DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  1    

 

Disengagement From Gangs as Role Transitions

Scott H. Decker

David C. Pyrooz

Richard K. Moule Jr.

* In Press at the Journal of Research on Adolescence. doi:10.1111/jora.12074

Abstract

Most research has focused on the onset and consequences of gang membership, neglecting the importance of leaving the gang. Disengagement from gangs often occurs during the transition to adulthood, a critical period of the life course. While leaving gangs has received growing attention over the past decade, absent from this research has been a suitable theoretical perspective with which to frame disengagement. The present study drew on Ebaugh’s (1988) theory of role exit to examine disengagement among 260 former gang members. We find disengagement to be a drawn out process, replete with many failures and obstacles. We conclude with a discussion of these implications for practitioners, policy makers, and future research.

Acknowledgements

Funding from Google Ideas supported this project. We are grateful for their support. The content of this paper, however, is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Google. We also thank the editor, Paul Boxer, and the anonymous reviewers, whose comments improved the manuscript. Portions of this manuscript were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Chicago. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott H. Decker, Arizona State University. Author Addresses and Affiliations Scott H. Decker. Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 600, Phoenix AZ 85004. David C. Pyrooz. Sam Houston State University, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology. Box 2296, Huntsville TX 77341. Richard K. Moule Jr. Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 600, Phoenix AZ 85004.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  2    

 

There is nothing “once and for all” in any decision to change. Each day brings a new embarking. It’s always a recalibration and a reassessing of attitude and the old tired ways of proceeding, which are hard to shake for any of us.

- Father Greg Boyle (2010), Homeboy Industries, Founder

Father Boyle’s observation provides insight into the process of leaving a gang, a process

that rarely follows a seamless, linear transition. This view is consistent with developmental

perspectives on identity and behavior (Erickson, 1950, 1968; Sampson & Laub, 1993), as new

statuses and roles emerge from prior selves. Trajectories of development over the life course,

beginning in adolescence (Erickson, 1950), imply transitions into and out of these identities and

behaviors (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002; Horney, Osgood, & Marshall, 1995; Laub,

Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Maruna, 2001; Warr, 1998). As Bushway and Paternoster (2013) note,

identity change is a mechanism that makes it possible for factors like employment to promote

behavioral change. Veysey, Martinez, and Christian (2013, p. 241) similarly identify “cognitive

transitions” as being key to desistance from criminal behavior (see also Maruna & Farrall, 2004).

Recent research has acknowledged the role of social structures in this process (Healy, 2010).

Among these structures, adolescent peer groups help shape identity, and in some cases elevate

levels of criminal offending, and create difficulties transitioning to pro social identities in later

years (Barber, Eccles, & Stone, 2001; McLean, Breen, & Fournier, 2010; Short, 1957).

Despite the centrality of group participation to offending and identity, little is known

regarding the process of disengagement from antisocial groups and the shedding of this group-

based identity, particularly during the transition to adulthood (Schulenburg, Wadsworth,

O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996) or emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000). Participation in

gangs provides a substantial number of benefits, including a sense of identity (Garot, 2010;

Hennigan & Spanovic, 2012; Vigil, 1988) and the social capital accompanying membership

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  3    

 

(Moule, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2013; Short, 1990). The identity and status as “gang member” is

important, but rarely lasts more than two years (Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2012; Thornberry,

Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003) and exists alongside other, often non-deviant identities.

There are well-documented life-course costs associated with gang membership—arrest,

incarceration, death, economic failure—that serve as a tradeoff for the benefits of identity and

social capital enhancement (e.g. Pyrooz, 2013). While recent research has integrated gang

membership into the life-course framework (Krohn, Ward, Thornberry, Lizotte, & Chu, 2011;

Pyrooz, Decker, and Webb, 2010; Sweeten, Pyrooz, & Piquero, 2012), and paid greater attention

to gang disengagement, absent from this attention has been a theoretical framing of the

disengagement process.

IDENTITY FORMATION AND ROLE EXITS IN DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

Adolescence is a period of substantial psychosocial development, during which time

individuals form unique identities (Erikson, 1950, 1968; Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2010;

Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999). Two elements of identity have received

considerable attention: exploration of new identity alternatives and commitment to activities

related to a given identity (e.g., Marcia, 1966). These identities may be salient for extended

periods of time (van Hoof, 1999), or temporary placeholders in the broader process of identity

development (Waterman, 1999). As individuals move beyond adolescence, these identities

continue playing an influential role in their development (Arnett, 1997, 2000).

This view of identity formation and change is consistent with the life-course perspective

on behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Within this framework, scholars examine continuity and

change in antisocial behaviors over time. The core of the life-course argument rests with

interpreting the age-crime curve, and whether the cessation of criminal behavior, or desistance, is

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  4    

 

attributable to maturation or external forces (Sampson & Laub, 1993; LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, &

Bushway, 2008). These explanations are difficult to disentangle and often work together,

particularly during periods of sharp decline in criminality. The age-crime curve shows that

offending peaks in the late teens, and declines thereafter. As maturational reform explains most

desistance, the challenge to criminology is to account for the residual amount of crime

unaccounted for by age. Several processes in the life course facilitate desistance, including

turning points such as marriage, military service, and work. These commitments “knife off” past

relationships while reorganizing opportunity structures (Sampson & Laub, 1993). “Knifing off”

implies a process that is sudden and complete; the reality is far more complex. Indeed, the

desistance process is often intermittent (Maruna, 2001).

Consistent with these notions of behavioral and identity change is the process of role

transitions. Role transitions are gradual processes where individuals move from one role to

another, and in doing so derive new identities from these roles (Ebaugh, 1988). Based in

literature on life transitions (e.g. Becker, 1963; Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Goffman, 1961) and role

theory (Merton, 1957), Ebaugh (1988) provides a framework for understanding how individuals

become "exes". The concept of anticipatory socialization (Merton, 1957) is central to role

transitions, and entails imagining one’s status in a new role, including internal (self) and external

(from others) expectations and experimenting with aspects of the new role.

The initial step is the generation of first doubts about staying in a current role. Such

doubts include weighing both symbolic and instrumental aspects of a current role. The second

step involves looking for and weighing alternative roles. It is at this stage where anticipatory

socialization is most important, as individuals begin to weigh the costs and benefits of a

transition. The third stage is the turning points or specific experiences, reflections, and advice

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  5    

 

about the disadvantages of a current role and advantages of a new role (see also Maruna, 2001).

For offenders, this can include such things as exposure to violence, moving, marriage,

employment, children, or simply hitting bottom. The final stage of role transition is post-exit

certification (or validation) by the individual as well as other groups such as old friends,

individuals still involved in the former role, and agents of social control. These steps need not

occur linearly, and the expectation is that many individuals will revert to former roles.

As a framework for understanding role exits, Ebaugh (1988) examined transitions out of

both pro and antisocial roles. The role exit framework has been expanded since her initial work.

Mansson and Hedin (1999) emphasized role embeddedness, which influences the relative ease of

role exit. Likewise, a number of catalysts for role exit have been identified, including exposure to

violence or dissatisfaction with a given role and exposure to positive life events (Adler, 1992;

Sanders, 2007). This research links role exits to desistance and suggests role exits involve

multiple actors, a key in disengaging from groups (Abrams, 2012; Leverentz, 2010).

There is a conceptual overlap across identity formation and continuity, the life-course

perspective on behavior, and role transitions. The concept of role exit is particularly useful for

understanding exits from gangs, as the duration of membership typically lasts no more than a few

years (Krohn & Thornberry, 2008; Pyrooz et al., 2012). Despite the time-limited nature of gang

membership, it is often a salient identity for individuals, and has substantive consequences for an

individual’s development (Krohn et al., 2011; Thornberry et al., 2003). Gangs maintain a unique

control over their members, exhibiting permanence over time and space and a highly unified

membership when threats to the gang are present. Further, the processes within gangs trump

ethnicity, gender, and neighborhood characteristics (Ayling, 2011; Klein, 1971; Klein &

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  6    

 

Maxson, 2006; McGloin & Decker, 2010). Disengaging from the gang thus entails a number of

difficulties and processes associated with role transitions.

DISENGAGMENT FROM GANGS

Conventional wisdom, based largely on police and media accounts, holds that gang

members have considerable difficulty leaving their gang (Howell, 2007). Many argue that

members must “get jumped out” or “kill their mother” to leave the gang, a process known as

“blood in, blood out.” Historical accounts through the 1960s suggested gang leaving was a

natural consequence of members growing up, getting jobs, and getting married (Miller, 2011;

Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943). Sanchez-Jankowski (1991) suggested six ways in which members

leave gangs: age, die, go to prison, get jobs, join another organization, or leave as the group

divides. It is important to underscore the developmental processes present here. As gang

members move out of adolescence, they are likely to cut ties to adolescent friends and activities.

Young people who once played and committed crimes together put aside childhood relationships

and activities in favor of adult responsibilities (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Vigil, 1988).

Decker and Lauritsen (2002) interviewed 24 former St. Louis gang members, finding that

the process of leaving the gang resembled the concept of desistance: an immediate “knifing-off”

or a more gradual process (Maruna & Roy, 2007). For gang members, cutting ties often meant

leaving the neighborhood or town. Another method of disengagement was more gradual, as

members simply drifted away. This process included developing beliefs and commitments that

ran counter to those held by the gang. Vigil (1988) documented disengagement from Los

Angeles gangs where, over time, these reasons or events propelled individuals away from their

gang. Departure became final as individuals became involved in conventional activities.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  7    

 

There is a gray area many former gang members occupy: those who have left the gang

but retain social ties with other gang members (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Pyrooz et al., 2010).

These persisting social and emotional attachments have important implications for successful

disengagement. Those who retain gang ties are more likely to be victimized than those without

lingering connections, regardless of how long ago they had left the gang (Pyrooz et al., 2010).

Pyrooz and Decker (2011) examined the motives and methods for leaving the gang and the

enduring ties following disengagement. They identified push and pull factors that influenced

motives for gang leaving. Gang members who reported leaving because of family or employment

commitments or other “turning points” were labeled as pull desisters. Pushes involved internal

changes, such as tiring of gang violence and other events that came between them and their gang,

serving as a wedge to push them away from the gang. The methods for exiting the gang were

classified in hostile and non-hostile departures, the former referred to those who left the gang by

means of an event, such as getting beaten out of the gang, while the latter referred to those who

“walked away” without incident. Two-thirds of former members left due to a push motive. Few

members experienced a "turning point" that pulled them away from the gang. Importantly, no

former members who exited the gang for pull reasons experienced a hostile departure.

The emphasis on social ties highlights a second area that influences the ability of

members to disengage: embeddedness. Since gang membership is structured, with core and

fringe members across age-graded cliques, individual levels of commitment must be understood

as a key to gang leaving. As Horowitz (1983) showed, core members have more difficulty

leaving than peripheral members due to group dependence. Drawing on Hagan’s (1993) concept

of criminal embeddedness, Pyrooz et al. (2012) illustrated that weakly embedded gang members

tend to leave sooner than those who are more entrenched. As individuals become more involved,

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  8    

 

they spend less time and have access to fewer resources from pro-social networks (Moule et al.,

2013). Sweeten et al. (2012) showed that embeddedness has consequences for criminal behavior,

with greater embeddedness corresponding with more offending, and reductions in embeddedness

with diminished rates of criminal behavior. Further, Pyrooz et al. (2012) showed that decreasing

embeddedness corresponds with de-identification as a gang member.

The literature examining departure from gangs shares a number of similarities with

broader writings on role transitions (Ebaugh, 1988) and identity change (Cote & Schwartz, 2002;

Erickson, 1950; Waterman, 1982). These similarities include the impact of gang membership on

developmental outcomes (Krohn et al., 2011) and the acknowledgement of developmental

processes across the gang career (Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Pyrooz et al., 2012). These

acknowledgements provide only peripheral insight into the process of gang disengagement.

While there has been some descriptive work on the methods and motives for this important role

transition, the gang exit literature lacks a conceptual framework, comparisons to other forms of

role exits, and a fuller appreciation of the pushes and pulls during the exit process.

Current Study

The current study examines disengaging from gangs among individuals transitioning to

adulthood. Using data collected from former gang members in four U.S. cities, the present study

employs a mixed methods approach to answer three research questions: 1) what is the general

process undertaken by individuals leaving the gang?, 2) during this process, what “snags and

pulls” emerge?, and 3) how is the transition out of the gang affected by others’ recognition of the

status as a “former” member, including members of the gang, rival gangs and the police? These

questions are largely descriptive, and highlight the nuance of gang ties, embeddedness, and

transitioning away from the group. Quantitative analyses that examine how embeddedness is

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  9    

 

related to distancing oneself from the gang supplement these qualitative accounts. Overall, this

study integrates group leaving into the desistance literature and provides insights into the process

of group disengagement.

Methods

Data

The data were obtained from 260 face-to-face interviews conducted with individuals in

four US cities: Fresno, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Phoenix, AZ; and St. Louis, MO. Table 1 displays

the demographic characteristics of study participants many of whom left their gang during the

transition to adulthood. Respondents in Los Angeles and Phoenix were participants in street

outreach programs geared toward gang members and former offenders seeking to change their

lives. Many clients had extensive involvement in the criminal justice system. In Fresno,

interviews were conducted with a jail population. In St. Louis, interviews were conducted with

individuals on probation or parole. This purposive sampling strategy allowed us to engage a

substantial number of former gang members. As a consequence, between 51 and 80 respondents

are represented at each of the four study sites.

Interviews were conducted in 2011 in these cities over the course of several months.

Trained members of the research project staff administered face-to-face surveys. Most surveys

were completed within 45-minutes to one-hour. If a respondent did not speak English, they were

assigned a Spanish-speaking interviewer. Less than three percent of individuals refused to

participate in the study. In some cases, respondents declined to answer specific survey items.

Respondents in street settings were provided a small monetary incentive or store coupon for

participating, but this was not permitted in the jail.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  10    

 

Our mixed methodology concentrates on 260 individuals who no longer identify as active

gang members. This was determined as part of the larger survey, where respondents were asked

if they had “ever been a member of a gang?” and if they are “currently in a gang?” Those

responding “yes” to the former and “no” to the latter were recorded as former gang members.

Self-nomination is a “robust” technique for distinguishing across gang membership status

(Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001; Webb, Katz, & Decker, 2006). Decker and Lauritsen

(2002) and Pyrooz et al. (2010) have commented that the “back end” of gang membership is

conceptually and operationally complicated, and this study helps unpack the complexities of the

gang disengagement process by integrating it into role exit theory. The purposive sampling

strategy enhances the validity of both the qualitative and quantitative understanding of gang

disengagement as the individuals in the sample have long histories of criminal behavior and

involvement in both gangs and the criminal justice system. As detailed in Table 1, respondents

were, on average, just under 30 years of age, had left the gang in their early 20s, and reported an

average of 10 years of gang involvement before having left the gang. Sample demographics

reflect an overwhelmingly male, racially Black and ethnically Hispanic population from

households where the average parental education falls short of a high school degree. This is

consistent with official records of the gang population in many US cities—a population of about

three-quarters of a million people (Curry, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2013; Egley & Howell, 2012).

* insert Table 1 about here *

Measures

The quantitative component of the study includes several survey measures that represent

important dimensions of gang disengagement. Sources of assistance refer to a matrix of items in

the question “Did anyone from the following institutions play a role in helping you leave the

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  11    

 

gang?” Based on our review of the gang disengagement literature and pre-testing of the

instrument, we included responses for school, church, family, police/ correctional officers, social

service agencies, job or employment, girl/boyfriend, and an open-ended category. Responses

could include “did not help at all” (=0), “a minor role” (=1), or “a major role” (=2). We

recognize that not all respondents have the opportunity to receive support from these sources, but

this exercise helps discern “key players” in the disengagement process. Given the comparable

social environments from which gang membership emerges, it should be expected that most gang

members experience similar sources of support during disengagement.

The point at which an individual de-identifies as a gang member rarely corresponds with

a knifing off of gang “baggage.” Residual concerns and gang ties persist after exiting the gang

(Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Pyrooz et al., 2010). We explore two components of these residuals,

the first of which pertains to real and perceived concerns of post-gang life. Respondents were

asked whether (1) they were attacked because they left the gang, (2) rival gangs attacked them

after leaving, (3) the police treated them as gang members despite having left and (4) their family

was attacked because of leaving the gang. “Yes” responses were coded 1 and “no” responses

were coded 0. Respondents were adept at deciphering motive in such social interactions. These

questions were followed up by asking respondents how worried they were about these incidents

(1) immediately after leaving and (2) today; possible responses included “not at all worried”

(=0), “a little worried” (=1), “pretty worried” (=2), and “extremely worried” (=3).

The second residual component we explore concerns what Decker and Lauritsen (2002)

and Pyrooz et al. (2010) referred to as persisting emotional ties to the gang. Respondents were

asked if they disagreed (=0), neutral (=1), or agreed (=2) with two statements: (1) “If someone

disrespected the gang, I would respond to that disrespect” and (2) “If a member of the gang was

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  12    

 

attacked, I would retaliate.” By using statements that exploit codes of interpersonal violence, the

symbolic identity of gang associations and its reputation/honor, and collective norms of

reciprocity (Decker, 1996; Horowitz, 1983), these items tap residual connections to the gang. As

we describe next, individuals completely out of the gang with weak levels of embeddedness are

unlikely to agree with these statements, providing discriminant validity for the theoretical model.

A scale of gang embeddedness is constructed using a mixed graded response model

(Samejima, 1969, 1997) and applied to a set of five variables introduced in Pyrooz et al. (2012)

and Sweeten et al. (2012) that tap individual immersion in gangs. These items include (1)

frequency of contact: 0 “never” to 5 “daily”; (2) importance of gang to respondent: 0 “not

important at all” to 4 “extremely important”; (3) proportion of friends in the gang: 0 “none of my

friends” to 4 “all of my friends”; (4) position in the gang: 0 “no position” to 4 “leader”; (5)

frequency of gang-involved assaults: 0 “never” to 4 “more than five times.” The graded response

model treats gang embeddedness as a normally distributed latent trait and was generated using

the gllamm program in Stata 12.0 (Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal, 2008), where embeddedness

items were nested within persons. The construct is standardized across respondents (M=0,

SD=1).

Plan of Analysis

* insert Figure 1 here *

Interviews regarding gang membership (joining, periods of gang activity, and leaving)

were recorded with subject permission. We used Figure 1 to elicit discussion on the stages of

gang leaving. Figure 1 was constructed and validated based on several early interviews, and used

to facilitate discussion of the decision, reasons, and processes of leaving the gang. Some

progressed through the stages quite quickly, others moved back and forth, and others “stalled

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  13    

 

out” at various points along the way. All interviews were transcribed and coded for analysis in

NVivo. Characteristics of gang exit were coded for the methods used to exit, the motives that led

to the decision to leave as well as nature of the process of leaving. Collateral consequences of

leaving the gang, including violence toward the “former” gang member or their family, were also

coded. Coding decisions were made by an individual not involved in conducting interviews and

validated by one of the interviewers. Consensus was reached by discussing the appropriate

classification where there were differences between the two.

The analysis begins with subjects’ qualitative accounts of the process of exiting the gang.

Following this, the quantitative portion of the study examines the sources of assistance in leaving

the gang and the residual consequences, concerns, and connections to gang life among former

gang members. Paired sample t-tests are used to compare self-reports of the residual features of

post-gang life at the time of the interview with earlier time periods. Ordered logistic regression

models are estimated to relate residual features of post-gang life to gang embeddedness and other

demographic and gang-related variables.

Results

We view disengaging from gangs as consistent with both Ebaugh (1988) and recent

research on role exit (Mansson and Hedin, 1999). It is anticipated that levels of embeddedness—

individual immersion within gangs—should decline over the disengagement process, especially

if someone has de-identified as a gang member. For example, moving from stage 2 to stage 3, we

would expect noticeable declines in gang embeddedness. Once someone reaches the final stage,

post exit-validation, the role transition should be complete and the gang member of yesterday

should be superseded by the father/mother, husband/wife, and employee/employer roles of today.

First Doubts

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  14    

 

The first stage in Ebaugh’s (1988) formulation is “first doubts” about the current role.

These doubts can be emergent and reside at the back of a gang member’s mind. Over time they

gain ascendancy and creep into the forefront of an individual’s self-concept and sense of how

they are perceived by others. Ebaugh is largely silent about the content of these doubts, but it is a

question we pursued among our subjects. Some of their doubts centered on the moral legitimacy

of the gang, doubts about the gang lifestyle, their future with their family, and concerns about

violence to themselves and others. At this stage there was no commitment to leave the gang, just

an exploration and consideration of options.

One woman in Los Angeles who was in the process of leaving her gang told us:

Little by little, day by day, I think I’ll always be a gang member but I act different. Los Angeles 31 F Hisp1

She envisioned being out of her gang but referenced the daily process of extricating herself from

membership. A thirty-one year old male in Los Angeles told us that doubts emerged about his

past life in the gang and he had a new sense of where his life should lead. His thoughts were

echoed by a second LA gang member who was in the process of leaving, and described his

perceived need to wrest himself away from the gang.

It was a young thing I experience the life and now it is time to experience something else. Los Angeles 31 M Hisp I said, I gotta get over this crap, you know? I gotta get over the fact that I am feelin all angry about my family. Do I want to do this for another ten years? See, the way I see it you only have so many amounts of years on this earth, you know and in order to have something for yourself [you have to change]. Los Angeles 49 M Hisp

A former LA gang member told us that over time he began to see that the gang was “an illusion”.

We were fighting for what we thought was right, it was an illusion that we fell for. Los Angeles 48 M Hisp

                                                                                                                         1 The notation at the end of each quote identifies demographic characteristics of the subject giving city, age, gender and race/ethnicity in that order.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  15    

 

A former member of the Fresno Bulldogs told us about his first experience in jail with other gang

members and what the reality of their lives meant for him. His sense that fellow gang members

didn’t have much going for them and that the gang life was an adolescent lifestyle led him to

have first doubts.

The lifestyle change. When I went to jail and met all the Fresno Dogs with nothing, I saw a lifestyle I didn’t want. I mean, I saw this as something you did as a kid and got over, but now it’s serious. Fresno 40 M Hisp

Anticipatory Socialization

The second step in Ebaugh’s formulation of role exit is anticipatory socialization, a

period of seeking and weighing alternatives to the current lifestyle. This is a period of

experimentation, trying out new roles. Subjects described this as a time when they took two steps

forward and one step backward. For many, simply participating in the gang outreach program in

LA or Phoenix was an example of such role experimentation. We observed many instances in

which young men didn’t get out of the car to come in the program, or walked past the front door,

as if not quite ready to acknowledge a potential change in their status. They looked forward to

many of the trappings of a new role, but felt enmeshed in the goings on of the old role. One of

subject referred to this period in the disengagement process as “teeter-tottering”. For many

subjects, maturational reform was a key element in the anticipatory socialization process toward

a new role. Having joined their gang as a teenager, they looked forward to and experienced

(often on a delayed basis) the benefits of post-adolescence and early adulthood. In some

instances, anticipatory socialization not only involved looking forward to new roles, it involved

severing ties to old roles.

We’re all getting older, maturing. It’s just when you have kids and stuff you get past that. That’s more of an adolescent kind of thing. Phoenix 25 M Hisp  

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  16    

 

In some cases, anticipatory socialization was originated by the individual, but occasionally, the

gang distanced itself from individuals who began to move toward roles outside the gang.

In one of the most compelling interviews we conducted, a Los Angeles gang member told

us that leaving the gang was similar to being in recovery from an addiction. We discussed this

interview at length and reviewed our notes and agreed to interview this individual again, given

how compelling his responses had been. His description of the back and forth process of exiting

his gang seems consistent with Horgan’s (2009) descriptions of terrorists, Bjorgo’s (2009)

descriptions of pirates and members of right wing hate groups, and Campbell and Hansen’s

(2012) description of individuals who left drug smuggling groups. The dynamic process of

moving between role statuses is an important characteristic of role exits.

INT: You considered it [leaving the gang] like being in recovery? Subject: Yeah, In recovery, well, I haven’t fully transitioned into being out of the gang. I’m still, I’m still there but I’m not. I’m there in spirit, but not physically. I’m teeter-tottering. You gotta hit bottom in order to jump back to the top. You know, that’s how I, you know it’s like a bungee cord. You know, you jump off with the bungee cord, you hit the water and then you go back up. Los Angeles 30 M Hisp

One of the clear findings from this work was that disengagement is a process. As this 42 year old

former gang member told us, his gang didn’t “buy” his early efforts at disengagement. Only over

time was he able to convincingly portray himself as disengaging. His experience was similar to

that of another younger gang member in Phoenix who decided not to visit his old neighborhood.

I started…I stopped going to the park, you know, they knock on the door. I tell my mom, “Tell ‘em I’m not here, I’m not here.” “Oh, he’s not here, he’s busy doin’ homework, he’s grounded.” I said, “Tell them anything you want to I’m not going out there anymore.” And sure enough, they started getting into more nonsense, ended up going to prison, some of ‘em got killed, some of ‘em are cracked out, methed out, now. Phoenix 42 M AA

The process of disengagement didn’t always come upon a gang member slowly or deliberatively.

As Pyrooz and Decker (2011) found, violence can produce knifing off from a group. A young

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  17    

 

woman in a Hispanic gang in Phoenix found that facing down a knife and the shooting of a

friend was motivation enough for her to begin seeing herself as a “former” member.

I first thought of [leaving] when I got in, like my third fight and the girl pulled out her knife on me. That was when I first thought about it. The time when I was actually like, “I’m quitting for realz” was when my friend got shot. Phoenix 18 F Hisp

Many gang members talk about the important role that their children play in their

decision to disengage from the gang, and these experiences are central turning points. However,

few see distancing themselves from their gang in more generational terms, such as “breaking the

cycle” of gangs and violence as did one man in Los Angeles:

I wanted to change for myself and for my children. I wanted to break the cycle [gangs to prison] for my kids. Los Angeles 38 M Hisp

Turning Points

Many subjects identified a specific event or time that they left their gang, and in a

majority of those instances family was the key variable that was a “hook for change” (Giordano

et al., 2002). While maturation and exposure to violence—personally or vicariously—were

important, they were secondary to family issues.

I was worried about my family and myself being… [hurt]. Phoenix 19 M Hisp

My wife, little by little, would say, “Your friends are not doing anything for you and just make you do more time [in prison].” Phoenix 47 M Hisp

In some cases the concern about family extended to children and particularly the birth of a child.

These insights illustrate the presence and often competition between multiple roles. The

dominance of one role can overshadow others, such as that of the parent role.

When I had my son…he hit me right on the nose. It changed me… took a little time. St. Louis 23 M Asian My girl told me, “I’m gonna have another baby.” I was like you know what? It’s time to change. That’s already three kids, I can’t be doin’ this [gang banging] all my life. Phoenix 29 M Hisp

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  18    

 

Another gang member said his mother’s stress over his safety led him to leave the gang.

When I got shot, that really brought stress to her [mother] and what not. You know what I mean” So, I would say it had some influence but the major influence…I was like okay, I’m tired of you know what I mean, havin’ my mom scrapin’ her knees up every night prayin’ for me that I come home safe. Phoenix 31 M OTH

The thought of an extended period of time in prison was also salient for disengagement.

Today, I have to wake up and I look in the mirror and I realize if I allow myself to think the way I used to, then I could create all kinds of chaos…and the end result for me is…I’ll spend the rest of my life in prison. Los Angeles 49 M Hisp. I didn’t have to talk to nobody, uh, my life was almost tooken, so I was, you know, pretty much as a female…uh, female individual should never have to go through what I went through as far as getting robbed for a lot of dope and you know, the things that I went through and experience, you know, I was beat, raped and left for dead over a drug deal. Los Angeles 37 F Hisp

One former member identified the injury to his trigger finger as a turning point. He simply could

no longer be as efficient with his gun as he needed to be.

I had to slow down due to my physical condition. I couldn’t be out there doing drive-bys and knockin’ people out and everything. I’m right-handed originally. I have learned to use my left hand ‘cause my trigger finger was on my right side and I lost all that when I was paralyzed in my right arm. That made me figure, “Hey, you need to calm down.” Phoenix 31 M OTH

Post Exit Validation

A key part of moving into a new role is validation of the new role. Most of us engage in

rituals or ceremonies that commemorate our new status as married. divorced, parents, ex-

alcoholics, and the like. There is, however, no “certificate” for those who have left their gang or

any other criminal group. The validation of one’s status as a former member comes from within,

but also external reference groups. These groups can include members of the former gang, rival

gangs, family, or in some cases the police. Without this validation, those seeking to disengage

may drift back to the gang.

One former gang member told us his self-perception was critical to his new role:

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  19    

 

The change started happening when I started time [prison] you know for the things I was doing and when I started having my kids. My kids made me change a lot you know it give me a change of heart. I look at myself as a father. I don’t look at myself as that gang member anymore. Phoenix 21 M Hisp

Another told us that he felt was rebuffed by his former gang. That validated his decision to leave.

I tried to speak to a couple of them after that, see if I could make amends, ‘cause it was like still in the lifestyle, but they didn’t really respond too much, so I let it go. Phoenix 26 M AA

The former gang can play an important role in post-exit validation, often in unexpected ways.  

INT: When did you know you weren’t in the gang anymore? Subject: When they didn’t have my back after an altercation. Phoenix 26 M AA I don’t have to look over my shoulder anywhere I go. I don’t have to be, um, like scared or nervous anytime I walk through Phoenix or any other town. I mean that’s mostly, I don’t have to worry about my family being the victims of a drive-by anymore. So the danger’s gone. Phoenix 18 F Hisp

For other gang members, there were means of “washing away” their former ties, including

getting rid of contacts with former associates that existed on social media and cell phones.

Leaving wasn’t hard once I made the decision – erasing my contacts, cell phone, not calling and reducing other contact. Phoenix 34 F Hisp

But even for those who have left, ties to the gang linger. Some ties were instrumental,

because of neighborhood alliances and past involvement in crime. For most ex-members, the ties

that kept them in touch with their gang were more symbolic. Persisting ties—regardless of post-

exit validation—lead to role ambiguity.

Subject: No, I’m not in a gang. I’m just to the side watching everything go by. INT: But if something went down, you’d get involved. Subject: Of course. Like I said, you know, if somebody like killed one of my friends or worse, so, personally I would defend him. I would go by myself. I don’t need nobody’s permission. Phoenix 51 M Hisp INT: Are you currently in a gang? Subject: I identify with it but I’m not involved in the activities. It’s a hard question and I just have to say yes because I can’t say no. Phoenix 28 F Hisp

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  20    

 

Recognizing and Validating Disengagement  

A number of groups can validate disengagement. Becoming an ex occurs in the context

of multiple roles. These roles can overlap, pull members in conflicting directions, and perhaps

account for some intermittency present in many gang departures. Support for disengagement by

formal and informal groups is poorly understood, but such groups color the disengagement

process. Announcing a decision to exit one role and assume another makes it public and

increases the stakes in such decisions, but there are a variety of groups who are the audiences of

such decisions. Primary groups—a gang member’s family, their own gang—are certainly

important. Rival gang members also play a part in the process as “beefs” may linger well beyond

departure from a gang. Just because an individual may have left their gang doesn’t necessarily

reduce a rival’s desire for revenge. Agents of the criminal justice system, particularly police, are

also important. To the extent that individuals stay on police gang rosters or are in computer files

as “gang members” may serve to subject individuals to heightened legal scrutiny. In this way,

secondary deviance (Lemert, 1967) may be promoted by failing to recognize disengagement.

To measure these concepts we examine four issues. First, we examine sources of support

for role transitions out of the gang by both formal and informal social institutions and whether

they played a role in disengagement. Second, we review which groups (the former gang, rival

gangs, or the police) ex-gang members are concerned about. In an effort to add a temporal

dimension to this measurement, we ask about their level of concern in the immediate period after

leaving the gang and today. Third, we examine whether former members would join their gang

in retaliating if the gang experienced disrespect or violence. Lastly, we consider how

embeddedness relates to these concerns. Recognizing that disengaging is more than words and a

label, we wanted to gauge “former” gang members’ responses to threats to their former gang.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  21    

 

Illustrating Dimensions of Gang Disengagement

A number of groups may promote or assist in disengaging from gangs. Table 2 presents

the perceptions of former gang members regarding seven groups and whether these groups

provided major help, minor help or no help in transitioning out of the gang. We consider public

and parochial institutions (church, job, criminal justice system, school and social service

agency), as well as primary groups such as family and girlfriends or boyfriends. The majority of

those who identified an institution that helped the disengagement process mentioned only one

group, the family. Seventy-three percent of the individuals who indicated that they were helped

by a group identified the family as some help, with 60% indicating that the family was a major

help. Mothers and grandmothers were frequently mentioned as primary sources of assistance, but

as boyfriends and girlfriends have become surrogate family for many individuals, they too were

often mentioned. No other group received mention by half or more of the ex-gang members.

* insert Table 2 about here *

Many institutions were viewed as being of little help in the transition process out of

gangs, though jobs and church were mentioned most often, with 48% and 44% of the ex-gang

members responding to this question, respectively. It is interesting to observe that social service

agencies were identified by only 14% of as being of any help at all. These responses provide

support for the conclusion that informal social processes, particularly primary relationships, are

more important sources of support for disengagement from gangs than are formal processes. It is

indeed ironic and unfortunate that the efforts social service agencies were seen as the least useful

sources of support for transitioning out of the gang. Doubly so when one takes into account that

social services were available to every member of our sample, and in two of the cities (Phoenix

and Los Angeles), interviews took place in social service agencies serving gang members.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  22    

 

A related issue is the level of services related to disengagement from gangs. Only seven

percent of our sample indicated that they received no help from any of these seven institutions in

their efforts to exit the gang. On average, former gang members in our sample indicated that they

were assisted by nearly three (2.95) services in their efforts to leave the gang. The mean for

major sources of support for that role transition was 2.1. This indicates that leaving the gang may

require multiple sources of support and should not be dependent on the involvement of a single

source of support. Working with families is highly recommended by our results.

In Table 3 we examine the residual consequences, concerns, and connections associated

with gang disengagement. When an individual receives validation or support for their

disengagement efforts it may support that disengagement in the face of countervailing pressures

to remain in the group. But there can be pressures that work against such validation by pushing

potential exes back into the gang. Some of these pressures are displayed in Table 3, where about

one-third and three-fourths of former gang members reported continued attacks by rival gangs

and police gang-related harassment despite having exited the gang. We asked about how worried

individuals were about the residual consequences of gang membership. A set of results emerged

that support three conclusions. First, concern over threats to oneself (and one’s family) decline

over time. Second, the decline in concern over continuing to be identified as a gang member was

greater for the police than for rival gangs or one’s own gang. Indeed, former members are more

concerned about police treatment today than they were about their former gang, rival gangs, and

their family immediately after leaving the gang. We raised the concern over secondary deviance

above; there is a real concern of police continuing to identify an individual as a gang member

during the transitional period or after that role of "former gang member" has been adopted.

* insert Table 3 about here *

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  23    

 

Table 3 provides insight into the impact of lingering ties to the gang, even as one receives

validation of their decision to leave and assumes a newly defined role as an ex-gang member.

We link these responses to: 1) whether they would respond to someone disrespecting the gang

and 2) to an attack against a gang member. If disengagement has internal and external validity,

the responses of former gang members should differ from those of current gang members (not

reported), and the responses of former gang members at the peak level of involvement should

differ from their responses at the time they were interviewed. Our results are consistent with each

such comparison. At their peak levels of involvement, nearly all current (1.89 on a 0-2 scale) and

former gang members (1.86) would respond if someone disrespected their gang. The level of

support declines for current gang members to 1.39, but declines to .46 for former gang members.

The differences between current and former gang members are significant as are the differences

across time for former gang members. Equally strong results are found for the issue of

responding to a gang attack. At peak levels of involvement, responding to an attack of a gang

member would provoke a response from current (1.86) and former gang members (1.84). While

that figure drops to 1.35 for current gang members, it drops to .49 for former gang members.

These differences again are statistically significant. Thus leaving the gang has consequences for

continuing to support two salient activities (Vigil, 1988; Decker & van Winkle, 1996; Pyrooz et

al., 2010): addressing disrespect and violence directed toward the gang.

In Table 4 we determine if the residuals of gang life are a reflection of the diminished

embeddedness of gang members. Put differently, their role exits were sufficient that they no

longer saw such activities as part of their role repertoire. We expect former gang members with

low levels of gang embeddedness to be much less concerned about the continued consequences

of and connections with gang life. The results of our ordered logistic regression models are

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  24    

 

largely supportive of this hypothesis. In the bivariate models, higher levels of embeddedness are

associated with continued concerns over rival gang attacks and familial attacks, and increased

sensitivity to incidents where the gang is disrespected or a gang member attacked. For all of the

outcomes, however, the number of years since having left the gang is negatively related to these

residual concerns. Indeed, levels of embeddedness among former gang members are negatively

associated with years since leaving (b=-0.31, p<.01). The multivariate models reveal relatively

stable influences of gang embeddedness on concerns about rival gang attacks and incidents of

disrespect or attacks for former gang members, although only two statistically significant

relationships remain for years since leaving the gang (rival gangs and family concerns). Such

findings make sense in the context of our theoretical model because any relationship should

operate through declining levels of gang embeddedness. A full transition out of gang life is

observable once gang embeddedness is empirically indistinguishable from zero.

* insert Table 4 about here *

Discussion

Adolescence is a period of substantial identity formation and growth (Erickson, 1950,

1968). For some individuals, the process of identity formation entails the assumption of

antisocial identities through membership in antisocial groups such as gangs (Garot, 2010). Many

of these individuals will eventually leave their gang, a subject that has received growing

attention over the past decade (e.g. Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011). Absent

from this literature has been an in depth examination of the process of leaving the gang. The

current study framed gang disengagement within Ebaugh's (1988) theory of role exit, and

employed a mixed methods approach using 260 former gang members to examine leaving gangs,

many of whom did so during the transition to adulthood (Schulenburg et al., 1996). Using a

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  25    

 

mixed methods approach, we focused on the process of disengagement, as well as the pushes,

pulls, and roles of other groups in recognizing disengagement. The complicated nature of leaving

the gang warrants three broader points of discussion.

First, the exit process can be characterized by ongoing contest between gang life and

conformity. The onset of gang membership typically occurs in adolescence (Thornberry et al.,

2003), and becoming entrenched "in the life"—that is, investing more of oneself and one's

identity into the gang—is facilitated by collective, instrumental activities such as violence. For

many adolescents, this violence takes a toll, creating substantial doubts about group membership.

Such doubts eventually attenuate affective ties to longtime comrades and challenge the core

identity gleaned from time in the gang. These experiences coalesce as disengagement, and

among former gang members, the unraveling of this identity entails meaningful reductions in

willingness to participate in gang violence. The doubts associated with gang identity and gang

events do not occur in a vacuum; they are simultaneously reinforced and combated by competing

social groups and institutions. Indeed, letting go of a strongly held identity is a difficult task, and

the reciprocal interaction between individual gang members and their gangs clearly colors the

disengagement process. Fellow and rival gang members pull individuals back into the gang by

failing to recognize or validate the individual's new identity. The wishes and demands of the

gang stand in contrast with a gang member's family and loved ones, who serve as motivators for

leaving the gang. These individuals spur self-reflection and provide new reasons to avoid

violence. The control these informal groups exercise stands in contrast to formal organizations

such as law enforcement. More often than not, interactions with law enforcement are perceived

negatively and push individuals back into the gang. This is not to say that formal and parochial

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  26    

 

institutions do not play a role in helping individuals leave the gang; rather, it suggests that many

institutions are currently ill-suited for meaningfully enhancing the dynamics of disengagement.

Second, the results present challenges to the existing model of gang intervention

programming. Disengagement is a central consideration of social services agencies and

programs, and tens of millions of dollars have been spent on gang intervention programs in the

US (Klein & Maxson, 2006). The bulk of the evidence shows that, by and large, these programs

fail to end gang membership or to produce declines in participation in crime (Klein & Maxson,

2006). Our findings shed light on why programs may not work and how they could be re-

engineered. Many former members suggested that neither a social service agency nor the

criminal justice system influenced their leaving the gang. These results include participants in a

program designed to help gang members out of the gang lifestyle. This general finding is

consistent with earlier work on desistance (Healy, 2010; Maruna, 2001), and finds support in the

review by Veysey et al. (2013). Why should this be the case across so many studies of desistance

from crime and disengagement from criminal groups? Interventions must be able to discern and

document the doubts, concerns, and needs expressed by participants in deviant groups.

Successful programs should be able to identify first doubts and enhance the natural social

processes working to push and pull individuals out of their gang. Disengagement is most affected

by increased family ties, assumed adult responsibilities, and, in some cases, employment. As a

consequence of this, enhancing and increasing pro-social ties while working to decrease ties with

individuals involved in crime groups is likely to pay dividends in disengagement from gangs.

Third, the question of when one can accurately recognize when someone is out of the

gang raises conceptual and operational questions about disengagement. There are competing

views across groups about when someone has left the gang and these disagreements echo past

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  27    

 

criminological debates regarding gang membership self-nomination (Esbensen et al., 2001; Klein

& Maxson, 2006). As Pyrooz et al. (2010) noted, declaring oneself an ex is not the same as

having no gang ties. By the anticipatory socialization stage, it appears individuals have begun to

move away from the gang, but have not yet fully disengaged. Between this stage and post-exit

validation, where pushes and pulls become strongest, is where disengagement likely occurs. This

is also the most vulnerable stage for re-engagement. For gang members, these experiences

represent meaningful life points, and relying on their own accounts appears to be an important

means of understanding the disengagement process. 2012: 22).

As Father Boyle's observation underscores, disengagement from groups is not a linear

process, but rather a series of zigzags that occur over time. In her monumental study of

desistance among Irish probationers, Healy (2010: 175) described the role of personal

transformation through identity change as “…characterised by tenuous motivation, instability

and uncertainty.” This is true for probationers and members of various antisocial groups,

including both deeply entrenched and loosely-affiliated gang members. While the sample of

gang members examined here are older, have serious criminal backgrounds, and were from cities

with long gang histories, the process of disengagement we have elaborated upon is likely to be

similar for adolescent gang members or those in emerging gang cities. Though this is an

empirical question, absent a more omnipresent gang culture or greater levels of embeddedness,

we would expect the disengagement process outlined here to occur over a shorter timeframe and

perhaps not entail some of the more serious pitfalls experienced by our sample. In the end, it is

precisely these processes that scholars, practitioners, and policymakers must recognize so as to

meaningfully address gang membership.

References

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  28    

 

Abrams, L. S. (2012). Envisioning life "on the outs": Exit narratives of incarcerated male youth.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 877-896.

Adler, P. A. (1992). The “post” phase of deviant careers: Reintegrating drug traffickers.

Deviant Behavior, 13, 103-126.

Arnett, J. J. (1997). Young people's conceptions of the transition to adulthood. Youth & Society,

29, 1-23.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through

the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Ayling, J. (2011). Gang change and evolutionary theory. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 56,

1-26.

Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever happened to the jock, the brain, and

the princess?: Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity involvement and social

identity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 429-455.

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.

Bjorgo, T. (2009). Processes of disengagement from violent groups of the extreme right. In T.

Bjorgo & J. Horgan (Eds.), Leaving terrorism behind: Individual and collective

disengagement (pp. 30-48). London: Routledge.

Boyle, G. (2010). Tattoos on the heart. New York: Free Press.

Bushway, S. D., & Paternoster, R. (2013). Desistance from crime: A review and ideas for

moving forward. In C. Gibson & M. Krohn (Eds.), Handbook of life course criminology:

Emerging trends and directions for future research (pp. 213-232). New York: Springer.

Campbell, H., & Hansen, T. (2012). Getting out of the game: Desistance from drug trafficking.

International Journal of Drug Policy, 23, 481-487.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  29    

 

Cote, J. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2002). Comparing psychological and sociological approaches

identity: Identity status, identity capital, and the individualization process. Journal of

Adolescence, 25, 571-586.

Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). Confronting gangs: Crime and community

(3rd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Decker, S. H. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13,

243-264.

Decker, S., & Lauritsen, J. (2002). Leaving the gang. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America.

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Decker, S. H., & van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gangs: Family, friends, and violence. New

York: Cambridge.

Ebaugh, H. (1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Egley, A., Jr., & Howell, J. C. (2012). Highlights of the 2010 National Youth Gang Survey.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Esbensen, F., Winfree Jr., L., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues:

When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime and Delinquency, 47, 105-130.

Erickson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Garot, R. (2010). Who you claim?: Performing gang identity in school and on the streets. New

York: New York University Press.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  30    

 

Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance:

Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990

-1064.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). Status passage. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Hagan, J. (1993). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology, 31, 465-

491.

Healy, D. (2010). The dynamics of desistance. London: Willan.

Hennigan, K., & Spanovic, M. (2012). Gang dynamics through the lens of social identity theory.

F. Esbensen & C. Maxson (Eds.) Youth gangs in international perspective (pp. 127-149).

New York, NY: Springer.

Horgan, J. (2009). Walking away from terrorism. London: Routledge.

Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-

individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American

Sociological Review, 60, 655-673

Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano

community. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Howell, J. C. (2007). Menacing or mimicking? Realities of youth gangs. Juvenile and Family

Court Journal, 58, 39-50.

Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York: Oxford

University Press.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  31    

 

Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during adolescence

and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 683-698.

Krohn, M. D., & Thornberry, T. P. (2008). Longitudinal perspectives on adolescent street gangs.

In A. M. Liberman (ed.), The long view of crime: A Synthesis of longitudinal research

(pp. 128-160). New York: Springer.

Krohn, M. D., Ward, J. T., Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., & Chu, R. (2011). The cascading

effects of adolescent gang involvement across the life course. Criminology, 49, 991-1028.

Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal

offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review,

63, 225-238.

LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The “chicken and egg” of

subjective social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5,

131-159.

Lemert, E. (1967). Human deviance, social problems and social control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Leverentz, A. (2010). People, places, and things: How female ex-prisoners negotiate their

neighborhood context. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39, 646-681.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Maruna, S., & Farrall, S. (2004). Desistance from crime: A theoretical reformulation. Kölner

Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 43, 171–194.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  32    

 

Maruna, S., & Roy, K. (2007). Amputation or reconstruction?: Notes on the concept of "knifing

off" and desistance from crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 1-21.

Mansson, S., & Hedin, U. (1999). Breaking the Matthew effect: On women leaving

prostitution. Journal of International Social Work, 8, 67-77.  

McGloin, J., & Decker, S. H. (2010). Theories of gang behavior and public policy. In H. Barlow

& S. H. Decker (Eds.), Criminology and public policy: Putting theory to work.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McLean, K. C., Breen, A. V. & Fournier, M. A. (2010). Constructing the self in early, middle,

and late adolescent boys: Narrative identity, individuation, and well-being. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 20, 166–187.

Meeus, W. H. J., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent

identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental

Review, 19, 419–461.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Continuities in the theory of reference groups and social structure. In R. K.

Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.

Miller, W. B. (2011). City gangs. Retrieved from http://gangresearch.asu.edu/

walter_miller_library/walter-b.-miller-book/city-gangs-book.

Moule Jr., R. K., Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). Social capital, the life-course, and

gangs. In M. Krohn & C. Gibson (Eds.), Handbook of life-course criminology: Emerging

trends and directions for future research (pp. 143-158). New York: Springer.

Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). From colors and guns to caps and gowns? The effects of gang membership

on educational attainment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. DOI:

10.1177/0022427813484316.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  33    

 

Pyrooz, D. C., & Decker, S. H. (2011). Motives and methods for leaving the gang:

Understanding the process of gang desistance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 417-425.

Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Webb, V. J. (2010). The ties that bind: Desistance from gangs.

Crime and Delinquency. DOI: 10.1177/0011128710372191.  

Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Continuity and change in gang

membership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

DOI: 10.1177/0022427811434830.

Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (2nd

Ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores.

Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 17.

Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton

(Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85-100). New York: Springer.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points

through life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sanchez-Jankowski, M. (1991). Islands in the street: Gangs and urban American society.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sanders, T. (2007). Becoming an ex-sex worker: Making transitions out of a deviant career.

Feminist Criminology, 2, 74-95.

Schulenberg, J., Wadsworth, K. N., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., & Johnston, L.D. (1996).

Adolescent risk factors for binge drinking during the transition to young adulthood:

Variable- and pattern-centered approaches to change. Developmental Psychology, 32,

659-674.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  34    

 

Short, J. F. (1957). Differential association and delinquency. Social Problems, 4, 233-239.

Short, J. F. (1990). Gangs, neighborhoods, and youth crime. Criminal Justice Research Bulletin,

5, 1-11.

Sweeten, G., Pyrooz, D. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Disengaging from gangs and

desistance from crime. Justice Quarterly. DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2012.723033

Thornberry, T., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and

delinquency in developmental perspective. New York: Cambridge.

Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

van Hoof, A. (1999). The identity status field re-reviewed: An update of unresolved and

neglected issues with a view on some alternative approaches. Developmental Review, 19,

497–556.

Veysey, B. M., Martinez, D. J., & Christian, J. (2013). “Getting out”: A summary of qualitative

research on desistance across the life course. In C. Gibson & M. Krohn (Eds.), Handbook

of life-course criminology: Emerging trends and directions for future research (pp. 233-

260). New York: Springer.

Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in southern California. Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press.

Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36, 183-216.

Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of

theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18, 341-358.

Waterman, A. S. (1999). Identity, the identity statuses, and identity status development: a

contemporary statement. Developmental Review, 19, 591–621.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  35    

 

Webb, V., Katz, C., & Decker, S. (2006). Assessing the validity of self-reports by gang

members: Results from the Arrestee Drug-Abuse Monitoring Program. Crime &

Delinquency, 52, 232-252.

Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  36    

 

Table 1. Sample Characteristics (N = 260)

Mean or % SD 25th 75th Min Max

Demographic Age at interview 29.5 (9.4) 22.6 36.1 13 57 Male 86.2 0 1 Black 40.0 0 1 Hispanic 48.8 0 1 First generation 4.2 0 1 Second generation 6.2 0 1 Parental education 10.4 (3.3) 9.0 12.0 0 18 Gang-Related Gang embeddedness 0.00 (1.0) -0.9 0.7 -1.4 3.1

Contact 1.37 (1.6) 0 2 0 5 Position 0.48 (0.9) 0 1 0 4 Importance 0.25 (0.6) 0 0 0 4 Violence 0.55 (1.1) 0 1 0 4 Friends 1.60 (1.3) 0 3 0 4 Age at gang leaving 23.3 (6.5) 18.5 27.4 11 45 Years since leaving 6.4 (6.6) 1.3 9.7 0.1 31.5 Site Fresno 19.6 Los Angeles 25.4 Phoenix 30.8 St. Louis 24.2

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  37    

 

Table 2. Sources of Assistance for Transitioning out of the Gang (N=260)

Level of Support

No Help Minor Help Major Help Source of Support % % %

Family 27 13 60

Job 52 14 34

Girl/Boyfriend 56 13 31

Church 56 17 27

School 73 11 16

CJ System 74 13 13

Service Agency 86 3 11

Number of Sources Total Sources Minor Sources Major Sources

Mean 2.95 0.88 2.07

SD (1.76) (1.11) (1.59)

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  38    

 

Table 3. Residual Consequences, Concerns, and Connections in Life After Leaving the Gang (N=260) Were/was you(r) . . . % Responding "Yes" . . . attacked because you left the gang 16 . . . attacked by rival gangs after leaving 35 . . . treated like a gang member by the police 76 . . . family attacked because of leaving 10

After leaving

(0-3)a Today (0-3)a

How worried are you about . . . Mean SD Mean SD . . . your former gang attacking/targeting you 0.57 (0.97) * 0.23 (0.58) . . . rival gangs attacking/targeting you 0.86 (1.11) * 0.54 (0.84) . . . the police treating you as a gang member 1.28 (1.28) * 1.09 (1.24) . . . your family being attacked/targeted 0.60 (0.99) * 0.40 (0.83)

Peak Involvement (0-2)b

Today (0-2)b

Agreement with the following statement . . . Mean SD Mean SD

. . . if someone disrespected the gang, I would respond to that disrespect 1.86 (0.44) * 0.46 (0.76)

. . . if a member of the gang was attacked, I would retaliate 1.84 (0.46) * 0.49 (0.75)

* p<.05; Paired sample t-test a 0=not at all worried, 1=a little bit worried, 2=pretty worried, 3=extremely worried b 0=disagree, 1=neither agree nor disagree, 2=agree

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  39    

 

Table 4. Ordered Logistic Regression Models Relating Residual Features of Gang Life to Gang Embeddedness and Years Since Leaving the Gang (N=260)

Former Gang

Rival Gangs Police Family Gang

Disrespected Gang

Attacked

Variable b(se) b(se) b(se) b(se) b(se) b(se) Bivariate

Gang Embeddedness 0.04

(0.16) 0.42 (0.14)*

0.16 (0.13)

0.31 (0.15)*

1.15 (0.16)*

1.43 (0.19)*

Years since Leaving -0.07 (0.04)*

-0.05 (0.02)*

-0.03 (0.02)#

-0.11 (0.03)*

-0.04 (0.03)#

-0.07 (0.03)*

Multivariate

Gang Embeddedness 0.08 (0.19)

0.38 (0.17)*

0.11 (0.15)

0.20 (0.16)

1.22 (0.20)*

1.34 (0.21)*

Years since Leaving -0.05

(0.03) -0.05 (0.03)#

-0.04 (0.02)

-0.10 (0.04)*

0.00 (0.03)

-0.02 (0.03)

Age at Leaving 0.01

(0.03) 0.01 (0.02)

0.02 (0.02)

-0.06 (0.03)*

-0.00 (0.03)

-0.05 (0.04)

Male 0.23

(0.58) 0.57 (0.44)

0.57 (0.36)

-0.40 (0.44)

0.24 (0.51)

0.05 (0.50)

Black 0.06

(0.74) 0.07 (0.58)

0.34 (0.51)

0.06 (0.63)

0.31 (0.60)

0.24 (0.54)

Hispanic 0.01

(0.62) 0.08 (0.52)

0.21 (0.47)

-0.20 (0.52)

0.24 (0.51)

-0.33 (0.48)

First Generation 0.32

(0.73) -0.56 (0.48)

0.05 (0.56)

-0.20 (0.81)

-0.33 (0.59)

-0.02 (0.62)

Second Generation 0.14

(0.48) -0.09 (0.35)

0.34 (0.28)

0.36 (0.41)

-0.27 (0.42)

-0.36 (0.42)

Parental Education 0.06

(0.20) -0.04 (0.18)

0.37 (0.15)*

0.01 (0.17)

-0.10 (0.21)

0.17 (0.21)

* p<.05; # p>.05;

DECKER, PYROOZ, AND MOULE  40    

40  

Figure 1. Stages of Disengagement from Gangs

0. Completely in

1. First doubts 3. Turning points

4. Completely out

2. Anticipatory socialization