counties (Howell and Griffiths 2018). Furthermore, while there is variance in
10 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

over time in the percentage of jurisdiction reporting gang problems, the overall
trends are surprisingly consistent between 1996 and 2012 (Howell and Griffiths
2018).
Gang-related homicides typically characterize serious gang problems in large
metropolitan areas, with the vast majority taking place in large cities (over 50,000
residents) or adjacent suburban counties (Howell and Griffiths 2018). Yet, even
within large cities, gang violence is not equally scattered across the urban landscape
but clusters around areas where neighborhoods have greater levels of socioeconomic
deprivation (Valasik et al. 2017). Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, gang
activity grew throughout the United States, with gang violence being concentrated
around slums or ghettos often in proximity to public housing communities (Howell
and Griffiths 2018). During this time period, increases in unemployment, poverty,
and socioeconomic disadvantage diminished informal social controls within neigh-
borhoods and provided street gangs with a foothold to manifest and preside over
(Klein and Maxson 2006; Thrasher 1927; Tita et al. 2005). Furthermore, once street
gangs emerge in an area, it is difficult for gang violence to be removed from that
place as gangs have a tenacity toward particular spaces within the urban landscape
(Valasik et al. 2017).

The Spatial and Social Distribution of Gang Violence

A central topic among gang scholars, and the field of criminology more broadly, is
the role of space in influencing violence’s geographic distribution. The importance
of space for gang research dates back to the influential work of Thrasher (1927).
While space is a key component in studying gang violence (e.g., territoriality), it is
not until the early 1990s and the emergence and expedience of geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) software that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers were
able to map and analyze the geographic relationship between neighborhood charac-
teristics, such as local street gangs’ territorial holdings, and the distribution of
violence (Valasik and Tita 2018). The advancements in GIS software, coincidently,
occurred in conjunction with both an epidemic in lethal violence throughout urban
centers in the United States in the late 1980s, with the annual number of homicides
peaking to 24,700 in 1991 and the diffusion of street gangs within “chronic” gang
cities and to “emergent” gang cities (Howell and Griffiths 2018). These improve-
ments to GIS permitted for the examination of the influence that street gangs have on
the diffusion of violence, especially homicide (Rosenfeld et al. 1999). Gang-related
violence is particularly amenable to spatial analysis because of two germane char-
acteristics: (1) a strong territorial orientation and (2) gang violence’s retaliatory
nature (Valasik and Tita 2018).
Overall, much of the existing research on gang-related homicide focuses on the
micro-level differences between gang and non-gang incidents (e.g., Curry and
Spergel 1988; Klein and Maxson 2006; Rosenfeld et al. 1999). Such comparisons
have improved the field’s understanding of the differences between gang and non-
gang homicides, with respect to the characteristics of the participants involved and
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 11

the settings of an incident. These studies have contributed a generalized knowledge

about gang homicide that has benefited policymakers, yet such acts of lethal violence
remain a localized phenomenon within communities. This concentration of gang
violence in particular neighborhoods has resulted in gang researchers focusing their
attention on the macro-level predictors associated with the destructive behaviors of
gang members. Such research examines the relationship between neighborhood- or
city-level covariates (e.g., poverty, unemployment, etc.) and gang violence (Curry
and Spergel 1988; Pyrooz 2012; Rosenfeld et al. 1999). The criminological literature
emphasizes the spatial concentration of individual and community characteristics as
being crucial in understanding trends in gang-related homicides (Valasik and Tita
2018). Curry and Spergel (1988) argue that neighborhoods with weak social control
and high levels of residential mobility have a greater likelihood of experiencing a
gang-related homicide, while areas that are economically depressed are more likely
to contend with gang-related crime and delinquency. Curry and Spergel’s (1988)
findings highlight the ecological distinctness of gang-related homicides, being a
problem for local communities and conforming to conventional theories of social
disorganization and poverty (see Short and Strodtbeck 1965). Valasik et al. (2017),
in fact, found that gang-related homicides do not just remain affixed to economically
deprived neighborhoods for a few years but actually decades and clustered spatially.
In contrast, non-gang homicides are appeared to be less rooted in the social ills of the
community and generally lack the structure, both spatially (nonterritorial) and
socially (group rivalry), to produce significant spatial patterning (Valasik et al.
2017).
Klein and Maxson (2006), however, warn that observing trends in gang activity at
a city level may conceal patterns at a neighborhood level that deviate. Gang research
has suggested using a smaller ecologically meaningful geographic unit when exam-
ining gang behavior since a street gang is not active throughout their entire claimed
territory but tend to limit their loitering to sub-neighborhood areas, termed set spaces
(Tita et al. 2005). Controlling for the presence of gangs in area is important to
understand where and why gang violence clusters and permeates across space (see
Valasik and Tita 2018). While studies often invoke the existence of gangs in a
community to account for why gang violence clusters in particular neighborhoods,
yet the presence of gangs is not often explicitly measured (see exceptions Huebner et
al. 2016; Valasik 2018). Research has determined that places most at risk of
experiencing a gang-related homicide contend with concentrations of gang member
residences and set space locations, places that are well-known havens of local gang
members (Valasik 2018). Places spatially vulnerable to gang assaults, in addition to
residential concentrations of gang members, include areas that are in close proximity
to where gang members are observed loitering by police and Metro rail stops, locales
that are likely to serve as forums where contact between rival gang members is likely
to occur and escalate into a physical altercation (Valasik 2018).
Gang studies have clearly indicated that geography is important predictor gang
violence. For instance, Papachristos et al. (2013) reveal that rival street gangs whose
turfs share a common border have a greater likelihood of experiencing intergroup
violence. That being said, gangs with a history of reciprocal violence, but whose
12 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

turfs are not spatially adjacent, are also more likely to participate in future acts of
gang-related violence (Papachristos et al. 2013). Thus, gang members are both
socially and criminally entangled in their local communities. “The lives of gang
members are woven into the larger social fabric of the neighborhoods, social
networks, families, and friends” (Papachristos et al. 2015, p. 627). As such, gang
violence is not only contained within the relative static geographic borders of a
gang’s claimed territory but is entwined across gang members’ social ties. While
spatial adjacency matters to understand patterns in gang violence, so does “social
distance” (Brantingham et al. 2012; Papachristos 2009; Papachristos et al. 2013;
Papachristos et al. 2015). This notion is reinforced by the interactive influence of
spatial adjacency with the reciprocity of intergang violence suggesting that intergang
violence is amplified with the combination of geographic proximity and social
exchanges (Papachristos et al. 2013). The incorporation of both the social and spatial
characteristics associated with gangs and their members is necessary to fully inter-
pret the dynamic nature of gang violence. With the embracing of social network
analysis, gang scholars are highlighting how the social spaces connecting physical
places are important predictors of gang violence (Valasik 2018).

Facilitating Violence with Technology

Over the last decade, the importance of technology, particularly social media, on the
activity patterns and lives of gang members must not be ignored (Irwin-Rogers et al.
2018). In fact, gang members today are just as likely, if not more so, to have a
presence on social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Gab, etc.) than be
carrying a firearm (Patton et al. 2013). The research on gang members’ use of digital
communication, social media, and the Internet more broadly highlight that these
technologies are frequently used to organize criminal activities, stalk rivals, increase
a group’s status/reputation, expand criminogenic skills sets, and initiate offline
intergroup violence (Irwin-Rogers et al. 2018; Patton et al. 2013). The majority of
gang members’ online activities remain symbolic in nature, colloquially referred to
as “cyberbanging” with members publicizing their gang’s acts as a means of
increasing the groups reputation through the tagging of social media sites to dele-
gitimize a rival’s credibility or posting pictures or videos of territorial violations or
physical acts of violence (Irwin-Rogers et al. 2018; Patton et al. 2013). Yet, the
relative permanence of materials posted online prolongs one documented point in
time and space, allowing for an isolated intergroup quarrel to fester over time and
provoke future acts of real-world violence (Irwin-Rogers et al. 2018).

Interventions Aimed at Reducing Gang Violence

The growth of policies and programs targeting gang violence has proliferated since
the 1980s (Klein and Maxson 2006). While some interventions early on that directed
their efforts at the gang as a group (e.g., outreach workers) produced unanticipated
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 13

and adverse effects (Klein and Maxson 2006), today many initiatives continue to
combat gangs from a group perspective (Gravel et al. 2013). While some more recent
research has revealed similarly negative impacts (e.g., Vargas 2016), other studies
have more encouraging results with a variety of techniques that can be leveraged to
disrupt gang violence at the group level (e.g., Braga et al. 2014). For example,
strategies included by Gravel et al. (2013) under the label of gang activity regulation
include many interventions that are designed to deal with the group-based nature of
gang violence. Within gang activity regulation, there are two subgroups, gang
activity prevention and gang activity suppression, that are intended to discourage
gang membership and interrupt the delinquent and violent behavior of a gang.

Gang Activity Prevention

Strategies that endeavor to alter gang members’ behaviors without entirely focusing
on arrest and incarceration fall under the guise of gang activity prevention. These
initiatives target the antisocial behaviors (e.g., loitering, gun carrying, etc.) of the
gang as a group, instead of focusing on individual members (Gravel et al. 2013). The
overall goal is the disruption of these proscribed antisocial behaviors within a
specific location (e.g., alley, park, public housing, etc.). It is not uncommon for
gang activity prevention strategies to rely upon the enactment of tailored laws (e.g.,
public nuisance) and employing situational crime prevention tactics to disturb the
everyday activity patterns of gang members. Crime prevention through environmen-
tal design (CPTED) and civil gang injunctions (CGIs) are two prominent gang
activity prevention examples.
A favored approach among policymakers, CPTED, aims to restrict the opportu-
nities for crime, particularly gang violence, by changing the built landscape (Smith
2014). For instance, despite not having a consensus on its efficacy, it is not
uncommon for municipalities to use demolition or gentrification of areas dominated
by gangs (i.e., razing of public housing complexes) as a means of stamping out gang
violence and revitalizing a neighborhood (Smith 2014). While the demolition and
rebuilding of an entire community may not be the most economical use of resources,
there are more cost-effective and less invasive strategies that are able to reorganize
the built environment to deter gang violence. For instance, in late 1989, the Los
Angeles Police Department conducted Operation Cul-de-Sac (OCDS) for 2 years.
As a situational crime prevention strategy, OCDS was designed to disrupt automo-
bile access to areas at high risk of experiencing a drive-by shooting. Research has
highlighted that the built environment (e.g., highways, railways, etc.) greatly impacts
the territorial behaviors of gang by either facilitating or deterring the social interac-
tions of street gangs (Brantingham et al. 2012; Danson et al. 2011; Valasik 2018).
Guided by this premise, OCDS aimed at inhibiting opportunities for gang violence
by limiting vehicle access to these risky places. The evaluation of OCDS by Lasley
(1998) reveals that both homicides and assaults, particularly gang-related incidents,
significantly declined throughout the implementation stage. Upon halting OCDS and
14 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

reestablishing earlier traffic patterns, gang-related violence returned to levels prior to

the intervention (Lasley 1998).
Another prevalent gang activity prevention strategy that has become a promi-
nently employed throughout the United States (Klein and Maxson 2006), United
Kingdom (Densley 2013), and Australia (Ayling 2011) is the CGI. In contrast to
other approaches, CGIs are both more discretionary and focused, which accounts for
their proliferation. For example, the City of Los Angeles remains the vanguard of
CGIs, with 46 that target 79 street gangs, which represents approximately 40% of all
the active CGIs in the state of California. CGIs exploit two key characteristics of
gangs: (1) a gang is composed of individuals that partake in criminal activities as a
group and (2) gangs have a strong spatial affinity to geographic territory. The
rhetoric of most CGIs is to improve the solidarity of a community by reducing
gang violence through disrupting the nuisance behaviors of gang members, primar-
ily associating as a group in public. Thus, CGIs attempt to alter gang members’
routine activities by discouraging public association, thereby decreasing the group’s
cohesiveness which limits a gang’s ability to share information, intimidate residents,
recruit, elevate their status, and retain their claimed territory (Valasik 2014).
For all intents and purposes, a CGI is a civil restraining order that prohibits
enjoined gang members from engaging in a series of proscribed antisocial behaviors
within a delineated area, referred to as a “safety zone.” CGI proscriptions routinely
include not only illegal behaviors (e.g., possession of drugs/firearms/graffiti para-
phernalia) but also legal behaviors (e.g., not adhering to curfews, associating with
other members). A hybridization of criminal, civil, and administrative law, a CGI is
an innovative approach that sues a gang as an unincorporated criminal organization
(Maxson et al. 2005). Even though the lawsuit brought against a gang is a civil
matter, the sanctions enforced for violating the CGI are criminal. Furthermore,
prosecutors have great amounts of discretion in how they pursue a CGI, choosing
either civil or criminal court. While the penalties are harsher in criminal court, civil
courts are more expedient and do not require the robust protections of defendants in
criminal cases (Klein and Maxson 2006).
For over 30 years, CGIs have been used as a strategy to combat gang violence in
communities, yet only a handful of studies have examined their effectiveness at
disrupting gang activity (e.g., see Bichler et al. 2019; Carr et al. 2017; Ridgeway et
al. 2018; Hennigan and Sloane 2013; Maxson et al. 2005; Valasik 2014). Most
research finds that CGIs have a short-lived effect, typically within the 2 years of
implementation, reducing overall violent crime by about 5 to 10% within a CGI
safety zone; however, recently Ridgeway et al. (2018) also find long-term reductions
of 18% in total crime, with reductions in aggravated assaults driving the decreases.
Carr et al. (2017) analyze the differences in the criminal behaviors of 36 enjoined
gang members pre- and post-CGI finding that the vast majority of gang members’
(92%) criminal offending declined within 3 years of implementation. At the group
level, enjoined gangs were significantly less likely to participate in violence and
harm and victimization from their criminal offenses diminished (Carr et al. 2017). A
pattern of declining acts of crime and violence immediately after the establishment
of a CGI is also observed in self-reported surveys (Hennigan and Sloane 2013).
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 15

Additionally, Maxson et al. (2005) find that community perceptions of victimization,

fear of crime, and gang presence significantly declined in the 6 months after a CGI is
instituted; however, these immediate outcomes did not correspond to long-term
attitudes (e.g., collective efficacy, social cohesion, trust, etc.) that the neighborhood
was on a rehabilitative trajectory.
Conversely, Bichler et al. (2019) find that intergang violence involving an
enjoined gang actually increases after a CGI is enacted. The enjoined gang and
their members temporarily retreat from associating and loitering in public spaces
(see also Valasik 2014), but upon the gang’s reemergence, conflicts with new groups
transpire which may result from being perceived as weak, the fracturing of the gang
into factions, or overreacting to threats with increased aggression. Regardless, the
outcome is a shift and increase in patterns of intergang violence (Bichler et al. 2019).
Bichler et al. (2019) propose that the presence of a CGI impacts the established
intergang hierarchy, disrupting the existing pecking order, with fighting between
some gangs intensifying for control and dominance in a particular area. These results
are consistent with Valasik (2014) findings that enjoined gang do not respond to
CGIs in a uniform manner but diverge in two distinct patterns. Enjoined gangs with
more social ties and greater levels of connectedness prior to a CGI lose many of these
connections after the CGI is introduced. With enjoined gang member’s associations
with each other disrupted, the gang is more disconnected. In contrast, enjoined gangs
that have fewer interconnections tying members together prior to a CGI react by
associating with fellow members more frequently which produces a more well-
connected gang (Valasik 2014).

Gang Activity Suppression

A variety of law enforcement-based suppression strategies emerged in the late 1980s

and early 1990s as gang violence rose to unprecedented levels in the United States.
Many of these gang activity suppression strategies are guided by the tenets of
deterrence theory to combat the proliferation of gangs and gang violence. Typical
examples of these suppression activities include prosecution programs (i.e., vertical
prosecution), specialized caseloads for probation/parole (i.e., increased surveil-
lance), and street sweeps (Gravel et al. 2013). Gang activity suppression’s goals
are twofold: first, to inhibit gang member’s antisocial behavior through severity and
celerity of punishment (i.e., specific deterrence), and, second, to discourage potential
gang members or associates’ antisocial behaviors through what is known as the
preventive consequences of punishment (i.e., general deterrence) (Gibbs 1975).
It is challenging to specifically target gangs and their membership with suppres-
sion and deterrence interventions as Gibbs (1975, p. 227) points out, an individual
“cannot be deterred from an act unless they regard it as criminal and therefore subject
to some kind of punishment.” Additionally, suppression efforts can negatively
impact deviant subcultures like street gang. Klein and Maxson (2006) attest that
gang activity suppression strategies my in fact increase, not decrease, the cohesive-
ness of the targeted street gang, nullifying the goals of many deterrence-based
16 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

programs. Given that inhibiting violence associated with gangs and gang members is
complex, research has shown that effective deterrence-based programs, like the
Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, often use a problem-oriented approach, in which
police focus their efforts on a particular problem and apply a tailored response that
is able to intensively focus resources on eliminating or reducing the type of crime
being targeted (Braga et al. 2014).
Probably the most well-known, deterrence-based gang activity suppression pro-
gram is Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, also referred to as the Boston Miracle or the
Boston Gun Project (Braga et al. 2014). Operation Ceasefire, like many citywide
suppression strategies, was a response to unprecedented amounts of firearm-related
violence in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Like many urban centers during this time
period, Boston’s gun violence problem was highly correlated with youth gang
violence. In contrast to other municipalities, the Boston Police Department (BPD)
began in late 1994 working with researchers from Harvard University to initiate a
problem-oriented intervention targeting youth gun violence (Kennedy et al. 1996).
The focus of Operation Ceasefire was on two principal problems: (1) illegal gun
markets’ role in disbursing guns to youth and (2) the influence of a limited subset of
active youth engaging in serious acts of violence.
Operation Ceasefire relied upon extensive coordination and information sharing
within a diverse working group composed of law enforcement officers, street
outreach workers, law enforcement officers, and other criminal justice actors (e.g.,
prosecutors, probation/parole officers, etc.) (Kennedy et al. 1996). This intervention
was developed by the working group by analyzing the three key aspects of violence
in Boston: (1) the offenders and victims associated with youth homicide; (2) the
nature and dynamics of street gangs, including size, turf location, prevalence,
alliances, and rivalries; and (3) the overlap that exists between youth homicides
and street gangs. Triangulating data provided the working group with a detailed
picture of Boston’s youth gang violence problem. While members of the working
group were aware that “youth who kill and those who are killed are often known to
the police and probation officers, act with their fellows in groups, and tend to commit
a variety of crime, often in a rather public fashion,” empirical support for this
understanding allowed for a variety of feasible interventions supported by the
working group that could be deployed to deal with outbreaks of violence (Kennedy
et al. 1996, p. 164).
By informing at-risk youth that violence would be met in a swift and greatly
enhanced manner, Operation Ceasefire would be able to utilize a graduated scale of
sanctions and resources that could be leveraged against a gang and its members at
any time (Braga et al. 2014; Kennedy et al. 1996). Referred to as the “pulling levers”
strategy, because when a violent act transpires then all of the agencies represented in
the working group will respond by pulling every possible lever at their disposal,
including increased scrutiny on low-level offenses, stricter enforcement by probation
and parole officers, seizing assets of drug-related offenses, serving outstanding
warrants, more severe terms for bail, and greater prosecutorial consideration
(Braga et al. 2014). Additional resources and services were also provided to gang
members by church/community groups, street outreach workers, and probation and
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 17

parole officers working in these at-risk communities as incentivized opportunities to

discourage lethal violence and facilitate alternatives (Braga et al. 2014). Further-
more, the outreach programs spread throughout Boston that gun violence was being
treated differently from other serious crimes.
The spreading of a clear message to gang members that new sanctions will be
dispensed in a swift and certain manner is imperative for Operation Ceasefire to deter
violence in a community. In order for the working group to make sure that the
message is heard by gang members, a semiformal meeting or “call-in” is organized
between prominent gang members and representatives of the working group assur-
ing attendees that violence will be answered with a heightened response by criminal
justice actors (Braga et al. 2014; Kennedy et al. 1996).
The success of Operation Ceasefire in Boston translated into drop in youth
homicide by nearly two-thirds in the late 1990s (Braga et al. 2014). That being
said, these evaluations’ quasi-experimental design produced uncertainty about the
exact influence that Operation Cease fire had on the youth homicide rate in Boston.
Braga et al. (2014) recently verified that the total number of shooting involving
gangs targeted by Operation Ceasefire decreased by 31%.
Following the success observed in Boston, the Ceasefire model has been exported
and adapted to a number of cities across the United States with support by federally
sponsored programs targeting violence reduction (e.g., Tita et al. 2003). Examples of
these nation programs include Project Safe Neighborhoods (Wilson et al. 2009) and
the Strategic Alternatives to Community Safety Initiative (Dalton 2002). The results
of these programs, however, have been inconsistent as result of implementation
issues and differences among working groups (McGarrell et al. 2009). Nevertheless,
the overall findings suggest that there is value in using a variety of strategies that
deter conflict and incentivize alternatives to violence for at-risk gang members (see
Papachristos et al. 2015).

Key Points

• Gang violence plays an important role in the creation and maintenance of the
group’s collective identity.
• Gang violence serves both a symbolic purpose (e.g., reputation) and an instru-
mental (e.g., profit generation) purpose for a group.
• Risk/protective factors (e.g., gender, age, education) can contribute to an indi-
vidual’s participation in gang violence and being a victim of gang violence.
• At the group level, gang violence is influenced by the proximity between gangs’
geographically defined territory and the social distance between rival gangs.
• Digital technologies, particularly social media, have influenced the activity pat-
terns of gang members, resulting in changes in the dynamics of gang violence.
• The group-based nature of gang violence lends itself to both gang activity
prevention (e.g., civil gang injunctions, CPTED) and gang suppression programs
(e.g., Operation Ceasefire) aimed at reducing member participation in a gang.
18 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

Summary and Conclusion

In order to make sense of the complexities of gang violence, it is imperative to

understand the relationships between gang identity, culture, use of space, and social
media footprint. Research on gangs finds that these groups facilitate violence
through two prominent processes. First, an individual’s risk of experiencing a violent
event may simply increase because their exposure as a gang member to areas that are
more spatially vulnerable to violence or crime is increased (Klein and Maxson 2006;
Papachristos et al. 2013; Tita et al. 2005; Valasik 2018). Second, gangs prompt
violence when members are encouraged to attack rival gangs or engage in reciprocal
violence in a retaliatory attack (Decker 1996; Papachristos 2009; Papachristos et al.
2013). Both processes contribute to a greater exposure to violence than if an
individual did not join a gang (Pyrooz et al. 2016). While scholars have uncovered
much about gang life in the last 100 years, gang violence remains a serious issue for
many local communities not just in the United States but across the globe (Howell
and Griffiths 2018; Klein and Maxson 2006; Esbensen and Maxson 2018). A
collaborative effort known as the Eurogang Research Program has in fact been
examining gangs and their impact on neighborhoods in urban centers that exist
beyond the confines of the United States for over 20 years (Esbensen and Maxson
2018). The research from this group highlights that similarities exist between
American street gangs and troublesome youth groups found in other countries
(Esbensen and Maxson 2018).
Another theme within the field of gang research that has been expanding is the
influence of digital communication, social media, and the Internet more generally on
gang violence (Irwin-Rogers et al. 2018; Patton et al. 2013). As gang members spend
more time using the Internet and social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram,
Gab, etc.), this medium provides gang members a virtual space that is relatively
unmonitored and uncensored allowing for individuals to be readily exposed to gang
subculture and stream acts of gang violence (Irwin-Rogers et al. 2018). While this
line of research on the use of social media by street gangs is still emerging, research
has indicated that just like non-gang members, gang members use the Internet to
communicate, stream videos, listen to music, and post their own media (Irwin-
Rogers et al. 2018). That being said, gang members also employ social media for
more nefarious “cyberbanging” to escalate and stimulate gang violence in the
physical world (Patton et al. 2013).
Street gangs in the twenty-first century not only occupy space on the streets but
also expand their activities to the digital world. Gangs have been using social media
and the Internet more broadly to coordinate criminal activities, recruit new members,
attempt to increase their group’s reputations, stalk rivals, conduct drug sales, and
instigate intergroup violence offline (Irwin-Rogers et al. 2018; Patton et al. 2013).
While law enforcement and the criminal justice system, generally, have begun to
collect social media data on street gang members, there still remains much that is not
known about the relationship between gang violence and social media (Patton et al.
2013). Despite the growth of gangs throughout the digital landscape, gang violence
remains a localized phenomenon tied to particular places in the physical
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 19

environment that are vulnerable to gang violence (Valasik 2018). Even though gang-
related violence occurs on the streets, the precursors and facilitators are no longer
restricted to physical environment and may radiate outward from the virtual world.
Further research needs to discern what this relationship looks like to comprehend
gang-related violence in current times (Irwin-Rogers et al. 2018; Patton et al. 2013).

Cross-References

▶ Exposure of Youth to Violence in the Family

▶ Gang Violence: Examining Ecological, Cultural, Social Psychological, and Psy-
chological Factors Across the Life-Course

References
Ayling, J. (2011). Pre-emptive strike: How Australia is tackling outlaw motorcycle gangs. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 250–264.
Bichler, G., Norris, A., Dmello, J. R., & Randle, J. (2019). The Impact of Civil Gang Injunctions on
Networked Violence Between the Bloods and the Crips. Crime & Delinquency, 65(7), 875–915.
Braga, A. A., Hureau, D. M., & Papachristos, A. V. (2014). Deterring gang-involved gun violence:
Measuring the impact of Boston’s operation ceasefire on street gang behavior. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 113–139.
Brantingham, P. J., Tita, G. E., Short, M. B., & Reid, S. E. (2012). The ecology of gang territorial
boundaries. Criminology, 50(3), 851–885.
Carr, R., Slothower, M., & Parkinson, J. (2017). Do gang injunctions reduce violent crime? Four
tests in Merseyside, UK. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(4), 195–210.
Curry, G. D., & Spergel, I. A. (1988). Gang homicide, delinquency, and community. Criminology,
26(3), 381–406.
Dalton, E. (2002). Targeted crime reduction efforts in ten communities-lessons for the project safe
neighborhoods initiative. US Attorneys Bulletin, 50, 16.
Danson, R., Smith, L., Barbaro, A., Bertozzi, A., Reid, S. E., & Tita, G. (2011). Geographical
influences of an emerging network of gang rivalries. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its
Applications, 390, 3894–3914.
Decker, S. H. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13(2),
243–264.
Densley, J. (2013). How gangs work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Esbensen, F. A., & Maxson, C. L. (2018). The Eurogang program of research. Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.421.
Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., Jr., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional
issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 47(1), 105–130.
Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York: Elsevier.
Gibson, C. L., Swatt, M. L., Miller, J. M., Jennings, W. G., & Gover, A. R. (2012). The causal
relationship between gang joining and violent victimization: A critical review and directions for
future research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(6), 490–501.
Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., Descormiers, K., Wong, J. S., & Morselli, C. (2013). Keeping promises:
A systematic review and a new classification of gang control strategies. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 41(4), 228–242.
Hennigan, K. M., & Sloane, D. (2013). Improving civil gang injunctions: How implementation can
affect gang dynamics, crime, and violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(1), 7–41.
20 M. Valasik and S. E. Reid

Howell, J. C., & Griffiths, E. (2018). Gangs in America’s communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huebner, B. M., Martin, K., Moule, R. K., Jr., Pyrooz, D., & Decker, S. H. (2016). Dangerous
places: Gang members and neighborhood levels of gun assault. Justice Quarterly, 33(5),
836–862.
Irwin-Rogers, K., Densley, J., & Pinkney, C. (2018). Gang violence and social media. In The
Routledge International Handbook of Human Aggression (pp. 400–410). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., & Braga, A. A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets,
serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1),
147–196.
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (1989). Street gang violence. Violent Crime, Violent Criminals (pp.
198–234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. Oxford University Press.
Lasley, J. R. (1998). “Designing out” gang homicides and street assaults. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs/National Institute of Justice.
Leovy, J. (2015). Ghettoside: A true story of murder in America. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau.
Maxson, C. L., Hennigan, K. M., & Sloane, D. C. (2005). “It’s getting crazy out there”: Can a civil
gang injunction change a community? Criminology & Public Policy, 4(3), 577–605.
McGarrell, E. F., Hipple, N. K., Corsaro, N., Bynum, T. S., Perez, H., Zimmermann, C. A., &
Garmo, M. (2009). Project safe neighborhoods: A national program to reduce gun crime: Final
project report. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of
Justice.
Papachristos, A. V., Braga, A. A., Piza, E., & Grossman, L. S. (2015). The company you keep? the
spillover effects of gang membership on individual gunshot victimization in a co-offending
network*. Criminology, 53(4), 624–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12091
Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of
gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 74–128.
Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago’s group
violence reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 525–558.
Papachristos, A. V., Hureau, D. M., & Braga, A. A. (2013). The corner and the crew: The influence
of geography and social networks on gang violence. American Sociological Review, 78(3),
417–447.
Patton, D. U., Eschmann, R. D., & Butler, D. A. (2013). Internet banging: New trends in social
media, gang violence, masculinity and hip hop. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5),
A54–A59.
Pyrooz, D. C. (2012). Structural covariates of gang homicide in large US cities. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 49(4), 489–518.
Pyrooz, D. C., Turanovic, J. J., Decker, S. H., & Wu, J. (2016). Taking stock of the relationship
between gang membership and offending: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43
(3), 365–397.
Ridgeway, G., Grogger, J., Moyer, R. A., & MacDonald, J. M. (2018). Effect of gang injunctions on
crime: A study of Los Angeles from 1988–2014. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9396-7.
Rosenfeld, R., Bray, T. M., & Egley, A. (1999). Facilitating violence: A comparison of gang-
motivated, gang-affiliated, and nongang youth homicides. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
15(4), 495–516.
Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Smith, C. M. (2014). The influence of gentrification on gang homicides in Chicago neighborhoods,
1994 to 2005. Crime & Delinquency, 60(4), 569–591.
Sutton, T. E. (2017). The lives of female gang members: A review of the literature. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 37, 142–152.
Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature 21

Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F. A., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as a risk factor
for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4),
351–380.
Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., Esbensen, F. A., & Peterson, D. (2008). Youth gang membership and serious
violent victimization: The importance of lifestyles and routine activities. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 23(10), 1441–1464.
Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang: A study of 131 gangs in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Tita, G., Riley, K. J., Ridgeway, G., Grammich, C. A., & Abrahamse, A. (2003). Reducing gun
violence: Results from an intervention in East Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation.
Tita, G. E., Cohen, J., & Engberg, J. (2005). An ecological study of the location of gang “set space”.
Social Problems, 52(2), 272–299.
Valasik, M. (2018). Gang violence predictability: Using risk terrain modeling to study gang
homicides and gang assaults in East Los Angeles. Journal of Criminal Justice, 58, 10–21.
Valasik, M., & Tita, G. (2018). Gangs and space. In The Oxford handbook of environmental
criminology (pp. 843–871). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Valasik, M., Barton, M. S., Reid, S. E., & Tita, G. E. (2017). Barriocide: Investigating the temporal
and spatial influence of neighborhood structural characteristics on gang and non-gang homi-
cides in East Los Angeles. Homicide Studies, 21(4), 287–311.
Valasik, M. A. (2014). “ Saving the world, one neighborhood at a time”: The role of civil gang
injunctions at influencing gang behavior Doctoral dissertation, UC Irvine.
Vargas, R. (2016). Wounded city: Violent turf wars in a Chicago barrio. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Vasquez, E. A., Wenborne, L., Peers, M., Alleyne, E., & Ellis, K. (2015). Any of them will do: In-
group identification, out-group entitativity, and gang membership as predictors of group-based
retribution. Aggressive Behavior, 41(3), 242–252.
Vigil, J. D. (2003). Urban violence and street gangs. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(1),
225–242.
Wilson, J. M., MacDonald, J. M., & Tita, G. E. (2009). Localized homicide patterns and prevention
strategies: A comparison of five project safe neighborhood sites. Victims & Offenders, 5(1),
45–63.
Wu, J., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2016). Uncovering the pathways between gang membership and violent
victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(4), 531–559.