University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Youth homelessness and gang involvement: ties, trajectories, and timelines

(USC Thesis Other)

Youth homelessness and gang involvement: ties, trajectories, and timelines

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content YOUTH HOMELESSNESS AND GANG INVOLVEMENT

Youth Homelessness and Gang Involvement: Ties, Trajectories, and Timelines

By
Robin Petering, MSW
December 2017 Degree Conferral
Doctor of Philosophy (SOCIAL WORK)
University of Southern California

Dissertation Guidance Committee:
Eric Rice, PhD (Chair)
Suzanne Wenzel, PhD
Nicole Esparza, PhD
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL

2
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures............................................................................................................... 4
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 6
Prologue .......................................................................................................................................... 7
References ............................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 14
A Brief History of Latino Gangs in Los Angeles ................................................................... 14
Youth Homelessness in America ............................................................................................ 19
Intersection of Youth Homelessness and Gang Involvement ................................................. 20
References ............................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 2: Sexual Risk, Substance Use, Mental Health, and Trauma Experiences of Gang-
Involved Homeless Youth................................................................................................. 29
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 29
Background ....................................................................................................................... 29
Theoretical Approach: Risk Amplification and Abatement Model .................................. 32
Methods................................................................................................................................... 34
Measures ........................................................................................................................... 35
Data Analyses ................................................................................................................... 38
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 40
References ............................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3: The Role of Like Connections on the Mental Health of Gang-Involved Homeless
Youth................................................................................................................................. 55
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 55
Importance of Peers and Social Networks ........................................................................ 57
Peer-Based Networks to Intervene.................................................................................... 58
Methods................................................................................................................................... 59
Sample and Procedure....................................................................................................... 59
Variables ........................................................................................................................... 63
Data Analyses ................................................................................................................... 65
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 67
References ............................................................................................................................... 71
Chapter 4: Intersection of Youth Homelessness and Gang Involvement ..................................... 82
Background ............................................................................................................................. 82
Methods................................................................................................................................... 85
Recruitment and Procedures ............................................................................................. 85
Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 86
Analysis............................................................................................................................. 87
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 88
Cross-Case Findings ......................................................................................................... 89
Case Vignettes .................................................................................................................. 91
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 97
References ............................................................................................................................. 103
3
Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, and Future Directions .................................................... 115
References ............................................................................................................................. 121

4
List of Tables and Figures
Table 2.1. Descriptive Statistics for Homeless Gang Members, Gang Affiliates, and Noninvolved
Youth................................................................................................................................. 51
Table 2.2. Multivariable Regression Analyses of Drug Use and Sexual Risk for Homeless Gang
Members and Affiliates Compared to Noninvolved Youth .............................................. 52
Table 2.3. Multivariable Regression Analyses of Mental Health and Physical Violence among
Homeless Gang Members and Affiliates Compared to Noninvolved Youth ................... 53
Table 2.4. Multivariable Regression Analyses of Childhood Trauma and Intimate Partner
Violence Experiences of Homeless Gang Members and Affiliates Compared to
Noninvolved Youth ........................................................................................................... 54
Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 283) ................................................................................... 78
Table 3.2. Multivariable Models for Mental Health ..................................................................... 79
Figure 3.1. Mental Health and Violence Rates for Gang Members and Nonmembers ................ 80
Figure 3.2. Visualization of a Homeless Youth Social Network .................................................. 81
Table 4.1. Characteristics of Study Participants ......................................................................... 109
Figure 4.1. Life History Calendar Instrument ............................................................................. 110
Figure 4.2. Case Vignette 1 ......................................................................................................... 111
Figure 4.3. Case Vignette 2 ......................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4.4. Case Vignette 3 ......................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4.5. Case Vignette 4 ......................................................................................................... 114

5
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to Brandon Glenn, also known as Dizzle. I did not
personally know Brandon, but many of the youth who contributed their stories and experiences
to this dissertation did. Brandon, a 29-year-old African American man experiencing
homelessness in Venice, CA, was fatally shot by a Los Angeles police officer in April 2015, only
2 months prior to when I started the in-depth interview portion of this project. Brandon was
unarmed. He was one of 21 individuals shot and killed by Los Angeles Police Department
officers in 2015. In April 2016, his death was deemed unjustified by Charlie Beck and the Police
Commission. This dissertation is dedicated to every unjustified death of a young person
experiencing homelessness. It is dedicated to every unjustified death caused by gun violence. It
is also dedicated to every person who carries the very real fear of death by gun with them every
day.

6
Acknowledgements
The following will be an attempt to acknowledge the many people and experiences that
made this work possible.
To Dr. Eric Rice, for providing me with the space, encouragement and enthusiasm to
truly be myself and pursue my passions, and for providing mentorship (and wrangling in) when I
needed it the most. I’m so grateful to have you as an advisor, colleague and friend.
To Dr. Suzanne Wenzel, Dr. Julie Cederbaum, Dr. Benjamin Henwood and Dr. Nicole
Esparza and many other faculty members and staff at USC for masterful guidance throughout my
years in the doctoral program.
To Jeremy Gibbs, for being the most official-unofficial mentor a girl could have. I’m
invoking brevity as your support is invaluable.
To Hadass Moore, who took on this project with me out of sheer trust. It would not have
been the same without your mindful contributions and cosmic guidance.
To my Kula क ु ल, which is a Sanskrit word that is often translated to “community” and is
understood as a group of people who come together freely with intention and a shared sense of
purpose. I am so grateful to have fostered such a rich group of like-minded, like-hearted people,
both in academics and elsewhere. There are far too many to name without risking leaving
someone important out. Thank you for making the last six years much more enjoyable.
To the agencies and the extraordinary people within them that have shaped me, Safe
Place for Youth, My Friend’s Place, Youth Center on Highland, LAMP Community, Alegria,
Peace Over Violence, Yellow Brick Road, and New Roads.
To the City of Los Angeles, because there is no other city in the world as inspiring as
you.
7
Prologue
As a community-based researcher, I am fortunate to have the opportunity to spend a lot of
time in the field working directly alongside adolescents and young adults experiencing
homelessness. In 2016, during one of my days in the field, I had a passing conversation with a
young man I had come to know very well. He spoke in a positive manner about how he felt that
things were looking up for him. However, he briefly mentioned that he needed to find a different
place to sleep because he felt that where he currently was sleeping was no longer safe.
Concerned, I asked him to explain what he meant by this statement. He responded, “People are
getting shot and it doesn’t matter who you are.” Out of more concern, I politely asked him if he
felt comfortable telling me where he slept at night. It turned out that this young man was
camping outside in a neighborhood that is 10 miles from the homeless youth drop-in center that
he attended daily and in the heart of one of the most gang-affected areas of Los Angeles.
Gangs and youth homelessness are two terms not often used together. I am not sure why.
Youth gang membership and youth homelessness are nationwide social issues. Nationally, an
estimated 1.4 million individuals are active gang members (Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2011). Los Angeles, often distinguished as the street gang capital of the United States, is home to
an estimated 100,000 gang members, and one half of all homicides in the city are reported to be
gang related (Howell, 2015). National estimates of homeless youth range from 500,000 to 1.6
million on any given night (Ringwalt, Greene, Robertson, & McPheeters 1998; Toro, Dworsky,
& Fowler, 2007). However, estimations should be taken as just that. Obtaining accurate counts of
both populations involves immense challenges and therefore limitations (Harris, 2010; Rice,
Winetrobe, & Rhoades, 2013). Regardless of these challenges, it is undebatable that neither of
these populations is decreasing in size (Holland, 2017; National Gang Center, n.d.), despite the
8
long-term toll these issues take on our society. Until recently, little discussion has centered on
how these two populations intersect.
The research described in this dissertation indicated that 17% of homeless young persons
have ever or currently identify as a gang member and up to 56% have ever been affiliated with a
gang member via a close friend, family member, or romantic partner. In fact, a minority of
homeless youth are not involved or affiliated with gangs. These rates are also much higher than
estimates in America’s high schools (8% of students identify as members and 33% as affiliates;
Pyrooz, 2014). During this project, I presented preliminary results at a West Coast Convening
meeting. The West Coast Convening is a group of providers, advocates, community
stakeholders, and researchers that meets every 6 months to share best practices and brainstorm
new solutions to help the nation’s homeless youth live healthy, self-sufficient, stable lives.
Before speaking about this topic, a colleague posed a question to a room full of service providers
in the field of youth homelessness “Who here has ever worked with a young person that has been
involved with gangs?” Every hand in the room rose. In my experience, despite the overwhelming
awareness among service providers and frontline workers of this issue, the research is lacking.
There is a massive gap in the field. When I began this project, only a handful of studies had
addressed this topic and they were both limited and dated.
Just like any worthy project, creating this dissertation was not a smooth ride. I
encountered many bumps, roadblocks, twists, and turns. In the early stages of my proposal
development, I remember sharing my idea with as many people I could find who would provide
me with relevant feedback. To this day, I’ll never forget sitting in the office of a well-regarded
researcher who specializes in gang research had who posed a question to me: “But are these
really gang members?” To this day, that question seems ludicrous to me. I think the researcher
9
was referring to the “wannabe” effect—Are these actual gang members or just delinquent youth
who hang out in group and maybe give themselves a collective name? However, this pushback
motivated me. To date, there wasn’t any evidence that could clearly answer this question. I
proposed to create a research project that explored the complexities of gang involvement in the
context of homeless youth. I proposed to explore a research area that was relatively untouched.
Of the few studies that touched on this topic, despite limitations, there was enough evidence to
confirm that the experiences of homeless youth who were currently or formerly involved in a
gang are distinct from homeless youth with no gang involvement. Still, many questions
remained. Mainly, who are these youths? What more can we learn about their experiences? What
about individuals who do not personally identify as a member but are closely connected to a
member? Does this relationship have an impact on their lives? Why are these gang members
experiencing homelessness? How do these two experiences and identities collide? And most
importantly, what should be done?
Another thing I have frequently experienced, over and over again, is the question, “Why
would anyone who is involved in a gang want to talk to you?” This directly references my race,
gender, background, current socioeconomic status, and general appearance. I expect to continue
to hear this question as I go forward. My answer to this question is usually along the lines of,
“Being genuine goes a long way. You’d be surprised how effective it can be to make eye contact,
learn someone’s name, and take a valid interest in a person’s life.” For many of the people I have
surveyed or interviewed, I provided a space for them to freely and openly speak about their lives
and experiences. I also provided these individuals with an opportunity to help others who may
experience the same things. For individuals who have consistently been disenfranchised
throughout their lives, these opportunities are few and far between. However, this should not
10
devalue the discrepancy in privilege between myself and the individuals who contributed to this
research and how this discrepancy is the result of a system and a society that is not fair. At one
moment during an interview, a participant stated, “Yeah, I like money. I like money; hopefully I
could get enough of it and live a normal life.” I asked, “What do you mean, live a normal life?”
They responded:
Like you, like your life, like I want, you know, like I just want a normal life, dude, like
fucking picket fence and shit, that’s what I want and that’s all I want, dude, is like a
family, dude, to be honest, fuck this shit, I just want a family.
I’ve built in a few personal policies to ensure my work is the best that it can be,
specifically by using reflection, refinement, and learning to take critical constructive feedback to
evaluate my research practices. It’s not perfect and it’s always developing, but I aim to
continuously work toward being internally aware, and if necessary externally, of the privileges I
carry and how those change based on my environment.
During the course of 10 years, I have met thousands of adolescents and young adults
experiencing homelessness. I have also spent countless hours learning about, writing about, and
discussing this issue. My personal goal is to better the lives of youth experiencing homelessness,
promote health and well-being, provide support for individuals to live long and productive lives,
and address the large-scale systemic forces that contribute to homelessness.
As a researcher, my goal is to bring more attention to the intersection of these issues and
understand how these two areas intersect. Both of these social issues are complex, to say the
least, and I will be the first to admit that I don’t have all the answers. In fact, the more answers I
search for, the more questions I seem to generate. However, I do know that gangs, and the
violence that comes with them, do affect many youth who experience homelessness or housing
11
insecurity. It terrifies me that youth are experiencing homelessness and, in addition to the
plethora of risks that come with sleeping outside, must safety plan around rivalry gang drive-bys.
But this is a reality. A very real reality.

12
References
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). 2011 national gang threat assessment: Emerging trends.
Washington, DC: National Gang Intelligence Center.
Harris, K. D. (2010). Organized crime in California: 2010 annual report to the legislature.
Retrieved from http://ag.ca.gov/publications/org_crime2010.pdf
Holland, G. (2017, June 1). Youth homelessness surges in L.A. ‘Why are you out here?’ ‘My
mom is a really bad mom.’ Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-youth-201700601-story.html
Howell, J. C. (2015). The history of street gangs in the United States: Their origins and
transformations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
National Gang Center. (n.d.). Measuring the extent of gang problems: Estimated number of
gangs. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-
the-extent-of-gang-problems
Pyrooz, D. C. (2014). From colors and guns to caps and gowns? The effects of gang membership
on educational attainment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 56–87.
doi:10.1177/0022427813484316
Rice, E., Winetrobe, H., & Rhoades, H. (2013). Hollywood Homeless Youth Point-in-Time
Estimate Project: An innovative method for enumerating unaccompanied homeless youth.
Retrieved from http://hhyp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HHYP_Point-in-
Time_Brief_5.pdf
Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., Robertson, M., & McPheeters, M. (1998). The prevalence of
homelessness among adolescents in the United States. American Journal of Public
Health, 88, 1325–1329. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.9.1325
13
Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. J. (2007, March). Homeless youth in the united states:
Recent research findings and intervention approaches. Paper presented at the National
Symposium on Homelessness Research, Washington, DC.
14
Chapter 1: Introduction
This dissertation consists of three independent studies presented across three chapters.
The main purpose of this dissertation is to forge a new line of research that builds on the limited
understanding of the intersection of gangs and homelessness. Given the seeming lack of
understanding on this subject, the entire study involved an exploratory approach. The specific
aims of this dissertation were to examine: (a) how gang-involved homeless youth are different
than noninvolved homeless youth in terms of risk behaviors and childhood experiences; (b) how
these differences are related to how gang-involved youth are connected to one another within
homeless youth social networks; and (c) how gang involvement manifests for homeless youth,
using a life course perspective.
The first chapter describes a risk assessment focused on understanding differences in
behaviors and experiences between gang members and nonmembers in a large sample of
homeless youth. Additionally, this study is unique because it also considered differences among
individuals closely affiliated with a gang. The second chapter examines the role of like
connections, i.e., ties to similar peers, among former and current gang members in a network of
homeless youth as it relates to mental health. The third chapter outlines an in-depth qualitative
approach to exploring the context of gang involvement. Altogether, the results of these three
chapters increase the understanding of gang involvement and youth homelessness and how these
issues intersect.
A Brief History of Latino Gangs in Los Angeles
To fully understand the complexity of modern gangs in Los Angeles, it is necessary to
examine the pivotal forces at work in the city’s history. Los Angeles, as did the rest of the nation,
underwent a major industrialization boom in the early 20th century. This required a new
15
population of low-wage workers. Immigrant Mexicans quickly occupied newly opened labor and
agricultural positions. At the time, no quota existed for immigration, so labor agencies recruited
many Mexicans right outside the Immigration Service Building (Garcia, 1998). The Mexican
population, both foreign and native, increased from 1.3 million to 1.6 million from 1930 to 1940
(Library of Congress, n.d.).
The Great Depression quickly followed the industrial boom of the early 20th century, and
the 1930s brought a national economic restructuring. National economic recessions are usually
accompanied by an increase in restrictive immigration policies; the Quota Act of 1924 reduced
immigration to the United States from 1 million individuals per year to 165,000 per year while
also excluding immigrants from Canada and Mexico (Ngai, 1999). Between 1929 and 1939,
forced deportation of many thousands of Mexicans occurred, including Mexican Americans
(Library of Congress, n.d.) and the Hoover Administration authorized a policy known as
Mexican repatriation, aiming to free up more jobs for American citizens (Balderrama &
Rodríguez, 2006). This strategy was contradictory in the sense that just a few years earlier, most
Mexicans were being recruited to fill the labor positions that Americans did not want to occupy.
An estimated 500,000 to 2,000,000 Mexicans were forced to leave the country during this period
(Hoffman, 1974; Lopez, 1997). In many instances in California, this was accomplished by large-
scale raids, targeting hundreds of people at a time, many of whom had been born in the United
States (Hernández, 2010).
Although not discussed in history books, the Mexican repatriation policy has had a
lasting effect on the city of Los Angeles. This forced deportation was accompanied by racist
exclusion in public facilities and schools. The combination of these factors created a reaction in
the remaining Mexican population and many second-generation youth began adopting antisocial
16
behaviors (Vigil, 1990). Latino youth were being rejected by their community despite being U.S.
citizens. Los Angeles in the 1930s was home to the largest population of Mexicans in the United
States (Johnson, 2005), and the White–Mexican tension continued to increase rapidly. This racial
tension was one of the major contributing factors that caused Latino “boy gangs” to begin
evolving into modern gangs.
During World War II, Latino youth continued to adopt their own culture of dress,
language, and music as a form of identity in racialized Los Angeles. Latinos began wearing the
distinctive zoot suit, characterized by high-waisted baggy pants and a long coat (Vigil, 1990).
Unfortunately, this made Latino youth easily identifiable and subject to increasing arrests and
negative media attention. The White–Latino tension continued to grow, especially among
stationed servicemen. During this period, a series of riots known as the Zoot Suit Riots occurred,
during which White servicemen and citizens hunted down and beat up Mexican youth (Johnson,
2005).
Another aspect of World War II affected the Latino youth of Los Angeles. Even though
they were frequent victims of attacks by servicemen, they were also overrepresented in the
military. The armed forces recruited many Mexican men, often taking positive Latino male role
models out of the barrios. Of those who remained, many were individuals rejected by the
military, with criminal records, or severely affected by poverty. This “model absence” has been
described as a major turning point in transforming boy gangs into modern gangs (Vigil, 1990).
As a new generation of Latinos grew up in urban Los Angeles, its members developed a
unique culture. This generation adopted traits of traditional American culture, such as the pursuit
of the American Dream and the English language, but also retained many Mexican customs. This
unique subculture has evolved over many generations to the modern day. It has adapted due to
17
historical factors, racism, social repression, persistent poverty, and the denial of social mobility.
With each generation, the subculture has evolved into diverse forms. James Vigil (1990)
described the end product of this process as individuals who identify with the label cholo. He
describes the cholo lifestyle as the institutionalization of marginalization—the American
experience set in racial and structural repression.
As the result of marginalization and social repression, early Latino gangs banded together
searching for unity in their barrio, or neighborhood. Their crimes consisted of burglary, strong-
arm robbery, and vandalism (Howell & Moore, 2010). Most crimes of violence were defensive,
showing loyalty to a gang or mi barrio. This intense connection to barrios is unique to Los
Angeles.
Other societal factors also contributed to the development of modern gangs in Los
Angeles. These factors included the introduction of heroin and other drugs, the proliferation of
firearms, changes in the prison system, the effect of mainstream cultural values of money, and
the adoption of economic functions of urban gangs (Hagedorn & Devitt, 1999). These changes
had major effects, changing street groups into formalized units.
Recent estimates suggest that Los Angeles County features 1,108 gangs (Advancement
Project, 2007). According to the most recent survey by the National Gang Center (2009),
Hispanic and Latino gang members constitute an estimated 49% of gang members nationwide,
followed by 35% for African Americans. The most significant Latino street and prison gangs
operating in the Western and Pacific regions (particularly California, Nevada, and Hawaii) are
La Eme, 18th Street, Mara Salvatrucha 13 (also known as MS-13), and Nuestra Familia (Howell
& Moore, 2010).
18
This history reflects only Latino gangs in Los Angeles. This dissertation includes
individuals of different races and from different cities of origin. Although the interviews and data
collection occurred in Los Angeles, many young individuals had histories of gang involvement
in other cities in America. Certainly, many other structural and historical factors contribute to the
broad issue of gangs in America. Many texts address this topic in a more comprehensive way
(see Huff, 2001 or Delaney, 2006). This Los Angeles-centric history is provided as only a brief
illustration of the broader historical context in which gangs in America are situated.
Gangs, and the youth involved in them, are frequently classified in various domains,
including of level of organization, major activities, organizational history, nature and degree of
criminality, and extensiveness of rules and rituals (Valdez, 2003) Although, there is no
consensus on how to define youth gangs, existing definitions attempt to capture varying degrees
of structure, permanence, and seriousness (Howell & Moore, 2010). A youth gang can is
frequently defined by the following parameters: has at least five members, generally aged 11–24;
members share an identity, typically linked to a collective name; members view themselves as a
gang and are recognized by others as a gang; the group has some sort of permanence and degree
of organization; and the group is involved in an elevated level of criminal activity. Youth gangs
are also often distinguished based on level of organization, with the major types being street
gangs (i.e., those formed on the streets in the United States, which can have a national presence
and are often involved in the drug market) or neighborhood or local gangs (smaller groups
connected to territory that are subsets of or imitate larger gangs). These groups are distinct from
predominately adult gangs such as prison gangs (organizations originating in the penal system)
and outlaw motorcycle gangs (organizations that use motorcycle clubs as a basis for criminal
enterprises; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011).
19
Youth Homelessness in America
Although it is difficult to obtain accurate data on the prevalence of youth homelessness in
the United States, estimates have ranged from 500,000 to 2.1 million individuals between the
ages of 13 and 21 (Burt, 2007; Terry, Bedi, & Patel, 2010; Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007).
Homeless youth are typically defined as unaccompanied individuals aged 12 or older (up to age
17, 21, or 25) who live in shelters, on the streets, or in other unstable living conditions without
family support (Burt, 2007; Rice, Winetrobe, & Rhoades, 2013). Homeless youth overall
experience higher rates of negative health outcomes compared to their housed counterparts,
including chronic health conditions such as HIV, substance abuse, violence, mental health, and
violent victimization (Heerde, Hemphill, & Scholes-Balog, 2014; Petering, Rice, Rhoades, &
Winetrobe, 2014; Pfeifer & Oliver, 1997; Toro et al., 2007; Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999). These
risks are both a consequence of a street-entrenched lifestyle and experiences of early childhood
traumas, including family breakdown, systems involvement, discrimination, and poverty
(Milburn et al., 2009; Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999). Additionally, historically marginalized groups
are disproportionally represented in the homeless youth population. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, and questioning youth comprise of between 20% and 40% of the overall
homeless youth population, compared to an estimated 5% to 10% of the overall youth population
(Abramovich & Shelton, 2017; Crossley, 2015). Homeless youth are also 3 times more likely to
be pregnant, have impregnated someone, or be a parent (Toro et al., 2007).
The pathways to youth homelessness are diverse. Escaping violent, traumatic, or
dysfunctional family environments is a common reason for becoming homeless (Milburn,
Rotheram-Borus, Rice, Mallet, & Rosenthal, 2006; Robertson & Toro, 1999; Whitbeck & Hoyt,
1999; Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Ackley, 1997; Zide & Cherry, 1992). Recent research found that the
20
majority of young homeless individuals experienced trauma prior to homelessness that factored
into the causal pathway leading to homelessness (Martijn & Sharpe, 2006). Homelessness has
several implications, such as increased physiological distress, drug and alcohol abuse, and
violent victimization, among other outcomes (Bender, Brown, Thompson, Ferguson, &
Langenderfer, 2015; Kipke, Simon, Montgomery, Unger, & Iversen, 1997; Martijn & Sharpe,
2006; Wong, Clark, & Marlotte, 2016). Further, participation in delinquent and violent
subsistence strategies increases the risk of interaction with law enforcement, arrest, and
imprisonment (Chen, Thrane, Whitbeck, & Johnson, 2006; Miles & Okamoto, 2008; Schwartz,
Sorensen, Ammerman, & Bard, 2008; Yoder, Bender, Thompson, Ferguson, & Haffejee, 2014).
Criminal records may limit the employment and housing opportunities of homeless youth,
ultimately restricting their ability to transition off the street (Ferguson et al., 2011; Miles &
Okamato, 2008). The risk amplification model suggests that homeless youth’s continued
interaction with negative socializing agents increases engagement in antisocial outcomes
(Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Yoder, 1999). These factors contribute to how a single incident of sleeping
on the street can lead to a perpetual cycle of long-term chronic youth homelessness.
Intersection of Youth Homelessness and Gang Involvement
The three studies included in the following chapters explore how youth homelessness and
gang involvement intersect through multiple methodologies. Chapter 2 examines the associations
of sexual risk behaviors, substance use, mental health, and trauma with varying levels of gang
involvement in a sample of Los Angeles-based homeless youth. Data were collected from 505
homeless youth who self-reported various health information and whether they had ever
identified as or been closely affiliated with a gang member. Multivariable logistic regression
assessed associations of lifetime gang involvement with risk-taking behaviors and negative
21
health outcomes. Results revealed 17% of youths had ever identified as a gang member and 46%
as gang affiliated. This exceeds the cumulative gang involvement in a nationally representative
sample, in which 8% of individuals reported ever being in a gang by their early 20s and 18%
reported being affiliated with a gang (Pyrooz, 2014). Both gang members and affiliates were at
greater risk of many negative behaviors than noninvolved youth. Gang members and affiliates
were more likely to report recent methamphetamine, cocaine, and chronic marijuana use; having
sex while intoxicated; and symptoms of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
They were also more likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse and witnessed family
violence. Gang members were more likely to ever attempt suicide, experience recent partner
violence, and report physical abuse during childhood. Results suggest that lifetime gang
involvement is related to a trajectory of negative outcomes and amplified risk for youths
experiencing homelessness. Additionally, being closely connected to a gang member appears to
have an equally dire impact on risk as personally identifying as a gang member.
Chapter 3 builds on the findings in Chapter 2 regarding gang involvement and youth
homelessness being closely related to experiences of negative mental health outcomes.
Considering that homeless youth in general are at high risk of depression, PTSD, and suicide,
fully understanding the impact of gang involvement on these phenomena is necessary to reduce
the risk of long-lasting and detrimental outcomes such as long-term homelessness, severe injury,
or death. This chapter examines whether the social networks of gang-identifying homeless youth
are related to their mental health, exploring the possibility amplification or abatement of this risk.
Sociometric network data were used to determine whether varying levels of homophily (i.e.,
gang members connected to one another) regarding gang status is related to experiences of
mental health, trauma, and violence using multivariable logistic regressions. Results indicate that
22
gang membership, regardless of homophily, was related to experiences of violence, including
intimate partner violence, and PTSD, but at varying levels depending on homophily. Gang
members with homophilous connections had an increased risk of depression. Gang members
who had no connections to another gang member had an increased risk of suicide attempt.
Findings from Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 indicate the complexity of homeless youth gang
involvement related to risk behavior and network connections. They also reveal significant
variation in trajectories of involvement. Only one third of individuals who identified as a gang
member currently identified as being an active gang member, and 86% reported joining before
experiencing homelessness. Therefore, Chapter 4 attempts to address the limits of cross-sectional
quantitative analysis in understanding this intersection. It provides an in-depth understanding of
the context of gang involvement and homelessness. In many ways, it provokes more questions.
The purpose of this chapter is to take an exploratory approach to this topic using the life history
calendar technique to elicit detailed interview data presented as cross-case findings and case
study vignettes. Overall, these chapters aim to provide further understanding of gang
involvement among youth who are currently experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles using a
mixed-methods approach. Findings from this dissertation are discussed in detail, as are
implications for future directions of research, practice, and policy.

23
References
Abramovich, A., & Shelton, J. (Eds.). (2017). Where am I going to go? Intersectional
approaches to ending LGBTQ2S youth homelessness in Canada & the U.S. Toronto,
Canada: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press.
Advancement Project. (2007). Citywide gang activity reduction strategy: Phase III report. Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Balderrama, F. E., & Rodríguez, R. (2006). Decade of betrayal: Mexican repatriation in the
1930s. UNM Press.
Bender, K., Brown, S. M., Thompson, S. J., Ferguson, K. M., & Langenderfer, L. (2015).
Multiple victimizations before and after leaving home associated with PTSD, depression,
and substance use disorder among homeless youth. Child Maltreatment, 20, 115–124.
doi:10.1177/1077559514562859
Burt, M. R. (2007). Understanding homeless youth: Numbers, characteristics, multisystem
involvement, and intervention options. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/47046/901087-Understanding-
Homeless-Youth-Numbers-Characteristics-Multisystem-Involvement-and-Intervention-
Options.PDF
Chen, X., Thrane, L., Whitbeck, L. B., & Johnson, K. (2006). Mental disorders, comorbidity, and
postrunaway arrests among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 16, 379–402. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00499.x
Crossley, S. (2015). Come out come out wherever you are: A content analysis of homeless
transgender youth in social service literature. PSU McNair Scholars Online Journal, 9, 4.
doi:10.15760/mcnair.2015.44
24
Delaney, T. (2006). American street gangs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). 2011 national gang threat assessment: Emerging
trends. Washington, DC: National Gang Intelligence Center.
Ferguson, K. M., Bender, K., Thompson, S. J., Maccio, E. M., Xie, B., & Pollio, D. (2011).
Social control correlates of arrest behavior among homeless youth in five U.S. cities.
Violence and Victims, 26, 648–668. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.5.648
Garcia, N. (1998). Immigration. Retrieved from Los Angeles: Painted City website:
http://noemigarcia.tripod.com/lapaint/immigration.htm
Hagedorn, J. M., & Devitt, M. L. (1999). Fighting female: The social construction of female
gangs. In M. Chesney-Lind & J. M. Hagedorn (Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays
on girls, gangs and gender (pp. 256–276). Chicago, IL: Lake View.
Heerde, J. A., Hemphill, S. A., & Scholes-Balog, K. E. (2014). ‘Fighting’ for survival: A
systematic review of physically violent behavior perpetrated and experienced by
homeless young people. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 50–66.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2013.12.002
Hernandez, J. A.. (2010). Contemporary Deportation Raids and Historical Memory: Mexican
Expulsions in the Nineteenth Century. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 35(2), 115-
142.
Hoffman, A. (1974). Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression; repatriation
pressures, 1929-1939. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Howell, J. C., & Moore, J. P. (2010). History of street gangs in the United States. Tallahassee,
FL: National Gang Center.
Huff, C. R. (Ed.). (2001). Gangs in America III. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25
Johnson, K. R. (2005). The forgotten 'repatriation" of persons of Mexican ancestry and lessons
for the "war on terror". (Fifth Annual Dyson Distinguished Lecture). Pace Law Review,
26(1), 1-26.
Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R., Montgomery, S. B., Unger, J. B., & Iversen, E. F. (1997). Homeless
youth and their exposure to and involvement in violence while living on the streets.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 360–367. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00037-2
Library of Congress. (n.d.). Immigration: Depression and the Struggle for Survival. Retrieved
from
https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations
/immigration/mexican6.html
Lopez, I. H. (1997). White by law: The legal construction of race. NYU Press.
Martijn, C., & Sharpe, L. (2006). Pathways to youth homelessness. Social Science & Medicine,
62, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.007
Milburn, N. G., Rice, E., Rotheram ‐Borus, M. J., Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., Batterham, P., …
Duan, N. (2009). Adolescents exiting homelessness over two years: The risk
amplification and abatement model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 762–785.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00610.x
Milburn, N. G., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Rice, E., Mallet, S., & Rosenthal, D. (2006). Cross-
national variations in behavioral profiles among homeless youth. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 37, 63–76. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-9005-4
Miles, B. W., & Okamoto, S. K. (2008). The social construction of deviant behavior in homeless
and runaway youth: Implications for practice. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,
25, 425–441. doi:10.1007/s10560-008-0131-3
26
National Gang Center. (n.d.). Measuring the extent of gang problems: Estimated number of
gangs. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-
the-extent-of-gang-problems
Ngai, M. M. (1999). The architecture of race in American immigration law: A reexamination of
the Immigration Act of 1924. The Journal of American History, 86(1), 67-92.
doi:10.2307/2567407
Petering, R., Rice, E., Rhoades, H., & Winetrobe, H. (2014). The social networks of homeless
youth experiencing intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29,
2172–2191. 10.1177/0886260513516864
Pfeifer, R. W., & Oliver, J. (1997). A study of HIV seroprevalence in a group of homeless youth
in Hollywood, California. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 339–342.
doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00038-4
Pyrooz, D. C. (2014). From colors and guns to caps and gowns? The effects of gang membership
on educational attainment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 56–87.
doi:10.1177/0022427813484316
Rice, E., Winetrobe, H., & Rhoades, H. (2013). Hollywood Homeless Youth Point-in-Time
Estimate Project: An innovative method for enumerating unaccompanied homeless youth.
Retrieved from http://hhyp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HHYP_Point-in-
Time_Brief_5.pdf
Robertson, M. J., & Toro, P. A. (1999). Homeless youth: Research, intervention, and policy. In
L. B. Fosberg & D. L. Dennis (Eds.), Practical lessons: The 1998 National Symposium
on Homelessness Research (pp. 3-1–3-32). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
27
Schwartz, M., Sorensen, H. K., Ammerman, S., & Bard, E. (2008). Exploring the relationship
between homelessness and delinquency: A snapshot of a group of homeless youth in San
Jose, California. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25, 255–269.
doi:10.1007/s10560-008-0125-1
Terry, M. J., Bedi, G., & Patel, N. (2010). Healthcare needs of homeless youth in the United
States. Journal of Pediatric Sciences, 2, e17.
Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. J. (2007, March). Homeless youth in the united states:
Recent research findings and intervention approaches. Paper presented at the National
Symposium on Homelessness Research, Washington, DC.
Valdez, A. (2003). Toward a typology of contemporary Mexican American youth gangs. In L.
Kontos, D. Brotherton, & L. Barrios (Eds.), Gangs and society: Alternative perspectives
(pp. 12–40). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Vigil, J. D. (1990). Cholos and gangs: Culture change and street youth in Los Angeles. In C. R.
Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 103–128). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents
and their families. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Ackley, K. A. (1997). Abusive family backgrounds and later
victimization among runaway and homeless adolescents. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 7, 375–392. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0704_2
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Yoder, K. A. (1999). A risk-amplification model of
victimization and depressive symptoms among runaway and homeless adolescents.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 273–296.
doi:10.1023/A:1022891802943
28
Wong, C. F., Clark, L. F., & Marlotte, L. (2016). The impact of specific and complex trauma on
the mental health of homeless youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 831–854.
doi:10.1177/0886260514556770
Yoder, J. R., Bender, K., Thompson, S. J., Ferguson, K. M., & Haffejee, B. (2014). Explaining
homeless youths’ criminal justice interactions: Childhood trauma or surviving life on the
streets? Community Mental Health Journal, 50, 135–144. doi:10.1007/s10597-013-9690-
7
Zide, M. R., & Cherry, A. L. (1992). A typology of runaway youths: An empirically based
definition. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 9, 155–168.
doi:10.1007/BF00755230

29
Chapter 2: Sexual Risk, Substance Use, Mental Health, and Trauma Experiences of Gang-
Involved Homeless Youth
Introduction
Annual statistics suggest that between 500,000 to 1.6 million youth are homeless
(Ringwalt, Greene, Robertson, McPheeters 1998; Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007) and an
estimated 1.4 million individuals are active gang members (Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2011) in the United States. Although seemingly disparate populations, homeless youth and gangs
intersect (De Rosa et al., 1999; Harper, Davidson, & Hosek, 2008). Previous research has found
that approximately 15% of homeless youth identify as a gang member and 32% are affiliated
with gang members (Yoder, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2003). This exceeds the cumulative gang
involvement in a nationally representative sample, in which 8% of individuals were ever in a
gang by their early 20s and 18% were affiliated with a gang (Pyrooz, 2014). However, very little
is known about gang-involved homeless youth. These data on the prevalence of gang
membership among homeless youth are from the Midwest Homeless and Runaway Adolescent
Project conducted in 1996 (Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999; Yoder et al., 2003). Thus, much remains to
be learned about gang-involved homeless youth.
Background
Gang involvement is an epidemic that continues to affect the health of many youth and
young adults in the United States. Gangs, and the youth involved in them, are frequently
classified in various domains, including of level of organization, major activities, organizational
history, nature and degree of criminality, and extensiveness of rules and rituals (Valdez, 2003)
Although there is no consensus on how to define youth gangs, existing definitions attempt to
capture varying degrees of structure, permanence, and seriousness (Howell & Moore, 2010). A
30
youth gang can is frequently defined by the following parameters: has at least five members,
generally aged 11–24; members share an identity, typically linked to a collective name; members
view themselves and are recognized by others as a gang; the group has some sort of permanence
and degree of organization; and the group is involved in an elevated level of criminal activity.
Youth gangs are also often distinguished based on level of organization, with the major types
being street gangs (i.e., those formed on the streets of the United States, which can have a
national presence and are often involved in the drug market) or neighborhood or local gangs
(smaller groups connected to territory that are subsets of or imitate larger gangs). These are
distinct from predominately adult gangs such as prison gangs (organizations originating in the
penal system) and outlaw motorcycle gangs (organizations that use motorcycle clubs to engage
in criminal enterprises; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011).
Gang membership and gang affiliation are known determinants of increased rates of risk-
taking behaviors, including sexual risk behaviors

(Brooks, Lee, Stover, & Barkley, 2009; Browne
et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2013) and substance use (Cepeda et al., 2012; Knox & Tromanhauser,
1999). Membership is associated with higher rates of unprotected sex, unprotected sexual
intercourse with a new acquaintance, sexual intercourse with someone suspected of having or
known to have a sexually transmitted disease, and having sex while incarcerated (Browne et al.,
2014; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011). Membership is also associated with higher rates of
substance use, including crack cocaine, heroin, speedball, injection drug use, and polydrug use
(Cepeda et al., 2012; Knox & Tromanhauser, 1999). Gang membership is also closely linked to
increased mental health symptoms (Corcoran, Washington, & Meyers, 2005; Evans, Albers,
Macari, & Mason, 1996; Kelly, 2010). In a sample of incarcerated youth, gang-identifying youth
reported greater rates of suicide attempts, homicidal thoughts, hallucinations, delusions,
31
repetitive thoughts, and experiences of trauma such as childhood maltreatment (Corcoran et al.,
2005).
Regardless of desistance, identifying as a gang member has negative effects throughout
the life course (Krohn, Ward, Thornberry, Lizotte, & Chu, 2011). Individuals who reported
membership during adolescence were approximately 2 times more likely to report poor health at
27 years of age and 3 times more likely to meet criteria for drug abuse and dependence in
adulthood (Gilman, Hill, & Hawkins, 2014).

Adolescent membership in a youth street gang has
important, long-lasting effects on not only continuation of criminal behaviors but also
opportunities for adult success in major conventional social roles. Individuals with more gang
involvement during adolescence are more likely to experience problems transitioning from
adolescence to adulthood (Gilman, Hill, & Hawkins, 2014). These empirical studies
demonstrated how gang membership affects youth throughout the life course by placing them on
a trajectory of risky behavior and negative consequences that affects adult functioning. Evidence
suggests that for many of these outcomes, youth who do not claim gang membership but are
closely affiliated with gang members are also at increased risk of negative outcomes. For
example, girls who have sexual partners who are gang members have higher rates of inconsistent
condom use, unprotected sex with multiple or unknown partners, exchange sex (sex in exchange
for things such as money, shelter, drugs, or food), sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol,
and experiences of rape (Browne et al., 2014).
To date, very little is known about homeless youth who identify as or affiliate with gang
members. However, gang-involved homeless youths are distinguishable from noninvolved
homeless youth. Homeless youth who identify as gang members tend to be younger, have lower
levels of parental monitoring and higher levels of childhood physical abuse, and are more likely
32
to have been suspended from school compared to noninvolved homeless youth (Yoder et al.,
2003). In a sample of Chicago-based homeless African American boys, gang-identifying youth
had higher rates of negative mental and physical health outcomes compared to noninvolved
homeless youth, including higher levels of depression and anxiety, social and violent behavior,
and lifetime alcohol and marijuana use (Harper et al., 2008). The motivation for gang association
may be accessing more support provided by peers in the gang. For homeless youth, gangs offer a
sense of family and protection for members (Harper et al., 2008; Yoder et al., 2003).

However,
these two studies appear to constitute the depth of the field’s knowledge regarding gang-involved
homeless youth. Given the relationship of high-risk health behaviors and outcomes with both
gang-involved and homeless youth populations, more empirical research is needed, particularly
in Los Angeles. Often distinguished as the street gang capital of the United States, Los Angeles
features an estimated 100,000 gang members, and one half of all homicides in the city are
reported to be gang related (Delaney, 2006).
Theoretical Approach: Risk Amplification and Abatement Model
The risk amplification and abatement model (Milburn et al., 2009) can be used to
understand how gang involvement may affect the lives of homeless youths. This model considers
a homeless youth’s background and posits that present-day behavioral outcomes of homeless
youth are influenced differentially by engagement in negative or positive socialization
experiences throughout the life course across various domains of social organizations, including
peers, family interactions, social services, and formal institutions (e.g.., schools, criminal justice
systems, and child protective systems). For homeless youth, continued interaction with negative
socializing agents, including delinquent peers such as gang members, can amplify the risk of
antisocial outcomes, including illicit substance use, sexual risk taking, exposure to trauma, and
33
increased negative mental health outcomes; in contrast, interaction with positive or
prosocializing agents can be protective, abating these risks (Milburn et al., 2009; Rice, Kurzban,
& Ray, 2012; Rice, Milburn, & Rotheram-Borus, 2007; Rice, Milburn, Rotheram-Borus, Mallett,
& Rosenthal, 2005; Unger et al., 1998; Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Yoder, 1999). Gang involvement is
considered a function of the peer domain in the risk amplification and abatement model because
gangs are inherently informal peer networks. Gangs can act as a surrogate family, providing
basic needs for youth from dysfunctional backgrounds (Vigil, 2003).

Many youth identify with a
gang to access social supports that are unavailable from other sources such as family, school, and
nondelinquent peers (Regan, 2013; Yoder et al., 2003). Homeless youth may become involved in
gangs for similar reasons. Homeless youth are known to have small and unstable peer networks
(Ennett, Bailey, & Federmen, 1999). Identification or close affiliation with a gang may offer a
sense of family and protection for homeless youth. Yet the risk amplification and abatement
model suggests that homeless youth’s interaction with delinquent peers such as gang members
will increase risk-taking behaviors and experiences of related negative outcomes.
The current study used data collected from Los Angeles-based homeless youth to explore
how lifetime gang involvement—either as a self-identified member or affiliate—is related to a
variety of present-day risk behaviors and negative outcomes. The following specific research
questions guided the study. Are homeless youth who identify as gang members or affiliates more
likely to report a variety of risk behaviors and negative outcomes compared to their noninvolved
counterparts? Are gang-involved homeless youth more likely to have experienced childhood
trauma?
34
Methods
Data from two panels of the Youthnet study (N = 505) were used in the current study.
Youths were recruited in 2012 and 2013 from two Los Angeles day-service drop-in agencies
serving homeless youth.

Both agencies provide weekday services to eligible homeless youth,
including basic needs, medical and mental health care, case management, and referrals and
connections to other programs such as housing services. All youth who entered the service
agencies during the data collection period were invited to participate in the study. Each youth
signed a voluntary consent form. A consistent pair of research staff members was present during
the entirety of data collection. Only one staff member was responsible for approaching youth for
recruitment to ensure that all youth were approached into the study. The staff member
maintained her own tracking system for approaching youth. As youth consented to participate in
the study, they received an anonymous identification code using a combination of their initials
and birthdates that was used as a tracking method to prevent youth from completing the survey
multiple times during each data collection period per site. The study featured a computerized
self-administered survey that included an audio-assisted version for participants with low literacy
and could be completed in English or Spanish. The computerized survey included approximately
200 questions and took an average of 1 hour to complete. All participants received $20 in cash or
gift cards as compensation for their time. The institutional review board of the University of
Southern California approved all procedures and waived parental consent for minors without
parents or guardians. Further details regarding data collection are available elsewhere (Rice,
2010; Rice, Barman-Adhikari, Milburn & Monro, 2012).
35
Measures
Gang membership and affiliation. The current study focused on the impact on lifetime
gang involvement. Participants self-reported if they were currently or had ever been a gang
member. Participants also reported whether they had joined a gang prior to experiencing
homelessness. A recent study showed that youth who self-report being a current or former gang
member are more similar than those who report never being in a gang with respect to
demographic and risk factors (Gilman et al., 2014). Youth self-report of membership is a
common assessment approach and has been validated by several studies (Curry, Decker, &
Egley, 2002; Esbensen & Winfree,1998; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003).
Participants also self-reported via three questions if they had ever been a gang affiliate, i.e., had a
family member, romantic partner, or close friend who is a gang member. These questions were
aggregated to identify participants who were closely affiliated with gang members but had never
identified as a member. The research team developed this measure of gang affiliation.
Sociodemographic variables. Participants were asked to report their age, race and
ethnicity, sexual orientation, current living situation, and city of origin. Participants were asked
to select the race and ethnicity with which they identified from the following categories:
American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander, White, or Latino or Hispanic. Due to few responses, American Indian or Alaska
Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander were coded into an inclusive
category titled other. The resulting race and ethnicity variable had four categories. Six
participants who identified as transgender were coded based on the gender with which they
currently identified (e.g., male-to-female transgender was coded as female), resulting in a binary
category for gender. Participants were asked to identify their sexual orientation, with response
36
options of homosexual (gay or lesbian), queer, bisexual, heterosexual (straight), or questioning or
unsure. Sexual orientation was then coded into two categories: heterosexual and LGBTQ
(homosexual, queer, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or unsure). The six respondents who
identified as transgender were coded as a sexual minority in this category.
Youth experiencing literal homelessness were defined as those who reported currently
staying in a shelter (emergency or temporary), a stranger’s home, hotel, motel, street, beach, tent
or campsite, abandoned building, car, or bus. Youth who were not experiencing literal
homelessness reported staying elsewhere, such as at a relative’s home, transitional living
program, group home, or sober living facility. This definition of literal homelessness was derived
from work by Tsemberis, McHugo, Williams, Hanrahan, and Stefancic (2007). Participants
where asked what they considered to be their place of origin, coded as Los Angeles or elsewhere.
Participants were also coded based on the field site where baseline data were collected, either
Santa Monica and Venice or Hollywood.
Trauma. Participants were asked various questions to assess childhood trauma, including
physical abuse (having been hit, punched, or kicked very hard at home, excluding ordinary fights
between brothers and sisters); witnessing family violence (seeing a family member being hit,
punched, or kicked very hard at home, excluding ordinary fights between brothers and sisters);
and sexual abuse (having an adult or someone much older touch their private sexual body parts
in an unwanted way). Participants that responded affirmatively to any of these questions were
coded as having experienced childhood abuse. Intimate partner violence and interpersonal
violence measures were adapted from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth
Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS; Eaton et al., 2012). Intimate partner violence was assessed with
the question: “During the past 12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or
37
physically hurt you on purpose?” Interpersonal violence was assessed with the question: “During
the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight?” Each response was
dichotomized and did not distinguish between violent victimization or perpetration.
Mental health. Depression was measured using a 10-item version of the Center for
Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977). Cumulative scores greater than 7
indicated current depressive symptoms. PTSD symptomatology was assessed with the Primary
Care PTSD Screen (Prins et al., 2003) in reference to the previous month. Participants were
asked if they ever seriously considered attempting suicide (ideation) or made a plan about how to
attempt suicide during the previous 12 months. Those who responded affirmatively were coded
as having experienced suicidal ideation. Participants were asked how many times they had
attempted suicide during the previous 12 months and were categorized as zero times versus one
or more times.
Sexual risk behaviors. Lifetime and recent risky sexual behaviors were assessed using
items from the YRBS, which have been tested for reliability and validity (Brener, Collins, Kann,
Warren, & Williams, 1995), including condom use, concurrent sexual partners, and sex under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. Exchange sex for money or drugs, a place to stay, food or meals,
or anything else was also assessed.
Substance use. YRBS items were also used to assess recent drug use. Participants
indicated whether they had used cocaine, methamphetamine (meth), ecstasy, or heroin during the
previous 30 days. Participants also reported recent prescription drug abuse or injection of any
type of drug. Prescription drug abuse was assessed by asking how many times a participant had
taken a prescription drug without a doctor’s prescription or used more of the drug or used it more
often than prescribed. Participants who reported binge drinking (having five or more drinks of
38
alcohol in a row within a couple of hours) on 6 or more days during the previous month were
coded as high-risk alcohol users.
Data Analyses
The aim of the current study was to determine the impact of lifetime gang involvement
on present-day risk behaviors and negative health outcomes of homeless youths and assess the
likelihood of experiencing childhood trauma. The analysis occurred in two stages. First, chi-
square analyses were used to identify any significant differences between rates of self-reported
behaviors across the three groups at the univariable level. Any behavior that was significantly
different at the p < .05 level was included as an outcome variable in the second series of
analyses. Next, a multivariable logistic regression model was created to determine how gang
membership or affiliation compared to noninvolvement was independently associated with each
of the 12 selected outcomes identified in the first stage. Multivariable models controlled for
demographic variables of age, race, sexual orientation, literal homelessness, and city of origin.
Participants with missing data for any of the included model variables were excluded from the
analyses. Final subsample size, Akaike information criterion, and adjusted R-squared are
reported for each model. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.3.

Results
In this sample of homeless youth (N = 505), 17.0% identified as ever being a gang
member and 45.9% identified as being gang affiliated. Regarding affiliates, 37.5% had family
members, 25.4% had romantic partners, and 58.8% had friends who had been in a gang. Of the
youths who reported being in a gang, approximately one third were current gang members at the
time of data collection and 82.0% had joined before becoming homeless. Prevalence rates and
means for control, substance use, sexual risk, mental health, and trauma variables are shown in
39
Table 2.1. Chi-square results revealed significant differences in proportion distributions across
the three groups. Youth from the Hollywood data collection site represented a larger proportion
of gang-involved youth in the sample (χ
2
= 25.07, p < .001). Noninvolved youth were more
likely to be White (χ
2
= 12.18, p < .01). Gang members were more likely to be Latino (χ
2
= 7.10,
p < .05) and noninvolved youth were more likely to be from Los Angeles (χ
2
= 3.92, p < .01).
Significantly more gang-involved youth disclosed recent methamphetamine (χ
2
= 9.26, p < .01),
cocaine (χ
2
= 7.23, p < .05), and chronic marijuana (χ
2
= 9.86, p < .01) use compared to
noninvolved youth. Significantly more gang-involved youth disclosed having experienced recent
sex under the influence (χ
2
= 11.93, p < .001), depression symptoms (χ
2
= 17.03, p < .001),
suicide attempts (χ
2
= 6.31, p < .05), PTSD symptoms (χ
2
= 38.70, p < .001), interpersonal
violence (χ
2
= 34.07, p < .001), intimate partner violence (χ
2
= 20.63, p < .001), and all three
childhood trauma variables: physical abuse (χ
2
= 21.21, p < .001), sexual abuse (χ
2
= 9.40, p
< .01), and witnessing family violence (χ
2
= 21.48, p < .001).
Multivariable logistic regressions revealed that gang membership and gang affiliation
were associated with higher rates of risk behaviors and negative outcomes compared to
noninvolved homeless youth. Gang affiliates were more than twice as likely to report meth (OR
= 2.25, p < .01), cocaine (OR = 2.23, p < .001), and chronic marijuana (OR = 2.44, p < .001) use
compared to noninvolved youths (see Table 2.2). Gang members were more than 3 times more
likely to report chronic marijuana use (OR = 3.20, p < .001). In addition, gang members were 3
times more likely (OR = 2.99, p < .001) and gang affiliates were twice as likely (OR = 1.97, p
< .01) to report having sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol during their last sexual
encounter.
40
Gang members and affiliates were both more likely to report depressive and PTSD
symptoms compared to noninvolved youth (see Table 2.3). Gang members had 6 times greater
odds of PTSD symptoms (OR = 5.95, p < .01) and were 2.5 times more likely to have attempted
suicide (OR = 2.48, p < .05) than noninvolved youth. Gang members were 6 times more likely
(OR = 6.04, p < .01) and gang affiliates were twice as likely (OR = 2.10, p < .01) to report recent
involvement in interpersonal violence (see Table 2.4). Gang membership was related to greater
odds of reporting all surveyed types of childhood trauma: physical abuse (OR = 3.18, p < .01),
sexual abuse (OR = 1.94, p < .05), and witnessing family violence (OR = 3.25, p < .001). Gang
affiliates had twice the odds of reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse (OR = 2.16, p
< .05). Gang members were more than 3 times more likely to experience intimate partner
violence during the previous year (OR = 3.29, p < .001).
Discussion
The analyses revealed that having a history of gang involvement is prevalent among
homeless youths. The rate of gang membership and affiliation in this Los Angeles-based sample
was higher than in previous studies (Harper et al., 2008; Yoder et al., 2003). More than half of
the sample had been involved in a gang at some point. Results from the current study illustrate
the impact of gang membership and affiliation on the health of homeless youth in Los Angeles.
The results capture the diverse risk profiles related to gang involvement, particularly regarding
drug use, sexual risk, and mental health. Homeless gang members and affiliates also experienced
higher levels of violence and trauma in a population that already experiences higher rates than
the general youth population. This study confirms that gang involvement—either by membership
or affiliation—should be included in the peer domain of the risk amplification and abatement
model (Milburn et al., 2009) for homeless youth. Results show that lifetime gang involvement is
41
significantly associated with an increase in present-day risk-taking behaviors and negative
outcomes.
This study is unique in that it delineated between self-identified members and self-
identified gang affiliates and compared them to noninvolved homeless youth. Analyses revealed
that for many health and behavioral health risks, both gang members and affiliates demonstrated
increased risk compared to noninvolved youth. Previous research on nonhomeless gang affiliates
has highlighted the fact that being closely affiliated with a gang is associated with risks similar to
identifying as a gang member (Browne et al., 2014). This study confirmed that this is true for
homeless youth. Participants closely affiliated with a gang were at greater risk of heavy
marijuana use, sex under the influence, depression, and PTSD, similar to gang members. They
also had similar experiences of child sexual abuse, witnessing family violence, and interpersonal
violence. In terms of recent methamphetamine and cocaine use, gang affiliates exhibited more
risk than noninvolved youth, but this was not true for gang members. However, this could be a
function of low cell size; many more youth in the sample identified as affiliates versus members.
Future research should further explore this finding and compare gang affiliates and members in
the homeless youth population.
These data also highlight the increased risk of identifying as a gang member as opposed
to an affiliate. Unlike gang affiliates, self-identifying gang members are at increased risk of
childhood physical abuse, intimate partner violence, and suicide attempts, as compared to
noninvolved youth. A large body of research (Delsol & Margolin, 2004; Eriksson & Mazerolle,
2015; Franklin & Kercher, 2012; McKinney, Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikkler, & Nelson, 2009;
Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2014)

has linked the experience of childhood physical abuse
(frequently co-occurring with other types of childhood maltreatment such as sexual abuse and
42
witnessing family violence) and intimate partner violence, often referred to as the
intergenerational transmission of violence. It is possible that the early experience of childhood
physical abuse differentiates a youth from identifying as a gang member versus an affiliate. This
childhood experience of violence, in addition to leading to the violence and relational patterns
formed in the context of gang membership, may contribute to the likelihood of experiencing
partner violence in intimate relationships. It is also worth noting that gang members and affiliates
had similarly larger odds of poor mental health outcomes of depression and PTSD (up to 6 times
greater), but only gang members were at higher risk of suicide compared to noninvolved youth.
Gang membership may have a unique influence related to a greater risk of suicide attempts
compared to noninvolvement. This hazardous trajectory of childhood trauma could be an
indicator of poor coping strategies in the face of mental health issues and relational conflict.
Gang members, either former or current, constitute a subgroup in the homeless youth population
that is at imminent risk of poor outcomes, including serious injury or death.
Although this study focused on the impact of lifetime involvement, the results also
indicate variation in the experiences of gang membership among homeless youth. For youth who
had identified as gang members, the trajectory and timing of gang involvement and homelessness
appears to be important. Most gang members reported joining a gang before becoming homeless
and many did not identify as a gang member at the time of data collection, i.e., when they were
receiving homelessness services. Findings imply that for many youth in the sample, joining a
gang may be a function of neighborhood or family environments. It is possible that desisting
from a gang was not necessarily the cause of a youth’s homelessness but likely could be a
contributing factor. For many gang members who desist from a gang, this can be an abrupt
process involving cutting off social ties and often physically leaving their neighborhood or
43
moving to another city. For youth without the necessary resources or functioning skills,
homelessness could be a likely result of desistance of this nature. It also appears that for a
smaller portion of the subpopulation, joining a gang and identifying as a gang member had some
importance in the street-life context, possibly indicating that gangs are a function of protection or
camaraderie on the street. Significant variation also existed among gang affiliates, and
differences in risk among affiliation via friends, family, or romantic partners remains unclear.
For many youth, these affiliations were co-occurring, i.e., many had family members and friends
in a gang. The exploration of heterogeneity in involvement and affiliation in this study is cursory
because the data were limited. However, this study provides promising new questions and
directions for research with this population. Future research should use qualitative or mixed
methods to provide more in-depth knowledge regarding the context and new questions for
homeless youth gang involvement.
It should be noted that this study has limitations. First, these data are cross-sectional, so
causality cannot be implied. Data were also derived from a sample of drop-in, service-seeking,
Los Angeles-based homeless youth. Caution should be used when generalizing findings to
homeless youth samples in other geographic areas, particularly because gangs and gang
membership are closely related to geographic factors. It is also possible that the findings are not
generalizable to other types of homeless youth, including sheltered individuals or youth not
accessing services. The current study involved a general risk assessment, and measures of mental
health, trauma, and violence were abbreviated. Additionally, data relied on self-report from
youth; it is possible that gang membership was underreported or overreported.
Despite the preliminary nature of the data, this study has many important implications for
future research. Considering the lack of knowledge regarding the intersection of homelessness
44
and gang membership among youth, the results have vast implications for public health. In a
population already at high risk, identifying as a gang member or affiliate is related to greater risk
across many health and behavioral health domains. This demonstrates the need for specific
interventions to address gang involvement in this high-risk group, such as screening for a history
of gang membership during intake for homeless youth services, creating trauma-informed mental
health services that consider gang histories, and developing specialized housing considerations
for youth with histories of gang involvement. Future research in this field should be prioritized to
inform policies and programs that can address the specific needs of this population.

45
References
Brener, N. D., Collins, J. L., Kann, L., Warren, C. W., & Williams, B. I. (1995). Reliability of
the Youth Risk Behavior Survey questionnaire. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141,
575–580. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117473
Brooks, R. A., Lee, S.-J., Stover, G. N., & Barkley, T. W., Jr. (2009). Condom attitudes,
perceived vulnerability, and sexual risk behaviors of young Latino male urban street gang
members: Implications for HIV prevention. AIDS Education and Prevention, 21(5,
Suppl.), 80–87. doi:10.1521/aeap.2009.21.5_supp.80
Browne, F. A., Wechsberg, W. M., White, V. M., Middlesteadt Ellerson, R., Raiford, J. L.,
Carry, M. G., & Herbst, J. H. (2014). The influence of social determinants on sexual risk
among out-of-school African American female adolescents. Vulnerable Children and
Youth Studies, 9, 139–150. doi:10.1080/17450128.2013.832828
Cepeda, A., Kaplan, C., Neaigus, A., Cano, M. Á., Villarreal, Y., & Valdez, A. (2012). Injecting
transition risk and depression among Mexican American non-injecting heroin users. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 125, S12–S17. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.05.035
Corcoran, K., Washington, A., & Meyers, N. (2005). The impact of gang membership on mental
health symptoms, behavior problems and antisocial criminality of incarcerated youth
men. Journal of Gang Research, 12(4), 25–26.
Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley Jr., A. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency in a
middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275–292.
doi:10.1080/07418820200095241
De Rosa, C. J., Montgomery, S. B., Kipke, M. D., Iverson, E., Ma, J. L., & Unger, J. B. (1999).
Service utilization among homeless and runaway youth in Los Angeles, California: Rates
46
and reasons. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 190–200. doi:10.1016/S1054-
139X(98)00081-0
Delaney, T. (2006). American street gangs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Delsol, C., & Margolin, G. (2004). The role of family-of-origin violence in men’s marital
violence perpetration. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 99–122.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2003.12.001
Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J., … Wechsler, H.
(2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries, 61(4), 1–162.
Ennett, S. T., Bailey, S. L., & Federman, E. B. (1999). Social network characteristics associated
with risky behaviors among runaway and homeless youth. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 40, 63–78. doi:10.2307/2676379
Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2015). A cycle of violence? Examining family-of-origin violence,
attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
30, 945–964. doi:10.1177/0886260514539759
Esbensen, F.A., & Winfree, L. T. (1998). Race and gender differences between gang and
nongang youths: Results from a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly, 15, 505–526.
doi:10.1080/07418829800093861
Evans, W., Albers, E., Macari, D., & Mason, A. (1996). Suicide ideation, attempts and abuse
among incarcerated gang and nongang delinquents. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 13, 115–126. doi:10.1007/BF01876641
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). 2011 national gang threat assessment: Emerging
trends. Washington, DC: National Gang Intelligence Center.
47
Franklin, C. A., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). The intergenerational transmission of intimate partner
violence: Differentiating correlates in a random community sample. Journal of Family
Violence, 27, 187–199. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9419-3
Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2014). Long-term consequences of adolescent
gang membership for adult functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 938–
945. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301821
Harper, G. W., Davidson, J., & Hosek, S. G. (2008). Influence of gang membership on negative
affect, substance use, and antisocial behavior among homeless African American male
youth. American Journal of Men’s Health, 2, 229–243. doi:10.1177/1557988307312555
Howell, J. C., & Moore, J. P. (2010). History of street gangs in the United States. Tallahassee,
FL: National Gang Center.
Kelly, S. (2010). The psychological consequences to adolescents of exposure to gang violence in
the community: An integrated review of the literature. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 61–73. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00225.x
Knox, G. W., & Tromanhauser, E. D. (1999). Juvenile gang members: A public health
perspective. Journal of Gang Research, 6(3), 49–60.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00250.x
McKinney, C. M., Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Nelson, S. (2009). Childhood family
violence and perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence: Findings from a
national population-based study of couples. Annals of Epidemiology, 19, 25–32.
doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.08.008
48
Milburn, N. G., Rice, E., Rotheram ‐Borus, M. J., Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., Batterham, P., …
Duan, N. (2009). Adolescents exiting homelessness over two years: The risk
amplification and abatement model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 762–785.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00610.x
Prins, A., Ouimette, P., Kimerling, R., Cameron, R. P., Hugelshofer, D. S., Shaw-Hegwer, J., …
Sheikh, J. I. (2004). The primary care PTSD screen (PC–PTSD): Development and
operating characteristics. Primary Care Psychiatry, 9, 9–14.
doi:10.1185/135525703125002360
Pyrooz, D. C. (2014). From colors and guns to caps and gowns? The effects of gang membership
on educational attainment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 56–87.
doi:10.1177/0022427813484316
Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
doi:10.1177/014662167700100306
Regan, P. (1996). The Search for Family: Adolescent Males' Motives for Joining Gangs. Free
Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 24(1), 25-27.Rice, E. (2010). The positive role of social
networks and social networking technology in the condom-using behaviors of homeless
young people. Public Health Reports, 125, 588–595. doi:10.1177/003335491012500414
Rice, E., Barman-Adhikari, A., Milburn, N. G., & Monro, W. (2012). Position-specific HIV risk
in a large network of homeless youths. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 141–
147. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300295
Rice, E., Kurzban, S., & Ray, D. (2012). Homeless but connected: The role of heterogeneous
social network ties and social networking technology in the mental health outcomes of
49
street-living adolescents. Community Mental Health Journal, 48, 692–698.
doi:10.1007/s10597-011-9462-1
Rice, E., Milburn, N. G., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2007). Pro-social and problematic social
network influences on HIV/AIDS risk behaviours among newly homeless youth in Los
Angeles. AIDS Care, 19, 697–704. doi:10.1080/09540120601087038
Rice, E., Milburn, N. G., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Mallett, S., & Rosenthal, D. (2005). The effects
of peer group network properties on drug use among homeless youth. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48, 1102–1123. doi:10.1177/0002764204274194
Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., Robertson, M., & McPheeters, M. (1998). The prevalence of
homelessness among adolescents in the United States. American Journal of Public
Health, 88, 1325–1329. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.9.1325
Sanders, B., Valdez, A., Hunt, G. P., Laidler, K. J., Moloney, M., & Cepeda, A. (2013). Gang
youth, risk behaviors, and negative health outcomes. In B. Sanders, Y. F. Thomas, & B.
G. Deeds (Eds.), Crime, HIV and health: Intersections of criminal justice and public
health concerns (pp. 113–127). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and
delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. J. (2007, March). Homeless youth in the united states:
Recent research findings and intervention approaches. Paper presented at the National
Symposium on Homelessness Research, Washington, DC.
50
Tsemberis, S., McHugo, G., Williams, V., Hanrahan, P., & Stefancic, A. (2007). Measuring
homelessness and residential stability: The Residential Time ‐Line Follow ‐Back
Inventory. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 29–42. doi:10.1002/jcop.20132
Unger, J. B., Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R., Johnson, C. J., Montgomery, S. B., & Iverson, E.
(1998). Stress, coping, and social support among homeless youth. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 13, 134–157. doi:10.1177/0743554898132003
Valdez, A. (2003). Toward a typology of contemporary Mexican American youth gangs. In L.
Kontos, D. Brotherton, & L. Barrios (Eds.), Gangs and society: Alternative perspectives
(pp. 12–40). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Vigil, J. D. (2003). Urban violence and street gangs. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(1),
225-242.
Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents
and their families. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Yoder, K. A. (1999). A risk-amplification model of
victimization and depressive symptoms among runaway and homeless adolescents.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 273–296.
doi:10.1023/A:1022891802943
Widom, C. S., Czaja, S., & Dutton, M. A. (2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner
violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 38, 650–663. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.11.004
Yoder, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2003). Gang involvement and membership among
homeless and runaway youth. Youth & Society, 34, 441–467.
doi:10.1177/0044118X03034004003
51

Table 2.1. Descriptive Statistics for Homeless Gang Members, Gang Affiliates, and Noninvolved Youth
Total Noninvolved Affiliate Member Missing
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) χ
2
n
Total 505 187 (37.03) 232 (45.94) 86 (17.03) 0
Age
a
21.4 (5.52) 21.7 (2.16) 21.0 (12.11) 21.5 (2.29) 0
Site
b
296 (58.61) 84 (44.92) 149 (64.22) 63 (73.26) 25.07*** 0
Female 140 (27.72) 52 (27.81) 67 (28.88) 21 (24.42) 0.62 0
Male 365 (72.28) 135 (72.19) 165 (71.12) 65 (75.58) 0.62 0
LGBT 128 (25.35) 51 (27.27) 53 (22.84) 24 (27.91) 1.43 0
Race and ethnicity
White 199 (39.41) 92 (49.20) 80 (34.48) 27 (31.40) 12.18** 0
Black 116 (22.97) 41 (51.93) 57 (24.57) 18 (20.93) 0.65 0
Latino 60 (11.68) 16 (8.56) 27 (11.64) 17 (19.77) 7.10* 0
Other 130 (25.74) 38 (20.32) 68 (29.31) 24 (27.91) 4.63 0
Literal homelessness 353 (70.46) 133 (71.51) 160 (69.87) 60 (69.77) 0.16 4
From Los Angeles 207 (41.90) 134 (71.66) 147 (45.94) 42 (48.84) 3.92** 11
Substance use (previous
30 days)

Methamphetamine 118 (23.60) 30 (16.13) 66 (28.45) 22 (26.83) 9.26** 5
Injection drugs 42 (8.42) 13 (7.03) 22 (9.52) 7 (8.43) 0.83 6
Prescription drugs 95 (18.96) 28 (15.05) 50 (21.55) 17 (20.48) 2.99 4
Binge drinking 62 (12.53) 20 (10.93) 32 (13.91) 10 (12.20) 0.84 10
Heroin 54 (10.87) 21 (11.35) 22 (9.61) 11 (13.25) 0.91 8
Cocaine 80 (16.06) 19 (10.33) 46 (19.83) 15 (18.29) 7.23* 7
Ecstasy 72 (14.37) 21 (11.29) 33 (14.22) 18 (21.69) 5.05 4
Marijuana (chronic use) 244 (48.80) 73 (39.67) 124 (53.45) 47 (55.95) 9.86** 5
Sexual risk
Sex under the influence
(last encounter)
183 (36.53) 51 (27.57) 91 (39.57) 41 (47.67)
11.93**
4
Unprotected sex (last
encounter)
241 (47.72) 80 (42.78) 115 (49.57) 46 (53.49)
3.29
0
Concurrent partners 171 (33.86) 52 (27.81) 87 (37.50) 32 (37.21) 4.86 0
Exchange sex (lifetime) 72 (15.93) 18 (11.46) 37 (17.29) 17 (20.99) 4.18 53
Mental health and
trauma

Depression 367 (72.67) 116 (62.03) 182 (78.45) 69 (80.23) 17.03*** 0
Suicidal ideation 98 (19.68) 26 (13.90) 51 (21.98) 21 (24.42) 5.67 7
Suicide attempt 56 (11.20) 13 (7.03) 29 (12.50) 14 (16.87) 6.31* 5
PTSD 186 (40.65) 39 (23.08) 104 (47.06) 46 (61.33) 38.70*** 40
Interpersonal violence 271 (34.42) 75 (40.54) 131 (56.96) 65 (78.31) 34.07*** 7
Physical abuse 169 (34.42) 46 (25.14) 79 (34.80) 44 (54.32) 21.21*** 14
Sexual abuse 110 (22.87) 27 (15.25) 60 (26.67) 23 (29.11) 9.40** 24
Witnessed family
violence
154 (31.56) 36 (20.11) 80 (34.93) 38 (47.50)
21.48***
17
Intimate partner
violence
94 (58.61) 32 (17.49) 32 (13.91) 30 (36.59)
20.63***
10
Note. LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.
a
Figures reflect M (SD).
b
Hollywood site was reference.

52
Table 2.2. Multivariable Regression Analyses of Drug Use and Sexual Risk for Homeless Gang Members and
Affiliates Compared to Noninvolved Youth
Meth Cocaine Marijuana Sex under Influence
(n = 491) (n = 490) (n = 491) (n = 490)
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Gang member 1.90 0.98,
3.67
1.83 0.84,
3.98
3.20*** 1.75,
5.87
2.99*** 1.67,
5.40
Gang affiliate 2.25** 1.35,
3.76
2.23*** 1.22,
4.06
2.44*** 1.55,
3.84
1.97** 1.25,
3.10
Age 1.02 0.92,
1.13
1.09 0.97,
1.22
0.91 0.83,
1.00
0.91* 0.83,
0.99
Site
a
1.29 0.78,
2.15
0.92 0.51,
1.65
0.43*** 0.27,
0.68
0.84 0.53,
1.34
Male 1.29 0.76,
2.22
0.61 0.34,
1.10
1.25 0.77,
1.03
2.24** 1.35,
3.71
Race and ethnicity
b

Black 0.34** 0.17,
0.69
0.60 0.27,
1.34
0.27*** 0.15,
0.47
0.33*** 0.18,
0.61
Latino 0.88* 0.42,
1.84
1.53 0.66,
3.52
0.28*** 0.14,
0.57
0.73 0.37,
1.44
Other 0.78 0.45,
1.36
1.20 0.63,
2.28
0.67 0.40,
1.12
0.57* 0.34,
0.96
LGBT 1.85* 1.09,
2.16
0.92 0.49,
1.72
0.85 0.52,
1.40
1.33 0.80,
2.19
From Los Angeles 0.71 0.43,
1.17
0.89 0.50,
1.57
0.84 0.54,
1.30
0.91 0.58,
1.42
AIC 532.30 435.13 616.38 619.65
R
2
0.09 0.06 0.21 0.13
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion, an indicator of model fit; LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
a
Hollywood site was reference.
b
White was reference.

53
Table 2.3. Multivariable Regression Analyses of Mental Health and Physical Violence among Homeless Gang
Members and Affiliates Compared to Noninvolved Youth
Depression PTSD Suicide Attempt Interpersonal
Violence
(n = 494) (n = 458) (n = 491) (n = 490)
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Gang member 3.39** 1.73, 6.63 5.95** 3.18, 11.14 2.48* 1.07, 5.72 6.04** 3.21, 11.39
Gang affiliate 2.71** 1.70, 4.32 3.21** 1.99, 5.16 1.65 0.81, 3.33 2.10** 1.38, 3.17
Age 0.98 0.88, 1.08 0.98 0.89, 1.07 0.88 0.77, 1.02 0.98 0.90, 1.07
Site
a
0.70 0.42, 1.18 0.88 0.54, 1.53 1.29 0.65, 2.53 0.87 0.55, 1.36
Male 0.76 0.45, 1.28 0.53* 0.33, 0.87 0.95 0.47, 1.90 1.14 0.72, 1.79
Race and ethnicity
b

Black 0.61 0.33, 1.10 1.32 0.73, 2.39 0.54 0.21, 1.39 0.74 0.43, 1.28
Latino 0.72 0.34, 1.51 1.61 0.78, 3.31 0.71 0.25, 2.04 0.75 0.38, 1.49
Other 0.95 0.52, 1.73 1.56 0.91, 2.70 1.48 0.73, 3.00 1.08 0.65, 1.80
LGBT 1.67 0.97, 2.89 1.77* 1.07, 2.92 1.17 0.58, 2.38 1.11 0.69, 1.78
From Los Angeles 0.65 0.40, 1.03 0.69 0.43, 1.10 1.00 0.53, 1.90 0.75 0.49, 1.15
AIC 554.23 577.51 353.15 652.66
R
2
0.11 0.17 0.07 0.11
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion, an indicator of model fit; LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.
*p < .05. **p < .001.
a
Hollywood site was reference.
b
White was reference.

54
Table 2.4. Multivariable Regression Analyses of Childhood Trauma and Intimate Partner Violence Experiences of
Homeless Gang Members and Affiliates Compared to Noninvolved Youth
Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Witnessed Family
Violence
Intimate Partner
Violence
(n = 483) (n = 469) (n = 481) (n = 486)
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Gang member 3.78*** 2.11, 6.79 2.16* 1.07, 4.37 3.25*** 1.78, 5.93 3.29*** 1.76, 6.16
Gang affiliate 1.62 1.03, 2.56 1.94* 1.12, 3.37 1.94** 1.21, 3.11 0.82 0.47, 1.44
Age 0.93 0.85, 1.02 0.92 0.82, 1.03 0.93 0.84, 1.02 0.95 0.85, 1.06
Site
a
0.98 0.61, 1.57 2.22** 1.27, 3.87 1.27 0.78, 2.06 0.73 0.41, 1.29
Male 0.94 0.56, 1.52 0.53* 0.31, 0.89 0.64 0.40, 1.03 0.86 0.49, 1.52
Race and
ethnicity
b

Black 0.56 0.31, 1.03 0.33** 0.15, 0.70 0.89 0.49, 1.63 0.88 0.44, 1.77
Latino 1.27 0.64, 2.53 0.52 0.22, 1.22 1.33 0.66, 2.68 0.81 0.35, 1.89
Other 0.84 0.50, 1.41 1.05 0.59, 1.89 1.10 0.64, 1.89 0.68 0.36, 1.31
LGBT 1.65* 1.01, 2.69 2.69*** 1.57, 4.63 1.35 0.83, 2.21 1.54 0.84, 2.74
From Los Angeles 0.65 0.41, 1.03 0.60 0.35, 1.04 0.89 0.56, 1.41 0.98 0.57, 1.68
AIC 605.58 466.06 586.03 466.75
R
2
.1110 .1989 .1014 .0866
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
a
Hollywood site was reference.
b
White was reference.

55
Chapter 3: The Role of Like Connections on the Mental Health of Gang-Involved Homeless
Youth
Introduction
Youth gang membership and youth homelessness intersect. Recent research revealed that
17% of homeless youth in Los Angeles have ever identified as a member of a gang and up to
56% have been closely affiliated with a gang member via friends, family, or a romantic partner
(Petering, 2016b). For these youth, gang membership and affiliation are related to many distinct
life experiences. Gang-involved youth report higher rates of early life trauma, including physical
abuse (Petering, 2016; Yoder, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2003), sexual abuse, and witnessing family
violence (Petering, 2016). Gang involvement also appears to be closely related to negative
mental health outcomes, including higher levels of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and suicide
attempts (Harper, Davidson, & Hosek, 2008).
Youth gang-related research historically focused on theoretical understanding of why
individuals join gangs (Siegel, 2010), citing criminology theories such as social control
(Wiatrowski, Griswold, & Roberts, 1981) or development theories such as attachment
(Bretherton, 1992). However, given the serious health and mental health consequences related to
gang involvement, more research should focus on reducing the deleterious effects associated
with involvement and prevention of long-term consequences. Gang members have high
prevalence of mental disorders and use of psychiatric services. Specifically, traumatization and
fear of future violence are highly prevalent among gang members and associated with mental
health services use (Coid et al., 2013). Gang membership is also closely linked to experiences of
trauma such as childhood maltreatment and increased mental health symptoms such as suicide
attempts, homicidal thoughts, hallucinations, delusions, and repetitive thoughts (Corcoran,
56
Washington, & Meyers, 2005; Evans, Albers, Macari, & Mason, 1996; S. Kelly, Anderson, Hall,
Peden, & Cerel, 2012). This hazardous trajectory of childhood trauma could be an indicator of
poor coping strategies in the face of mental health issues and relational conflict. The general
population of homeless youth also experiences high rates of mental health symptoms, such as
depression and anxiety (Bender, Ferguson, Thompson, Komlo, & Pollio, 2010; Unger et al.,
1998), and has lifetime suicide rates much higher than housed counterparts (Kidd & Carroll,
2007; Kochanek, Murphy, Xu, & Arias, 2014).
Gang members, former or current, constitute a subgroup in the homeless youth
population that is at imminent risk of poor outcomes, including serious injury or death.
Regardless of desistance, identifying as a gang member has negative effects throughout the life
course (Krohn, Ward, Thornberry, Lizotte, & Chu, 2011). Individuals who reported membership
during adolescence were approximately 2 times more likely to report poor health at 27 years of
age and 3 times more likely to meet criteria for drug abuse and dependence in adulthood
(Gilman, Hill, & Hawkins, 2014). Adolescent membership in a youth street gang has important,
long-lasting effects not only on continuation of criminal behaviors but also opportunities for
adult success in major conventional social roles. Individuals with more gang involvement during
adolescence are more likely to experience problems transitioning from adolescence to adulthood.
Empirical studies demonstrated how gang membership affects youth throughout the life course
by placing them on a trajectory of risky behavior and negative consequences that affects adult
functioning. Evidence suggests that for many of these outcomes, youth who do not claim gang
membership but are closely affiliated with gang members are also at increased risk of negative
outcomes. For example, girls who have sexual partners who are gang members have higher rates
of inconsistent condom use, unprotected sex with multiple or unknown partners, exchange sex
57
(sex in exchange for things such as money, shelter, drugs, or food), sex under the influence of
drugs or alcohol, and experiences of rape (Browne et al., 2014).
Importance of Peers and Social Networks
To fully understand the impact of gang involvement on homeless youth, it is necessary to
understand how gang involvement relates to social networks. Gangs are inherently a network,
and many youth identify with a gang to access social supports that are unavailable from other
sources such as family, school, and peers (Regan, 1996; Yoder et al., 2003). Gangs can act as a
surrogate family, providing basic needs for dejected youths from dysfunctional backgrounds
(Virgil, 2003). Homeless youth may become involved in gangs for similar reasons. Homeless
youth are known to have small and unstable social networks (Ennett, Bailey, & Federman, 1999).
Identification with a gang may offer a sense of family and protection for homeless youth.
Although gang involvement and affiliation can directly increase the social network support of
homeless youth, research has shown that it is associated with more negative mental and physical
health outcomes compared to noninvolved youth (Harper et al., 2008).

Adolescent and young adult peer relationships in the general population are an important
factor contributing to an individual’s mental health and well-being. Psychological symptoms and
suicidal behavior are found to be directly related to social isolation or inversely, social
integration (Fitzpatrick, Piko, Wright, & LaGory, 2005; Hall-Lande, Eisenberg, Christenson, &
Neumark-Sztainer, 2007; La Greca & Harrison, 2005). For homeless youth, the impact is slightly
different. Relationships with other street-based youth are a risk factor for anxiety and depression,
most likely due to the general influence of antisocial behaviors in homeless youth social
networks (Rice, Kurzban, & Ray, 2012). However, with modern technology, youth can remain
connected with prosocial network ties, such as family or friends from before they became
58
homeless (Rice, 2010; Rice, Monro, Barman-Adhikari, & Young, 2010), which serves as a
protective factor for mental health symptoms (Rice et al., 2012). To date, the influence of having
a connection to another gang-identifying youth for homeless youth in the context of the homeless
youth social network is unknown. This knowledge will be necessary when attempting to design
and implement programs and interventions that target this high-risk population.
Peer-Based Networks to Intervene
The potential of network interventions to reduce risks associated with gang involvement
in the homeless youth population is high. Peer-led health prevention programs already exist, such
as the popular opinion leader model, which spreads HIV prevention information through network
ties and recommends selecting intervention participants based on social network metrics (J. A.
Kelly, 2004; Latkin, Sherman, & Knowlton, 2003). Programs that take advantage of existing
relationships are desirable in service populations that have minimal access to supportive services
health care and whose members are distrustful of adults (Rice & Rhoades, 2013). Furthermore,
network-based interventions have been implemented with success to reduce violence among
gang members, one example being Chicago’s Cure Violence (Bonner, McLean, & Worden,
2008; Butts, Roman, Bostwick, & Porter, 2015; Deeney, 2012). The program, guided by social
learning theory (Bandura, 1971), identifies the most high-risk individuals in a social network and
targets behavioral change through community outreach workers. The program functions on the
importance of peers or like individuals. The interventionists in these types of programs are
formerly gang-involved individuals. This quality appears to be essential.
When considering a group such as homeless or gang-involved youth, buy-in and rapport
is extremely important, particularly because youth may be distrusting of service providers and
disengaged. Peer-based interventions not only are optimal in the context of limited resources, but
59
also leverage trust through homophilous relationships. Homophily is the tendency of like
individuals to form connections (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Previous research on
youth violence, delinquent peers, and social selection theories has suggested that homophily is a
strong factor in how gang-involved homeless youth connect to one another (Baron, Forde, &
Kennedy, 2007; Espelage, Green, & Wasserman, 2007).

A homophilous relationship can be
harmful, protective, or both.
To determine how to approach network interventions targeting gang-involved homeless
youths, it is necessary to use sociometric network regression analyses, such as those previously
employed with this population (Petering, Rice, & Rhoades, 2016; Rice, 2010; Rice et al., 2012),
which can describe attributes of an observed network and test associations between network
properties and individual behavior. The current study aimed to determine if homophily or
isolation regarding gang involvement increases the risk of mental health symptoms (i.e.,
depression, PTSD, and suicide attempt). Results will have many implications for designing and
disseminating appropriate network interventions in this population.
Methods
Sample and Procedure
A sample of 283 homeless youth aged 18 to 25 years accessing services from day-service
drop-in centers for homeless youth in Los Angeles, CA, were approached for study inclusion in
2013. The research team approached all youth who entered the service agencies during the data
collection period and invited them to participate in the study. The selected agency provided
weekday services to eligible homeless youth, including basic needs, medical and mental health
services, case management, and referrals and connections to other programs such as housing
services. Each youth signed a voluntary consent form and a consistent pair of research staff
60
members was responsible for all recruitment to prevent youth from completing the survey
multiple times during each data collection period per site. The overall response rate was 80.1%;
19.9% of homeless youth approached declined to participate, 6.2% did not complete the full
survey, and 2.6% completed the surveys at both sites 3 months apart. The final sample consisted
of 283 participants. The institutional review board of University of Southern California approved
all procedures and waived parental consent for minors without parents or guardians.
The study consisted of two parts: a computerized self-administered survey and a social
network interview. The computerized survey included an audio-assisted version for participants
with low literacy and was available in English or Spanish. The computerized survey included
approximately 200 questions and took an average of 1 hour to complete. The social network
interview was interactive, conducted by a trained research staff member. Social network
interviews took between 15 and 30 minutes to complete depending on each participant’s personal
network size.
There are various methods for collecting social network data. One of the most common
field techniques is to use name generators: a question or series of questions designed to elicit the
naming of relevant social connections along some specified criterion (Campbell & Lee, 1991;
Marsden, 2005). Typically, these are free-recall name generators. Respondents receive a prompt
that defines some criterion, for instance, a category of persons such as family or friends or types
of social exchange relationships (e.g., “Whom do you turn to for advice or support?”). Then
respondents are asked to list as many people as they can. In some cases, an upper limit is given
to the number of names that can be elicited. Most solutions to network recall begin with the
understanding that a single-item free-recall name generator will be most subject to recall bias.
Brewer (2000; also see Brewer, Garrett, & Rinaldi, 2002) has extensively reviewed the topic and
61
suggested and tested several viable solutions to the problem, including nonspecific prompting,
reading back lists, semantic cues, multiple elicitation questions, and reinterviewing.
The current study chose to follow the solution of multiple elicitation questions. The
following was read, “Think about the last month. Who have you interacted with? These can be
people you interacted with in person, on the phone, or through the internet.” After youth stopped
nominating social connections, an additional 15 prompts to solicit nominees were used as
follows: “These might be friends; family; people you hang out with, chill with, kick it with, have
conversations with; people you party with—use drugs or alcohol; boyfriend, girlfriend; people
you are having sex with; baby mama, baby daddy; case worker; people from school; people from
work; old friends from home; people you talk to (on the phone, by email); people from where
you are staying (squatting with); people you see at this agency; other people you know from the
street.” Interviewers paused between each prompt to allow youth to nominate additional social
connections before proceeding to the next prompt. After youth finished nominating persons,
attributes of each social connection were then collected, including: first and last names, aliases,
age, gender, race and ethnicity, visible tattoos, and whether the nominee was a client of the
agency.
A sociomatrix was created linking participants in the sample. A directed tie from
participant i to participant j was recorded if participant i nominated participant j in his or her
personal network. Although directed network information was collected, the network
information is intrinsically undirected (a person who interacts with another) and was treated in
this fashion for the current analysis. The initial matrix creation, however, depended on
information provided by each youth about their personal network alters, and subsequent matches
were made to other youth in the sample. Matches were based on: name, alias, race and ethnicity,
62
gender, approximate age, tattoos, and agency attendance. Two independent reviewers made
match decisions for all alters between the ages of 13 and 39 years and not identified as agency
staff members. A series of decision rules was derived from available information, and decisions
were based on a series of algorithms that included: (a) interviewer and recruiter field knowledge
(through the compilation of field notes following each data collection period); (b) how well the
ego knew the alter (i.e., relative, romantic partner, needle sharer, known for at least 1 year) and
whether the alter was identified as a client; or (c) via an Access database and form that
formulaically paired possible matches based on names, visible tattoos, and demographic
characteristics. If two distinct youth were similar on all information, they were considered for the
purposes of this research to be the same individual. Researchers used a union rule to assign
adjacency, such that social relationships existed if either involved party reported that interaction
took place. For example, suppose youth A nominated youth B in during their interview. If youth
B and youth C are similar based on identifying characteristics, then they are considered to be the
same youth and a tie from A to B is added to both the personal network of A and the personal
network of B. For all matches, two independent reviewers who were part of the data collection
team assigned matches. The independent reviewers’ decisions were compared for agreement.
Discrepant matches were discussed as a group with the independent reviewers and a third
reviewer who also served as an interviewer and recruiter during the data collection. Group
consensus led to final match decisions. Three questionable matches were left uncoded (hence a
conservative matrix of ties). All participants received $20 in cash or gift cards as compensation
for their time.
63
Variables
Sociodemographic variables. Participants were asked to report their age, gender, and
race and ethnicity. Participants were asked to select the race and ethnicity with which they
identified from the following categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or
African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, White, or Latino or Hispanic. Due
to limitations in sample size, White versus other ethnicities was selected as a control variable in
the models. Nine participants who identified as transgender were coded based on the gender with
which they currently identified (e.g., male-to-female transgender was coded as female), resulting
in a binary category for gender.
Dependent variables: Mental health and violence. Depression was measured using a
10-item version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977). For
this sample, the mean sum of scale scores was calculated. Scores ranged from 0 to 30. Any
participant who scored 1 standard deviation above the mean (at an approximate cutoff point of
16) was designated as showing high levels of symptoms of depression. PTSD symptomatology
was assessed with the Primary Care PTSD Screen (Prins et al., 2004) in reference to the previous
month. Participants were asked how many times they had attempted suicide during the previous
12 months and were categorized as zero times versus one or more times.
Intimate partner violence, interpersonal violence, and violence-related injury measures
were adapted from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey
(Eaton et al., 2012). Intimate partner violence was assessed with the question: “During the past
12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose?”
Interpersonal violence was assessed with the question: “During the past 12 months, how many
times were you in a physical fight?” Each response was dichotomized and did not distinguish
64
between violent victimization or perpetration. Injury resulting from interpersonal violence (i.e.,
violent injury) was assessed by asking: “During the past 12 months, how many times were you in
a physical fight in which you were injured and had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?”
Independent social network variables. UCINET (Freeman, Everett, & Borgatti, 2015)
was used to generate sociometric network measures related to network structure. Degree refers to
the number of confirmed network ties that an individual has in the known homeless youth
network. Degree ranged from 0 to 6. Those individuals with a degree value of 0 were coded as
isolates, meaning they had no confirmed connections with other homeless youth in the network.
The current study focused on the impact of homophilous connections on gang membership. Two
unique variables were created to assess gang member homophily in the homeless youth network.
Participants self-reported if they were currently or had ever been a gang member. Recent studies
have shown that youth who self-report being in a gang either formerly or currently are more
similar than those who report never being in a gang with respect to demographic and risk factors
(Gilman et al., 2014). Youth self-report of membership is a common assessment approach and
has been validated in several studies (Curry, Decker, & Egley, 2002; Esbensen & Carson, 2012;
Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003). A variable was created and termed “Gang ×
Gang” for individuals who self-identified as a gang member and had at least one connection with
another individual in the network who self-identified as a gang member. A second variable,
“Gang × No Gang,” included self-identifying gang members with no social ties to another self-
identifying gang member in the network. This variable included gang members who were
isolates in the network.
65
Data Analyses
The aim of the current study was to determine whether varying levels of homophilous
connections regarding gang involvement in a homeless youth network are related to experiences
of mental health and violence. The analysis occurred in multiple stages. First, chi-square
analyses were used to identify any significant differences in demographic variables, social
network variables, and rates of self-reported mental health and violence between the two groups
(gang members versus nonmembers) at the univariable level. Next, multivariable logistic
regression models were created to determine how gang membership homophilous connections
were independently associated with each of the six selected outcome variables. Multivariable
models controlled for demographic variables of age, race, and whether the individual was an
isolate. Participants with missing data for any of the included model variables were excluded
from the analyses. Final subsample size, Akaike information criterion, and adjusted R-squared
are reported for each model. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.3(. Network
visualization tools were used to create graphs that facilitated pattern recognition and visual
assessment of the networks.
Results
Descriptive statistics for all variables are included in Table 3.1. The average age of the
participants was 21.35 years (SD = 2.07). Approximately 68% of the sample was male and 22%
of the sample identified as White. The average degree of participants was 2.62 (SD = 2.80) and
17% of the network was isolates. At the univariable level, gang members had 2.46(p < 0.01)
greater odds of being connected to another gang member. Gang membership was associated with
increased odds of experiencing all mental health and violence variables with exception of suicide
66
ideation. Odd ratios and significant p-values are reported in Table 3.1 and visually displayed in
Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.2 features a diagram of the included homeless youth social network. Individuals
are designated by three colors. Gang members connected to at least one other gang member
(Gang × Gang) are indicated by yellow nodes. Gang members not connected to another gang
member (Gang × No Gang) are displayed as red nodes. Nonmembers are displayed ash grey
nodes.
Table 3.2 shows results from the multivariable models. Multivariable logistic regressions
revealed that variation in social network ties and gang membership was related to increased risk
for almost every variable. PTSD, intimate partner violence, and interpersonal violence was
related to being connected to another gang member or not being connected to another gang
member, compared to individuals who were not connected to any gang members. For each of
those variables, Gang × Gang individuals displayed a higher odds ratio than Gang × No Gang
individuals. Gang × Gang participants had 8 times (95% CI = 2.79, 22.73, p < .001) greater odds
of reporting symptoms of PTSD compared to nonmembers. Gang × No Gang participants had 4
times (95% CI = 1.55, 10.82, p < .01) greater odds of reporting symptoms of PTSD compared to
nonmembers. Male homeless youth had half the odds of reporting PTSD compared to female
homeless youth (95% CI = 0.25, 0.84, p < .05). Gang × Gang participants had 3 times (95% CI =
1.24, 6.95, p < .05) greater odds of reporting experiences of intimate partner violence compared
to nonmembers. Gang × No Gang individuals had 2.5 times (95% CI =1.01, 6.20, p < .05)
greater odds of reporting experiences of intimate partner violence compared to nonmembers.
Gang × Gang participants had 3.5 times (95% CI = 1.34, 8.98, p < .05) greater odds of reporting
experiences of interpersonal violence compared to nonmembers. Gang × No Gang individuals
67
had 3 times (95% CI = 1.04, 7.39, p < .05) greater odds of reporting experiences of interpersonal
violence compared to nonmembers.
Gang members connected to other gang members had 3 times greater odds of reporting
symptoms of depression (95% CI = 1.13, 7.45, p < .05) compared to nonmembers. Gang
members connected to other gang members were more than 4 times as likely to report being
injured because of interpersonal violence (95% CI = 1.80, 10.27, p < .001) compared to
nonmembers. Gang members not connected to other gang members were almost 3 times more
likely to have attempted suicide in the previous year (95% CI = 1.06, 7.76, p < .05).
Discussion
The current study explored the role of like connections, i.e., homophilous relationships,
regarding gang status in the context of a network of homeless youth. Overall, the intersection of
gang involvement and youth homelessness is severely understudied. Results from this study
highlight the importance of this type of research. Prevalence of gang membership was high and
directly related to serious mental health outcomes.
This study advanced our understanding of gang involvement and homeless youth social
networks. This research showed that gang involvement for homeless youth encompasses many
different experiences. These experiences tend to be dependent on level of involvement, status of
involvement, and as this research showed, individual connections. Gang membership
identification alone did not have any relationships with standard network measures regarding
centrality. Results from the exponential random graph model were also null, meaning that gang
members had no impact on the structural formation of the network. Visually, it is clear that gang
members in the social network are dispersed randomly throughout the network with no
distinguishable trend or pattern. However, upon further investigation, gang members could be
68
divided in to two meaningful social network categories that in turn were significantly related to
mental health outcomes in unique ways.
In this sample, having a like connection increased risk of PTSD and depression.
Homeless youth who identified as a gang member had higher rates of PTSD and depression
compared to nonmembers. However, if a member had at least one other connection to a gang
member in the homeless youth network, this risk of depression nearly tripled compared to
nonmembers. Both like-connected gang members and isolated members had increased rates of
PTSD, but for like-connected gang members, this effect was twice as strong. This is similar to
previous findings in homeless youth networks indicating that being connected with more
individuals experiencing depression increases personal risk of negative mental health outcomes
(Fulginiti, Rice, Hsu, Rhoades, & Winetrobe, 2016). It is possible that being connected to
another gang member may increase experiences of PTSD and depression at a greater rate
because of continued involvement in gang-related violence. Interpersonal violence is
significantly related to increases in PTSD and depression (S. Kelly et al., 2012; Patrick, 2008;
Singer, Anglin, Song, & Lunghofer, 1995). It also may be that the continued connection results
in some sort of sharing of traumatic events, escalating the impact on the individual. It is also
possible that having connections to other youth who are not gang involved buffers the effect of
PTSD and depression related to experiences of gang involvement.
Although being disconnected from other gang members appears to be more beneficial in
certain aspects, gang members who were isolated from other gang members, meaning they did
not have a like connection in the homeless youth network, were at higher risk of attempting
suicide. This is similar to previous research involving high school students, showing that being
isolated and having friends who are not friends with one another leads to greater suicide ideation
69
(Bearman & Moody, 2004). However, no differences were found regarding suicide ideation, but
rather for suicide attempt. Gang members without like connections were 3 times more likely than
noninvolved homeless youth to attempt suicide. This is highly concerning because this outcome
has detrimental consequences, including severe injury or death. The distinction between risk of
suicide ideation versus suicide attempts may reflect gang members’ lack of coping strategies or
access to a supportive network.
Unfortunately, these data did not differentiate between individuals currently in a gang
versus those formerly in a gang. It is likely that this issue of gang involvement trajectory is
important. Other studies suggested that only one third of homeless youth gang members
currently identify as being active in a gang (Petering, 2016). Individuals connected to other gang
members in the homeless youth network might be still active in a gang, perhaps entering the
homeless youth network in dyads. Individuals not connected to other gang members may have
desisted from a gang and therefore purposely isolated themselves from other gang members in
the homeless youth network. Although these are assumptions, future research should explore
whether this may be true.
This study is one of the first to examine the social network connections of gang involved
homeless youth using advanced network analysis methods. As such, it had some limitations. This
study reflects homeless youth in Los Angeles and youth accessing drop-in services, so findings
may not be generalizable to youth experiencing homelessness in other cities or those who do not
access drop-in centers. Further, these data are cross-sectional, so no causality can be inferred.
Additionally, regarding gang membership and other criminal activity, underreporting is possible.
However, previous research relying on these self-report measures has supported their validity
(Curry et al., 2002; Esbensen & Carson, 2012; Thornberry et al., 2003).
70
The findings from this study suggest that network connections play a role in the overall
well-being of gang-involved homeless youth. Future research should further explore the role of
networks. However, a network intervention that considers gang-involved homeless youth could
be of value. For gang-involved homeless youth, interventions that are designed to foster positive,
prosocial relationships both in and outside of the homeless youth network would likely improve
outcomes. Interventions that include elements of positive youth development beyond just seeking
change in problem behaviors have shown encouraging results in homeless youth populations
(Petering et al., 2017). However, before specific interventions targeting gang-involved homeless
youth can be developed and tested, it is imperative that both homeless youth services providers
and those working with gang-involved youth consider how these two experiences intersect,
moving toward a more holistic understanding of the experiences of young individuals growing
up marginalized and oppressed in society.

71
References
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
Baron, S. W., Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (2007). Disputatiousness, aggressiveness, and
victimization among street youths. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 411–425.
doi:10.1177/1541204077299582
Bearman, P. S., & Moody, J. (2004). Suicide and friendships among American adolescents.
American Journal of Public Health, 94, 89–95. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.1.89
Bender, K., Ferguson, K., Thompson, S., Komlo, C., & Pollio, D. (2010). Factors associated with
trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder among homeless youth in three U.S. cities: The
importance of transience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23, 161–168.
doi:10.1002/jts.20501
Bonner, H. S., McLean, S. J., & Worden, R. E. (2008). CeaseFire-Chicago: A synopsis.
Retrieved from http://finninstitute.org/uploads/CeaseFire-Chicago.pdf
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 759–775. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759
Brewer, D. D. (2000). Forgetting in the recall-based elicitation of personal and social networks.
Social Networks, 22, 29–43. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(99)00017-9
Brewer, D. D., Garrett, S. B., & Rinaldi, G. (2002). Free-listed items are effective cues for
eliciting additional items in semantic domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 343–
358. doi:10.1002/acp.797
Browne, F. A., Wechsberg, W. M., White, V. M., Middlesteadt Ellerson, R., Raiford, J. L.,
Carry, M. G., & Herbst, J. H. (2014). The influence of social determinants on sexual risk
among out-of-school African American female adolescents. Vulnerable Children and
72
Youth Studies, 9, 139–150. doi:10.1080/17450128.2013.832828
Butts, J. A., Roman, C. G., Bostwick, L., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Cure Violence: A public health
model to reduce gun violence. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 39–53.
doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122509
Campbell, K. E., & Lee, B. A. (1991). Name generators in surveys of personal networks. Social
Networks, 13, 203–221. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(91)90006-F
Coid, J. W., Ullrich, S., Keers, R., Bebbington, P., DeStavola, B. L., Kallis, C., … Donnelly, P.
(2013). Gang membership, violence, and psychiatric morbidity. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 170, 985–993. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12091188
Corcoran, K., Washington, A., & Meyers, N. (2005). The impact of gang membership on mental
health symptoms, behavior problems and antisocial criminality of incarcerated youth
men. Journal of Gang Research, 12(4), 25–35. Retrieved from
http://www.ngcrc.com/journalofgangresearch/jour.v12n4.corcoran.fin.pdf
Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A., Jr. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency in a
middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275–292.
doi:10.1080/07418820200095241
Deeney, J. (2012, June 21). Can street violence be fought like a virus? The Nation. Retrieved
from https://www.thenation.com/article/can-street-violence-be-fought-virus/
Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J., … Wechsler, H.
(2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries, 61(4), 1–162.
Ennett, S. T., Bailey, S. L., & Federman, E. B. (1999). Social network characteristics associated
with risky behaviors among runaway and homeless youth. Journal of Health and Social
73
Behavior, 40, 63–78. doi:10.2307/2676379
Esbensen, F.-A., & Carson, D. C. (2012). Who are the gangsters? An examination of the age,
race/ethnicity, sex, and immigration status of self-reported gang members in a seven-city
study of American youth. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28, 465–481.
doi:10.1177/1043986212458192
Espelage, D. L., Green, H. D., Jr., & Wasserman, S. (2007). Statistical analysis of friendship
patterns and bullying behaviors among youth. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 118, 61–75. doi:10.1002/cd.201
Evans, W., Albers, E., Macari, D., & Mason, A. (1996). Suicide ideation, attempts and abuse
among incarcerated gang and nongang delinquents. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 13, 115–126. doi:10.1007/BF01876641
Fitzpatrick, K. M., Piko, B. F., Wright, D. R., & LaGory, M. (2005). Depressive
symptomatology, exposure to violence, and the role of social capital among African
American adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 262–274.
doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.262
Freeman, L., Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2015). UCINET 6. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/site/ucinetsoftware/home
Fulginiti, A., Rice, E., Hsu, H.-T., Rhoades, H., & Winetrobe, H. (2016). Risky integration: A
social network analysis of network position, exposure, and suicidal ideation among
homeless youth. Crisis, 37, 184–193. doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000374
Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2014). Long-term consequences of adolescent
gang membership for adult functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 938–
945. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301821
74
Hall-Lande, J. A., Eisenberg, M. E., Christenson, S. L., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Social
isolation, psychological health, and protective factors in adolescence. Adolescence, 42,
265–286.
Harper, G. W., Davidson, J., & Hosek, S. G. (2008). Influence of gang membership on negative
affect, substance use, and antisocial behavior among homeless African American male
youth. American Journal of Men’s Health, 2, 229–243. doi:10.1177/1557988307312555
Kelly, J. A. (2004). Popular opinion leaders and HIV prevention peer education: Resolving
discrepant findings, and implications for the development of effective community
programmes. AIDS Care, 16, 139–150. doi:10.1080/09540120410001640986
Kelly, S., Anderson, D., Hall, L., Peden, A., & Cerel, J. (2012). The effects of exposure to gang
violence on adolescent boys’ mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33, 80–88.
doi:10.3109/01612840.2011.623217
Kidd, S. A., & Carroll, M. R. (2007). Coping and suicidality among homeless youth. Journal of
Adolescence, 30, 283–296. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.03.002
Kochanek, K. D., Murphy, S. L., Xu, J., & Arias, E. (2014). Mortality in the United States, 2013
(NCHS Data Brief,No. 178). Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db178.htm
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. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00250.x
La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic
relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49–61. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5
75
Latkin, C. A., Sherman, S., & Knowlton, A. (2003). HIV prevention among drug users: Outcome
of a network-oriented peer outreach intervention. Health Psychology, 22, 332–339.
doi:10.1037/0278-6133.22.4.332
Marsden, P. V. (2005). Recent developments in network measurement. In P. J. Carrington, J.
Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 8–
30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Patrick, C. J. (2008). Psychophysiological correlates of aggression and violence: An integrative
review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363,
2543–2555. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0028
Petering, R. (2016). Sexual risk, substance use, mental health, and trauma experiences of gang-
involved homeless youth. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 73–81.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.009
Petering, R., Rice, E., & Rhoades, H. (2016). Violence in the social networks of homeless
youths: Implications for network-based prevention programming. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 31, 582–605. doi:10.1177/0743558415600073
Petering, R., Yoshioka-Maxwell, A., Craddock, J., Onasch-Vera, L., Yadav, A., Wilder, B., …
Rice, E. (2017). Have You Heard? Development of a social network-based, peer-led HIV
prevention intervention for homeless young adults. Manuscript under review.
Prins, A., Ouimette, P., Kimerling, R., Cameron, R. P., Hugelshofer, D. S., Shaw-Hegwer, J., …
Sheikh, J. I. (2004). The Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC–PTSD): Development and
operating characteristics. Primary Care Psychiatry, 9, 9–14.
76
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
doi:10.1177/014662167700100306
Regan, P. C. (1996). The search for family: Adolescent males’ motives for joining gangs. Free
Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 24, 25–27. Retrieved from
http://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/FICS/article/view/1321
Rice, E. (2010). The positive role of social networks and social networking technology in the
condom-using behaviors of homeless young people. Public Health Reports, 125, 588–
595. doi:10.1177/003335491012500414
Rice, E., Kurzban, S., & Ray, D. (2012). Homeless but connected: The role of heterogeneous
social network ties and social networking technology in the mental health outcomes of
street-living adolescents. Community Mental Health Journal, 48, 692–698.
doi:10.1007/s10597-011-9462-1
Rice, E., Monro, W., Barman-Adhikari, A., & Young, S. D. (2010). Internet use, social
networking, and HIV/AIDS risk for homeless adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,
47, 610–613. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.04.016
Rice, E., & Rhoades, H. (2013). How should network-based prevention for homeless youth be
implemented? Addiction, 108, 1625–1626. doi:10.1111/add.12255
Siegel, L. J. (2010). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies (10th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, L. Y., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). Adolescents’ exposure to
violence and associated symptoms of psychological trauma. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 273, 477–482. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.0352030005103
77
Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and
delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Unger, J. B., Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R., Johnson, C. J., Montgomery, S. B., & Iverson, E.
(1998). Stress, coping, and social support among homeless youth. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 13, 134–157. doi:10.1177/0743554898132003
Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social control theory and
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 46, 525–541. doi:10.2307/2094936
Yoder, K. A, Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2003). Gang involvement and membership among
homeless and runaway youth. Youth & Society, 34, 441–467.
doi:10.1177/0044118X03034004003

78
Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 283)
Total Gang Tie No Gang Tie
n % n % n % OR
283 57 226
Age
a
21.35 2.07 21.18 1.99 21.42 2.02 0.86
Male 206 68.21 40 70.18 153 67.70 1.12
White 67 22.19 11 19.30 54 23.89 0.76
Social network
Degree
a
2.62 2.8 3.14 3.62 2.43 2.51 -1.37
Gang tie 57 20.14 29 50.88 67 29.65 2.46**
Isolate 48 17.08 9 16.07 39 18.84 0.82
Mental health and violence
PTSD 119 46.67 38 76.00 78 39.20 4.91***
Depression 42 13.5 13 22.81 26 11.50 2.27*
Suicide attempt 46 15.92 13 24.07 29 13.12 2.10*
Intimate partner violence 68 23.61 20 37.04 45 20.36 2.30**
Violence 157 54.51 40 75.47 111 50.23 3.05***
Violent injury 58 20.42 19 36.54 33 15.14 3.23***
a
Figures reflect M and SD.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

79
Table 3.2. Multivariable Models for Mental Health
PTSD Depression Suicide Attempt
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Male 0.46* 0.25, 0.84 0.72 0.33, 1.56 0.76 0.35, 1.64
White 1.20 0.64, 2.27 1.02 0.43, 2.40 1.07 0.47, 2.47
Age 0.93 0.81, 1.07 1.07 0.89, 1.29 0.99 0.82, 1.19
Isolate 1.04 0.51, 2.14 0.66 0.21, 2.05 1.89 0.80, 4.48
Gang × gang 7.97*** 2.79, 22.73 2.90* 1.13, 7.45 2.23 0.80, 6.24
Gang × no gang 4.09** 1.55, 10.82 1.53 0.48, 4.90 2.87* 1.06, 7.76
N in final model 231.00 263.00 255.00
AIC 298.25 213.51 217.32
R
2
.18 .05 .05
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion, an indicator of model fit.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

80
Figure 3.1. Mental Health and Violence Rates for Gang Members and Nonmembers

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
81
Figure 3.2. Visualization of a Homeless Youth Social Network
Note. Yellow= gang member with gang tie; red= gang member without a gang tie; gray = nonmember.

82
Chapter 4: Intersection of Youth Homelessness and Gang Involvement
Background
Youth gang membership and youth homelessness are nationwide social issues.
Nationally, an estimated 1.4 million individuals are active gang members (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2011). In Los Angeles, often distinguished as the street gang capital of the United
States, an estimated 100,000 individuals are gang members and one half of all homicides are
reported to be gang related (Howell, 2015). Estimates of the number of homeless youth range
from 500,000 to 1.6 million on any given night (Ringwalt, Greene, Robertson, & McPheeters
1998; Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007). However, estimations should be taken as just that.
Obtaining accurate counts of these populations have immense challenges (K. D. Harris, 2010;
Rice, Winetrobe, & Rhoades, 2013) and therefore limitations (Petering, 2015). Yet despite these
challenges, it is undebatable that neither of these population is decreasing in size (Holland, 2017;
National Gang Center, n.d.), despite the long-term toll these issues take on our society. Until
recently, little discussion has focused on how these two populations intersect.
Youth gang membership has many negative consequences throughout the life course.
Membership is associated with increased HIV risk-taking behaviors (Browne et al., 2014;
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011), increased substance use (Cepeda et al., 2012; Knox &
Tromanhauser, 1999), and long-term mental health consequences (Corcoran, Washington, &
Meyers, 2005; Kelly, Anderson, Hall, Peden, & Cerel, 2012). Gang membership and close
affiliation with gang members have a very striking impact on individuals’ experience of PTSD
and increased rates of suicide ideation and attempts (Evans, Albers, Macari, & Mason, 1996).
This is most likely due to direct exposure to and fear of severe violence, including gun violence.
Beyond violence, death and homicide is an unfortunate reality in the lives of gang-involved
83
persons (Howell, 1998). Additionally, social consequences exist, including frequent interaction
with law enforcement and more extreme consequences when incriminated. Being labeled as a
gang member by law enforcement affects bail requests and pretrial releases and increases the
probability of conviction. It also results in tougher sentencing due to gang enhancement statutes,
which add 2 to 5 years to a sentence (Van Hofwegen, 2009). These consequences in turn
perpetuates social consequences, limiting access to employment and legal income generation.
Additionally, an overall social stigma is attached to gang membership. Society tends to label
gang members as criminals; they are viewed as morally deviant, extremely violent, and
potentially deadly, with little redeeming value for the community and society in general
(Petering, 2015). Gang involvement is also an issue that disproportionately affects young
individuals of color. One study reported that approximately half of all African American men
between the ages of 16 and 24 in Los Angeles were listed as gang members or affiliates in the
California Gang Database (Van Hofwegen, 2009). Further in 2010, law enforcement personnel
had entered more than 235,000 California residents into this database, more than two thirds of
whom were of Hispanic or African American descent (K. D. Harris et al., 2010).
Much of the research regarding youth gang involvement has focused on understanding
why an adolescent would become involved or the larger social systems that contribute to the
emergence of gangs in society. For example, social control theory posits that individuals become
involved in gangs as a result of not being tied to or associated with prosocial peers or
organizations. The lack of opportunities in society is a negative influence and can lead to
participation in gangs (Wiatrowski, Griswold, & Roberts, 1981). Social bond theory expands on
social control, suggesting that individuals become involved in criminal behavior when they do
not have proper connections to institutions and individual processes of conventional civilization
84
(Schroeder, 2015; Siegel, 2010). This theory includes considerations of attachment to family
friends and the community, commitment to the future or a career, and other conventional
prosocial behavior. Gang involvement can be explained by a person perceiving they have
nothing to lose by engaging in antisocial behavior. The most common feature of these theoretical
approaches is the community and environmental systemic failure. In fact, Thornberry, Krohn,
Lizotte, Smith, and Tobin’s (2003) interactional model of gang membership adopts a life course
perspective to identify various domains of risk factors related to youth joining a gang, including
community, family, school, peers, individual, and problem behaviors. When applying some of
this model to homeless youth, community violence was the single experience that distinguished
gang-involved from noninvolved homeless youth, further emphasizing the impact of
environment-level variables such as neighborhood and community of origin (Petering, 2016).
Associated negative behavioral and mental health outcomes remain consistent for gang-
involved homeless youth. In a sample of Chicago-based homeless African American boys, gang-
identifying youth had higher rates of negative mental and physical health outcomes compared to
noninvolved homeless youth, including higher levels of depression and anxiety, social and
violent behavior, and lifetime alcohol and marijuana use (Harper, Davidson, & Hosek, 2008).
Research has also indicated that gang-involved homeless young adults have unique experiences
compared to homeless young adults with no gang involvement, particularly when considering
early lifetime experiences. In a Midwest sample of homeless youth, individuals who identified as
gang members tended to be younger, have lower levels of parental monitoring and higher levels
of childhood physical abuse, and were more likely to have been suspended from school
compared to noninvolved homeless youth (Yoder, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2003).
85
However, there is still an overwhelming lack of understanding of how gang involvement
and youth homelessness intersect. The research presented here provides another lens to explicate
the established body of work. Despite quantitative inquires, many unanswered questions remain.
It is imperative to develop a broader, more holistic understanding of the experiences of this
subpopulation of homeless youth. Many things remain unknown about gang-involved homeless
youth, and the purpose of this study was to deepen the understanding of what it means to be gang
involved and homeless using a life course perspective. This research also attempted to
understand how varying levels of gang involvement can affect experiences. The current study
highlights important life experiences that are directly related to homelessness and gangs,
furthering our ability to provide the most inclusive and effective services to this population.
Methods
Recruitment and Procedures
During a 1-month time frame, 20 youth seeking services from a homeless youth drop-in
center in Los Angeles, CA, were recruited to participate in the study. The selected agency
provides weekday services to eligible homeless youth, including basic needs, medical and mental
health care, case management, and referrals and connections to other programs such as housing
services. A semi-purposive sampling method was used to identify individuals with some
experience of gang involvement. All youth who entered the service agency during the
recruitment period were invited to participate in a short eligibility screener survey that had direct
questions about gang membership or affiliation randomly dispersed among other questions on
topics such as foster care involvement, veteran status, and pregnancy history. Sampling methods
were used to produce heterogeneity in experiences by purposely recruiting individuals who
represented varying genders, races and ethnicities, and levels of gang involvement (i.e., member
86
or affiliate via a friend, family member, or romantic partner). Youth deemed eligible based on
the screener were asked if they would agree to participate in an hour-long interview to further
discuss issues of gang involvement. All participants were informed about their right of
confidentiality, informed consent, and the intended benefits of the study. Each participant
received a $20 gift card as compensation. All procedures were approved by the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board.
Instrument
The life history calendar (LHC) technique is a type of qualitative data collection method
that is designed to gather information about the timing and sequencing of life course events
(Freedman, Thornton, Camburn, Alwin, & Young-DeMarco, 1988The LHC typically uses a grid
format to graphically display the sequence and timing of life events corresponding with domains
or life trajectories of interest (Belli, 1998). The use of landmarks assists in creating time-specific
boundaries to frame other domains of interest (Caspi et al., 1996; D. A. Harris & Parisi,
2007).and ultimately, the instrument is used to help elicit info that is temporally grounded and
deemed to be more accurate than simply asking people to narrate their experiences.
The Life History Calendar for Homeless Youth (LHC-HY) provides a visual, interactive,
calendar-based assessment of experiences related to gang involvement anchored by contextual
cues from other life domains that are relevant to homeless youth. The LHC-HY was adapted
from an instrument used by Goldbach and Gibbs (2015) in a study related to adolescent sexual
minority stress. Based on findings from previous work with homeless youth, the researcher
developed an instrument and semistructured interview guide that would help anchor particularly
relevant temporal experiences. This approach encourages participants to use salient experiences
to reflect on significant moments in their life and how they might be related to gang involvement
87
and has also been used in populations that have experienced significant trauma (Harold,
Palmiter, & Lynch, 1995).
The LHC-HY was developed in an Excel worksheet (see figure 4.1), printed on a poster-
size paper, and laminated. Following the typical LHC protocol, the general format of the LHC-
HY interview followed this order: (a) explanation of the LHC, (b) labeling of the LHC, (c)
identification and recording of landmarks during the previous 10 years including family changes,
health issues, and school or work transitions, and (d) discussion of identified domains to gang
involvement. During the interview, participants were encouraged to draw, write, or take notes
related to their responses to the semistructured interview questions. The LHC-HY was organized
with years arranged along the top row, starting with the current year and dating back 10 years.
The principal investigator and a research assistant used private offices at the participating agency
to conduct the interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and a photograph of the completed
instrument was taken at the end of each interview. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hour.
Analysis
The recordings from the interview were transcribed verbatim. QSR NVivo (Bazeley &
Jackson, 2013) was used to analyze the data. Interview transcripts were coded based on a
grounded theory thematic analysis (Charmaz, 2006). The two authors that conducted all of the
interviews developed the codebook. During data collection, after conducting and transcribing six
interviews, these authors did initial coding (Charmaz, 2009) to identify key phrases and
concepts. This led to the interview script being adapted to further investigate new concepts that
arose, such as exposure to gun violence. After data collection ended, the authors open coded
three interviews separately, then discussed codes, resolved differences in coding, and agreed on
focused codes. Two more interviews were coded separately and differences in coding were
88
discussed and resolved. The code book included deductive themes that matched some of the
landmark domains included in research instrument (e.g. health, school and education,
relationships, system involvement, homelessness and housing, jobs/employment, gang
characteristics). Inductive codes were also created regarding concepts that emerged including
perceptions of gangs and gun violence. Next, half of the interviews were coded using focused
coding analysis by one researcher and the other half coded using focused coding by the other
researcher according to mutually agreed-upon codes. Coded material was reviewed to develop
larger themes. Four major themes were identified: multiplicity of paths to homelessness, gangs
provide, exposure and consequence of gun violence, and rejecting of gangs. Additionally, four
types of gang involvement were identified: ex-member, current member, affiliate and intimate
partner. Case study vignettes were developed to explore the major themes across the types of
involvement. using the following sources of data: verbatim transcripts and analysis of photos of
the completed LHC instrument after the interview was complete.
Results
The sample consisted of seven women and 13 men (see Table 4.1). Ages ranged from 19
to 25. Much of the sample identified as former gang members (n = 8); however, three youth were
currently involved in a gang. The remaining participants were closely affiliated with gangs via
their community, an intimate partner, or a biological sibling (Figure 4.1). Most the sample was
African American (53.8%), followed by Latino (23.1%), White (23.1%), and Native American
(5%; Figure 4.2). Individuals who chose to disclose the gangs with which they identified were
frequently connected to subsets of gangs that had a known, historical presence in Los Angeles,
such as the Latin Kings, MS-13, Bloods, or Crips.
89
Analyses in the qualitative data revealed several themes that were most relevant to the
intersection of youth homelessness and gang involvement. Cross case findings are presented that
that hold true across each level and case vignettes illustrate differences in themes across the
types of involvement levels.
Cross-Case Findings
Multiplicity of paths to homelessness. Many of the youth interviewed had their first
experience of homelessness in later adolescence. Reasons for homelessness were diverse. Each
participant had a unique story and trajectory of events that led to homelessness. However, two
recurring themes related to their first homeless experience were aging out or exiting a formal
system (e.g., child welfare, juvenile justice) or informal system such as the family. Many youth
explained that upon becoming an adult, their family members no longer supported them, which
included not allowing them to stay in the family home. Frequently, involvement in the juvenile
justice system and foster care system occurred together. One participant described how his
primary caretaker, his grandmother, did not want to take him back into her house after his release
from incarceration. This led to the participant being placed into the foster care system. In some
cases, the parents did not actively kick out an individual, but the individual viewed themself as a
burden to their parents, who may have had limited resources or other younger children for whom
to care. As a participant reached an adult age, they felt responsible for taking care of themself.
Other reasons for initial homelessness experience were consistent with previous research, family
conflict or disruption being a primary reason for experiences of homelessness.
Gangs provide. A theme that continuously came up was that gangs provide different
things to the participant. Some examples are intangible resources like a family, role models,
friendship, and protection. The following participant described how other gang members can
90
provide types of social support: “Not all gang members are bad. They give me words of wisdom
and encouragement, and knowledge.” Another participant described how a gang can provide a
sense of purpose and pride, like other formal institutions such as the military or a career. Being a
part of a gang can also generate respect from the community or peer groups. A participant
described why they joined after being exposed to other gang members in their childhood
neighborhood: “They get respect and like, they get like that trust and like honesty and like, you
know? So, I looked up to that. So, when I got older, that’s what I wanted.”
Gangs were frequently described as providing protection from real or perceived threats.
One participant described how being in a gang provided safety and protection in jail. Others
perceived gangs as being an informal institution that was responsible for protecting their
neighborhood. Participants also described gangs and gang members as providing tangible items
such as food, clothing, shelter, and money. In many cases, gangs were described as a selected
family that provides protection and a sense of community. Most participants became involved in
a gang not by active choice, but rather as a passive occurrence through exposure via mezzo-
system levels of family, friends, schools, or the community and several revealed that the only
reason they joined a gang was because they felt that they had no other supports.
Exposure and consequence of gun violence. Some type of violence was discussed
during every interview, and gun violence came up frequently. Witnessing death related to gang
violence was also very common. Much of the gang-related violence experienced had to do with
gang rivalries and retaliation. Exposure to guns and gun-related violence was commonplace if
the participant was a gang member. For participants who weren’t gang members but grew up in a
gang-occupied neighborhood, gun violence was also present: “I would hear gunshots. I wouldn’t
know they were shootings, like, only thing I would be witness to is an ambulance showing up,
91
things like that.” With guns came death. One participant described the death of a friend who was
mistaken as a gang member. Witnessing death by gun could be somewhat of a normal
occurrence. Participants were also victims of gun violence and exposure to guns created a sense
of hypervigilance.
Rejecting of gangs. Desisting from a gang was also somewhat of a passive experience.
Many participants seemed to experience a process of maturing or aging out of the gang. Over
time and after gaining experience, many came to reject the concept of a gang: ”Cause in reality, I
don’t care what anyone says, there is no positive thing in gang banging.” Many came to realize
that the perceived benefits of joining a gang were not true. Many participants said they entered a
gang to fulfill unmet needs, such as a family, then eventually realized that these are false
pretenses and that their presence in the gang is replaceable. The level of rejecting varied
according to how a participant was involved.
Case Vignettes
Case vignette 1: Current member. Brian is a 20-year-old African American man who
grew up in Virginia. His family and living situation were unstable throughout his childhood.
When Brian was 13, he had his first experience of homelessness after experiencing conflict with
his mother. “Some shit happen, yeah, with my mom, and then I left—got like, my first taste of
money and shit, so I was like, fuck going back home, I’m gonna get money.”
After this age, he frequently slept on friends’ couches or sometimes outside. He was first
exposed to gangs in Virginia at 9 years old when a friend living down the street told him he was
in a gang and that he had been shot in the back. He did not believe this friend until the friend
later invited him to his house and showed him his gun collection. For high school, he relocated to
Washington, DC, where gangs were prevalent in his school. He joined a gang and was exposed
92
to violence; he called Washington, DC, the “murder capital.” On his 18th birthday, he was
kicked out of father’s house. This led him to dropping out of school during 11th grade and
moving to Los Angeles, where he has been homeless or unstably housed ever since. He does not
use emergency shelters but will sleep in motels, in cars, or with friends, or will avoid sleep via
drug use. He joined a gang in Los Angeles after being “pressed” to join many different gangs
and perceiving he “didn’t have nobody.” He said he was motivated to join a gang in Los Angeles
for protection:
If you’re not hard, dude like, you could die out here, basically. This is Los Angeles, so
it’s like—I don’t know, like, if you have your friends, your homies or whatever, you have
a backup, you know.
Brian said he possessed a “I don’t give a fuck” attitude, stating, “If you gonna bang on
me, I will bang on you straight up and like, you feel me, that’s just what it is.” When asked about
his specific role in the gang, he responded: “Get money. That’s the role. Don’t fuck up shit, don’t
talk to the cops—I don’t talk to no cops, don’t stitch. That’s about it.” He frequently mentioned
how he liked money and was hoping to get enough of it so he could live a normal life:
P: I like money, I like money. Hopefully I could get enough of it and live a normal life.
I: What do you mean, live a normal life?
P: Like you, like your life, like I want, you know, like, I just want a normal life, dude,
like fuckin’ picket fence and shit. That’s what I want and that’s all I want, dude, is like a
family, dude, to be honest. Fuck this shit, I just want a family.
Case vignette 2: Former member. Andrew is a 21-year-old Latino man. At 2 years old,
he was adopted by his grandmother. At 6 years old, he was first exposed to gangs in his
neighborhood, and he was formally involved at 9 years old. Andrew describes being “born into
93
it” and feeling like he had no choice: “I grew up with that people, with those kind of people
around me, and if I would’ve questioned them, they would’ve fuckin’—I wouldn’t be here,
pretty much.”
Andrew was jumped by gang members in his neighborhood at 8 years old. He dropped
out of school in sixth grade. He was first incarcerated in the juvenile system at age 15 for petty
theft. After being released, his grandmother refused to take him back in, so he entered child
welfare placements. He has been involved in both systems ever since, cycling among short-term
juvenile incarceration (2–4 weeks), youth shelters, group homes, and other child welfare
placements. Andrew described being placed in a youth shelter in a neighborhood occupied by a
rival gang and purposely acting out to get moved to a new placement. When the new placement
was also located in a rival gang neighborhood, he chose to live on the street instead. Guns were
commonplace for Andrew. Andrew described having a gun to protect the neighborhood and how
the gun created a sense of purpose and an adrenaline rush:
So, I’m thinking like, damn—like that guy just shot at him got away with it. Imma grow
up and be—this is gonna be my neighborhood and Imma be that man, you know what I
mean? I seen it at a young age and all my family are from my neighborhood. I got family
from other neighborhoods, so they’re all—we grew up in the neighborhood. So, we’re
gonna have that alright. Nobody’s out tonight, alright I’m gonna stay out tonight. I got
my .45, I got whatever—whatever gun you have, OK. Imma patrol. Know what I mean?
It gives you that rush. Just it gives you that like, “This is my neighborhood, ain’t nobody
gonna come in here.
At 18, he was incarcerated in the adult prison system. His most recent sentence was for 2
years in a minimum-security prison. As an active gang member, Andrew feared getting killed in
94
prison after receiving his conviction and sentence. He decided to “go man down” and go on
suicide watch, purposely getting in trouble to be sent to solitary confinement, where he became
depressed and tried strangling himself. In prison, an older friend connected with him, telling
Andrew to not ruin what he has—his daughter, his relationship with his sister in Tennessee, and
his grandmother in the hospital. This conversation stuck with Andrew:
Once he asked me about my daughter—he’s like, “So, you got a daughter, homie. What
do you think?” And I was like, “Fuck, I do got a daughter.” So, I gotta get out, I gotta get
to my sister, I gotta get my shit straight. It’s gonna be hard. Because people are gonna hit
me up. I’m not active no more, I dropped out.
Two days before the interview, he was released from prison. He said his first instinct
when homeless is to rob someone because he has a “criminal mind.” However, since deciding to
reject the gang and criminal life, he spent the night walking the streets, forcing himself to stay
awake. He arrived at the drop-in center to get his life straight and find a place to sleep that night,
to find a youth emergency shelter.
This is only the beginning for me, know what I mean? I’m not gonna stop gang banging
for nothing, I’m not gonna change my life for no one. Why? Because no one has ever
changed their life for me, so what motivation do I have?
Case vignette 3: Close affiliate. Chris is a 25-year-old man born in Modesto, CA, who
began visiting the Long Beach area in seventh grade because that is where his grandparents
lived. Chris was first exposed to a gang at 9 years old in Long Beach via a friend’s older brother.
He has never personally identified as a member, but at age 11 he held a role in a gang, watching
out for the police while others sold drugs. He said that even though he was not a member, enemy
95
gang members would not be able to distinguish that fact, “So, I might as well have been in a
gang.” He was involved with the gang for 4 years, until he witnessed his friend’s brother die:
We were just hanging around the block and an enemy gang member came and we were
running and like, we went through an ally and they be shooting and I was in the front and
he was behind me and he was taller, so he got shot.
After that incident, Chris decided to get away from the gang life. At the same time, his
mother moved the family to Norwalk, CA, where they experienced unstable housing and moved
from “motel to motel.” At age 19, the family had a brief stint in an apartment. When they lost the
apartment, Chris became separated from his mother and ended up having his first experience of
literal homelessness. Chris has had unstable housing since then, sleeping inside buildings where
he worked custodial jobs, renting a room from a church, or living on the streets. At age 20, his
mother passed away, and this trauma led to an addiction to methamphetamine. Chris was arrested
for the first time at age 21 for possession. After he was released, he went to Skid Row and has
been homeless in Los Angeles ever since, sleeping on the streets or in emergency shelters. He
recently connected with services to help him become sober, earn his GED, access mental health
services, and find housing. His girlfriend is currently pregnant. Chris has stayed away from
gangs since the incident with his friend’s brother, but he still has friends in gangs. When Chris is
with these friends, he said he just “hangs out” and would not work for them.
Case vignette 4: Intimate partner. Diane is a 23-year-old Latina woman, born in Los
Angeles, who grew up in a heavily gang-involved neighborhood. When Diane was a child, her
father was arrested for molesting her older sister. Her sister ran away from home. Without her
sister or father, Diane was at home alone while her mother was working. This is when she met
the people in a neighborhood gang. At 13, Diane started dating a 16-year-old gang member. He
96
was arrested for gun possession and went to jail. After he got out, she heard he was dating other
girls, so she broke up with him and began dating another person who then joined the same gang
as her ex-boyfriend. She soon became pregnant. When she told her boyfriend, he told her he did
not want to have the baby because he was too young. Diane had an abortion at 14. “It’s like the
worst mistake I could’ve ever made ‘cause after that my life just wasn’t the same.” She remained
involved with the same partner on and off for many years, and disclosed that he physically
abused her. Diane spent most of her life in close affiliation with gang members. She identifies
with one particular gang from her neighborhood, and said she was frequently pressured to
formally join. When asked why she never joined, she stated:
Because when I was 13, my ex-boyfriend was playing Russian roulette and he shot
himself in the head and he died. That was my first boyfriend ever. Like ever ever, and so
it really hurt me, like I cried, and I was crying and like, it like, hurt my heart for the first
time. I heard that his friends dumped his body in an alley.
Diane started smoking marijuana at age 16 and was introduced to crystal meth soon after.
She became a heavy user and ran away from her house for 2 weeks. Her mother called the police
and attempted to send her to rehab, but they could not afford it. At 17, she took responsibility for
a crime her ex-boyfriend committed because she didn’t want him to go to jail. She was arrested
and sent to 6 months of juvenile camp, at which point she dropped out of high school. After
being released, Diane joined Narcotics Anonymous. She remained clean until age 18, when her
mother was arrested and deported to her country of origin. Her younger siblings were separated
and sent to live with their grandparents and biological father, but Diane stayed at her mother’s
apartment alone. After relapsing, she abandoned her house and her job. Diane said 2 weeks could
pass without her sleeping or eating. During this period, she would cycle between staying with her
97
grandmother, at her ex-boyfriend’s family’s house, at a local church, in hospitals or convalescent
homes, or on the street. Diane has been experiencing homelessness since she was 18. In 2014,
she was dating a man and they decided to get HIV tests together. At the same time, she decided
to get a pregnancy test and found out she was 5 months pregnant, which motivated her to get
sober. After her daughter was born, she got her own apartment through her sister-in law in Long
Beach. She currently lives there with her boyfriend, who is not gang involved.
Discussion
The current study used a qualitative exploratory approach to gain insight into the unique
experiences of homeless youth with gang involvement. Research in this area has been severely
lacking. This study specifically used the LHC approach as a tool for gaining this insight.
Considering the lack of qualitative research in this area, the emerging themes were broad yet
attempted to highlight unique aspects of the intersection of these two issues.
This research on the intersection of gangs and homelessness brings to light different
pathways to homelessness. Results of this study show that most gang-involved youth first
experienced homelessness after they had become gang involved. If that was not the case, it
appeared that initial homelessness experiences and gang involvement co-occurred. However,
almost no individuals in this study reported that their gang involvement directly caused their
homelessness. Overall, results indicate that a deeper understanding of the causes of youth
homelessness is needed. In more recent years, homelessness has been considered a
multidimensional experience (Frederick, Chwalek, Hughes, Karabanow, & Kidd, 2014) and that
housing status exists on a spectrum. It is no longer binary, i.e., homeless versus housed. Results
from this study confirm this concept, particularly as exemplified by the case vignettes. Many
young individuals fluctuated among many different housing situations, such as staying on a
98
friend’s couch, sleeping at places of work, living with a partner or a partner’s family, and using
shelters, youth and adult housing programs, and institutions. As this broader understanding of the
issue of youth homelessness expands, so does its reach in affecting individual lives. Moving
away from a binary definition of homelessness certainly can drastically change the estimates of
youth homelessness. However, the growing estimates are also the result of larger shifts in social
and political landscapes. It is necessary for researchers to move beyond dated and oversimplified
typologies of runaway and throwaway youth (Toro et al., 2007).
On the opposite side of the spectrum, gang involvement never appeared to be the direct
cause of homelessness, and being a member of a gang or closely affiliated often supported
individuals in various ways, including obtaining housing. Types of support came in both tangible
and intangible forms. Gangs seemed to provide similar types of support that may be missing in
the young person’s life, such as support from family members, positive role models, or
community organizations. It appeared that in many cases, participants described gangs as
providing informal community-type support services, including such things like shelter, food,
and monetary support. Sonterblum (2017) applied Maslow’s (1943) theory on the hierarchy of
needs to gang involvement, focusing on a segment of the theory that states that fulfilling basic
needs drive nearly all motivation. If basic needs are not met, an individual is motivated to fulfill
them by any means necessary, regardless of consequence. Individuals whose basic needs are not
met by their social networks or community environment may seek out gang membership to fulfill
them (Sonterblum, 2017). Results from this study indicate that gang involvement can be a means
to satisfy basic needs, including safety and feelings of belongingness.
These findings have many implications for policy and practice, especially on a larger
systemic level. Gangs not only provided support for individuals, they were reported to support
99
the broader communities in which they were nested. Often gangs were referred to as a
“community watch” or even a workforce. Gangs have frequently been documented as an
economic entity in low-income communities (Venkatesh & Levitt, 2000). Gangs emerge in
communities that are often lacking supportive services or have limited services. As an informal
institution, a gang can provide 24-hour support that also may be more culturally appropriate than
formal institutions. Gangs may also have access to more resources than community
organizations, which are often understaffed and underfunded. For service providers, particularly
those that serve homeless youth, it may or may not be surprising that gangs are in some ways
competing organizations, providing youth with subsistent services among other things. The
presence of gangs because of community dysfunction is not a new finding. To fully understand
the impact of modern American street gangs, it is imperative to know that they emerged from
racist and exclusionary policies predating World War II (Howell, 1998, 2015; Huff, 1989, 1996).
Gangs and homelessness have evolved as a result of historical factors, racism, social repression,
persistent poverty, and the denial of social mobility. Myths about gang membership tend to be
focused on the idea of individual choice. Large-scale macro forces stemming from
institutionalized racism and a failing economic system, as well as micro-level sociocultural
forces, work together to leave youth growing up in a gang-controlled neighborhood with little
choice but to join a gang. The current study supports this idea and introduces the concept that
homelessness co-occurring with gang involvement is another consequence of social community-
level disorganization in the United States.
However, despite what a gang provides to both an individual and a community, violence
and death is inescapable in this lifestyle. It is known that homeless youth are disproportionally
affected by interpersonal violence as the product of multiple contributing factors, including
100
traumatic childhood experiences, subsistence survival strategies, and exposure to perpetrators
during street tenure (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001; Heerde, Hemphill, & Scholes-
Balog, 2014; Petering, Rice, & Rhoades, 2016). However, to date, very little is known about
homeless youth’s exposure to and involvement in gun violence. This finding was overwhelming.
Even participants who were most distantly involved in a gang, via living in a gang-involved
neighborhood, reported frequently hearing gunshots and ambulances. The current study could
not determine the exact physical and psychological impact this had on participants, but research
consistently has shown that there are short- and long-term negative consequences. Exposure to
violence is closely related to trauma symptoms, including depression, anger, anxiety,
dissociation, sleep distortion, and PTSD among adolescents (Singer, Anglin, Song, & Lunghofer,
1995). This consequence of gangs appeared to outweigh the positives, because most participants
involved rejected the notions of gangs. Many came to the realization that a gang did not actually
care for the individual, and that members, particularly young members, were replaceable.
There are several limitations to consider. Collecting this type of data is difficult. Youth
experiencing homelessness maintain a distrust for authority. Developmentally, young adults
generally distance themselves from the influence of parents and formal educators (Erikson,
1968). Individuals experiencing homelessness, for whom family and school connections are
often strained, might have heightened distrust of formal adult service providers (Hudson et al.,
2010; Kurtz, Lindsey, Jarvis, & Nackerud, 2000). Engaging young adults experiencing
homelessness in research is frequently dependent on building rapport and trust over time. When
adding gang involvement on top of these factors, these difficulties are amplified. Gangs have a
culture of “snitches get stitches,” and discussing gang involvement can be a life-or-death
decision. One participant shared a perspective that describes this motivation for distrust:
101
My way of thinkin’ is like, “Damn, fuckin’ recording right in front of me, there’s a phone
right in front of me. And you’re asking me these questions like what the eff—What’d I
get myself into? If you were in my shoes, you just got out of prison and then and then
like, they tell you, “OK, I’m gonna put a camcorder right here and a phone right here.
Now I’m ask you some personal questions.” ‘Cause this the way I see it. A stranger just
comes up to me right and asks me those questions that you asked me with a camcorder—
what the fuck, I just got out of prison. Holy shit, like, get that away from me. … So, I’m
thinkin’ like, “What the fuck, she setting me up?” ‘Cause that’s what I grew up thinking.
Despite limitations in these data, they have several implications for future research.
Understanding of gang involvement and homelessness is needed from a national perspective.
The current study and much of the previous research was done in the context of Los Angeles.
Again, Los Angeles is known for its struggle with gang violence; however, gangs are a national
issue. Gangs and youth homelessness are present in urban and rural communities experiencing
poverty and other environmental stressors. Expanding our understanding hinges on the ability to
conduct similar research nationally. The current qualitative data can inform future quantitative
inquires on gang involvement. Studies on gang involvement and youth homelessness need to
consider the level and trajectory of involvement. Although previous research has shown that
active gang members close affiliates are at higher risk of negative outcomes than noninvolved
homeless youth, the current results show how experiences may differ based on these factors.
Quantitative studies should attempt to gather data on this spectrum of involvement to infer more
specifically how involvement is related to different experiences, including mental and physical
health. Last, when considering youth homelessness, the most important question is determining
how this research informs solutions to housing interventions. The current data did not explore the
102
potential impact of gang involvement on accessing housing resources. Any future research on
this intersection should prioritize this line of inquiry.
Overall, this research highlights how continuing to think about these two social issues,
gangs and homelessness, separately will only stymie any progress to be made in reducing their
impact. Service and policy approaches can no longer be pursued in a single domain. When
considering youth homelessness specifically, results suggest that no single cause leads to
homelessness. Service providers, government programs, and social science theorists so
frequently look for a cause and effect to provide comfort in understanding. The case vignettes
illuminate that there is rarely one singular moment in a young person’s life that causes
homelessness. Rather, it is multiple overlapping experiences. These case vignettes show that a
youth’s trajectory is messy and that other intersections of social issues such as sexual orientation,
foster care experience, race, and juvenile justice involvement interact to affect an individual’s
experience. There is an imminent need to shift to a holistic approach when thinking of solutions
to end homelessness. If we move from thinking about individual issues, such as a homeless
problem or a gang problem, toward thinking about the broader community issue or the system-
induced epidemic, then perhaps solutions to youth homelessness are in closer reach.

103
References
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with Nvivo (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Belli, R. F. (1998). The structure of autobiographical memory and the event history calendar:
Potential improvements in the quality of retrospective reports in surveys. Memory, 6,
383–406. doi:10.1080/741942610
Browne, F. A., Wechsberg, W. M., White, V. M., Middlesteadt Ellerson, R., Raiford, J. L.,
Carry, M. G., & Herbst, J. H. (2014). The influence of social determinants on sexual risk
among out-of-school African American female adolescents. Vulnerable Children and
Youth Studies, 9, 139–150. doi:10.1080/17450128.2013.832828
Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Exposure to violence:
Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298–310.
doi:10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.298
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Thornton, A., Freedman, D., Amell, J. W., Harrington, H., … Silva, P.
A. (1996). The life history calendar: A research and clinical assessment method for
collecting retrospective event-history data. International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research, 6, 101–114.
Cepeda, A., Kaplan, C., Neaigus, A., Cano, M. Á., Villarreal, Y., & Valdez, A. (2012). Injecting
transition risk and depression among Mexican American non-injecting heroin users. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 125, S12–S17. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.05.035
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Corcoran, K., Washington, A., & Meyers, N. (2005). The impact of gang membership on mental
health symptoms, behavior problems and antisocial criminality of incarcerated youth
104
men. Journal of Gang Research, 12(4), 25–35. Retrieved from
http://www.ngcrc.com/journalofgangresearch/jour.v12n4.corcoran.fin.pdf
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Evans, W., Albers, E., Macari, D., & Mason, A. (1996). Suicide ideation, attempts and abuse
among incarcerated gang and nongang delinquents. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 13, 115–126. doi:10.1007/BF01876641
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). 2011 national gang threat assessment: Emerging
trends. Washington, DC: National Gang Intelligence Center.
Frederick, T. J., Chwalek, M., Hughes, J., Karabanow, J., & Kidd, S. (2014). How stable is
stable? Defining and measuring housing stability. Journal of Community Psychology, 42,
964–979. doi:10.1002/jcop.21665
Freedman, D., Thornton, A., Camburn, D., Alwin, D., & Young-DeMarco, L. (1988). The life
history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociological
Methodology, 18, 37–68. doi:10.2307/271044
Goldbach, J. T., & Gibbs, J. (2015). Strategies employed by sexual minority adolescents to cope
with minority stress. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 297–
306. doi:10.1037/sgd0000124
Harold, R. D., Palmiter, M. L., Lynch, S. A., & Freedman-Doan, C. R. (1995). Life stories: A
practice-based research technique. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 22(2), 23–44.
Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol22/iss2/3
Harper, G. W., Davidson, J., & Hosek, S. G. (2008). Influence of gang membership on negative
affect, substance use, and antisocial behavior among homeless African American male
youth. American Journal of Men’s Health, 2, 229–243. doi:10.1177/1557988307312555
105
Harris, D. A., & Parisi, D. M. (2007). Adapting life history calendars for qualitative research on
welfare transitions. Field Methods, 19, 40–58. doi:10.1177/1525822X06292707
Harris, K. D. (2010). Organized crime in California: 2010 annual report to the legislature.
Retrieved from http://ag.ca.gov/publications/org_crime2010.pdf
Heerde, J. A., Hemphill, S. A., & Scholes-Balog, K. E. (2014). “Fighting” for survival: A
systematic review of physically violent behavior perpetrated and experienced by
homeless young people. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 50–66.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2013.12.002
Holland, G. (2017, June 1). Youth homelessness surges in L.A. ‘Why are you out here?’ ‘My
mom is a really bad mom.’ Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-youth-201700601-story.html
Howell, J. C. (1998). Youth gangs: An overview. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/167249.pdf
Howell, J. C. (2015). The history of street gangs in the United States: Their origins and
transformations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Hudson, A. L., Wright, K., Bhattacharya, D., Sinha, K., Nyamathi, A., & Marfisee, M. (2010).
Correlates of adult assault among homeless women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor
and Underserved, 21, 1250–1262. doi:10.1353/hpu.2010.0931
Huff, C. R. (1989). Youth gangs and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 524–537.
doi:10.1177/0011128789035004001
Huff, C. R. (Ed.). (1996). Gangs in America (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelly, S., Anderson, D., Hall, L., Peden, A., & Cerel, J. (2012). The effects of exposure to gang
violence on adolescent boys’ mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33, 80–88.
106
doi:10.3109/01612840.2011.623217
Knox, G. W., & Tromanhauser, E. D. (1999). Juvenile gang members: A public health
perspective. Journal of Gang Research, 6, 49–60.
Kurtz, D. P., Lindsey, E. W., Jarvis, S., & Nackerud, L. (2000). How runaway and homeless
youth navigate troubled waters: The role of formal and informal helpers. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17, 381–402. doi:10.1023/A:1007507131236
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
doi:10.1037/h0054346
National Gang Center. (n.d.). Measuring the extent of gang problems: Estimated number of
gangs. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-
the-extent-of-gang-problems
Petering, R. (2015). The potential costs of police databases: Exploring the performance of
California’s gang database (CalGang). Journal of Forensic Social Work, 5, 67–81.
doi:10.1080/1936928X.2015.1109399
Petering, R. (2016, June 1). A path model to understand the predictors of gang-involvement for
homeless youth. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for
Prevention Research, San Francisco, CA.
Petering, R., Rice, E., & Rhoades, H. (2016). Violence in the social networks of homeless
youths: Implications for network-based prevention programming. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 31, 582–605. doi:10.1177/0743558415600073
Rice, E., Winetrobe, H., & Rhoades, H. (2013). Hollywood Homeless Youth Point-in-Time
Estimate Project: An innovative method for enumerating unaccompanied homeless youth.
Retrieved from http://hhyp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HHYP_Point-in-
107
Time_Brief_5.pdf
Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., & Robertson, M. J. (1998). Familial backgrounds and risk
behaviors of youth with thrownaway experiences. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 241–252.
doi:10.1006/jado.1998.0150
Schroeder, R. D. (2015). Social bond theory. In W. G. Jennings (Ed.), The encyclopedia of crime
and punishment (Vol. 3, pp. 1169–1175). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Siegel, L. J. (2010). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies (10th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, L. Y., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). Adolescents’ exposure to
violence and associated symptoms of psychological trauma. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 273, 477–482. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520300051036
Sonterblum, L. (2017). Gang involvement as a means to satisfy basic needs. Retrieved from New
York University website:
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/opus/issues/2016/spring/sonterblum
Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and
delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. J. (2007, March). Homeless youth in the united states:
Recent research findings and intervention approaches. Paper presented at the National
Symposium on Homelessness Research, Washington, DC.
Van Hofwegen, S. L. (2009). Unjust and ineffective: A critical look at California’s STEP Act.
Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 18, 679–702. Retrieved from
http://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/18-3 Van Hofwegen.pdf
108
Venkatesh, S. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2000). “Are we a family or a business?” History and
disjuncture in the urban American street gang. Theory and Society, 29, 427–462.
doi:10.1023/A:1007151703198
Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social control theory and
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 46, 525–541. doi:10.2307/2094936
Yoder, K. A, Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2003). Gang involvement and membership among
homeless and runaway youth. Youth & Society, 34, 441–467.
doi:10.1177/0044118X03034004003

109
Table 4.1. Characteristics of Study Participants
Participant Race Gender Age Level of Involvement
1 Black F 23 Affiliated intimate partner
2 Black M 19 Ex-member
3 Latino M 20 Affiliated family
4 White M 23 Ex-member
5 Black F 23 Affiliated neighborhood
6 White F 22 Affiliated intimate partner
7 Native American M 21 Ex-member
8 Black M 18 Current member
9 Black F 22 Affiliated sibling
10 Latino F 23 Affiliated intimate partner
11 White M 25 Affiliated friends
12 Black M 23 Ex-member
13 Black M 22 Ex-member
14 Latino F 23 Ex-member, affiliated intimate partner
15 Latino M 21 Ex-member
16 Black M 21 Ex-member
17 Black M 24 Ex-member
18 White F 22 Ex- or current member
19 White M 23 Affiliated family
20 Black M 22 Affiliated friends

110
Figure 4.1. Life History Calendar Instrument

ID #___________ Age Gender Site
Calendar Year 2005 and Before
Semester Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall Sum Spring
Age
Year in School
LANDMARKS
GANG INVOLVEMENT
What does a 'gang' mean to
you?
Personal Level of
Involvement
Race/Ethnicity
ID #___________
Neighborhood/territory
Expression
Activities
Violence
School
RELATIONSHIPS
Family
Friends
Intimate Partners
2009 2008 2007 2006 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Family Changes/Health /
pregnant or parenting
School/ Work
Living Situation
Experiences with
Homelessness or Housing
Instability
ID #___________
ID #___________
Fostercare/Child Protective
Services
Juvineile/ Criminal Justice
111
Figure 4.2. Case Vignette 1

112
Figure 4.3. Case Vignette 2

113
Figure 4.4. Case Vignette 3

114
Figure 4.5. Case Vignette 4

115
Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, and Future Directions
The goal of this dissertation was to elucidate the intersection of youth homelessness and
gang involvement. Before this dissertation, empirical research was very limited (Harper,
Davidson, & Hosek, 2008; Yoder, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2003) regarding gang-involved homeless
youth. Considering the lack of previous knowledge, this dissertation provided both a depth and
breadth of understanding in relation to risk factors, social connections, and life course
trajectories. Results of this dissertation advanced knowledge in not only the field of youth
homelessness and gangs, but also the broader field of prevention for disenfranchised youth and
young adult populations.
The mixed-methods approach of this dissertation was critical in providing a
comprehensive understanding of the unique population of gang-involved homeless youth.
Several major findings were unveiled in the three main chapters. First, Chapter 2 revealed that
the rate of gang involvement (17%) exceeded previously recorded rates (15%; Yoder et al.,
2003) in one of the largest samples of homeless youth to date. Additionally, the rate of affiliation
was staggering, at 46%. In fact, in this sample, individuals who were never involved with a gang
were in the minority. As hypothesized, having gang involvement increased the risk of several
negative outcomes compared to noninvolved participants with regard to drug use, negative
mental health outcomes, and engagement in violence. Gang-involved youth were also more
likely to have experiences of childhood trauma compared to noninvolved homeless youth.
Additionally, the findings in this chapter are distinct from previous research because they
considered not only individuals who had ever identified as gang member, but also those with at
least one tie to a gang member, either through family, friends, or a romantic partner. Results
indicated that gang affiliation was similarly related to the risks associated with being directly
116
involved. The only distinction was that gang members were more likely to have experienced
childhood physical abuse and had greater risk of suicide attempts and intimate partner violence.
This possibly could be an indication of the intergenerational transmission of violence childhood,
which has been linked to physical abuse and later-life partner violence. The increased risk of
suicide attempts despite no increase in risk of suicidal ideation suggests that gang members may
lack the coping skills, social support, or other protective factors that may aid in preventing
suicidal thoughts from escalating to suicide attempts.
Chapter 3 further explored the relationship between gang membership and the increased
risk of negative mental health outcomes found in Chapter 2 using a social network perspective.
When considering the role of like ties in the homeless youth social network, results showed
having a direct tie to another gang member could amplify these risks. Gang members who had a
like tie in the network, i.e., were directly connected to another gang member, had higher rates of
depression than homeless youth with no tie to a gang member. However, gang members with a
direct tie to another homeless youth in the network but no like ties were at increased risk of
suicide attempt. Consistent with Chapter 2, homeless youth gang members had much higher rates
of partner violence, violent victimization, and injuries related to violence than nonmembers,
regardless of network connections.
Qualitative findings in Chapter 4 provide some context for these results. Violence was
overwhelmingly present during every stage of life for both gang members and those closely
affiliated with gangs. Most participants interviewed had been involved in the child welfare
system. Many disclosed witnessing violence in their household. Almost every participant was
directly or indirectly exposed to violence in their school and community. In the case vignettes,
Diane, who had relationships with several actively involved gang members, was a victim of
117
violence in the context of these relationships. Andrew, a former gang member socially isolated
from other gang members, disclosed his attempt to commit suicide because of both the fear of
getting killed by rival members and his own severe depression. He expressed that he wanted to
leave the gang yet felt that he had few options, so he attempted to take his own life.
The finding of the close connection between violent experiences and gang membership is
not in novel. However, qualitative findings painted a picture of the constellation of violence.
Participants were exposed to and experienced multiple types of violence at every stage of their
life course. Quantitative findings confirmed that violence, and the associated trauma, affected
gang members and those connected to them. Additionally, quantitative findings showed that the
experience of gang involvement magnified risks of negative outcomes in a population already at
elevated risk of many negative outcomes, even when considering varying levels of connection
and involvement (e.g., former or current gang member).
One of the most concerning findings of this dissertation is the overwhelming experience
of gun violence revealed in Chapter 4. Very little attention has been given to understanding
homeless youth’s exposure and experience to this type of violent victimization. Most research
has solely focused on physical victimization or witnessing community violence (Baron, 2003;
Gaetz, 2005; Heerde, Hemphill, & Scholes-Balog, 2014; Kipke, Simon, Montgomery, Unger, &
Iversen, 1997). Each participant was directly asked, “When was the first time you saw a gun?”
One individual responded, “At 6 years old, when I was given one.” They were also asked, “Was
there ever any gun violence in your school?” Many shrugged and said, “All the time.” Most told
stories of hearing gunshots in their neighborhood. Several participants witnessed friends and
family members being shot. When asked these questions, one participant responded by lifting
their shirt to display a bullet wound. They reported these stories with the tone, cadence, and
118
emotion that would be expected when reporting mundane daily occurrences. Results from this
dissertation confirmed that American youth living in underprivileged neighborhoods, and
disproportionately youth of color, are exposed to gun violence at rates far too high at ages far too
young. This includes youth who experience homelessness.
This dissertation had certain limitations. First, all quantitative data were cross-sectional,
so causality of significant associations could not be determined. All data, both quantitative and
qualitative, were also derived from a sample of drop-in-service-seeking, Los Angeles-based
homeless youth. Caution should be used when generalizing findings to homeless youth samples
in other geographic areas. It is also possible that the findings are not generalizable to other types
of homeless youths, including sheltered individuals or youth not accessing services.
Additionally, quantitative data relied on self-report from youth; it is possible that gang
membership was underreported or overreported. However, previous research relying on these
self-report measures has supported their validity (Curry, Decker, & Egley, 2002; Esbensen &
Carson, 2012; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003).
In spite of limitations, this dissertation indicated several directions for future research.
First, further exploration of the role of networks is needed. This dissertation used sociometric
network data to examine connections within a network of homeless youth. Future research
should examine the egocentric (personal) networks of homeless gang members and affiliates
regarding their mental health and overall welfare. Many of the quantitative and qualitative
measurements included in this dissertation beyond self-report of involvement have not been
previously used. Future research should validate these measures. Results from the qualitative
portion of this dissertation can guide future measure development. Considering rates of gang
involvement and their relationship to outcomes, future studies of youth experiencing
119
homelessness or housing instability should prioritize assessing for gang involvement. This study
examined gang involvement in a sample of youth experiencing homelessness. Research that
considers the impact of homelessness and housing instability in a sample of gang members and
affiliates is also needed. This dissertation also used data from the geographic context of Los
Angeles, which is widely known for its struggle with both homelessness and gangs. Future
studies should explore the intersection of these two issues in different geographical contexts.
Implications for policy and practice are vast. Primarily, it is essential that practitioners,
providers, and policy makers think about these issues as overlapping rather than separate.
Service providers working with youth could screen for a history of gang membership during
intake for homeless youth services, provide trauma-informed mental health services that consider
gang histories, or develop specialized housing considerations for youth with histories of gang
involvement. However, it is extremely important that any services or polices that are
implemented are culturally appropriate, trauma informed, and forensically sensitive. Many gang-
related interventions have been punitive rather than rehabilitative and may be contribute to
further criminalization (Kernan, 2003; Petering, 2015; Van Hofwegen, 2009). Network-based
interventions that consider gang-involved homeless youth could also be of value, specifically
those designed to foster positive, prosocial relationships in and outside of a homeless youth
network.
This dissertation also highlighted the complexity of youth homelessness. The pathway to
youth homelessness is not a straight path with a distinguishable cause and effect. Social issues
and experiences overlap. This dissertation focused on gang involvement, but examination of
other experiences such as sexual orientation, gender identity, foster care, race and ethnicity, and
juvenile justice would likely generate similar findings in terms of intersectionality. Because of
120
this intersectionality, there will never be a clear and simple solution to end youth homelessness.
A holistic approach to program and policy development is needed to end youth homelessness.
Youth homelessness, and its affiliated experiences, represents a broad community issue, and our
solutions, including future research, should reflect that.

121
References
Baron, S. W. (2003). Street youth violence and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4, 22–
44. doi:10.1177/1524838002238944
Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A., Jr. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency in a
middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275–292.
doi:10.1080/07418820200095241
Esbensen, F.-A., & Carson, D. C. (2012). Who are the gangsters? An examination of the age,
race/ethnicity, sex, and immigration status of self-reported gang members in a seven-city
study of American youth. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28, 465–481.
doi:10.1177/1043986212458192
Gaetz, S. (2004). Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social exclusion, and criminal
victimization. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 423–455.
doi:10.3138/cjccj.46.4.423
Harper, G. W., Davidson, J., & Hosek, S. G. (2008). Influence of gang membership on negative
affect, substance use, and antisocial behavior among homeless African American male
youth. American Journal of Men’s Health, 2, 229–243. doi:10.1177/1557988307312555
Heerde, J. A., Hemphill, S. A., & Scholes-Balog, K. E. (2014). “Fighting” for survival: A
systematic review of physically violent behavior perpetrated and experienced by
homeless young people. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 50–66.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2013.12.002
Kernan, H. (2003, April 19). California gang database attracts criticism. NPR. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1237702
122
Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R., Montgomery, S. B., Unger, J. B., & Iversen, E. F. (1997). Homeless
youth and their exposure to and involvement in violence while living on the streets.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 360–367. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00037-2
Petering, R. (2015). The potential costs of police databases: Exploring the performance of
California’s gang database (CalGang). Journal of Forensic Social Work, 5, 67–81.
doi:10.1080/1936928X.2015.1109399
Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and
delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Van Hofwegen, S. L. (2009). Unjust and ineffective: A critical look at California’s STEP Act.
Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 18, 679–701. Retrieved from
http://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/18-3 Van Hofwegen.pdf
Yoder, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2003). Gang involvement and membership among
homeless and runaway youth. Youth & Society, 34, 441–467.
doi:10.1177/0044118X03034004003

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation consists of three independent studies presented across three chapters. The main purpose of this dissertation is to forge a new line of research that builds on the limited understanding of the intersection of gangs and homelessness. Given the seeming lack of understanding on this subject, the entire study involved an exploratory approach. The specific aims of this dissertation were to examine: (a) how gang-involved homeless youth are different than noninvolved homeless youth in terms of risk behaviors and childhood experiences

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Social network norms and HIV risk behaviors among homeless youth in Los Angeles, California

PDF

Social network engagement and HIV risk among homeless former foster youth

PDF

An ecological mixed-methods analysis of homeless students’ school experience at the state, district, and school levels

PDF

Couch-surfing among youth experiencing homelessness: an examination of HIV risk

PDF

Tobacco use change among formerly homeless supportive housing residents: socioecological barriers and facilitators to cessation

PDF

Women’s stories of reproductive life in rural California: a qualitative study

PDF

Engaging homeless men and shelter providers to adapt an existing evidence-based HIV prevention intervention

PDF

Main, moderating, and mediating effects of social network compositions on suicidal ideation among North Korean refugees in South Korea

PDF

Homelessness and substance use treatment: using multiple methods to understand risks, consequences, and unmet treatment needs among young adults

PDF

Understanding emotional regulation and mood of young adults in the context of homelessness using geographic ecological momentary assessment

PDF

A closer look at intention to use condoms and risky sexual behaviors among homeless people: application of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior

PDF

Suicide talk as a vital sign: a theory-informed examination of individual and relational factors that influence suicidal disclosure

PDF

Discrimination at the margins: perceived discrimination and the role of social support in mental health service use for youth experiencing homelessness

PDF

The algorithm of Black homelessness: a classification tree analysis

PDF

Examining parental involvement at the elementary-level: the Chamoru perspective

PDF

School staff perceptions of school climate: a mixed-methods multistudy examination of staff school climate at the state, regional, and school levels

PDF

Increasing access to mental health counseling for homeless youth: Peer2Peer Counseling Supports

PDF

Homeless youth: Reaching the Hard-To-Reach

PDF

Forming relationships: investigating social capital in a low socio-economic school music program

PDF

A study of Chinese environmental NGOs: policy advocacy, managerial networking, and leadership succession

Asset Metadata

Creator Petering, Robin P. (author)

Core Title Youth homelessness and gang involvement: ties, trajectories, and timelines

School School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 11/15/2017

Defense Date 09/26/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Gangs,Homelessness,OAI-PMH Harvest,qualitative research,social networks,Young adults

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rice, Eric (committee chair), Esparza, Nicole (committee member), Wenzel, Suzanne (committee member)

Creator Email petering@gmail.com,robinpring@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-456358

Unique identifier UC11267124

Identifier etd-PeteringRo-5917.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-456358 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PeteringRo-5917.pdf

Dmrecord 456358

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Petering, Robin P.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA