Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature

2019, Handbook of Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_105-1

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 identity, victimization, participation, gender, spatial proximity, and social distance. 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.

Taking Stock of Gang Violence: An Overview of the Literature Matthew Valasik and Shannon E. Reid Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situating Violence in Gang Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joining a Gang and Gang Member Violent Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Violent Victimization of Female Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temporal Patterns in Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Spatial and Social Distribution of Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facilitating Violence with Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interventions Aimed at Reducing Gang Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gang Activity Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gang Activity Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 4 6 8 9 9 10 12 12 13 15 17 18 19 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 identity, victimization, participation, gender, spatial proximity, and social distance. M. Valasik (*) Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. E. Reid Criminal Justice and Criminology College, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 R. Geffner et al. (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_105-1 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 exaggerated, 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 incidents 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 considered 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 nongang 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 rehabilitation, etc.), and group involvement (e.g., participate in spontaneous activities, contribute 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 methodologies. 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 victimization 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 individual-, 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 atmosphere 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, participating 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 genderspecific prevention and intervention programs (Howell and Griffiths 2018). Furthermore, 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 neighborhood 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 neighborhoods 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 information system (GIS) software that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers were able to map and analyze the geographic relationship between neighborhood characteristics, 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 improvements 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 characteristics: (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 nongang 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 examining 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 interpret 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 delegitimize 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 environmental design (CPTED) and civil gang injunctions (CGIs) are two prominent gang activity prevention examples. A favored approach among policymakers, CPTED, aims to restrict the opportunities 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 automobile 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 interactions 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 prominently 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, primarily 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 paraphernalia) 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 wellconnected 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 surveillance), 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 suppression 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 cohesiveness 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 program 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). Furthermore, 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 assuring 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 instrumental (e.g., profit generation) purpose for a group. • Risk/protective factors (e.g., gender, age, education) can contribute to an individual’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 patterns 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 (IrwinRogers 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 gangrelated 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 Psychological 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 gangmotivated, 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 Interpersonal 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 homicides 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: Ingroup 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.