Jobs, not jail: Homeboy Industries, a radical approach to redirecting adolescents away from the criminal justice system

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content JOBS, NOT JAIL 1

JOBS, NOT JAIL:
HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES, A RADICAL APPROACH
TO REDIRECTING ADOLESCENTS
AWAY FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

by

Sofía Elizabeth Moreno

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2020

JOBS, NOT JAIL 2

“L.A. gang members need jobs, not jail.”
—Father Gregory Boyle (1995)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 3
Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 11
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................................... 11
Statement of Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 14
Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 14
Theoretical Orientation: Catholic Social Justice ................................................................................... 15
The Dignity of Human Life ............................................................................................................ 15
The Unity of the Human Family ..................................................................................................... 15
Care for Mother Earth ..................................................................................................................... 16
Marriage and Family as the Central Social Institutions .................................................................. 16
Compassion for the Poor and Vulnerable ....................................................................................... 16
Protection of Human Rights ............................................................................................................ 17
The Dignity of Work ....................................................................................................................... 17
Research Questions ............................................................................................................................... 17
Research Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 18
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................................... 18
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 19

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 21
Juvenile Delinquency ............................................................................................................................ 21
A Juvenile Delinquent Trapped in a Gang ...................................................................................... 21
Juvenile Delinquency as a Global Problem .................................................................................... 22
Juvenile Delinquency as a U.S. Problem ........................................................................................ 23
Delinquency as a Los Angeles Problem: A History of Gangs in the County ................................. 25
The First Wave of Gang Growth in Los Angeles ..................................................................... 26
The Second Wave of Gang Growth in Los Angeles ................................................................ 28
The Third Wave of Gang Growth in Los Angeles ................................................................... 29
The Punishment Paradigm ..................................................................................................................... 30
Arguments for Punishment ............................................................................................................. 30
Arguments Against Punishment ..................................................................................................... 35
The Rehabilitation Paradigm ................................................................................................................. 36
Arguments Against Rehabilitation .................................................................................................. 36
Arguments for Rehabilitation ......................................................................................................... 38
Homeboy Industries’ Theory of Rehabilitation .............................................................................. 40
From Theory to Practice: Homeboy Industries’ Gang-Intervention Program ................................ 42
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 44

JOBS, NOT JAIL 4

Chapter 3: Methods ................................................................................................................................... 47
Study Design ......................................................................................................................................... 47
Study Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 47
Homeboy Industries’ Location Over Time ..................................................................................... 47
The Location for the Surveys and Interviews ................................................................................. 49
Participants ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Instruments ............................................................................................................................................ 51
The Recruitment Flyer .................................................................................................................... 51
The Informed Consent Form ........................................................................................................... 52
The Demographic Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 52
The Quantitative Survey ................................................................................................................. 53
The Face-to-Face Interviews ........................................................................................................... 53
Procedures ............................................................................................................................................. 53
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 55
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 57

Chapter 4: Results ...................................................................................................................................... 58
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Demographic and Quantitative Data ..................................................................................................... 59
Factor Analysis of the Quantitative Data .............................................................................................. 70
Research Question 1: “What Variables Make Homeboy Industries’ Rehabilitation
Program Successful?” ............................................................................................................... 72
Research Question 2: “Does Religious Faith or Spirituality Help or Hinder
Rehabilitation Efforts?” ............................................................................................................ 74
Qualitative Analysis of the Interviews .................................................................................................. 76
The Larger Versus the Smaller Sample .......................................................................................... 76
Grounded Theory Methodology ..................................................................................................... 77
Theme #1: Strategies Taken to Avoid Recidivism ......................................................................... 78
Theme #2: Advice to Families to Prevent Children from
Entering the Criminal Justice System ........................................................................................ 80
Theme #3: The Participants’ Experience with Gangs ..................................................................... 82
Theme #4: Has Religious Faith Helped or
Hindered the Interviewees’ Rehabilitation Efforts? ................................................................ 85
Theme #5: What Is the Single Most Significant Thing the Interviewees
Have Learned at Homeboy Industries ...................................................................................... 87
Theme #6: Additional Thoughts the Interviewees Had .................................................................. 90
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 95

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 99
Implications of the Results .................................................................................................................... 99
The Quantitative and Qualitative Data ........................................................................................... 99
The Theoretical Background for the Present Study ...................................................................... 100
Agreements and Disagreements with the Literature .................................................................... 102
The Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 103
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................................. 105
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................................... 107
Recommendations for Future Practice: Policy Implications ............................................................... 108
JOBS, NOT JAIL 5
References ................................................................................................................................................. 113

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 126
Appendix A: Homeboy Industries’ Organizational Model ................................................................. 127
Appendix B: The Informed Consent Form .......................................................................................... 128
Appendix C: The Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................................... 130
Appendix D: The Quantitative Survey ................................................................................................ 133
Appendix E: The Interview Questions ................................................................................................ 136
Appendix F: The Rotation Factor Matrix ............................................................................................ 137

JOBS, NOT JAIL 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: International Rates of Incarceration .............................................................................. 31
Figure 2: Prison, Jail, and Juvenile Detention Statistics for 2019 ................................................ 32
Figure 3: Prison, Jail, and Juvenile Detention Statistics, 1920-2014 ............................................ 33
Figure 4: Men in Prison or Jail by Race in 2014 .......................................................................... 35
Figure 5: Tattoo Removal, Before and After ................................................................................ 42
Figure 6: Father Boyle at Delores Mission ................................................................................... 48
Figure 7: Homeboy Industries’ Current Headquarters .................................................................. 49
Figure 8: Homeboy Industries’ Lobby .......................................................................................... 50
Figure 9: The Tattoo Removal Room at Homeboy Industries ...................................................... 51
Figure 10: The Recruitment Flyer ................................................................................................. 52

JOBS, NOT JAIL 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Possible Developmental Effects of Parental Arrest and Incarceration on Children ...................... 13
Table 2: Dilulio’s Predictions for Homicide Rates, Ages, 14-17, 1995-2008 ............................................. 41
Table 3: Participant Demographics by Age (N = 50) ................................................................................... 59
Table 4: Participant Demographics by Age Joined a Gang (N = 50) ........................................................... 59
Table 5: Participant Demographics by Highest Educational Grade Attained (N = 50) ............................... 60
Table 6: Participant Demographics by Age at First Arrest (N = 50) ........................................................... 60
Table 7: Demographics by Years of Incarceration for Participants Who Were
Arrested by the Age of 13, and Their Years at Homeboy Industries (N = 30) ..................... 61
Table 8: Participant Demographics by Race (N = 50) ................................................................................. 62
Table 9: Participant Demographics by Gender (N = 50) ............................................................................. 62
Table 10: Participant Demographics by Age of Their Children (N = 116) .................................................. 62
Table 11: Participant Demographics by Marital Status (N = 50) ................................................................. 63
Table 12: Participant Demographics by Living Situation (N = 50) ............................................................. 63
Table 13: Participant Demographics by Current Employment Status (N = 50) ........................................... 64
Table 14: Participant Demographics by Present Religion, If Any (N = 50) ................................................ 64
Table 15: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Their Family
Talks Together About God, the Scriptures, Prayer, or Other Religious
or Spiritual Practices (N = 50) .............................................................................................. 64
Table 16: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They Attend
Religious Services (N = 50) .................................................................................................. 65
Table 17: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They Were
Pressured to Join a Gang (N = 50) ........................................................................................ 65
Table 18: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They Used
Drugs as Adolescents (N = 50) ............................................................................................. 66
Table 19: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That When They
Were Adolescents They Had Friends Who Were Never Arrested (N = 50) ......................... 66
Table 20: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Homeboy Industries
Has Made Them Better People (N = 50) ............................................................................... 67
Table 21: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Homeboy Industries
Has Given Them Skills to Avoid Being Reincarcerated (N = 50) ........................................ 67
Table 22: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Having a Positive
Mentor as an Adolescent Would Have Kept Them Out of Trouble with
the Law (N = 50) ................................................................................................................... 68
Table 23: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They Have
Found Love and Compassion at Homeboy Industries (N = 50) ............................................ 68
Table 24: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Everyone Deserves
a Second Chance (N = 50) .................................................................................................... 69
Table 25: Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That It Is Much More
Difficult to Leave Gang Life Than to Enter It (N = 50) ........................................................ 69
Table 26: Component 1: Establishing a Support System ............................................................................. 70
Table 27: Component 2: Recovering from Addiction ................................................................................. 71
Table 28: Component 3: Obtaining Love and Kindness .............................................................................. 71
Table 29: Component 4: Making a Difference ............................................................................................ 71
Table 30: Component 5: Breaking the Cycle ............................................................................................... 72
Table 31: Component 6: Reducing Recidivism ........................................................................................... 72
Table 32: Component 7: Deserving a Second Chance ................................................................................. 72
Table 33: Model Summary: Research Question 1 (Component 2) .............................................................. 73
JOBS, NOT JAIL 8
Table 34: Model Summary: Research Question 1 (Component 6) .............................................................. 74
Table 35: One-Way ANOVA: Research Question 2 (Demographic Question 12) ..................................... 75
Table 36: One-Way ANOVA: Research Question 2 (Demographic Question 13) ..................................... 76
Table 37: Comparison of the Larger and Smaller Samples ......................................................................... 77
Table 38: Theme #1: Strategies Taken To Avoid Recidivism (N = 12) ...................................................... 79
Table 39: Theme #2: Advice to Families to Prevent Children from Entering the
Criminal Justice System (N = 12) ......................................................................................... 82
Table 40: Theme #3: The Participants’ Experience with Gangs (N = 12) ................................................... 85
Table 41: Theme #4: Has Religious Faith Helped or Hindered the Interviewees’
Rehabilitation Efforts? .......................................................................................................... 87
Table 42: Theme #5: What Is the Single Most Significant Thing the Interviewees
Have Learned at Homeboy Industries? ................................................................................. 90
Table 43: Theme #6: Additional Thoughts the Interviewees Had ............................................................... 95
JOBS, NOT JAIL 9
Abstract
Because approximately 54% of all inmates in U.S. jails and prisons are parents, and the vast
majority of those parents land back in jail or prison within three years of being released for their
first offense, the children of those inmates have many disadvantages in life—psychological,
economic, and legal.
Juvenile delinquency is a worldwide problem that affects low-income communities in cities
around the world, both big and small. The migration patterns from rural areas have pushed many
unskilled, uneducated, and economically vulnerable families into cities.
Of the approximately 1 million gang members in the United States, 150,000 of them are in
Los Angeles County, the setting of the present study. In fact, Los Angeles County accounts for
15% of all the gang members in the nation, although it has only 3% of the country’s population.
Therefore, Los Angeles has been called the “gang capital of the world.”
Hispanics constitute approximately half of all the 2.2 million people in prisons or jails in this
country. In fact, the United States, which makes up only 5% of the world’s population, has 25%
of the world’s incarcerated individuals. Mass incarceration of this magnitude can be directly
attributed to punitive policies that have ignited the fear of rising crime in this nation.
One of the most successful reentry programs in California that both drastically reduces the
recidivism rate of former prisoners and significantly increases family reunification is Homeboy
Industries, which was founded in 1988 by Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit priest, to help formerly
incarcerated men and women, as well as gang members, to redirect their lives by becoming
contributing members of society. In fact, the participants in Homeboy Industries’ 18-month
rehabilitation program, who are referred to as “trainees,” have a recidivism rate of rearrests of
only 30% (Homeboy Industries, 2019).
JOBS, NOT JAIL 10
In addition to the reduced recidivism rate, Father Boyle measures the success of his
program’s transformation of the trainees by four other indicators: reduced substance abuse,
improved social connectedness, improved housing safety and stability, and reunified families.
Father Boyle (2019) has called Homeboy Industries “the largest gang-intervention, rehab, reentry
program on the planet.”
The participants for the present study were 50 trainees at Homeboy Industries, 33 males and
17 females, who responded to the researcher’s recruitment flyer. After having the participants
sign an Informed Consent Form, the researcher quantitatively surveyed the participants. She also
conducted qualitative interviews with the first 12 participants who agreed to be recorded.
There were two major findings of the statistical factor analysis of the quantitative data. The
first was that breaking the cycle of gang membership is a significant predictor for recovering
from drug addiction. The second was that establishing a support system is a significant predictor
for reducing arrest recidivism. On the other hand, there was no significant predictive association
between religious or spiritual faith and reduction in criminal recidivism or recovery from drug
addiction.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 11
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
In the United States, 95% of all individuals incarcerated in prisons, jails, and juvenile
facilities on the federal and state levels will ultimately be released back into society and return to
poor urban communities (Hughes & Wilson, 2002). In 2017 alone, approximately 10.6 million
individuals were arrested and spent time in jail in the United States (FBI, 2017). Of these, about
600,000 individuals were convicted and went to state or federal prison (Carson, 2018). Thus,
some 10,000,000 individuals are released from jail in this country every year (Beck, 2006).
In 2010, roughly 54% of inmates in state or federal prisons were parents. These individuals
had 2.7 million minor children between the ages 0 and 17 (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010).
Approximately 1.1 million of these parents were fathers, and 120,000 were mothers (Glaze &
Maruschak, 2011). The minors who are most affected by parental incarceration are children of
color: that is, parental incarceration affects one in 9 African American children (11.4%), 1 in 28
Hispanic children (3.5%), but only 1 in 57 Caucasian children (1.8%) (Pew Charitable Trusts,
2010).
Children who have at least one incarcerated parent face many disadvantages in life (De Masi
& Bohn, 2010). To begin with, there is the emotional trauma of longing for the absent parent.
There is also the economic instability of reduced household income, which in most cases leads to
increased dependency on the government and a high risk of homelessness. Parental incarceration
also frequently leads the children to fear and be hostile toward authority. Other disadvantages
JOBS, NOT JAIL 12
include poor school performance, drug use, and mental health problems (Murray & Farrington,
2008; Trice & Brewster, 2004).
Johnston and Gabel (1997) divided these disadvantages by age groups. For ages 0 to 2,
“infants whose needs go unmet may become difficult to manage as they express feelings of
stress; they may experience a narrow range of emotions when they do not receive emotionally
nurturing care” (p. 70). For ages 2 to 6, “the long-term effects of these experiences may be worse
at this stage of childhood than at any other stage because young children have the ability to
perceive and remember traumatic events, but they cannot process or adjust to trauma without
assistance” (p. 74). For ages 7 to 10, children “are most likely to have had previous experience,
which they can recall, with parental crime, arrest, and/or incarceration. Because they are in
school or able to engage in out-of-the-home play and recreation, these children are less likely to
be present at the time of the parent’s crime and arrest. Nevertheless, such events may have
profound emotional and developmental effects in middle childhood” (pp. 74-75). For ages 11 to
14, “trauma-reactive behaviors like aggression and anxiety start to appear in middle childhood.
[These behaviors] are difficult to manage for both the adults who work with traumatized children
and the children themselves…. However, many children of prisoners and other offenders will
organize their behavior into patterns that are ultimately maladaptive. Some children will also
reject limitations on their behavior, in reaction to parental activities that lead them to question
their parents’ love and concern” (p. 79). For ages 15 to 18, “experience with parental crime,
arrest, and incarceration may produce effects on patterns of legal socialization, sexual behavior,
and substance abuse” (p. 80). These distinctions are summarized in Table 1, below:

JOBS, NOT JAIL 13
Table 1:
Possible Developmental Effects of Parental Arrest and Incarceration on Children

SOURCE: Johnston and Gabel (1997), p. 68.
The children of these parents are at least three times more likely than other children to
become involved with the criminal justice system (Conway, 2015). This problem is escalated by
the high recidivism rates of all prisoners, including the parents, which add years to their
separation from their children. On a national level, approximately two-thirds (67.8%) of released
prisoners are arrested for a new crime within three years (BJS, 2018). Within the California
context, adult criminal offenders have an even higher recidivism rate: almost three-fourths (74%)
of them are rearrested three years after release from incarceration (Alper, Markman, & Durose,
2018; CDCR, 2018). In the United States, and especially in the state of California, reentry into
society for previously incarcerated individuals is a complex problem that affects urban
communities more than any others, and these are precisely the communities that are least able to
JOBS, NOT JAIL 14
cope with this problem economically, psychologically, legally, and socially (Austin, Irwin, &
Hardyman, 2001).
Statement of Purpose
One of the most successful reentry programs in California, which both drastically reduces the
recidivism rate of former prisoners and significantly increases family reunification is Homeboy
Industries. This gang-intervention, rehabilitation, reentry program was founded in 1988 by
Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit priest, to help formerly incarcerated men and women, as well as
gang members, to redirect their lives by becoming contributing members of society. In fact, the
participants in Homeboy Industries’ 18-month rehabilitation program, who are referred to as
“trainees,” have a recidivism rate of rearrests of only 30% (Homeboy Industries, 2019).
As a contribution to practice, the researcher analyzed Father Boyle’s (2010) methodology
and culture to determine what factors make his program so effective. With that information, she
intends to create a model to prevent youth between the vulnerable ages of 7 and 10 from entering
the criminal justice system in the first place. In other words, the researcher plans to adapt
Father’s Boyle’s gang-intervention program for adults (see Appendix A, below) into a
prevention program for vulnerable children.
Significance of the Study
Any strategies or insights that can prevent vulnerable children from becoming delinquents is
clearly of benefit to society—to say nothing of the children themselves and their families.
Therefore, a study of the fundamentals that have made a rehabilitative program so efficacious in
this endeavor is of interest not only to concerned community stakeholders but also to researchers,
health professionals, social scientists, law enforcement agencies, policymakers, and legislators.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 15
Theoretical Orientation: Catholic Social Justice
Social justice is conceived in somewhat different ways by the world’s various religions,
cultures, and societies. The present writer has followed the conception promulgated by the
Roman Catholic Church’s modern social teaching as set forth in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII in his
Encyclical entitled Rerum Novarum (“Of the New Things”). That teaching advances seven key
themes (Catholic Relief Services, 2017):

1. The Dignity of Human Life;
2. The Unity of the Human Family;
3. Care for Mother Earth;
4. Marriage and Family as the Central Social Institutions;
5. Compassion for the Poor and Vulnerable;
6. Protection of Human Rights;
7. The Dignity of Work.

Furthermore, these seven themes of social justice underlie the governing philosophy of
Father Boyle in his direction of Homeboy Industries.
The Dignity of Human Life
The first principle of Catholic social teaching is that all human life is sacred (Catechism of
the Catholic Church, 1993, ¶1,700). In keeping with this philosophy, Father Boyle (2010) has
stated, “We stand with those whose dignity has been denied. We locate ourselves with the poor
and the powerless and the voiceless. At the edges, we join the easily despised and the readily left
out” (p. 190).
The Unity of the Human Family
In Catholic philosophy, all human beings are God’s creations and belong to one race. As
Father Boyle (2017) has written about all humanity, “What God wants for us…is to be united in
kinship” (p. 141).
JOBS, NOT JAIL 16
Care for Mother Earth
In Genesis 1:28, in the wording of the Catholic Bible, God says to Adam and Eve, “Be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea
and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Homeboy
Industries has two programs that address preservation of the environment: the Homeboy
Electronics Recycling Program and the Solar Panel Training Program. Homeboy Industries’
(2019) website compares recycling electronic and solar components to recycling “former gang
members and ex-cons [who are] looking for a fresh start and a new life” (¶2).
Marriage and Family as the Central Social Institutions
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993), “In creating man and woman,
God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution” (¶2,203).
One of the five indicators of Homeboy Industries’ transformation of its trainees is that they
return to reunified families. Also, family therapy is a core component of the rehabilitation
program.
Compassion for the Poor and Vulnerable
In Matthew 25:40, in the wording of the Catholic Bible, Jesus says, “Truly I tell you,
whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
Father Boyle (2010) has stated, “Here is what we seek: a compassion that can stand in awe at
what the poor have to carry rather than stand in judgment at how they carry it” (p. 67).
JOBS, NOT JAIL 17
Protection of Human Rights
According to Catholic Relief Services (2017), “Every person has a fundamental right to life
and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties
and responsibilities—to one another, to our families, and to the larger society” (¶4). Speaking of
the trainees who come to Homeboy Industries, Father Boyle said in an interview at the George
W. Bush Institute (McKenzie, 2019), “They find at Homeboy a sanctuary and then they choose
to become the sanctuary that they sought in the first place. They go home and present that same
sanctuary to their kids. For the first time, a cycle is broken” (¶24).
The Dignity of Work
In 2013, Pope Francis said of the dignity of work: “We do not get dignity from power or
money or culture. We get dignity from work. Work is fundamental to the dignity of the person.
Work, to use an image, ‘anoints’ with dignity, fills us with dignity, makes us similar to God, who
has worked and still works” (Coleman, 2013, ¶2). Homeboy Industries’ (2019) rehabilitation
program is founded on the theory that healing trauma and developing work skills are mutually
beneficial for both the trainees and society at large.
Research Questions
Question 1: What variables make Homeboy Industries’ Rehabilitation Program successful?
Question 2: Does religious faith or spirituality help or hinder rehabilitation efforts with
former incarcerated individuals and gang members, or are they irrelevant to those efforts?
JOBS, NOT JAIL 18
Research Methodology
The researcher first obtained the participants’ permission to be studied by having them sign
an Informed Consent Form (Appendix B, below). Then the researcher used a mixed methods
study by surveying 50 trainees at Homeboy Industries with a demographic questionnaire
(Appendix C, below) and a quantitative survey (Appendix D, below). Finally, the researcher
interviewed 12 of those 50 trainees with open-ended questions (Appendix E, below).
Definitions of Terms
At-Risk: For the purposes of this study, the researcher has used the definition offered by
Moore (2006): “‘At-risk’ is a concept that reflects a chance or a probability. It does not imply
certainty. Risk factors raise the chance of poor outcomes” (p. 3).
Homeboy: Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2019) defines homeboy as “(1) slang: a boy or man
from one’s neighborhood, hometown, or region; broadly: a male friend; (2) slang: (a): a boy or
man who is a member of one’s peer group; (b) a member of one’s gang; (3) slang: an inner-city
youth.” For the purposes of this study, the researcher has used definition 2(a): “a boy or man
who is a member of one’s peer group,” which is the definition used by Homeboy Industries
(2019).
Juvenile Delinquent: Brezina and Agnew (2015) define a juvenile delinquent as a person
less than 18 years old who participates in criminal acts that are punishable by law. However,
Birckhead (2012) notes that a juvenile does not have to be guilty of a crime to be considered
delinquent, but may simply be unable to afford proper representation.
Recidivism: There are two problems with what is meant by recidivism. One is that some
researchers define the term as including rearrest, whether or not the individual is reincarcerated,
whereas other researchers only include individuals who are reincarcerated. The problem is
JOBS, NOT JAIL 19
compounded by the fact that the researchers obtain their data from authorities—city and county,
state, and federal—all of whom use different definitions of the term. The second problem with
the concept of recidivism is that researchers and government entities use different time-frames
for their data: usually one year, two years, or three years. Clearly, this affects the statistics on
recidivism rates. For the purposes of this study, the researcher has used the definition offered by
Senator Kamala Harris (2014), the former Attorney General of the State of California: “An arrest
resulting in a charge within three years of an individual’s release from incarceration or placement
on supervision for a previous criminal conviction” (¶2).
Rehabilitation: For the purposes of this study, the researcher has used the definition offered
by Anderson and Gröning (2016): Helping formerly incarcerated individuals to return to crime-
free life.
Summary
Because approximately 54% of all inmates in U.S. jails and prisons are parents, and the vast
majority of those parents land back in jail or prison within three years of being released for their
first offense, the children of those inmates have many disadvantages in life—psychological,
economic, and legal.
One of the most successful reentry programs in California that both drastically reduces the
recidivism rate of former prisoners and significantly increases family reunification is Homeboy
Industries, which was founded in 1988 by Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit priest, to help formerly
incarcerated men and women, as well as gang members, to redirect their lives by becoming
contributing members of society. In fact, the participants in Homeboy Industries’ 18-month
rehabilitation program, who are referred to as “trainees,” have a recidivism rate of rearrests of
only 30% (Homeboy Industries, 2019)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 20
To obtain her data about this program, the researcher used a mixed methods study by
surveying 50 trainees at Homeboy Industries and interviewing 12 of those 50 trainees with open-
ended questions. The researcher then analyzed Father Boyle’s (2010) methodology and culture to
determine what factors make his program so effective. With that information, she intends, as a
contribution to social justice practice and juvenile justice reform, to create a model to prevent at-
risk children between the ages of 7 and 10 from entering the criminal justice system in the first
place.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 21
Chapter 2:
Literature Review
Juvenile Delinquency
A Juvenile Delinquent Trapped in a Gang
A 10-year-old boy named Henry was recruited in his native land of El Salvador into the MS-
13 gang, which at first protected his impoverished grandparents and was generous to them. In the
beginning, Henry was just a lookout for the gang, in exchange for their protection. However,
when he was 12, the gang beat him for thirteen seconds to prove his bravery. Then he was forced
to kill two rival gang members to demonstrate his loyalty, the first with a gun and the second
with a machete. If he protested, he was told by the older veteran gang members that he would be
killed himself (Dreier, 2018; Rojas, 2019).
One day, when Henry was 15, he received an anonymous phone call, which warned him to
leave the country immediately. Otherwise, he and his grandparents would be killed. To avoid
that, Henry decided to flee to Long Island, where his parents were living (Dreier, 2018).
That same night, he left El Salvador and made his way through Guatemala and Mexico to the
United States, hiding in the back of a livestock truck. Eventually, when he reached the Texas
border, he asked for asylum and was sent to Long Island to join his parents. However, when he
got to Brentwood, Long Island, he discovered that his parents were now separated, and his
mother was living with an abusive boyfriend (Dreier, 2018; Rojas, 2019).
During his freshman year at Brentwood High School, Henry thought that he had successfully
escaped from MS-13, although he was aware that there were other gangs at his school. However,
at the beginning of his sophomore year, Henry was spotted by a boy who had known him in El
JOBS, NOT JAIL 22
Salvador and been a fellow member with him of MS-13. The boy told Henry that he needed to
speak to him that night in a nearby woods. When Henry got there, fearing the worst but feeling
that he could not run away again, he found more than a dozen boys waiting for him, who
punched and kicked him mercilessly. Then those boys, all of whom were members of MS-13,
forced Henry to rejoin the gang. The only way out, they said, was death. Henry knew that sooner
or later he would be required to kill again for the gang (Dreier, 2018).
Feeling trapped, Henry wrote a letter to a teacher he trusted, telling her about the murders he
had committed in El Salvador and about the possible pressure on him to kill again to prove his
loyalty. The teacher reported to her principal what Henry had written, and they went together to
the police, who soon brought in the FBI (Dreier, 2018; Rojas, 2019).
An FBI agent then contacted Henry and offered him witness protection if he would agree to
testify against MS-13. But that offer was made in bad faith because federal policy prevents
immigrant gang members from receiving asylum and witness protection. Therefore, after Henry
told the authorities everything he knew about MS-13, he was informed that he would be deported
to El Salvador (Dreier, 2018; Rojas, 2019).
However, when he arrived in his native land, some people who had raised money for his
defense helped him to disappear in an undisclosed third country. Nevertheless, Henry will be
looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, never knowing when someone from MS-13
might recognize him (Dreier, 2018).
Juvenile Delinquency as a Global Problem
Juvenile delinquency is a global problem that affects low-income communities in cities
around the world (World Youth Report, 2003). Families in rural areas that are forced by
devastating poverty to migrate to metropolitan regions face multiple challenges. The trajectory of
JOBS, NOT JAIL 23
migration patterns from rural areas has pushed a significant number of unskilled, uneducated,
and economically vulnerable families into urban spaces (Castles, 2010). The United Nations
International Emergency Children’s Fund (UNICEF, 2014) has estimated that, because of this
migration pattern, and since many of the children run away from home because of parental
abuse, 100 million children live on the streets worldwide.
This leads many migrant children to join gangs because, like Henry in the opening story, they
feel vulnerable and pressured, and gangs provide protection, approval, and companionship.
Many of these gangs are part of transnational operations, with crimes that occur in one country
being planned and controlled by leaders in another country (Finckenauer, 2000; Wallace, 2000).
Juvenile Delinquency as a U.S. Problem
There is a significant correlation between juvenile delinquency and poverty (Bishop, 2010).
As Birckhead (2012) states, the evidence is in the disproportionate number of low-income urban
minorities who are incarcerated. “Court officials,” she says, “acknowledge that they consciously
and affirmatively take steps to direct low-income families into the juvenile justice system”
(p. 59) in order to assume jurisdiction over children who need help.
Birckhead (2012) introduces the concept of “needs-based delinquency,” whereby children
who need resources in their communities do not receive them until they reach the juvenile court
system. However, she notes that the introduction of the juvenile courts into adolescents’ lives can
have long-lasting detrimental effects because they are thrown into contact with older, hardened
adolescent criminals. Social learning theorists state that delinquency is more likely among those
who learn delinquency from others (Akers, 1998; Akers & Sekkers, 2012). This is especially true
of individuals who offend before the age of 12. In fact, the younger one is when incarcerated the
first time, the longer one tends to stay incarcerated (National Institute of Justice, 2014)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 24
As we saw earlier in the Definitions of Terms, the basic definition of a juvenile delinquent is
a person less than 18 years old who participates in criminal acts that are punishable by law
(Brezina & Agnew, 2015). However, as we also noted above, Birckhead (2012) contends that a
juvenile does not have to be guilty of a crime to be considered delinquent, but may simply be
unable to afford proper representation. In any case, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (2017) reported that approximately 809,700 individuals under the age of
18 were arrested in 2017 in the United States.
Those individuals are at risk for delinquency due to factors such as socioeconomic status,
neglectful or abusive parents, incarcerated parents, lack of social services, poor schools, limited
mental health services, absence of employment opportunities, high levels of residential
instability, high rates of family disruption, social disorganization, and gang affiliation (Akers,
1998; Akers & Sekkers, 2012; Brezina & Agnew, 2015; Brooks-Gunn and Duncan, 1997).
Another factor is gender, for males are more than twice as likely as their female counterparts to
be arrested within any given period (Baglivio, Jackowski, Greenwald, & Howell, 2014; De Masi
& Bohn, 2010; Sanchez & Lee, 2015).
Urban challenges for families are not solely confined to large cities like New York, Los
Angeles, and Chicago, but are also found in small and midsize towns throughout the nation
(Abu-Lughod, 1999; Cruz, 2016). In 2016, there were approximately 74 million children who
were below the age of 18 in the United States (Child Trends, 2018). According to the U.S.
Census Bureau (2015), there are 24.6 million impoverished children under the age of 18 in this
country, accounting for a third of all the children in this nation. In 2017 in the United States,
approximately 1 in 30 adolescents (3.33%) between the ages of 13 and 17 were homeless on any
particular night (Morton, Dworsky, & Samuels, 2017). According to the Prison Policy Initiative
JOBS, NOT JAIL 25
(2018), “53,000 adolescents between the ages of 14 and 17 are held in facilities away from
home” (p. 5) as a result of juvenile or criminal justice involvement. Of that number, 4,656 youths
(8.8%) are held in adult prisons.
Poor children in the United States are not a new phenomenon. The Child Safety Movement,
which thrived between 1865 and 1900, took an active position to help parentless children, poor
children, and exploited children who were living on the streets. Those activists for poor children
were predominantly upper-class and middle-class women who were guided by moral
responsibilities that prompted them to advocate for those marginalized children (McNally, 1982).
Some of those women, however, had more judgmental convictions, believing that poverty leads
to immorality and crime, a life path that they wanted to redirect (Feld, 1999; Fox, 1970).
Delinquency as a Los Angeles Problem: A History of Gangs in the County
Los Angeles County has been documented as the “gang capital” of the world (Fremon,
2008), with approximately 150,000 street gang members, which the National Gang Intelligence
Center (2015) defines as “criminal organizations that formed on the street and operate in
neighborhoods throughout the United States” (p. 11). Fremon estimated that some 300,000
children in Los Angeles live in neighborhoods that are so violent that simply walking to school
can put at risk.
Since there are approximately 1 million gang members in the United States (Hegemann et al.,
2011; Pyrooz & Sweeten, 2015), Los Angeles County accounts for 15% of all the gang members
in the nation, although it has only 3% of the country’s population (U.S. Census, 2018). Of the
150,000 street gang members in Los Angeles County, approximately 40%, or 60,000, are
between the ages of 12 and 18. Since there are 1.27 million adolescents in the county, 4.7% of
JOBS, NOT JAIL 26
those adolescents have been identified as gang members (Census Reporter, 2017), which is not a
high percentage.
Scholars have linked the origin of gangs to migration patterns, noting that there have been
three major periods of migration into Los Angeles, all of which led to the proliferation of gangs
(Bryan, 1911; Howell & Moore, 2010; Katz & Webb, 2006; Moore & Vigil, 1993; Vigil, 2002).
Clearly, gang membership is closely related to immigration patterns. Of the approximately 10.1
million residents of Los Angeles County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), 3.5 million individuals
(34.65%) are immigrants (Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, 2010). That the so-
called gang capital of the world is also home to the largest number of Hispanic immigrants in
this country is no coincidence. Three major waves of gang growth in Los Angeles have been
documented as follows:
The First Wave of Gang Growth in Los Angeles. Prior to 1910, most of the immigrants to
California came from Europe. Starting in 1910, with the Mexican Revolution, many Mexicans
fled to the United States, especially to California. Thus, following 1910, the majority of the
newcomers to California came as political refugees from Mexico. In 1914, when World War I
broke out, European emigration to the United States came to a virtual halt, and Mexicans in great
numbers entered the country to work in agricultural and other low-paying jobs. However, in
reaction to this inflow of Mexicans, there was a racially charged “brown scare hysteria” in this
country among the white population, during which Mexicans were thought of as potential traitors
because Germany promised to help Mexico to regain the territories it had lost that became Texas,
California, Arizona, and New Mexico (Romo, 2010).
Even earlier, academic writers such as Samuel Bryan (1911) were instrumental in shaping
racially negative public opinion about Mexican immigrants. Bryan wrote in his doctoral
JOBS, NOT JAIL 27
dissertation at Stanford University that Mexicans’ “low standards of living and morals, their
illiteracy, their utter lack of proper political interest, the retarding effect of their employment
upon the wage scale of more progressive races, and finally their tendency to colonize in urban
centers, with evil results, combined to stamp them as a rather undesirable class of residents”
(p. 92).
The origin of Mexican street gangs in East Los Angeles was first documented in the 1920s
(Bogardus, 1926). East Los Angeles was originally populated by an influx of Japanese, Jewish,
Mexican, and Russian immigrants (Benitez, 2004). However, the enormous immigration of
Mexicans to Los Angeles from 1910 to 1920 led to the city being known as the “Mexican
Capital” of the United States (Romo, 2010). From 1920 to 1930, the Mexican population of Los
Angeles tripled from 33,644 to 97,116 (Romo, 2010).
By the mid-1930s, the Russians, Jews, and Japanese had moved to better neighborhoods in
the suburbs, while the Hispanic population remained and grew. Along with this Hispanic
expansion came an increase in the number of gang members (Vigil & Long, 1990). Nevertheless,
the focus of these gang members was quite narrow, since their allegiance was to their barrios
(neighborhoods), as they clashed with gangs in other barrios, as well as with police and other
authorities, such as school officials (Moore, 1993; Vigil, 1993).
The deep bonding to barrios distinguishes Los Angeles gangs from those in New York and
Chicago (Hutchison, 1993). As new waves of immigrants arrived from Mexico, many of the
youths were recruited into barrio-centric gangs (Vigil & Long, 1990).
JOBS, NOT JAIL 28
The Second Wave of Gang Growth in Los Angeles. From 1940 to 1964, approximately 4
million additional Mexicans settled in the United States, many of them in the Los Angeles area.
When this country entered World War II, the United States and Mexico formally agreed in 1942
to establish the “bracero” temporary-worker program, which brought millions of Mexican guest
workers into the nation as a whole, and into California in particular, to fill the gap left by
American workers who went off to war (Driscoll, 1999; Fernandez, 2019; Hanson & Donato,
2019).
When the bracero program expired in 1964, the demand in the United States for low-skilled
labor remained strong. Thus, another 6 to 12 million Mexicans arrived in this country, pushed
out of Mexico by poverty and pulled into the United States by a desire to rejoin family members
already here—a process sometimes referred to as “chain migration” (Massey, 1987; Wilson,
2010). The exact number of these immigrants is unknown because many of them were
undocumented, which they did their best to conceal. By 1990, there were more than 3 million
Mexican Americans and immigrant Mexicans in Los Angeles County alone (Howell & Moore,
2010; Vigil, 2002).
Two events in the 1940s helped to increase the numbers of Mexican American gang
members in Los Angeles. The first of these events was the Sleepy Lagoon murder in August
1942, in which a teenage boy was found dying at a reservoir known as Sleepy Lagoon. The
police, blaming the death on Hispanic gangs in the city, rounded up hundreds of Mexican
American youths, and charged many of them with the crime. The conservative press in the city
sided with the police and the prosecutors, while the liberal press charged that the defendants had
been forced to incriminate themselves and been deprived of counsel by unethical judges. This
controversy united the whole Mexican American community against the authorities, which
JOBS, NOT JAIL 29
increased the popularity and membership of street gangs, who offered security and brotherhood
in numbers.
The second event in the 1940s that increased the numbers of Mexican American gang
members in Los Angeles was the so-called Zoot Suit Riots. Zoot suits typically consisted of
jackets with wide lapels and shoulders, baggy pants, and wide-brimmed hats. But because of the
rationing of cloth during World War II, they were made illegal. Therefore, Mexican American
youths who wore them were regarded by the Anglo community as un-American. For five days,
servicemen and citizen mobs beat anyone who was wearing a zoot suit (Katz & Webb, 2006;
Vigil, 2002). Again, this united the Mexican American community against the authorities,
increasing the popularity and membership of street gangs.
The Third Wave of Gang Growth in Los Angeles. After the mid-1960s, with the war in
Vietnam escalating, a new mixture of immigrant groups arrived in Los Angeles. The end of the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 largely shifted immigration from Europeans to Asians
and Central and South Americans (Bankston, 1998). The Asians mostly came from Cambodia,
Korea, the Philippines, Samoa, Thailand, and Vietnam; the Latin Americans mostly came from
Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Panama (Miller, 2001). By 1990,
the American-born children of the second wave of immigrants were becoming teenagers, many
of whom became gang members because they were recruited by older gang-involved relatives
(Fremon, 2008; Portes & Zhou, 1993).
Gang-related crime in many cities, including Los Angeles, increased during the 1990s,
during which gangs were more violent than ever (Miller, 2001). This violence was mostly
because Salvadorean immigrants, fleeing from the viciousness of the civil war in their native
land, brought their brutality with them (McGuire, 2007; Valdez, 2007). What held these
JOBS, NOT JAIL 30
Salvadorean immigrants together, aside from their national origin, was poverty, cultural pride,
and marginalization by American society at large (Howell & Moore, 2010). Furthermore, the
Mexican gangs in Los Angeles, such as the 18th Street Gang, became the mortal enemies of the
Salvadoreans, fighting for territory and a share of the criminal pie (Valdez, 2000).
Shortly after the Salvadorean immigrants arrived in this country, they formed a street gang
called the Mara Salvatrucha (“Shrewd Salvadorean Gang”), also known as MS-13 (for M, the
thirteenth letter of the alphabet). Although MS-13 originated in Los Angeles, it has now, because
of U.S. deportation policies, expanded into a global epidemic (Serjeant, 2007). According to the
Center for Latin American and Latino Studies (2018):
The MS-13 is one of the largest gangs in the world. Operating in more than a half-
dozen countries across two continents [North America and South America], the
gang has thousands of members that have formed a loosely knit criminal and
social federation. (p. 7).
Actually, the MS-13 gang has now expanded to a third continent, with cells in Spain (Albaladejo,
2018).
Throughout the history of the United States, there have been essentially two arguments about
what to do with criminals, including gang members. One argument is for punishment. The other
is for rehabilitation.
The Punishment Paradigm
Arguments for Punishment
This country imprisons more people than any other nation in the world, at least since the
1970s (see Figure 1, below). Thus, the United States, which makes up only 5% of the world’s
population, has 25% of the world’s incarcerated individuals (Worldwatch Institute, 2019).
JOBS, NOT JAIL 31

Figure 1: International Rates of Incarceration
SOURCE: Walmsley (2013)
Currently, there are 2.3 million people incarcerated in this country (Wagner & Sawyer,
2019). Some of those individuals are in prisons, some in jails, and some in juvenile detention
facilities (see Figure 2, below). This mass incarceration can be directly attributed to punitive
policies that have ignited the fear of rising crime in this nation (National Academy of Science,
2014).
JOBS, NOT JAIL 32

Figure 2: Prison, Jail, and Juvenile Detention Statistics for 2019
SOURCE: Wagner & Sawyer (2019)

Since the 1970s, there has been a fivefold increase in incarceration in this country (Ferenczy,
2019; see Figure 3, below), which has led to a flourishing $265 billion prison industry (Sawyer
& Wagner, 2018). Thus, incarceration has been the most favored strategy for dealing with crime
and delinquency, as well as for dealing with nonviolent probation and parole violations.
According to Wagner and Sawyer (2018), 465,000 individuals are currently detained in local
jails without having been convicted of any crime. As Rabuy and Kopf (2016) note:
Although, on paper, it is illegal to detain people for their poverty, such detention
is the reality in too many of our local jails. Our country now has a two-track
system of justice in which the cost of pretrial liberty is far higher for poor people
than for the well off. (¶10)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 33

Figure 3: Prison, Jail, and Juvenile Detention Statistics, 1920-2014
SOURCE: Ferenczy (2019)
President Bill Clinton introduced into law what was commonly known as the 1994 Crime
Bill, but is more formally known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (U.S. Congress, 1994). That legislation essentially crippled communities of color by
championing a punitive policy that ignited mass incarceration. Some of the provisions of the bill
that devastated urban communities included militarizing police departments, expanding the
federal death penalty to 60 additional offenses, and introducing “Three Strikes and You’re Out”
as a mandatory life imprisonment policy without the possibility of parole for serious violent
felonies or drug trafficking crimes. The bill also penalized gang crimes and provided stiffer
penalties for violent and drug trafficking crimes committed by gang members. In addition, the
bill criminalized undocumented immigration and provided for enhanced penalties for illegal
JOBS, NOT JAIL 34
reentry after deportation. Furthermore, the bill authorized adult prosecution of individuals as
young as 13 for certain serious violent crimes (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994).
The catalyst for such fear-based legislation has often been credited to John J. Dilulio (1995),
a scholar who conceived the theory of “super-predators.” Dilulio foresaw a wave of violent
juveniles, whom he denounced as “super-predators.” Stressing that these new waves of urban
adolescents were in essence “fatherless, godless, and jobless,” Dilulio went further in
demonizing urban youth by adding:

America is now home to thickening ranks of juvenile “super-predators,”
radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters, including ever more pre-
teenage boys, who murder, assault, rape, rob, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, join
gun-toting gangs, and create serious communal disorders.…
The problem is that most inner-city children grow up surrounded by teenagers
and adults who are themselves deviant, delinquent, or criminal. (¶¶4-5)

The theoretical physiological basis of the pro-punishment argument is that the frontal lobes
and prefrontal cortices of adolescents, which control planning and self-control, are immature
compared to those of adults. Therefore, minors are more likely to be impulsive, disregarding
the long-term consequences of their behaviors. Thus, they can only be dealt with by criminally
confining them in some way (Monahan, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2015).
Furthermore, adolescent males tend to be more immature and less in control of their
impulses than adolescent females, which is why, in this country, they outnumber adolescent
female inmates by a ratio of approximately 3.5 to 1 (Barrett, Ju, Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2015;
Sawyer & Wagner, 2018; Shulman, Harden, Chein, & Steinberg, 2015; Steketee, Junger, &
Junger-Tas, 2013). According to Loughran et al. (2009), the prevailing attitude toward juvenile
delinquency in the 1980s and 1990s was that the best way of addressing violent offenses by
juveniles was to adopt a “tough on crime” policy, which advocated swift punishment.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 35
Arguments Against Punishment
The disproportionate number of black males in prison is staggering (see Figure 4, below),
and what is more astonishing is that the data on crime according to the federal government did
not support Dilulio’s claims at the time (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997; Subramanian,
Delaney, Roberts, Fishman, & McGarry, 2015). Although the data showed a steady decline of
crime (Gilliard & Beck, 1996), the effect of Dilulio’s condemnation and fear-based rhetoric
served to demonize urban communities, which were faced with long, harsh, inhumane sentencing
because of mandatory minimums that mandated life sentences and militarized police presence
(Levitt, 2004; Travis & Waul, 2012).

Figure 4: Men in Prison or Jail by Race in 2014
(SOURCE: Carson, 2015)
In a speech that former President Clinton gave in July 2016 at an NAACP convention in
Philadelphia, he acknowledged that tougher incarceration provisions in the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (U.S. Congress, 1994) were a mistake. “I signed a
bill that made the problem worse,” Clinton said. “And I want to admit it” (Farley, 2016, ¶7).
Clinton made this admission in defense of his wife, Hilary Clinton, who was feeling pressure
from the Black Lives Matter demonstrators who attended a 2016 Hilary campaign speech. The
JOBS, NOT JAIL 36
problem that most critics had with the Clintons was their lack of remorse for what urban
communities experienced as a war on communities of color (Alexander, 2016).
Nisar, Ullah, Ali, and Alam (2015), who examined the increased “get-tough” attitude of the
juvenile justice system, found that it results in more youngsters being transferred to adult courts
and adult prisons, as opposed to receiving rehabilitative treatment. According to Ryan, Abrams,
and Huang (2012), juvenile delinquents who are sentenced to detention facilities are likely to
reoffend at twice the rate of juvenile delinquents who receive in-home probation, which
includes monitoring by a probation officer. Hence, there is no empirical evidence to prove that
the incarceration of juvenile offenders will deter gang violence or reduce juvenile crime.
Punishment-based programs that use a boot camp mentality and harsh discipline as a method of
rehabilitation have shown poor outcomes (Wilson, MacKenzie, & Mitchell, 2008; Young,
Greer, & Church, 2017).
The Rehabilitation Paradigm
Arguments Against Rehabilitation
Unfortunately, the juvenile justice system’s adoption of “zero tolerance” in the 1970s did not
educate adolescents against a life of delinquency, but rather operated as a suppressive measure to
lock them away for the better part of their lives (Martin, 2016; Skiba, 2014; Sridhar, 2006). The
term zero tolerance, as Skiba and Peterson (1999) note, refers to “policies that punish all
offenses severely, no matter how minor” (p. 1). Those policies evolved in the 1980s from drug
enforcement practices on the state and federal levels, which punished street crimes, but not
white-collar crimes (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Leeper Piquero, Carmichael, & Piquero, 2008).
Although only 4.7% of adolescents in Los Angeles County are members of gangs (Census
Reporter, 2017; National Gang Intelligence Center, 2015), the media and society at large have a
JOBS, NOT JAIL 37
stereotypical misconception of adolescents in urban neighborhoods as gang members. As
Esbensen and Tusinski (2007) noted:
The popular image of youth gangs is largely dependent on law enforcement data
and subsequent media reinforcement of these data in the popular press. Recent
research on youth gangs, however, calls into question the accuracy of these
portrayals. In spite of an ever-increasing body of research that contradicts the
popular stereotype of gangs, the media perpetuates this inaccuracy. In a review of
all gang-related articles appearing in the nation’s “big three” newsweeklies
(Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report) between 1980 and May 2006,
we conclude that there was a strong tendency to provide stereotypical depiction of
gangs and gang members that promote misperceptions about youth gangs, their
members, and their group characteristics. Youth gangs are problematic enough in
reality without the media contributing to exaggerations of their attributes that are
associated with violence and organizational capacity. (¶1)

Furthermore, the juvenile justice system perpetuates racial tensions against minority urban
adolescents by criminalizing their social behavior, such as playing music too loud, jaywalking,
and loitering, and this has placed great strains on local urban communities (Le Pelley et al.,
2010).
Urban areas have become symbols of criminality, plagued by gang activity and rising
juvenile delinquency. These images serve to desensitize outside communities, which learn to fear
minority urban adolescents for igniting an epidemic of crime in urban communities. In turn, this
fear has led to the passage of stronger punitive measures against minority youth, rather than
rehabilitative measures (Grosso et al., 2019).
The opposition to rehabilitation does not, however, only come from authorities such as
legislatures, courts, district attorneys, and police. This opposition also comes from the gangs
themselves, because gang membership is often a lifetime commitment. According to the codes of
most gangs, members may never leave—except in a coffin. Since, as we have seen in Henry’s
story above, federal policies as presently structured do not allow gang members to seek
rehabilitation, even gang members who may want to leave their gangs and obtain rehabilitation
JOBS, NOT JAIL 38
are prevented from doing so by both the authorities and the gangs. This barrier to leaving one’s
gang applies even if, like Henry, a member cooperates with the authorities by providing evidence
of crimes by other members (Dreier, 2018; Szambelan, 2019).
Arguments for Rehabilitation
Many historians believe that the first attempts at reforming American prisons began in
1870 with the publication of the “Declaration of Principles” by the American Congress of
Corrections, which advocated using rehabilitative techniques in prisons, instead of punitive
ones (Grasso, 2017; McLennan, 2008).
Zebulon Brockway, who was one of the authors of the Declaration, and the first warden
of the Elmira Reformatory in upstate New York, was a pioneering penologist who was
among the first to implement the Declaration’s recommendations, for which he later became
known as the “father of rehabilitation” (Pisciotta, 1994, p. 2). One of Brockway’s innovations
was to introduce indeterminate sentencing, so that inmates could be released early for good
behavior.
Brockway (1871) made the following argument against punishment:
If punishment, suffering, and degradation are deemed deterrent, if they are the
best means to reform the criminal and prevent crime, then let prison reform go
backward to the pillory, the whipping-post, the gallows, the stake; to corporal
violence and extermination! But if the dawn of Christianity has reached us, if we
have learned the lesson that evil is to be overcome with good, then let prisons and
prison systems be lighted by this law of love. Let us leave, for the present, the
thought of inflicting punishment upon prisoners to satisfy the so-called justice,
and turn toward the two grand divisions of our subject, the real objects of the
system, vis.: the protection of society by the prevention of crime and reformation
of criminals. (p. 42, emphasis in the original.)
While Brockway’s progressive ideas were widely accepted by the beginning of the
twentieth century, the downside of his penological philosophy was that, although he rewarded
JOBS, NOT JAIL 39
inmates who followed his rules, he severely physically abused inmates who did not (Conrad,
1983; Pisciotta, 1994; Rafter, 1997).
In 1912, the California agency in charge of prisons was called the California State
Detentions Bureau. Thirty-nine years later, in 1951, it was renamed the California
Department of Corrections. Finally, in 2004, it was renamed the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR, 2019). This most recent renaming was, in the words
of AllGov California (2016), “intended to emphasize the state’s responsibility to provide
inmates with the training and education to successfully re-enter society following the
completion of their sentences” (¶3). However, a recent investigation by state auditors of
recidivism rates by previously incarcerated individuals showed virtually no difference
between those inmates who had gone through rehabilitation programs and those who had not
(Pohl, 2019).
On the other hand, one of the most successful practitioners of the rehabilitative model for
dealing with ex-offenders and former gang members is Father Gregory Boyle, the founder,
executive director, and principal theorist of Homeboy Industries.
Homeboy Industries’ Theory of Rehabilitation
Father Boyle (2019) has described Homeboy Industries as “the largest gang-intervention,
rehab, reentry program on the planet” (0'-33"). According to Homeboy Industries’ (2019)
website, “What began in 1988 as a way of improving the lives of former gang members in
East Los Angeles has today become a blueprint for over 250 organizations and social
enterprises around the world, from Alabama and Idaho, to Guatemala and Scotland” (¶1).
Originally, Homeboy Industries’ rehabilitation program was what Father Boyle calls
“employment-centric,” with vocational training at the core of its mission. In fact, the original
JOBS, NOT JAIL 40
name of the program was “Jobs for a Future.” Vocational training is still an essential part of
the program, but that is insufficient without what Father Boyle calls a “healing-centric”
approach, which includes (a) teaching life skills; (b) providing alternative education;
(c) offering 12-step programs; and (d) using art as a healing tool.
While the practices at Homeboy Industries (2019) are, according to its website, “in line
with the Jesuit practice of social justice, [the organization is] not affiliated with any
particular religion” (¶11). The foundation of Father Boyle’s rehabilitative theory, as might
be expected from a Jesuit priest, is that healthy communities are built on love, acceptance,
and kinship with individuals at the margins of society. The Mission Statement of Homeboy
Industries (2019) is to provide “hope, training, and support to formerly gang-involved and
previously incarcerated men and women, allowing them to redirect their lives and become
contributing members of our community” (¶1).
Father Boyle believes that “everyone is a lot more than the worst thing they ever did.
This place [Homeboy Industries] is about redemption and restoration” (McGray, 2012, ¶35).
In practical terms, Father Boyle’s program is founded on the theory that healing trauma and
developing work skills are mutually beneficial for both the trainees and society at large
(Homeboy Industries, 2019). The ultimate objective of his program is to develop a strong
sense of community that accepts and welcomes everyone. “No life,” he says, “is less
valuable than another” (Boyle, 2010, p. xiii).
Ironically, “superpredator” theorist John Dilulio himself ultimately wished he had never
become the 1990s’ intellectual pillar for demonizing minority juveniles as “superpredators.”
When his predictions that juvenile homicide rates would rise dramatically proved to be the
JOBS, NOT JAIL 41
inverse of what actually happened (see Table 2, below), he had an “epiphany” that led him from
a punitive approach to one of prevention and rehabilitation (Becker, 2001).

Table 2:
Dilulio’s Predictions for Homicide Rates, Ages, 14-17, 1995-2008

1995 2000 2005 2008
(SOURCE: Cooper & Smith, 2011)
From Theory to Practice: Homeboy Industries’ Gang-Intervention Program
Father Boyle’s programs are divided into three phases, which he calls Orientation,
Immersion, and Transformation (Homeboy Industries, 2019). Orientation, which lasts for three
months, has trainees working to achieve the stability required to think about the future. While
accepting supervision from the staff, the trainees learn to become part of a team and acquire
employment skills. During this phase, each trainee sets educational and vocational objectives,
builds life skills, and participates in therapy. If he or she has any visible gang-related tattoos,
JOBS, NOT JAIL 42
which might prevent them from obtaining employment, the process of removing them is begun at
this time (see Figure 5, below).

Figure 5: Tattoo Removal, Before and After
SOURCE: Burton (2017)

During the Immersion phase, which lasts from month 4 to month 9, the trainees work as
interns in one of Homeboy Industries’ Social Enterprises, continuing to broaden their work skills
while they participate in classes. During this phase, they continue their therapy.
During the Transformation phase, which lasts from month 10 to month 18, the trainees take
their newly acquired skills to other work environments, usually through an internship. During
this phase, they continue their therapy and any classes they have been taking.
Father Boyle measures the success of his program’s transformation of the trainees by five
indicators: (a) reduced recidivism; (b) reduced substance abuse; (c) improved social
connectedness; (d) improved housing safety and stability; and (e) reunified families.
Homeboy Industries’ reentry post-incarceration program includes “enterprises” in which the
trainees work and learn life skills (Homeboy Industries, 2019; Leap, Franke, Christie, & Bonis,
2010). These enterprises include, in the order they were created:
JOBS, NOT JAIL 43

Homeboy Bakery
Homeboy Silkscreen & Embroidery
Homegirl Café
Homegirl Catering
Homeboy Merchandise
Homeboy Diner (at Los Angeles City Hall)
Homeboy Electronics Recycling

Homeboy Bakery, Homeboy Silkscreen & Embroidery, and Homeboy Merchandise can be
accessed both in person and online. Homeboy Merchandise also sells goods at farmers markets.
In addition to the enterprises, Homeboy Industries also offers its trainees services (Fremon,
2008; Homeboy Industries, 2019; Leap, Franke, Christie, & Bonis, 2010). These services
include:

Case Management—The case managers conduct clients’ needs assessments and
connect the clients to appropriate programs and services at Homeboy
Industries. Action plans document the clients’ goals, benchmarks, and
timelines.

Education—Courses fall into four categories: (a) life skills (e.g., leadership, sex
education, and parenting); (b) alternative education (e.g., general education
diploma classes; a partnership with LearningWorks Charter High School in
Los Angeles); (c) 12-step programs (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous; Criminals
and Gang Members Anonymous); and (d) art programs.
Legal Services—Homeboy Industries provides support and referrals for clients
facing a variety of legal issues, including clearing warrants, expunging
records, resolving child custody issues, and establishing immigration status.

Mental Health Education and Treatment Assistance Services—Homeboy
Industries provides both short-term and long-term individual and group
therapeutic counseling through licensed clinical social workers, marriage and
family therapists, and a psychiatrist. In addition, counselors dedicated to
substance abuse and domestic violence abuse are on staff to provide support to
trainees.

Solar Panel Training and Certification—The Solar Panel Training Program offers
an opportunity for graduates to obtain marketable skills while protecting the
JOBS, NOT JAIL 44
environment. The four-month program provides tuition and tutoring for
trainees to learn about solar-panel design, construction, and installation.

Tattoo Removal—Using volunteer physicians, Homeboy Industries offers laser
tattoo removal to enable former gang members to remove visible gang-related
tattoos that serve as an obstacle to obtaining employment.

Employment Services—Homeboy Industries’ employment counselors, called “job
developers,” assist trainees once they are ready to transition out of Homeboy.
The job developers maintain a database of job openings and client
qualifications to support employment matches. Working to increase this
database, the job developers seek out new employers, explaining both the
challenges and benefits of hiring Homeboy trainees.

Summary
Juvenile delinquency is a worldwide problem that affects low-income communities in cities
around the world, both big and small. The migration patterns from rural areas have pushed many
unskilled, uneducated, and economically vulnerable families into cities.
The migrant children are at risk for delinquency due to numerous factors, including
socioeconomic status, neglectful or abusive parents, incarcerated parents, lack of social services,
poor schools, limited mental health services, absence of employment opportunities, high levels
of residential instability, high rates of family disruption, social disorganization, and gang
affiliation.
Many migrant adolescents join gangs because they feel vulnerable and pressured, and gangs
provide protection, approval, and companionship. Of the approximately 1 million gang members
in the United States, 150,000 of them are in Los Angeles County, the setting of the present study.
In fact, Los Angeles County accounts for 15% of all the gang members in the nation, although it
has only 3% of the country’s population. Therefore, Los Angeles has been called the “gang
capital of the world.”
JOBS, NOT JAIL 45
At the same time, because of the enormous influx of Mexicans into the county since 1910,
Los Angeles is also known as the “Mexican capital” of the United States. Since about half of the
gang members in the county are Hispanic, that means that there are some 75,000 Hispanic gang
members in the county. Approximately 80% of the participants in the present study, whom the
writer has surveyed and interviewed at Homeboy Industries, are Hispanic.
Hispanics constitute approximately half of all the 2.2 million people in prisons or jails in this
country. In fact, the United States, which makes up only 5% of the world’s population, has 25%
of the world’s incarcerated individuals. Mass incarceration of this magnitude can be directly
attributed to punitive policies that have ignited the fear of rising crime in this nation.
Throughout the history of the United States, as has been clear from the focus of this review
of the literature, there have been essentially two arguments about what to do with criminals,
juvenile delinquents, and gang members. One position has been to punish them with
incarceration as a means of deterring others from committing crimes. The opposing position has
been to rehabilitate offenders. Over time, arguments have waged back and forth, with one
position dominant in certain periods, and the other dominant in other periods.
Today, one of the most successful practitioners of the rehabilitation position is Father
Gregory Boyle, the founder, executive director, and principal theorist of Homeboy Industries. By
educating ex-offenders academically, teaching them job skills and life skills, healing their
psychological wounds, and using art as a healing tool, Homeboy Industries has reversed the
recidivism rate of incarceration in Los Angeles County. Of the trainees who go through the
Homeboy Industries program, only 30% are reincarcerated, compared to 76% of ex-offenders in
California who do not go through the program.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 46
In addition to the reduced recidivism rate, Father Boyle measures the success of his
program’s transformation of the trainees by four other indicators: reduced substance abuse,
improved social connectedness, improved housing safety and stability, and reunified families.
Father Boyle has called Homeboy Industries “the largest gang-intervention, rehab, reentry
program on the planet.”
Homeboy Industries offers a transformative program for individuals between the ages of 18
and 35, who have already committed crimes, for which they have been incarcerated. The present
writer plans to create a juvenile delinquency preventative program for inner-city children
between the ages of 7 and 10, based on her findings of what works best for Homeboy Industries.
In the following chapter, the writer will describe the methodology she used to study formerly
incarcerated individuals—a population that most researchers find difficult to survey and
interview because they tend to be cautious and distrustful (Western, Braga, & Kohl, 2014). Thus,
by surveying and interviewing a sample of this population that cooperated fully with this
researcher, a gap in the literature will be significantly filled.
Chapter 3:
Methods
Study Design
The researcher used a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods to survey and
interview the participants in the study, for which the setting was the current headquarters of
Homeboy Industries in downtown Los Angeles. After describing that setting, the researcher
describes the 50 participants (a convenience sample) who responded to her recruitment flyer.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 47
After having the participants sign an Informed Consent Form, the researcher surveyed the 50
individuals and interviewed the first 12 who agreed to be questioned. At home, the researcher
then transcribed the interviews, coded the data, categorized them by themes, and statistically
analyzed the quantitative data.
Study Setting
Homeboy Industries’ Location Over Time
In 1986, Father Gregory Boyle became the pastor of Dolores Mission (see Figure 6, below),
which serves the Boyle Heights neighborhood of East Los Angeles, the poorest parish in the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Located at 171 South Gless St., the mission, in the
words of Father Boyle (2010), is

nestled in the middle of two large public housing projects, Pico Gardens and Aliso
Village. Together, they comprised the largest grouping of public housing west of
the Mississippi. When I arrived. We had eight active gangs, seven Latino and one
African American. (The projects were 25 percent African American back in 1986
and are now 99.9 percent Latino.) At the time, the Pico-Aliso area was known to
have the highest concentration of gang activity in the entire city. If Los Angeles
was the gang capital of the world, our little postage-stamp-size area on the map
was the gang capital of L.A. (pp. 1-2).

Figure 6: Father Boyle at Delores Mission
JOBS, NOT JAIL 48

In 1988, Father Boyle (2010) founded an organization that he entitled Jobs for a Future,
which created several different businesses to employ gang members: a child-care center built by
the gang members themselves; a neighborhood cleanup crew; a graffiti cleanup crew; a
landscaping crew; and maintenance crews. All of these businesses were funded by private
donations.
In the summer of 1992, Father Boyle (2010) persuaded a movie producer, Ray Stark, to
purchase an old bakery across the street from the mission, for the purpose of employing members
of rival gangs to work together there. That bakery, at 1848 East First Street, became known as
Homeboy Industries.
From 1994 to 2000, White Memorial Hospital, which was less than a mile away from
Homeboy Industries’ location at the time, supported Father Boyle (2010) by paying his rent
because the hospital enthusiastically supported his work with gang members.
In 2001, Father Boyle (2010), needing more room, moved his headquarters up the street to
1916 East First Street. With this enhanced space, Homeboy Industries could service the members
of 800 distinct gangs, who were seeking employment, tattoo removal, mental health counseling,
case management, and legal services.
In 2007, Homeboy Industries built its current headquarters at 130 W. Bruno St., its first
location not associated with gang territories (see Figure 7, below). Therefore, the researcher felt
safe in the environment. Situated in downtown Los Angeles, near Chinatown, the organization’s
most successful business is currently Homeboy Silkscreen.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 49

Figure 7: Homeboy Industries’ Current Headquarters
The Location for the Surveys and Interviews
When the researcher walked into the lobby (see Figure 8, below) of the current location of
Homeboy Industries for her first session with the participants, she was warmly greeted by the
three receptionists, who asked her to fill in a sign-in sheet. When one of the receptionists asked
the purpose of her visit, the researcher replied that she was here to conduct a study that had
already been approved by Homeboy Industries’ Education and Research Department.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 50
Figure 8: Homeboy Industries’ Lobby

The receptionist then led her to the rear of the first floor, where the Tattoo Removal
Department is located. For the interviews and surveys, the researcher met with the participants in
a small private examination room (see Figure 9, below), perhaps 8 feet by 8 feet, which is one of
two normally used by physicians to remove the trainees’ tattoos. There was a small waiting room
outside, where the participants waited to meet the researcher.

Figure 9: The Tattoo Removal Room at Homeboy Industries
Participants
The study population for this dissertation were 50 individuals, 33 males and 17 females, who
were participating in Homeboy Industries’ rehabilitation and reentry program. Homeboy
Industries services formerly gang-related individuals who have been released from incarceration.
Most of the trainees are between the ages of 18 and 35, who dropped out of school between sixth
and tenth grades.
Instruments
The Recruitment Flyer
JOBS, NOT JAIL 51
To recruit participants, the researcher created a flyer (see Figure 10, below), which she gave
to the Chief of Education and Research at Homeboy Industries, who in turn distributed them to
the trainees at Homeboy Industries.

Jobs, Not Jail:
Homeboy Industries, a Radical Approach
to Redirecting Adolescents Away from
the Criminal Justice System
Be part of an important research study
• Are you between 18 and 35 years of age?
• Have you been a trainee at Homeboy Industries for at least 6 months or longer?

If you answered YES to these questions, then you are eligible to participate in a USC student
research study.
The purpose of this research study is to learn specifically what strategies for success you have
implemented in your life to avoid reentering the criminal justice system. Participants will
receive a $20 incentive payment.
This study is being conducted at Homeboy Industries, 130 W. Bruno St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
Please call Sofía Moreno at (562) 290-9536 for more information
Figure 10: The Recruitment Flyer
The Informed Consent Form (see Appendix B)
On this form, the researcher briefly described the purpose of the study and assured the
respondents that their participation would be strictly voluntary, and their identity kept
confidential. They were also told that their interviews, if any, would be recorded and transcribed.
This document also informed the participants that if they wished to withdraw at any time, they
could do so without penalty of any kind.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 52
The Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix C)
The researcher designed this questionnaire, taking into account the readability of the
instrument by individuals who had at most a tenth-grade education. The demographic variables
included age; race or ethnicity; gender; education; marital status; number of children; housing
situation; employment; socioeconomic level; family structure; religion; frequency of religious
practices; and time spent incarcerated.
The Quantitative Survey (see Appendix D)
The researcher developed 20 questions that the participants could respond to by circling one
of five numbers on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
The Face-to-Face Interviews (see Appendix E)
The researcher designed six open-ended questions, in addition to the 20 questions on the
Quantitative Survey. She asked those questions in the order indicated in Appendix E.
Procedures
First of all, the researcher was required by the Internal Review Board (IRB) of the University
of Southern California to take subject research training courses online to prepare her to deal with
her participants without harming them in any way, for which the university might be legally
liable. (The courses included: History and Ethical Principles; Defining Research with Human
Subjects; Assessing Risk; Informed Consent; Research with Prisoners; and Unanticipated
Problems and Reporting Requirements in Social and Behavioral Research.) At the end of the
training, the researcher received a human subject training certificate, which allowed her to apply
for IRB approval of her study.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 53
Because the sample population at Homeboy Industries consisted entirely of individuals who
had formerly been incarcerated for violent offenses, were registered on a national gang database,
and were either on parole or probation, the IRB insisted that the researcher not collect any
names, phone numbers, or other contact information. Instead, the IRB suggested that Homeboy
Industries collect that information and assign random numbers to the participants. However,
Homeboy Industries objected to this, noting that because all the participants were registered on a
national gang database, random selection at Homeboy Industries is never allowed, to protect the
participants from having their names placed on a list, from which they could be identified. Once
the researcher had established that her participants would be a convenience sample rather than a
randomized sample, both Homeboy Industries and the IRB granted approval for the researcher to
conduct her study.
However, because Homeboy Industries is extremely busy with multiple activities, the biggest
obstacle, from the organization’s perspective, to the researcher surveying and interviewing
participants was finding time and space for her to do so. Eventually, the manager of the Tattoo
Removal Department graciously offered one of the two tattoo removal rooms when it was not in
use. That room would enable the researcher to conduct her sessions with privacy and
confidentiality.
Homeboy Industries then assigned the room to the researcher on a Friday, from 8:00 A.M. to
4:00 P.M. Having seen the recruitment flyer, many interested trainees arrived in the waiting
room, asking if they could participate in the study. The researcher then invited the first candidate
to arrive to come into the room. Once the researcher and the participant were alone in the room
and sitting side by side, the researcher gave the participant a copy of the Informed Consent Form
(Appendix B), which the participant then read and signed with initials to maintain anonymity.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 54
Next, the researcher asked the survey questions orally (Appendices C and D), noting the
participant’s answers on the survey forms. During this process, the participant could read what
the researcher was writing, and occasionally offered corrections or additional information, or
even asked clarifying questions.
The last question on the Quantitative Survey asked if the participant would be willing to be
interviewed. In fact, the first six individuals that the researcher surveyed also agreed to be
interviewed. Each quantitative survey took approximately half an hour to conduct, and each
interview, which the researcher audio-recorded, took an additional half-hour. Thus, each
interviewee spent a total of one hour with the researcher. At home, the researcher then
transcribed the interviews for analysis.
On a subsequent Friday, the researcher returned to Homeboy Industries to conduct six more
surveys and six more interviews, all of which she transcribed at home. Since the recordings were
clear and lacked any background noise, the researcher had no trouble transcribing the dialogue.
On a third Friday, the researcher surveyed an additional 24 participants. Finally, on the following
Monday, she surveyed the last 14 participants, for a total of 50. All of those surveys and
interviews were conducted in the same tattoo removal room over a period of six weeks. As an
incentive for the 12 participants who were both surveyed and interviewed, the researcher paid
each one an honorarium of $40. As an incentive for the 38 participants who were only surveyed,
the researcher paid each one an honorarium of $20. One of the participants attempted to be
surveyed twice in order to collect two honoraria, but the researcher, who did not recognize the
individual, did recognize similarities in his story, and stopped the session. After that, she was
always careful to ask the participants at the beginning of a session if she had already surveyed
them.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 55
Analysis
First, the researcher coded the quantitative data, identifying the individuals only by the order
in which she surveyed them, from 1 to 50. Then she correlated the 16 demographic variables
with each other and with the 20 quantitative variables. Finally, she analyzed the 12 interviews,
looking for themes and thematic patterns.
For her statistical approach to the quantitative data, the researcher employed exploratory
factor analysis to measure the reliability of the variables, since her instruments had not
previously been tested or validated. Exploratory factor analysis allows for a cross-tabulation of
the quantitative variables and the six qualitative questions. The researcher also used a bivariate
cross-tabulation matrix of descriptive statistics to present numerical calculations and tables of her
findings.
To analyze her qualitative data from the interviews, the researcher utilized the methods of
grounded theory. According to Creswell (2014), a researcher using grounded theory “attempts to
derive a general, abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of
participants in a study…. Two primary characteristics of this design are the constant comparison
of data with emerging categories and theoretical sampling of different groups to maximize the
similarities and the differences of information” (p. 243).
Grounded theory was originally developed by two American sociologists, Barney G. Glaser
and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), to investigate phenomena with no preconceived hypotheses.
According to Ke and Wenglensky (2010), Glaser and Strauss

believe that the theory obtained by this method is truly grounded in the data. For
this reason they named the methodology “grounded theory.” The goal of the
grounded theory approach is to generate a theory that explains how an aspect of
the social world “works.” The goal is to develop a theory that emerges from and is
JOBS, NOT JAIL 56
therefore connected to the very reality that the theory is developed to explain.
(¶¶1-2).
Summary
After first describing the various locations of Homeboy Industries over the 31 years since
1988, when the organization was founded, the researcher describes the setting where she actually
surveyed and interviewed the participants: the location of Homeboy Industries for the past 12
years. Since this location is not in gang territory, the researcher felt safe in the neighborhood.
The actual site where the researcher conducted her surveys and interviews was one of two small
rooms usually used for tattoo removal.
The participants for the study were 50 trainees at Homeboy Industries, 33 males and 17
females, who responded to the researcher’s recruitment flyer. After having the participants sign
an Informed Consent Form, the researcher quantitatively surveyed the participants. She also
conducted qualitative interviews with the first 12 participants who agreed to be recorded.
At home, the researcher transcribed all the interviews and analyzed her data, which will be
presented in Chapter 4.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 57
Chapter 4:
Results
Introduction
The two research questions of this study are:
1. What variables make Homeboy Industries’ Rehabilitation Program
successful?
2. Does religious faith or spirituality help or hinder rehabilitation efforts with
former incarcerated individuals and gang members, or are they irrelevant to those
efforts?

To answer these questions, the researcher had 50 trainees at Homeboy Industries complete a
Demographic Questionnaire and a Quantitative Survey. Furthermore, she interviewed 12 of the
trainees, who were part of the 50, asking them six open-ended questions. Thus, this chapter is
divided into two parts: (a) an analysis of the demographic and quantitative data; and (b) an
analysis of the qualitative data.
The purpose of this investigation is to learn from the trainees at Homeboy Industries’ reentry
into society program what strategies they have used to avoid gangs, drugs, and crime. In the
future, as a contribution to social justice practice and juvenile justice reform, the researcher plans
to use the knowledge obtained from this study to create a program designed to prevent at-risk
children between the ages of 7 and 10 from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 58
Demographic and Quantitative Data
Of the 50 participants in the study, most were 25 to 34 years old, as is indicated in Table 3,
below:
Table 3
Participant Demographics by Age (N = 50)

Age n %
18-24 6 12
25-34 22 44
35-44 15 30
45+ 7 14

Of the 50 participants in the study, six stated that they were born into gang membership
because their parents were gang members, and gang membership is all they have ever known; 2
participants were never members of a gang; and the other 42 participants were distributed as is
indicated in Table 4, below:
Table 4
Participant Demographics by Age Joined a Gang (N = 50)

Age n %
0 6 12
7 1 2
8 1 2
9 1 2
10 6 12
11 3 6
12 9 18
13 7 14
14 3 6
15 5 10
16 2 4
17 0 0
18 0 0
19+ 4 8
JOBS, NOT JAIL 59
Of the 50 participants in the study, 29 (58%) failed to graduate from high school, and the
other 21 (42%) completed high school, as is indicated in Table 5, below:
Table 5
Participant Demographics by Highest Educational Grade Attained (N = 50)

n %
5th 3 6
6th 1 2
7th 2 4
8th 1 2
9th 5 10
10th 3 6
11th 14 28
12th 21 42

Of the 50 participants in the study, the three ages at which most of them were first arrested
were 12, 13, and 15, as is indicated in Table 6, below. Furthermore, 30 of the 50 participants had
been arrested by the age of 13, whereas only 20 of 50 had been arrested after the age of 13.
Table 6
Participant Demographics by Age at First Arrest (N = 50)

Age n %
8 1 2
9 1 2
10 5 10
11 4 8
12 10 20
13 9 18
14 4 8
15 8 16
16 0 0
17 2 4
18 1 2
19+ 5 10

JOBS, NOT JAIL 60
The 30 participants who were arrested by the age of 13 spent an average of 13.7 years in
prison, as is indicated in Table 7, below. That compares to an average of 5.05 years for the 20
participants who were arrested at the age of 14 and above. The lowest number of years spent in
prison for any of the 30 participants was 2.5 years, and the highest number was 30 years.
Table 7
Demographics by Years of Incarceration for Participants Who Were Arrested by the Age
of 13, and Their Years at Homeboy Industries (N = 30)

Age/ Years Years Years
Gender in Prison out of Prison at Homeboy
8/M 30.00 1.75 0.33
9/M 18.00 3.00 3.00
10/F 5.00 0.92 0.92
10/M 15.00 4.00 4.00
10/M 15.50 1.00 0.92
10/M 16.00 0.67 0.67
10/M 30.00 1.00 0.83
11/F 2.50 9.00 8.00
11/M 10.00 3.00 1.00
11/M 17.00 0.50 0.50
11/F 18.00 1.17 1.00
12/F 3.00 0.50 0.50
12/M 5.00 5.00 5.00
12/M 5.00 5.00 0.67
12/M 13.00 1.33 0.92
12/M 15.00 0.50 5.00
12/M 15.00 1.67 1.67
12/M 15.00 3.00 3.00
12/M 15.00 1.33 1.00
12/M 20.00 0.50 0.50
12/M 21.00 0.67 0.50
13/M 4.00 0.50 0.50
13/M 4.50 0.50 0.50
13/M 6.00 8.00 1.08
13/F 6.00 0.75 0.75
13/M 8.00 0.50 0.08
13/M 15.00 12.00 5.00
13/M 16.00 0.50 0.50
13/M 20.00 1.50 1.50
13/F 27.00 4.00 4.00
: 410.50 ( = 13.7)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 61
Of the 50 participants in the study, just under three-quarters of them were Hispanic, just
under 1 in 6 were African American, and just under 1 in 16 were White, as is indicated in Table
8, below.
Table 8
Participant Demographics by Race (N = 50)

n %
African American 8 16
Hispanic of any race 36 72
Two or more races 3 6
White 3 6

Of the 50 participants in the study, just under two-thirds were male, and just over one-third
were female, as is indicated in Table 9, below.
Table 9
Participant Demographics by Gender (N = 50)

n %
Male 33 66
Female 17 34

Of the 50 participants in the study, 39 (78%) were parents, with a total of 116 children, as is
indicated in Table 10, below. Just over 4 in 10 of the participants had children under the age of 10.
Table 10
Participant Demographics by Age of Their Children (N = 116)

Years old n %
0-9 47 41
10-15 26 22
16-18 19 16
19+ 24 21
Total: 116
JOBS, NOT JAIL 62
Of the 50 participants in the study, 7 out of 10 were never married, as is indicated in Table
11, below. Of the 35 singles, 27 were parents (16 males and 11 females) of 82 children (50 for
the single males and 32 for the single females), for a total average of 3.04 each, or 3.13 children
on average for the single males and 2.91 children on average for the single females. Thus, 82 of
the 116 total children (70.69%) were born to single parents.
Table 11
Participant Demographics by Marital Status (N = 50)

n %
Single (never married) 35 70
In a relationship 6 12
Married 5 10
Widowed 1 2
Divorced 1 2
Separated 2 4

Of the 50 participants in the study, 34 of them (68%) were living with one or more other
people, as is indicated in Table 12, below. As we know from the responses to Question 11 of the
quantitative survey, 39 of the participants (78%) stated that they totally agree that there is a gang
problem in their neighborhood, and 12 of these stated that they totally agree that they feel unsafe
living in their neighborhood. That is probably because 10 of these 12 have adolescent children.
Table 12
Participant Demographics by Living Situation (N = 50)

n %
Living alone 14 28
Living with a partner and children 15 30
Living with roommates 4 8
Living with parents/guardians/relatives and children 13 26
Living with spouse and children 2 4
Homeless 2 4
Of the 50 participants in the study, 46 were working full-time, as is indicated in Table 13,
below. Of the 4 who were working part-time, all were males.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 63
Table 13
Participant Demographics by Current Employment Status (N = 50)

n %
Employed full-time 46 92
Employed part-time 4 8

Of the 50 participants in the study, just under three-quarters (72%) were Christian (44%
Roman Catholics and 28% Protestants), as is indicated in Table 14, below. Just under 1 in 6
(16%) were Atheists (or nothing), and just under 1 in 16 (6%) were Agnostics.

Table 14
Participant Demographics by Present Religion, If Any (N = 50)

n %
Atheist, or none 8 16
Agnostic 3 6
Muslim 1 2
Protestant 14 28
Roman Catholic 22 44
Other 2 4

Of the 50 participants in the study, almost two-thirds (66%) share religious practices with
their family members at least once per week, as is indicated in Table 15, below.
Table 15
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Their Family Talks Together
About God, the Scriptures, Prayer, or Other Religious or Spiritual Practices (N = 50)

n %
At least once per week 33 66
Less than once per week 9 18
Never 8 16
JOBS, NOT JAIL 64
Of the 50 participants in the study, the greatest percentage (28%) stated that they attend
religious services once or twice per year, as is indicated in Table 16, below. Interestingly, given
the high percentage of self-identified Christians in the study population, many of these
participants stated that they were not going to religious services for Christmas or Easter, but
rather to attend funeral religious services for fellow gang members.
Table 16
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They Attend
Religious Services (N = 50)

n %
Never 9 18
Less than once per year 2 4
Once or twice per year 14 28
Several times per year 9 18
Once a month 5 10
2-3 times per month 4 8
Weekly 5 10
Several times per week 2 4

Of the 50 participants in the study, 29 (58%) stated, in response to Question 7 on the
Quantitative Survey, that they did not feel pressured to join their gang, as is indicated in Table
17, below. On the other hand, 19 (38%) indicated that they did feel pressured to join their gang.
Table 17
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They
Were Pressured to Join a Gang (N = 50)

n %
Totally disagree 26 52
Somewhat disagree 3 6
Undecided 2 4
Somewhat agree 4 8
Totally agree 15 30

JOBS, NOT JAIL 65
Of the 50 participants in the study, 43 (86%) stated, in response to Question 4 on the
Quantitative Survey, that they used drugs as adolescents, as is indicated in Table 18, below. Only
4 of the 50 (8%) stated that they did not use drugs as adolescents. As we know from the
responses to the Demographic Questionnaire, 22 of the participants began using drugs between
the ages of 8 and 12.
Table 18
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They
Used Drugs as Adolescents (N = 50)

n %
Totally disagree 4 8
Somewhat disagree 1 2
Undecided 2 4
Somewhat agree 5 10
Totally agree 38 76

Of the 50 participants in the study, 21 (42%) stated, in response to Question 3 on the
Quantitative Survey, that as adolescents they definitely had friends who were never arrested, as
is indicated in Table 19, below. On the other hand, 13 (26%) indicated that as adolescents they
definitely did have friends who were arrested.
Table 19
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That When They Were
Adolescents They Had Friends Who Were Never Arrested (N = 50)

n %
Totally agree 21 42
Somewhat agree 3 6
Undecided 4 8
Somewhat disagree 9 18
Totally disagree 13 26

JOBS, NOT JAIL 66
Of the 50 participants in the study, 49 (98%) stated, in response to Question 14 on the
Quantitative Survey, that Homeboy Industries has made them better people, as is indicated in
Table 20, below. Question 14 received the fourth highest agreement of any on the Survey.
Table 20
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Homeboy Industries
Has Made Them Better People (N = 50)

n %
Totally agree 47 94
Somewhat agree 2 4
Undecided 0 0
Somewhat disagree 0 0
Totally disagree 1 2

Of the 50 participants in the study, all 50 (100%) stated, in response to Question 15 on the
Quantitative Survey, that Homeboy Industries has given them skills to avoid being
reincarcerated, as is indicated in Table 21, below. These skills included social, psychological,
and work abilities. As one of the participants said, “We’re learning things here that we were
never taught at home as children.” Question 15 received the highest agreement of any on the
Survey.
Table 21
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Homeboy Industries
Has Given Them Skills to Avoid Being Reincarcerated (N = 50)

n %
Totally agree 48 96
Somewhat agree 2 4
Undecided 0 0
Somewhat disagree 0 0
Totally disagree 0 0

JOBS, NOT JAIL 67
Of the 50 participants in the study, 31 (62%) stated, in response to Question 5 on the
Quantitative Survey, that having a positive mentor as an adolescent would have kept them out of
trouble with the law, as is indicated in Table 22, below. On the other hand, 15 (30%) disagreed
with this statement.
Table 22
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Having a Positive
Mentor as an Adolescent Would Have Kept Them Out of Trouble with the Law
(N = 50)

n %
Totally agree 27 54
Somewhat agree 4 8
Undecided 4 8
Somewhat disagree 5 10
Totally disagree 10 20

Of the 50 participants in the study, all 50 (100%) stated, in response to Question 16 on the
Quantitative Survey, that they have found love and compassion at Homeboy Industries, as is
indicated in Table 23, below. As one of the participants said, “Homeboy Industries has taught me
how to love myself and others.” Question 16 received the second highest agreement of any on
the Survey.
Table 23
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That They Have Found
Love and Compassion at Homeboy Industries (N = 50)

n %
Totally agree 44 88
Somewhat agree 6 12
Undecided 0 0
Somewhat disagree 0 0
Totally disagree 0 0

JOBS, NOT JAIL 68
Of the 50 participants in the study, 49 (98%) stated, in response to Question 17 on the
Quantitative Survey, that everyone deserves a second chance, as is indicated in Table 24, below.
Question 17 received the third highest agreement of any on the Survey.

Table 24
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That Everyone Deserves a
Second Chance (N = 50)

n %
Totally agree 47 94
Somewhat agree 2 4
Undecided 1 2
Somewhat disagree 0 0
Totally disagree 0 0

Of the 50 participants in the study, 42 (84%) stated, in response to Question 8 on the
Quantitative Survey, that it is much more difficult to leave gang life than to enter it, as is
indicated in Table 25, below. Only 6 (12%) of the participants disagreed with this statement.
Table 25
Frequency Distribution by the Participants Responding That It Is Much More Difficult to
Leave Gang Life than to Enter It (N = 50)

n %
Totally agree 36 72
Somewhat agree 6 12
Undecided 2 4
Somewhat disagree 0 0
Totally disagree 6 12

Factor Analysis of the Quantitative Data
JOBS, NOT JAIL 69
To measure the reliability of the quantitative variables in this study, the researcher employed
exploratory factor analysis, since her instruments had not previously been tested or validated.
That is, the researcher factor analyzed the data from the 20-item Quantitative Survey by means
of a principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Varimax rotation is a statistical
technique that is used in factor analysis to try to clarify the relationship among multiple factors.
Thus, the 20 items from the Quantitative Survey were reduced by SPSS statistical software to
7 components (see the Rotation Factor Matrix in Appendix F, below):
1. Establishing a Support System
2. Recovering from Addiction
3. Obtaining Love and Kindness
4. Making a Difference
5. Breaking the Cycle
6. Reducing Recidivism
7. Deserving a Second Chance

Each of these components yielded an eigenvalue of greater than 1.0 and can be thought of as
representing aspects of the participants (see Tables 26 to 32, below).

Table 26
Component 1: Establishing a Support System

Question # Question Text
5 If I had had a positive mentor as an
adolescent, I never would have gotten
into trouble with the law. (0.65%)

7 As an adolescent, I felt pressured to
join a gang. (0.77%)

13 I feel that I am in a safe place in my
current community. (–0.64%)

Table 27
JOBS, NOT JAIL 70
Component 2: Recovering from Addiction

Question # Question Text
4 I used drugs as an adolescent. (0.58%)

19 Homeboy Industries has taught
me how to find and keep work
in the future. (0.81%)

20 I have suggestions for how to
adapt the programs of Homeboy
Industries for adolescent populations. (0.79%)

Table 28
Component 3: Obtaining Love and Kindness

Question # Question Text
6 I feel hopeful about my future. (0.69%)

10 I liked playing sports as a child (5-10
years old). (0.68%)

18 I have a positive relationship with my
family. (0.78%)

Table 29
Component 4: Making a Difference

Question # Question Text
8 It is much more difficult to leave gang
life than to enter it. (0.52%)

9 By 4th grade (9-10 years old), I was
aware of gangs. (0.80%)

11 My current community has a problem
with adolescent gangs. (0.58%)

14 My experience with Homeboy Industries
has made me a better person. (0.74%)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 71
Table 30
Component 5: Breaking the Cycle

Question # Question Text
12 If my child joined a gang, I would be
okay with that. (–0.85%)
16 I have found love and compassion at
Homeboy Industries. (0.60%)

Table 31
Component 6: Reducing Recidivism

Question # Question Text
2 As an adolescent, I was aware that,
for certain felonies, juveniles are
tried as adults. (–0.57%)

15 Homeboy Industries has given me the
skills to avoid being reincarcerated. (0.86%)

Table 32
Component 7: Deserving a Second Chance

Question # Question Text
1 I made many decisions as an
adolescent that got me into trouble
with the law. (–0.71%)

3 As an adolescent, I had friends who
were never incarcerated. (0.65%)

17 I believe that everyone deserves a
second chance at redemption. (0.60%)

Research Question 1: “What Variables Make Homeboy Industries’ Rehabilitation
Program Successful?”
If one defines success in the Homeboy Industries context as Recovering from Addiction
(component 2) and Reducing Recidivism (component 6), then one should be interested in what
JOBS, NOT JAIL 72
predicts those two outcomes. To make that prediction, the researcher combined the remaining
components—1 (Establishing a Support System), 3 (Obtaining Love and Kindness), 4 (Making a
Difference), 5 (Breaking the Cycle), and 7 (Deserving a Second Chance)—into a combined
statistical model to predict success as defined above.
However, that model did not significantly predict the outcome of Recovering from
Addiction, F(5,44) = 1.54, p = .196 (see Table 33, below). But one component isolated from the
others (Breaking the Cycle) was a significant predictor of addiction recovery, β = 0.38, p = .01.
This indicates that for every one unit increase in one’s score for Breaking the Cycle, there is an
associated 1.35 increase in one’s score for Recovering from Addiction.

Table 33
Model Summary: Research Question 1 (Component 2)

JOBS, NOT JAIL 73
The combined statistical model also did not significantly predict the outcome of Reducing
Recidivism, F(5,44) = 1.08, p = .383 (see Table 34, below). However, one component isolated
from the others (Establishing a Support System) was a significant predictor for Reducing
Recidivism, β = -0.36, p = .05. This indicates that for every one unit increase in one’s score for
Establishing a Support System, there is an associated 0.17 decrease in one’s score for Reducing
Recidivism.

Table 34
Model Summary: Research Question 1 (Component 6)

Research Question 2: “Does Religious Faith or Spirituality Help or Hinder Rehabilitation
Efforts?”
Question 12 on the Demographic Questionnaire asks: “Frequency That Your Family
Members Talk About God, the Scriptures, Prayer, or Other Religious or Spiritual Practices
JOBS, NOT JAIL 74
Together?” The optional frequencies were: (1) At least once per week; (2) Less than once per
week; or (3) Never.
Recovering from Addiction [F(3,46) = 1.37, p = .264] and Reducing Recidivism [F(3,46) =
1.87, p = .147] did not differ significantly among the three religious/spirituality frequency groups
(see Table 35, below).

Table 35
One-Way ANOVA: Research Question 2 (Demographic Question 12)

Question 13 on the Demographic Questionnaire asks: “Frequency of Attending Religious
Services?” One might expect that at least one or more of the eight religious/spirituality
attendance frequency groups (from Never to Several times per week) will be different from the
others as they pertain to Recovering from Addiction and Reducing Recidivism.
However, Recovering from Addiction [F(8,40) = 0.95, p = .485] and Reducing Recidivism
[F(8,40) = 0.71, p = .681] did not differ significantly among the eight religious/spirituality
attendance frequency groups (see Table 36, below).
JOBS, NOT JAIL 75

Table 36
One-Way ANOVA: Research Question 2 (Demographic Question 13)

Qualitative Analysis of the Interviews
The Larger Versus the Smaller Sample
The 12 interviewees were in some ways representative of the larger group of 50 trainees, of
whom they were a part. This was especially true of age and religion. In other ways, the smaller
group was unrepresentative of the larger one. The demographic breakdown of the two groups
appears in Table 37, below.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 76
Table 37:
Comparison of the Larger and Smaller Samples

LARGER SAMPLE (N = 50) SMALLER SAMPLE (N = 12)
n % n %
Age
18-24 6 12% 0 0%
25-34 22 44% 7 58%
35-44 15 30% 3 25%
45+ 7 14% 2 17%
Race & Ethnicity
African American 8 16% 2 17%
Hispanic of any race 36 72% 7 58%
Two or more races 3 6% 1 8%
White 3 6% 2 17%
Gender
Male 33 66% 7 58%
Female 17 34% 5 42%
Marital Status
Single (never married) 35 70% 7 58%
In a relationship 6 12% 3 25%
Married 5 10% 1 8%
Widowed 1 2% 0 0%
Divorced 1 2% 1 8%
Separated 2 4% 0 0%
Religion
Atheist, or none 8 16% 4 33%
Agnostic 3 6% 0 0%
Muslim 1 2% 0 0%
Protestant 14 28% 3 25%
Roman Catholic 22 44% 5 42%
Other 2 4% 0 0%

Grounded Theory Methodology
The researcher transcribed the 12 interviews on 240 double-spaced pages of text, which she
then fed into the MAXQDA program for coding the qualitative data, using grounded theory
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). By repeatedly reviewing the data, she found recurring themes, which
JOBS, NOT JAIL 77
she color-coded with keywords and phrases that she grouped hierarchically. Finally, by creating
categories and links between them, she developed theories about the phenomena. During this
process, the researcher listened to the dozen 30-minute interviews at least 10 times each, taking
notes each time.
Using grounded theory, the researcher developed categories and concepts after collecting her
data, avoiding any preconceived assumptions. Thus, the ultimate theories that emerged were
“grounded” in the data. The researcher only stopped theorizing when she had exhausted all the
theoretical avenues she could think of.
Theme #1: Strategies Taken to Avoid Recidivism
Nine of the interviewees—the 9 of the 12 (75%) who were parents, five females and four
males—mentioned that they would miss their children if they returned to prison, and that they
want to be positive role models for their children. Several of these interviewees mentioned that
they wanted to be the parents they themselves never had.
Eight of the 12 (66.7%) interviewees, six males and two females, stated that to avoid
recidivism they avoided their old associates. Two of them mentioned staying at Homeboy
Industries until it closes so that the old associates think that the interviewees are just getting off
from work, and therefore those associates are not offended. Of course, since most of the
interviewees are compelled by finances to stay in their old neighborhoods, it is impossible to
totally avoid contact with former gang members, which got the interviewees into trouble in the
first place. Several interviewees mentioned that they are now “inactive,” although they cannot
outright tell their old homies that. A condition of probation is having no contact with former
gang members, which can be virtually impossible because those members are often relatives and
neighbors.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 78
Five of the 12 (41.7%) interviewees, three males and two females, stated that Homeboy
Industries provides a great support system, some specifically citing the drug and alcohol
rehabilitation programs. Several of these interviewees mentioned the positive effect of
socializing with fellow trainees, co-workers, and Homeboy Industries staff members, feeling
cared for by all of these people. One interviewee mentioned that he valued himself now. The
principal role model for loving kinship was Father Boyle himself.
Four of the 12 (33.3%) interviewees, three males and one female, stated that having a job
kept them focused and out of trouble.
Three of the 12 (25%) interviewees, one male and two females, cited education as a strategy
to avoid recidivism and to give back to society.
One male interviewee (8.3%) cited wanting a better life; a second male interviewee (8.3%)
cited the dangers of being incarcerated; a third male interviewee (8.3%) cited family support; one
female interviewee (8.3%) mentioned wanting to “follow the rules” this time around; and a
second female interviewee (8.3%) mentioned that she earlier became a smarter criminal to avoid
getting caught. (See Table 38, below)

Table 38
Theme #1: Strategies Taken to Avoid Recidivism (N = 12)

Name of Strategy
% of
Interviewees
Strategy #1 Would miss their children if they returned to prison 75.0%
Strategy #2 Avoid old associates 66.7%
Strategy #3 Homeboy Industries provides a great support system 41.7%
Strategy #4 Having a job keeps them focused and out of trouble 33.3%
Strategy #5 Education 25.0%
Theme #2: Advice to Families to Prevent Children from Entering the Criminal Justice
System
JOBS, NOT JAIL 79
Nine of the 12 interviewees (75%)—again the 9 who are themselves parents, five females
and four males—stated that parents must love their children and become actively involved in
their lives, spending considerable amounts of time with them. One of these interviewees stated
that if both parents are involved, the child will have a better chance of not entering the juvenile
justice system. This same interviewee became less hypothetical and more practical when he
turned from the advice he might give other parents to the advice he’s already giving his own 14-
year-old son, which includes staying away from drugs and “babes,” and putting away
headphones to be aware of his surroundings at all times and be “street smart.” He doesn’t want
his son to be “snatched up by some tagger or gang member. I want to teach my kid what’s up. I
don’t want gang life for him, because it’s not a life.” Two of these 9 interviewees suggested
involving children in group activities such as sports. Another mentioned going to open houses at
school and parent-teacher conferences. One suggested enrolling the children in programs such as
ROTC and not letting them have too much idle time. Interestingly, none of these interviewees
were speaking from experience, because none of them had involved parents themselves, ten of
them were raised by non-parental caregivers (mostly grandmothers) or in foster care homes, and
four ultimately became runaways.
Six of the 12 interviewees (four males and two females; 50%) advised parents to move to a
better neighborhood, if possible, where there would be better schools, no gangs, and less access
to drugs. In most cases, such a move is impossible because it is beyond the economic ability of
poor parents.
Five of the 12 interviewees (41.7%), all of them male and four of them fathers with one of
more sons, focused on providing a positive male role model for children, since many
JOBS, NOT JAIL 80
incarcerated individuals, including 90% of the trainees at Homeboy Industries, lacked fathers in
their childhood years and beyond.
Four of the 12 interviewees (33.3%), all males and all of them fathers, stated that they would
explain to their children the trouble they themselves got into as children. One of these four said
that he would say to his daughters, “You wanna gangbang? That’s what you wanna do? You
wanna go shoot someone? You know what it’s gonna cost you?” Another one of the four stated
that being incarcerated means being treated as less than human.
Four of the 12 interviewees (33.3%), all of them female, cited making sure that their children
have good friends, because, as one noted, gangs and drugs are everywhere. One of these
interviewees advised that when their children visit friends, the parents of those friends should
always be present. That interviewee did not take into account that the parents of those friends
might not necessarily be positive role models.
Four of the 12 interviewees (33.3%), three males and one female, suggested that parents
should involve their children in Homeboy Industries. Three of these interviewees have actually
brought teenage children to Homeboy Industries to lure them away from gangs by taking
academic classes and working part-time. (See Table 39, below)

JOBS, NOT JAIL 81
Table 39
Theme #2: Advice to Families to Prevent Children from Entering the Criminal Justice
System (N = 12)

Name of Strategy
% of
Interviewees
Strategy #1 Parents must love their children 75.0%
Strategy #2 Parents should relocate away from gangs 50.0%
Strategy #3 Fathers should provide a positive male role model for
their children
41.7%
Strategy #4 Parents should explain to their children the trouble
they themselves got into as children
33.3%
Strategy #5 Parents should make sure that their children have
good friends
33.3%
Strategy #6 Parents should involve their children in Homeboy
Industries
33.3%

Theme #3: The Participants’ Experience with Gangs
Seven of the 12 interviewees (58.3%), four males and three females, noted that they joined a
gang for self-protection. “To this day,” one male interviewee stated, “if I see a gang member
[from my neighborhood], I have to say ‘Hi’ in order to be safe.” Another male interviewee said,
“I felt that if I got into a gang, no one could ever hurt me.” A third male interviewee stated that
gang membership made him “feel fearless…, like being high—an addiction…, like a macho
man…, like Superman.” A fourth male interviewee stated that safety was the main reason he
joined a gang. “I felt,” he said, “like I needed to be a part of something first for safety, that was
kinda the pressure.” A female interviewee thought it was “cool” to be a gang member because
“nobody can f—k with us.” Another female interviewee stated, “I grew up in gangs, which took
care of me when my parents weren’t around.” An eighth interviewee, also female, who claimed
never to have been a gang member but to have “hung out” with gang members, stated that one of
the older male gang members treated her as a daughter and protected her from the other guys.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 82
Six of the 12 interviewees (50%), three males and three females, specifically stated that they
joined a gang to be part of a family. “Even today,” one said, “I could call on the gang to help me
financially and emotionally.” Another one literally equated gang membership with love. “I
wanted,” she said, “to feel like I was a part of a family. I wanted to feel that love.” A third
interviewee stated that gang membership gave him a sense of self-worth that he didn’t get
anywhere else. Of his fellow gang members, he said: “I felt like they were family.… I was
getting that validation, that pat on the back that I needed, that I wasn’t getting at home or
anywhere else by teachers, by community leaders, no one, my pastors, no one like was available,
and these individuals were available, and they were in the same position as me.”
Five of the 12 interviewees (41.7%), three males and two females, stated that they joined a
gang because other members of their family were already gang members. Uncles, fathers,
brothers, and mothers were most frequently named.
Four of the 12 interviewees (33.3%), all males, stated that one appeal of gang membership
was that it gave them access to drugs. A fifth interviewee, a female, who claimed not to have
ever been a gang member, nevertheless admitted to being a drug addict.
Two of the 12 interviewees (16.7%), both male, stated that one of the main pleasures of
being in a gang was that it gave them sexual access to “available” girls.
Only one of the 12 interviewees (8.3%), a male, mentioned access to alcohol at a young age
as a reason for joining a gang. However, he added that “alcohol will mess you up as a little kid.
You know? And when you’re at that point, your mind’s not straight.”
Only one of the 12 interviewees (8.3%), a female, mentioned access to guns as a reason for
joining a gang.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 83
Other reasons given for joining a gang included that they “were cool and fun” (a female), that
membership earned respect from older boys (a male), and that everyone in the neighborhood was
a member of a gang (a female). One interviewee (a male) stated that things might have been
different if he had had a father figure.
As for leaving one’s gang, there was some difference of opinion. Two of the 12 (16.7%)
interviewees (both male) literally said that “the only way out of a gang is death.” But one of
these two stated that he is “just doing the father thing,” so he is “not active” in his gang.
Nevertheless, he would never deny being a gang member, because if that “gets back to my
homies, oh, it’s going to be all bad for me whenever they catch up to me, if they catch up to me.
I’m going to have something coming. Whether it’s being stabbed, shot, beat up. You know what
I mean? So, for me, it’s like there’s no getting out of it.” But a female interviewee said that many
gangs today are more “forgiving” about members leaving them if the exit is partial—that is, if
the member becomes “affiliated” or “steps back.” Another female interviewee in this category
stated that she “snapped out of it” when her second son was born addicted to drugs, since she
was an addict at the time. One of the male interviewees was most articulate on this subject: “I
think for most,” he said, “the hard part about leaving the neighborhood is because you’re leaving
an identity, you’re leaving who you are. The only thing that you know about yourself and the
majority of us have created a mask that allows us to fit in there. And somewhere along the line,
you end up losing your real self and becoming the mask that you created to be able to survive in
that environment. So when it’s time to leave the gang, when you’ve been this person, it took you
a long time, a lot of hard work, a lot of dangerous situations and sacrifices to get this name and
become this person…. [Gang membership has] always been built off of a negative premise. So,
JOBS, NOT JAIL 84
you know, nothing good will ever come from it. There’s no retirement plan.” (See Table 40,
below)

Table 40
Theme #3: The Participants’ Experience with Gangs (N = 12)

Name of Insight
% of
Interviewees
Insight #1 Joined a gang for self-protection 58.3%
Insight #2 Joined a gang to be part of a family 50.0%
Insight #3 Joined a gang because other members of their family
were already gang members
41.7%
Insight #4 Gang membership gave them access to drugs 33.3%
Insight #5 Gang membership gave them sexual access to
“available” girls
16.7%

Theme #4: Has Religious Faith Helped or Hindered the Interviewees’ Rehabilitation Efforts?
Eight of the 12 interviewees (four males and four females; 66.7%) felt that their religious
faith helped them in their rehabilitation. One of these interviewees (a male) said: “Materialistic
things, cars, women, sex—none of this stuff was working. It’s not curing anything. It’s not filling
these voids. So, I asked, What can help? In my case, it was God.” Earlier in his life, this
interviewee’s lack of religious faith helped him to commit crimes. “When I lost my faith,” he
said, “it was easy for me to turn off my soul and do violent things. The gang becomes your belief
system. So, when you want to leave the gang, you can’t even trust your own thinking or your
own mind. And that leaves you in a pretty lost place.” Another of these interviewees (a male)
believes that God has given him a second chance. “You know,” he said, “I actually, all the time
I’ve been incarcerated, I still got a [release] date. You know what I’m saying? Like, God, I’m
getting me a sign. Like, come on, man. Like, you know, I mean some people don’t got it. Some
people don’t walk out of the doors or those gates, you know, and some of them don’t walk out,
JOBS, NOT JAIL 85
and they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. They didn’t even do nothing.” One of
the female interviewees stated that religion helped her “a little bit.” When she almost lost her
baby because of her drug addiction, she says, “I was praying, but I’m not going to say, oh, I go to
church and all that, ‘cause I don’t, you know. I just talk to him [God] and talk to him only. So
that’s what I do, you know, and I just pray on my own. I don’t go to church. I don’t. ’Cause
sometimes I feel like it did [i.e., praying helped]. Sometimes it helps because then sometimes
things come out positive.” Yet another of these interviewees stated that her religious faith not
only helped with her rehabilitation, but also helped her to commit crimes! “Every time I was
robbing somebody or stealing a car,” she said, “always, always pray. Like I was constantly
praying while I’m driving. Like, ‘Don’t let me get pulled over. Please don’t let nothing happen to
me.’”
Two of the 12 interviewees (one male and one female; 16.7%) felt that religious faith neither
helped nor hindered them in their rehabilitation. The female interviewee stated that “I only
looked for God when something bad was about to happen to me.” The male interviewee stated
that praying never worked for him every time he got arrested and did time. “Religion,” he said,
“can’t do much for you.”
Two of the 12 interviewees (both male; 16.7%) felt that religious faith was irrelevant to their
rehabilitation. One of them said that he identified as an atheist, and the other said that he didn’t
know much about the church.
One of the 12 interviewees (a female; 8.3%) felt that religious faith helped in her
rehabilitation by occupying her mind with positive things, but then, as she was leaving
rehabilitation, she started to question everything and no longer believes in religion at all.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 86
None of the 12 interviewees (0.0%) felt that religious faith hindered them in their
rehabilitation. (See Table 41, below)

Table 41
Theme #4: Has Religious Faith Helped or Hindered the Interviewees’ Rehabilitation Efforts?

Name of Insight
% of
Interviewees
Insight #1 Religious faith helped them in their rehabilitation 66.7%
Insight #2 Religious faith neither helped nor hindered them in
their rehabilitation
16.7%
Insight #3 Religious faith was irrelevant to their rehabilitation 16.7%
Insight #4 Religious faith helped in her rehabilitation, but now
she no longer believes in religion at all
8.3%
Insight #5 Religious faith hindered them in their rehabilitation 0.0%

Theme #5: What Is the Single Most Significant Thing the Interviewees Have Learned at
Homeboy Industries
Interviewee #1 stated that he is learning that family comes first. He had no father figure in
life, and his mother was mostly absent as she held down two jobs. He believes that he “would
have been someone in life” if he had had a father figure or mentor. With his own children, he
wants to do what his parents didn’t do for him.
Interviewee #2 stated that she is learning how to forgive herself. Before coming to Homeboy
Industries, she had her children taken away from her by Child Protective Services because of her
drug addiction. Now that she has her children back, she feels guilty about having been separated
from them.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 87
Interviewee #3 stated that he is learning how to have faith in himself. After a lengthy
incarceration, he said, “I’m still trying to adjust out here, but I just think positive. Like, you
know what? You’re out here now, you got this.”
Interviewee #4 stated that she is learning how to control her temper. Before she came to
Homeboy Industries, she “would just snap real quick on anybody.”
Interviewee #5 stated that she is learning how to be more compassionate toward others. “I’m
not very compassionate towards people,” she said. “People think I’m kind of mean and rude, but
when they get to know me, I’m like very lovable. Like I had to get to know you better. I’ve
learned to be softer with people, compassionate, because I wasn’t like that. Like it was just hard
for me. I had this hard wall up. Like I wouldn’t let nobody in, and I wasn’t too friendly.”
Interviewee #6 stated that, because of the love and compassion he is receiving at Homeboy
Industries, and being given a second chance, he is coming closer to God. “I believe in God,” he
said, “because I’ve been shot fourteen times. All through my body, my head, my face, my whole
body. And I believe that there’s a reason for me being here, and it’s like, I believe that the only
reason why I’m here is because of God.”
Interviewee #7 stated that he is learning how to help others. “I like helping people get their
lives back in order,” he said. “I got mine back. Yeah. Now I can help get other people’s lives
back.”
Interviewee #8 stated that he is learning how to be a better parent. Talking about his six-
year-old son, he said, “I’ve learned that when he does something he’s not supposed to, I’m big,
I’m tall, I have tattoos, I’m kind of intimidating. And I used to get mad and frustrated. And I’m
like, ‘Man, you know you’re not supposed to do that.’ And he would be scared. Like that would
break my heart.”
JOBS, NOT JAIL 88
Interviewee #9 stated that he is learning how to put his pride aside and ask for help from
others. “Homeboy taught me how to humble myself and ask for that help,” he said. “It may not
be the help that I want, but they always give me the help that I need.”
Interviewee #10 stated that she is learning about kinship—that the doors of Homeboy
Industries are always open for her. “So, I was coming up here to look for housing,” she said,
“and then, when I walked through the doors, they were having the morning meeting. And I’m
like, ‘Whoa!’ Like I’ve never been a part of something like this, you know? And it feels like love
when you walk through these doors.”
Interviewee #11 stated that he is learning how to make the changes in himself that he sees in
others. “It’s one thing to have people telling you, like, ‘Oh, you need to do this, or you can do
this,’ when no one’s giving you, you know, the map to how to get to that. And for you to be able
to actually see people doing it on a consistent basis daily. You know, ex-drug addicts, men that
you know have done twenty years in prison, you see them being great fathers and with their kids
every day. You see them getting praised in our morning meeting for graduating, for getting into a
university. We see these things on a daily basis. Like all the heroes we ever need are under this
roof.”
Interviewee #12 stated that she is learning that everyone deserves a second chance, and that
if given a second chance, a lot of people make good on it. Homeboy Industries “gave me a
second chance,” she said, “and all I needed was someone to give me a second chance…, or
eightieth, or whatever it was. They gave me a chance, and I ran with it, and I haven’t looked
back. I needed an opportunity, they gave it to me. And so, like, single-handedly, that’s the most
thing I’m grateful for.” (See Table 42, below)

JOBS, NOT JAIL 89
Table 42
Theme #5: What Is the Single Most Significant Thing the Interviewees Have Learned at
Homeboy Industries?

What the Interviewee Has Learned
Interviewee #1 He has learned that family comes first
Interviewee #2 She is learning how to forgive herself
Interviewee #3 He is learning how to have faith in himself
Interviewee #4 She is learning how to control her temper
Interviewee #5 She is learning how to be more compassionate toward others
Interviewee #6 He is learning to come closer to God
Interviewee #7 He is learning how to help others
Interviewee #8 He is learning how to be a better parent
Interviewee #9 He is learning how to put his pride aside and ask for help from others
Interviewee #10 She is learning about kinship—that the doors of Homeboy Industries are
always open for her
Interviewee #11 He is learning how to make the changes in himself that he sees in others
Interviewee #12 She is learning that everyone deserves a second chance, and that if given
a second chance, a lot of people make good on it

Theme #6: Additional Thoughts the Interviewees Had
Interviewee #1 stated that he wishes he could afford to leave his neighborhood and live
somewhere that there are no gangs. “But because I have four kids,” he added, “I’d have to pay
two thousand dollars for rent, but I’d rather pay it toward a mortgage, you know? But I don’t
have the down payment for a mortgage.”
Interviewee #2 stated that she would like to live in an area where there are no gangs, so that
she can keep her children away from gangs. About her own childhood, she said, “I definitely
thought I was a black sheep’s child, a little black sheep. I really felt that way…. I hung out in
front of my building, you know? …If I was outside, everybody would come, and we weren’t
from a gang, but we just all kicked it, and we smoked weed, and, you know, I don’t want that to
JOBS, NOT JAIL 90
be happening outside of my house where I live now, or where I’m going to live, you know? I
don’t want my son to see that kind of stuff.”
Interviewee #3 stated that there are cameras everywhere today, so gangbanging is much
harder than it used to be because you’re going to get caught. “Maybe back in the day,” he said,
“you could probably get away with something. Now there’s cameras everywhere. I don’t care
what anybody says. You’re getting caught straight out. You know, back in the day, you could do
beer runs, all that other stuff. Not anymore, man.” Then, he said that if one of his teenage
daughters told him that she wanted to join a gang with her boyfriend, he would say, “‘You want
to gangbang? Okay, don’t call me when you’re in there [i.e., prison] and having all this time, you
know? This is what you wanna do? I’m gonna tell you what I did when I was gangbanging.’ And
I’ll run it down with her, you know? How I got shot. The drugs, the game, and all that. How guys
take advantage of girls. Just want to get inside their pants. ‘That’s not you. Learn. Get into
school. You know? You’re more than that.’”
Interviewee #4 stated that she knew she would resume taking drugs if Homeboy Industries
did not accept her. Speaking of Father Boyle, she said, “I told him, ‘Pops, I feel like if I don’t get
into work soon, I’m gonna relapse.’ He said, ‘Oh, no, we don’t need that.’ So he told me to start
work the next Monday. He told me, ‘Just give me a clean drug test.’”
Interviewee #5 stated that the doors of Homeboy Industries are always open to drug addicts,
convicted felons, and gang members with tattoos, but they have to want the help that Homeboy
Industries is offering. “We think there is no hope for us,” she said, “but there is. You just have to
go through those doors.”
Interviewee #6 stated that, like Interviewees #1, 7, and 8, his whole life might have been
different if he had had a father figure as he grew up. Nevertheless, he stated that he wants to be
JOBS, NOT JAIL 91
that kind of father figure for his teenage stepson. “The reason why I’m alive right now,” he said,
“is because I don’t want to leave my stepson how my dad left me. My dad killed himself, and my
little brother killed himself. So there’s many times I actually want to kill myself, but I don’t want
to leave that little boy like how I was left.”
Interviewee #7 stated that, like Interviewees #1, 6, and 8, his whole life might have been
different if he had had a father figure as he grew up. “My mom died when I was younger,” he
said. “Like, probably sixteen, seventeen. And my dad was always in and out of jail, you know?
Like it was a revolving door or whatever. So, I had my grandmother. She was the one like raised
me, and a few uncles. So, I’ve never had parents around.”
Interviewee #8 stated that, like Interviewees #1, 6, and 7, his whole life might have been
different if he had had a father figure as he grew up. “My father,” he said, “if you asked me to
raise my hand if my father was in my life, it would kinda go halfway up. My mom and dad
divorced when I was a baby. And my grandparents on my dad’s side took me in when I was, like,
two years old. So, my dad was in and out of my life. Like I would see him, he’d come and he’d
go. My dad always had a girlfriend who had a kid, you know? So, he always lived with a
girlfriend with a stepchild, and I was always with my grandparents. So, I had my grandfather,
who was a wonderful role model. But unfortunately, he had a stroke. And he was left
paralyzed.… I was fourteen, and helped take care of him for six months. But that was very
traumatizing for me, you know? Because my grandpa was the type of man that did everything.
He poured the cement around the house. He built that house. So, I started running away from
home. And then, before I knew it, I was hanging out with the wrong people, and I was getting in
trouble.”
JOBS, NOT JAIL 92
Interviewee #9 stated that he didn’t know where he would be now without the help of Father
Boyle, since he never before felt part of a family. “I never really had a family show me what to
do and what not to do,” he said. “I’ve been on my own since I’ve been like ten, eleven years old.
I haven’t really known what family is to hold onto. You know? I’ve always felt left out. I had
three older sisters, three younger brothers. My mom and dad had a roof over my sisters’ heads.
Then they had me. Then they broke up, and the streets raised me. My dad had a son after me
from another lady, put a roof over his head, and my mom had two boys after me and put a roof
over their heads. For some reason, I was left out. And like I said, for some reason I wasn’t part of
a family.”
Interviewee #10 stated that she’s never really had a family, but Homeboy Industries will
never let her fall through the cracks. They will always work with her to lift her back up.
“Homeboy Industries,” she said, “is like family to me.” But when she went into prison at age 15,
her “mom was on drugs and alcohol. My father’s always stayed on the east coast, so he’s really
far away. Really far. My family on my mom’s side is out here, but I’ve never been really close to
them because my mom did a lot of messed up things to them when I was a kid, and her being on
drugs and her forcing me to do stuff made them not like me.”
Interviewee #11 stated that kids need to have positive role models who show them what the
possibilities are for them in life. If kids lack those models, he said, there are gang members out
on the street who will snatch them up. “When I was being placed in boys homes and group
homes,” he said, “ninety percent of these kids were active gang members whose parents were
gang members and whose parents’ parents were gang members. So, you know, they had come
from these generations of gangs. So, nineteen-year-olds were already fully active gang members,
and I was being victimized by them on a consistent basis because I didn’t belong to any sect or
JOBS, NOT JAIL 93
denomination [of gangs] in there. So, you know, it was really hard to be by yourself in that
place.… That was at about ten or eleven years old.”
Interviewee #12 stated that she wants to earn a master’s degree in social work, so she can
help vulnerable kids. Furthermore, she added that kids just need one person who believes in them
to turn their lives around. “I don’t think there’s going to be much help by way of financial aid,”
she said, “unless I get scholarships and stuff. So I’m working on that. That’s the only way I
could really do it, actually…. But, then, I’m a single mom, and I have to work. So, I’ve heard
that Cal State Dominguez Hills has a more feasible program. Like, you don’t have to be on
campus as much. So, it’s like Wednesday and every other Saturday, which works perfectly for
me because I need to spend time with my kid, too…. But online works perfectly for me with my
schedule. It’s really important to me that I be there for my kid.” (See Table 43, below)

JOBS, NOT JAIL 94
Table 43
Theme #6: Additional Thoughts the Interviewees Had

Interviewee’s Additional Thoughts
Interviewee #1 He wishes he could afford to leave his neighborhood and live somewhere
that there are no gangs
Interviewee #2 She stated that she would like to live in an area where there are no gangs,
so that she can keep her children away from gangs
Interviewee #3 He stated that there are cameras everywhere today, so gangbanging is
much harder than it used to be because you’re going to get caught
Interviewee #4 She stated that she knew she would resume taking drugs if Homeboy
Industries did not accept her
Interviewee #5 She stated that the doors of Homeboy Industries are always open to drug
addicts, convicted felons, and gang members with tattoos, but they have
to want the help that Homeboy Industries is offering
Interviewee #6 He stated that his whole life might have been different if he had had a
father figure as he was growing up
Interviewee #7 He stated that his whole life might have been different if he had had a
father figure as he was growing up
Interviewee #8 He stated that his whole life might have been different if he had had a
father figure as he was growing up
Interviewee #9 He stated that he didn’t know where he would be now without the help of
Father Boyle, since he never before felt part of a family
Interviewee #10 She stated that she’s never really had a family, but Homeboy Industries
will never let her fall through the cracks. They will always work with her
to lift her back up
Interviewee #11 He stated that kids need to have positive role models who show them
what the possibilities are for them in life. If kids lack those models, he
said, there are gang members out on the street who will snatch them up
Interviewee #12 She stated that she wants to earn a master’s degree in social work, so she
can help vulnerable kids. Furthermore, she added that kids just need one
person who believes in them to turn their lives around

Summary
After reviewing the three principal instruments used in the study (the Demographic
Questionnaire, the Quantitative Survey, and the Qualitative Interviews), the researcher presented
the results of each. Most of the trainees at Homeboy Industries were between the ages of 25 and
44. Two-thirds were male, and one-third were female. Some of them joined gangs as young as 7
JOBS, NOT JAIL 95
and 8, and some were first arrested as young as 8 or 9. Just under half of them completed a high
school education. The 30 participants who were arrested by the age of 13 spent a total of 410.5
years in prison. At the time of the interview, many of them had been trainees at Homeboy
Industries for only six months, one had been there as little as one month, and another had been
there as long as eight years. Just under 75% of them were Hispanic, just under 16% were African
American, and just under 6% were White. Thirty-nine of the 50 (78%) were parents of 116
children. Thirty-five of the 50 (70%) were single and had never been married. Thirty-nine of the
50 (78%) feel that there is a gang problem in their neighborhood. Nearly a quarter of them (24%)
feel unsafe in their neighborhood. Forty-six (92%) of them were employed full-time, and the
other four were employed part-time. Just under three-quarters of them (72%) were Christian
(44% Roman Catholics and 28% Protestants), 8 (16%) were Atheists, and three (6%) were
Agnostic. Almost two-thirds (66%) of them share religious practices with their family members
at least once per week, and half of them attend religious services between several times per year
and several times per week.
Although all but two of the participants had been gang members, 29 of the 50 (58%) stated
that they had not been pressured to join their gang. Forty-three of them (86%) had used drugs as
adolescents. Forty-nine of the 50 (98%) stated that Homeboy Industries had made them better
people. All fifty (100%) of the trainees agreed that Homeboy Industries has given them skills to
avoid being reincarcerated. Just under two-thirds (62%) felt that if they had had a positive
mentor as adolescents, that would have kept them out of trouble with the law. All fifty (100%) of
the trainees stated that they have found love and compassion at Homeboy Industries. Forty-nine
(98%) felt that everyone deserves a second chance. Forty-two (84%) believe that it is much more
difficult to leave gang life than to enter it.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 96
There were two major findings of the statistical factor analysis of the quantitative data. The
first was that breaking the cycle of gang membership is a significant predictor for recovering
from drug addiction. The second was that establishing a support system is a significant predictor
for reducing arrest recidivism. On the other hand, there was no significant predictive association
between religious or spiritual faith and reduction in criminal recidivism or recovery from drug
addiction. This contradicts the statements of 8 of the 12 interviewees who said that religious faith
had helped them in their rehabilitation (see Theme #4, above).
As for the qualitative results from the 12 interviews, the 12 trainees were not completely
representative of the other 38 (see Table 37, above), but they provided many valuable insights as
they all spoke openly and comfortably with the researcher.
Nine of the 12 trainees (75%) were parents and gave as their primary reason for avoiding
criminal recidivism that they would miss their children if they returned to prison. Their second
most frequently mentioned strategy for avoiding recidivism was to avoid their old associates as
much as possible. Third most frequently mentioned was that Homeboy Industries provides a
great support system (see Table 34, above). One interviewee said that with cameras everywhere,
you’re going to get caught.
To keep their children from entering the criminal justice system, 9 of the 12 interviewees
(75%) stated that parents must love their children and be actively involved in their lives. This
will be even better, they said, if both parents are involved. In particular, they would explain to
their children the trouble they themselves got into as children.
Seven of the 12 (58%) stated that they joined a gang for self-protection. Six of the 12 (50%)
stated that they joined a gang to be part of a family. Five of the 12 interviewees (47%) stated that
they joined a gang because other members of their family were already gang members. Four of
JOBS, NOT JAIL 97
the 12 interviewees (33%) stated that gang membership gave them access to drugs. Two (17%)
stated that gang membership gave them sexual access to “available” girls. As for leaving one’s
gang, two of the 12 interviewees (17%) said that “the only way out of a gang is death.”
Eight of the 12 interviewees (67%) felt that their religious faith helped them in their
rehabilitation. On the other hand, two of the 12 interviewees (17%) felt that religious faith was
irrelevant to their rehabilitation. None of the 12 interviewees felt that religious faith hindered
them in their rehabilitation. Two of the 12 interviewees stated that they do not practice religion
themselves, but they want it for their children.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 98
Chapter 5:
Discussion and Conclusions
Implications of the Results
The Quantitative and Qualitative Data
One of the first impressions that the researcher had of the 12 interviewees at Homeboy
Industries was how traumatized and victimized they were as children. Only three of these
children were raised by a biological parent. The other 9 were taken away by the California
Department of Family Services and placed either with relatives, usually a grandmother, with
foster parents, or in a group home. Some of these children were then physically or even sexually
abused. Eventually, several of these children ran away from “home” and ended up in gangs. The
reasons for the children being taken from their parents included that the parents were drug
addicts, in prison, or abusive.
Only one of these children had any contact with a positive mentor, and that relationship came
to a rapid end when the mentor had a stroke and became paralyzed. Several of the interviewees
stated that if they had had such a mentor, their whole lives may have been different. Certainly,
none of them had any contact with a therapist until they came to Homeboy Industries. Now,
many of them have learned to manage their anger, love themselves, and give to others. In fact,
every one of them mentioned wanting to “give back” to society. Two of them mentioned that
they wanted to become drug counselors, and one stated that she wanted to become a social
worker. All of the 12 spoke about Father Boyle with love and respect, as if he were that mentor
they never had before.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 99
Despite their traumatic backgrounds, including incarceration, all of the interviewees, to the
researcher’s surprise, were warm and accessible. In fact, for a population that is known to be
tightlipped, they were amazingly forthcoming, open, and trusting. The researcher believes that
there are at least two reasons for this. One is that the trainees have genuinely accepted the loving
culture of Homeboy Industries and felt safe being surveyed and interviewed there. The other is
that they all felt that the researcher’s project could potentially help vulnerable children like their
former selves.
The researcher was also surprised by how ready the interviewees were to prevent their own
children from joining gangs. Some of them had children as young as 5, who were already
showing signs of being attracted to gang language and behavior, which led their parents to think
of moving away from their current neighborhoods. Of the 50 trainees whom the researcher
surveyed, including the 12 interviewees, only 3 stated that they would be “okay” with their
children joining a gang. However, one of these trainees has no children, and the other two have
grown children who are already gang members and in prison for long sentences.
The Theoretical Background for the Present Study
The theoretical background for the present study was Social Justice Theory as conceived by
the Catholic Church, which underlies Father Boyle’s governing philosophy in his direction of
Homeboy Industries. That teaching advances seven key themes: (1) The Dignity of Human Life;
(2) The Unity of the Human Family; (3) Care for Mother Earth; (4) Marriage and Family as the
Central Social Institutions; (5) Compassion for the Poor and Vulnerable; (6) Protection of
Human Rights; and (7) The Dignity of Work.
The Dignity of Human Life was quantified in responses to Question 17 of the Quantitative
Survey, to which 49 of the 50 trainees agreed that everyone deserves a second chance. In
JOBS, NOT JAIL 100
addition, all 12 of the interviewees stated that Homeboy Industries had given them a second
chance in life.
The Unity of the Human Family came up in all the responses to Question 16 of the
Quantitative Survey, to which all 50 trainees agreed that they have loving compassion for others.
Care for Mother Earth came up in the interviews when five interviewees stated, in various
ways, that they were proud of their orderliness and worked hard to keep their environment at
Homeboy Industries clean.
Marriage and Family as the Central Social Institutions came up in all the responses to
Question 18 of the Quantitative Survey, to which 38 of the 50 trainees agreed that they had a
positive relationship with their current families. In addition, 8 of the 12 interviewees stated that
they had a positive relationship with their current families.
Compassion for the Poor and Vulnerable came up in the interviews when all 12 of the
interviewees stated that they want to help others to stay out of jail and on the right track.
Protection of Human Rights came up in the interviews when the 9 parents among the
interviewees stated that they want safe neighborhoods and good schools for their children.
The Dignity of Work came up in responses to the Demographic Questionnaire, where all 50
trainees stated that they are gainfully employed. This theme also came up in the interviews in the
response to the opening question by the researcher, “What steps have you taken to avoid
reentering the criminal justice system?” To this question, all 12 of the interviewees stated, in
varying ways, that they were proud to be working and to have money to spend on their kids,
instead of on drugs.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 101
Agreements and Disagreements with the Literature
Most of the researcher’s findings agree with what other writers have said, as presented in the
Review of Literature chapter, above. For example, Glaze and Maruschak (2011) noted that
children of incarcerated parents are highly likely to be incarcerated themselves. The researcher
found that 7 of the 12 interviewees had a parent who had been incarcerated at some time.
However, only one of those 12 had a child who had ever been incarcerated, which may be a
testament to the positive influence of Homeboy Industries, as was quantified in component 6 of
the factor analysis.
The literature also indicates that the younger one is when incarcerated, the longer one tends
to stay incarcerated (e.g., National Institute of Justice, 2014). In her own study, the researcher
found that the 30 participants who were arrested by the age of 13 spent a total of 410.5 years in
prison, compared to the 101 total years spent in prison by the 20 participants who were arrested
at the age of 14 and older.
Researchers have also found that as the frontal lobes and prefrontal cortices of adolescents
mature in their mid-twenties, the adolescents tend to use better judgment and leave criminal
behavior behind (e.g., Monahan, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2015). The present researcher similarly
found that all her interviewees, who had an average age of 25 to 35, spoke of “snapping out” of
their criminal life style or having an “epiphany” as they aged.
More interesting than the similarities of the researcher’s findings to the findings in the
literature review are the findings that were inconsistent or unexpected. As noted earlier, the
researcher was able to obtain valuable feedback from a population that is normally reserved, to
say the least (Western, Braga, & Kohl, 2014). The researcher was particularly moved by the
interviewees’ accounts of being separated from their parents, especially their mothers, and placed
JOBS, NOT JAIL 102
in foster care, where many of them were physically or sexually abused. The tragedy is that, in
trying to protect the children from being abused, the state often places them in situations that
may be even more abusive (Birckhead, 2012). Certainly, the five interviewees in the present
study who were taken from their parents before the age of 10, and one as young as 3, all reported
how traumatized they were by their subsequent experiences, which often led them to run away
from their caregivers. Thus, in a very real sense, the state has failed these children, many of
whom end up as gang members.
Father Boyle (2017) has stated that “No kid is seeking anything when he joins a gang; they’re
always fleeing something. Always. No exceptions” (p. 131). In a word, that “something” is
abuse—abuse from biological parents, from the state, from foster parents, from older kids, from
law enforcement officers, or all of the above. Fortunately, Homeboy Industries provides a
sanctuary for former gang members by creating a support system that radically reduces their rate
of criminal recidivism. Detailed descriptions and analyses of that support system constitute the
new and original findings of the present study.
The Research Questions
The two research questions for this study were:
1. What variables make Homeboy Industries’ Rehabilitation Program
successful?
2. Does religious faith or spirituality help or hinder rehabilitation efforts with
former incarcerated individuals and gang members, or are they irrelevant to
those efforts?

As for Research Question 1, there are five variables that the researcher found in her
interviews with the 12 participants that account for the rehabilitative success of Homeboy
JOBS, NOT JAIL 103
Industries. The researcher deduced these variables from the insights and strategies that the
interviewees identified for their own successful rehabilitations. The five variables that were most
often cited by the interviewees were: self-respect, confidence, emotion management, coping with
challenges, and service to other people.
Self-respect: All the interviewees spoke about valuing themselves now, so returning to prison
would be the last thing they wanted for themselves and their children. They had all gone through
a transformation from hopelessness to optimism. As one of the interviewees said, “I have a self-
value that won’t allow me to just go for anything anymore, which was built by being here at
Homeboy Industries.”
Confidence: The interviewees felt certain that they could stay out of trouble, especially in
relation to going back to drugs. They were sure that the support system at Homeboy Industries
would give them the strength to never go back to the streets. As one of the interviewees said,
“I’m out here now, man. I can do this.”
Emotion management: The principal emotion that the interviewees mentioned they wanted to
manage was anger. The anger management courses at Homeboy Industries had helped them to
channel their anger into more productive avenues. As one of the interviewees said, “Anger was
my first addiction.” Then he saw other individuals with the same background as himself, who
had experienced the same kinds of traumas, and he questioned, “How are they so peaceful, and
I’m not?”
Coping with challenges: Most the interviewees were still living in the same neighborhood
they had always lived in, but now they knew how to avoid its pitfalls and overcome its
temptations and pressures of returning to their old lifestyles. As one of the interviewees reported
JOBS, NOT JAIL 104
saying to his 14-year-old son, “We live in the ghetto, that’s reality. You have to be alert, be
aware of your surroundings at all times.”
Service to other people: All the interviewees said they wanted to give back to their
communities. As one of the interviewees said, “It only takes one person to make a difference in a
child’s life.”
As for Research Question 2, all of the self-transformations that the interviewees described
had a spiritual element to them. However, the interviewees tended to separate religion and
church attendance from their belief in God. None of the interviewees indicated that religion
helped their rehabilitation efforts, but several of them stated that God did. As one of them said,
when she was in prison she would say, “‘God, help me to pass through this.’ And He was always
there faithfully. Now I don’t have to pray. I don’t feel like I would pray as much because I don’t
get myself in danger anymore.”
Limitations and Delimitations
The initial limitations on the researcher’s project were set by the Internal Review Board
(IRB) at the University of Southern California. The first of those limitations was that the
identities of the participants, as well as their responses to the Demographic Questionnaire, the
Quantitative Survey, and the interviews, were to be completely anonymous and confidential.
The second limitation set by the IRB was that, during the interviews and surveys, the
researcher did not have permission to ask any follow-up questions after the participants
concluded their responses. This limitation was intended to protect the participants from being
asked any questions that might cause them emotional distress.
A related limitation set by the IRB with the same intention was that the researcher was not
permitted to collect contact information from the participants, should she wish to contact them
JOBS, NOT JAIL 105
for any reason after the surveys and interviews were completed—for example, to ask for
clarification of their answers during the interviews and surveys.
A fourth limitation set by the IRB was that the researcher was not to publish any of her raw
data, including the completed Demographic Questionnaires, Quantitative Surveys, and interview
transcripts.
The fifth limitation was set by Homeboy Industries, which noted that random sampling is
impossible with their population, and so the researcher would be required to obtain her
participants by using a convenience sample. In other words, the participants had to volunteer to
be part of the study, rather than the researcher selecting from a roster of all the trainees. As for
selecting the 12 interviewees from among the 50 participants, the last question on the
Quantitative Survey asked if the participant would be willing to be interviewed. As it turned out,
the first 12 participants who were surveyed all agreed to be interviewed, so they were self-
selected.
A sixth limitation was set by Homeboy Industries, which was that the researcher conduct her
surveys and interviews in a setting and at times that fit Homeboy Industries’ schedule. That
turned to be in one of the two rooms used for tattoo removal, during the hours that Homeboy
Industries is open—namely, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., on various Fridays. In practice, the
researcher used the room on three different Fridays, between the hours of 10:30 A.M. and 5:00
P.M.
There were also several delimitations that governed the present study. The first of these was
that the researcher chose not to use generic demographic questionnaires or quantitative surveys,
but designed her own. This was because she was dealing with a vulnerable population that might
not wish to reveal certain information, such as what crimes they had been incarcerated for, and
JOBS, NOT JAIL 106
the researcher did not wish them to feel invaded or judged. For example, the researcher did not
ask them if their parents had ever been incarcerated or why they had joined a gang. In some
cases, however, the interviewees revealed this information voluntarily. Furthermore, generic
questionnaires would not ask information that the researcher was interested in, such as how long
the participants had been at Homeboy Industries. In any case, the researcher asked 16
demographic questions, which is twice as many as most generic demographic questionnaires ask.
Finally, to maintain her focus on her target population, the trainees at Homeboy Industries,
the researcher chose not to interview any other parties associated with the trainees, including
Father Boyle himself; staff members at Homeboy Industries, such as the therapists who counsel
them and the doctors who remove their tattoos; probation officers; prison guards; social workers;
or parents or children of the participants.
Recommendations for Future Research
As mentioned earlier, the researcher was able to elicit trust and openness from individuals
who are often reticent to discuss their lives with outsiders. Other researchers could duplicate this
openness and trust if they follow certain parameters, which might include: (a) assuring the
participants that their identities will be kept anonymous and confidential; (b) conducting their
surveys and interviews in a location in which the participants feel safe; (c) incentivizing
participation with a token of appreciation, including a small monetary honorarium; (d) allowing
them to lead the interview by responding to open-ended questions; and (e) tying their
participation to purposes larger than themselves, such as doing good for populations like
themselves. An added advantage for the present researcher was that she speaks fluent Spanish,
which was useful in conversing with respondents who are Hispanic and bilingual, which was the
case for 7 of the 12 participants.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 107
To maximize the quantitative data collection, the researcher recommends that future
researchers working with similar populations retain control of the survey instrument and fill it in
as the researcher asks the questions orally. There are two advantages of using this quasi-
interview method: (a) it guarantees that the respondents understand the questions and the Likert
scale used to quantify them; and (b) it guarantees that all the questions are answered.
Unlike the procedures followed in the present study, the researcher recommends that future
researchers working with similar populations obtain contact information for the participants so
that the researchers can follow up the surveys or interviews as needed. Nevertheless, the
researchers should maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants during the
research phase, keeping all identifying information under lock and key, and destroying it once
the study is completed.
Recommendations for Future Practice: Policy Implications
The first recommendation that the researcher would like to propose relates to the foster care
system. Of the five interviewees who were in foster care at some time, all five became runaways.
Thus, it is clear that the California Department of Family Services is taking children from poor
environments and sometimes placing them in environments that are even worse. This was an
unexpected finding in this study, and the researcher lacks the expertise in this area to make
comprehensive suggestions to solve the problem, but one improvement might be to enhance the
monitoring of the children and provide incentives for the foster parents to take better care of
them. Those incentives might include anything from monetary rewards for young children who
are thriving physically, to rewards for children who are thriving athletically, to rewards for
children who are thriving academically.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 108
Another recommendation that the researcher would like to make is that, unlike today,
children should never be tried as adults. To begin with, no empirical studies have demonstrated
that this provides any benefit whatsoever, either to the children or society (Nisar, Ullah, Ali, &
Alam, 2015). Furthermore, the cost of incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons is astronomical: in
California in 2014, it cost $570.79 per person per day and $208,338 per person per year (Justice
Policy Institute, 2014). This compares to $221.92 per day and $81,000 per year to house an adult
in an adult prison, or 2.6 times as much. Partly, this increased cost is caused by having to keep
the juveniles separate from the general population for their own protection. On the other hand,
although the cost of housing juveniles in juvenile facilities in California in 2018 was somewhat
higher—$780 per day or $284,700 per year—the increased expense went to educational and
therapeutic purposes, which are denied to them in adult prisons. Therefore, the chances are that
juveniles incarcerated in juvenile detention facilities will come out better educated and mentally
stable, giving them a better chance to reenter society.
Another unintended finding of the study was that several of the interviewees had had their
sentence increased simply for being a member of a gang. None of these interviewees had been
members of international terrorist gangs such as MS-13, but came from much less dangerous
local barrios. Thus, the researcher recommends that gang enhancement laws should be repealed.
In practice, they mostly penalize poor urban youth. A related recommendation is to follow the
proposal by Senator Kamala Harris to erase the arrest records of all individuals who have been
incarcerated for possession of marijuana (Lesniewski, 2019).
For her final contribution to practice for this project, the researcher would like to propose a
model to prevent urban youth between the vulnerable middle-childhood ages of 7 and 10 from
entering the criminal justice system in the first place. The researcher specifically selected this
JOBS, NOT JAIL 109
age group because, according to Johnston and Gabel (1997), children of this age “are most likely
to have had previous experience, which they can recall, with parental crime, arrest, and/or
incarceration…. Such events may have profound emotional and developmental effects in middle
childhood” (pp. 74-75).
The components of the researcher’s model will be adaptations of the variables that make
Homeboy Industries so successful as an intervention program for individuals between the ages of
18 and 35, but modified for the younger cohort. Those variables include:

• love and family;
• mentoring;
• culture of acceptance;
• culture of forgiveness;
• therapy;
• service to others

Love and family: Just as growing up in an abusive home in which children are exposed to
domestic violence can result in their creating abusive homes when they are older, so modeling a
healthy, loving, and encouraging environment can result in the children creating healthy, loving,
and thriving homes when they are older. As Father Boyle (2010) has said, “The self cannot
survive without love, and the self, starved of love, dies. The absence of self-love is shame”
(p. 46).
Mentoring: Several of the interviewees said that they wished they had had a caring adult in
their lives when they were young to set them on the right path. This would have kept them in
school, they say, with hopeful dreams of a bright future. As Father Boyle (2017) has said, “No
hopeful kid ever joined a gang” (p. 130).
Culture of acceptance: All the interviewees told the researcher how welcoming and
nonjudgmental Homeboy Industries is. Such a culture is the exact opposite of what most of the
JOBS, NOT JAIL 110
interviewees grew up in. Father Boyle has said, “Hope has a new address in Los Angeles, and
it’s Homeboy Industries” (quoted by Kaufman, 2012, ¶11).
Culture of forgiveness: Homeboy Industries provides a highly forgiving environment, which,
in the words of Father Boyle, sees people “for their best qualities, rather than their worst. Not
judging people based on one regrettable action, but based on all the good they do” (quoted by
Jasen, 2018, ¶1). All the interviewees mentioned the importance of being given a second chance
Therapy: It is healthy for children to express their feelings and put into action only the most
sociable ones. When an adult listens to a child with empathy and understanding, the child is
usually more open to learning. As Father Boyle (2010) has said, the therapy provided at
Homeboy Industries is “about infusing hope to kids who are stuck in despair. It’s about healing
the traumatized” (p. 233).
Service to others: Teaching children the value of giving to and serving others reduces their
self-centeredness and makes them part of a greater community. As Father Boyle has said, “So
many of us volunteer and participate in efforts to help others. It brings us closer to ourselves!”
(quoted by Ulrich, 2015, ¶11).
In sum, the researcher’s preventative model for children between the ages of 7 and 10 will
have a spiritual foundation rooted in Catholic social teachings. Such a program could be
launched in any number of Catholic churches, of which there are 287 in Los Angeles County,
including Our Lady of Angels Cathedral, in downtown Los Angeles. The program could even
conceivably be set up at Homeboy Industries itself.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 111
References
Abu-Lughod, J. L. (1999). New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America’s global cities.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2012). Social learning theory. Retrieved from https://books.
google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ks0sAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT402&dq=Akers+and+
Sellers+2012&ots=7ZJlyDCwe1&sig=Ybmy6KCU9NDQLibyQV9lIjLE-
JI#v=onepage&q&f=false/.
Albaladejo, A. (2018, February 21). MS13 trial in Spain highlights gang’s struggle for
international unity. Retrieved from https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/ms13-trial-
spain-highlights-gang-struggle-international-unity/.
Alexander, M. (2016). Why Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve the black vote. Retrieved from
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/.
AllGov California. (2016). Agencies/departments. Retrieved from http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/
departments/independent-agencies/department_of_corrections_and_rehabilitation?
agencyid=223/.
Alper, M., Markman, J., & Durose, M. R. (2018). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year
follow-up period (2005–2014). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Anderson, Y. A., & Gröning, L. (2016). Rehabilitation in principle and practice: Perspectives of
inmates and officers. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 4(2), 220-246.
Arango, T., & Del Real, J. A. (2018, October 1). Takeaways from California Gov. Jerry Brown’s
last bill signing session. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/governor-
jerry-brown-california-last-bill-signing.html/.
Austin, J., Irwin, J., & Hardyman, P. (2001, December). From prison to home: The effect of
incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Retrieved from https://
aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/exploring-needs-and-risks-returning-prisoner-population/.
Baglivio, M. T., Jackowski, K., Greenwald, M. A., & Howell, J. C. (2014). Serious, violent, and
chronic juvenile offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 13(1), 83-116.
Bankston, C. L. (1998). Youth gangs and the new second generation: A review essay.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 33-45.
Barnett, R. E. (1977). Restitution: A new paradigm of criminal justice. Ethics, 87(4), 279-301.
Barrett, D. E., Ju, S., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, D. (2015). Females in the juvenile justice
system: Influences on delinquency and recidivism. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
24(2), 427-433.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 112
Becerra, X. (2014). Recidivism in California. Retrieved from https://oag.ca.gov/dap/evaluation/
recidivism/.
Beck, A. J. (2006). The importance of successful reentry to jail population growth. Retrieved
from urban.org/sites/default/files/beck.ppt/.
Becker, E. (2001, February 9). As ex-theorist on young “superpredators,” Bush aide has regrets.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/us/as-ex-theorist-on-young-
superpredators-bush-aide-has-regrets.html/.
Benitez, T. (2004). Public broadcasting services. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/
americanfamily/eastla.html/.
Birckhead, T. R. (2012). Delinquent by reason of poverty. Retrieved from http://openscholarship.
wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol38/issl/4/.
Bishop, D. M., Leiber, M., & Johnson, J. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile
justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3), 213-233.
Bogardus, E. (1926). The city boy and his problems: A survey of boy life in Los Angeles.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/info:doi/.
Boyle, G. (1995). L.A. gang members need jobs, not jail. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=9q2L5-pKLQ4&feature=youtu.be/.
Boyle, G. (2010). Tattoos on the heart: The power of boundless compassion. New York: Free
Press.
Boyle, G. (2017). Barking to the choir: The power of radical kinship. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Boyle, G. (2019). Father Greg Boyle on his gang-intervention and rehab program. Retrieved
from https://www.pbs.org/video/father-greg-boyle-his-gang-intervention-and-rehab-program-
b2/.
Brezina, T., & Agnew, R. (2015). Juvenile delinquency: Its nature, causes, and control. In E.
Goode (Ed.), The handbook of deviance (pp. 313-325). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
Brockway, Z. R. (1871). The ideal of a true prison system for a state. In Transactions of the
National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline, ed. E. C. Wines. Albany,
NY: Weed, Parsons.
Bronson, J., & Carson, E. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/p17.pdf/.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 113
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. The effects of poverty on children. Retrieved from www.jstor.
org/stable/1602387.
Bryan, S. (1911). Mexican immigrants in the United States. Doctoral dissertation. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (1997, May). A criminal justice information policy report:
Survey of state criminal history information systems, 1995. Retrieved from https://www.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Sschis95.pdf/.
Burton, S. (2017). Skin deep: Looking beyond the tattoos. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.
com/Skin-Deep-Looking-Beyond-Tattoos/dp/157687849X/.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2019). Inside CDCR.
Retrieved from https://insidecdcrcagov.mystagingwebsite.com/category/unlocking-history/.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2016). 2016 Juvenile justice
outcome evaluation report: Examination of youth released from the division of juvenile
justice in fiscal year 2011–12. Sacramento: Author.
Carson, E. A. (2015). Prisoners in 2014. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
p14.pdf/.
Carson, E. A. (2018). Prisoners in 2016. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
p16.pdf/.
Castles, S. (2010). Understanding global migration: A social transformation perspective. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1565-86.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1993). Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/archive/
ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM/.
Catholic Relief Services. (2017). CST 101: Themes from Catholic Social Teaching. Retrieved
from https://www.crs.org/sites/default/files/usops-resources/17us495_cst_poster-adult_en-
digital.pdf/.
Census Reporter. (2017). Los Angeles County, CA. Retrieved from https://censusreporter.org/
profiles/05000US06037-los-angeles-county-ca/.
Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. (2018). MS13 in the Americas: How the world’s
most notorious gang defies logic, resists destruction. Retrieved from https://www.
insightcrime.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/MS13-in-the-Americas-InSight-Crime-
English.pdf/.
Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration. (2010). Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://csii.
usc.edu/.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 114
Child Trends. (2018). Number of children. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/
indicators/number-of-children/.
Coleman, J. A. (2013, November 20). Pope Francis on the dignity of labor. Retrieved from
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2013/11/20/pope-francis-dignity-labor/.
Conrad, J. P. (1983). Correctional treatment. In Encyclopedia of crime and justice, ed. S. H.
Kadish, vol. 1, 269-270. New York: Free Press.
Conway, J. M., & Jones, E. T. Seven out of ten? Not even close: A review of research on the
likelihood of children with incarcerated parents becoming justice involved. New Britain, CT:
Central Connecticut State University, 2015.
Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011, November). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980-2008.
Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf/.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crutch, R. D., & Weeks, G. A. (2015, Fall). The effects of mass incarceration on communities of
color. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 109-118.
Cruz, C. A. (2016, May 1). Letting go of clecha, while holding corazo ́n; developing a new
approach to empowering youth in gangs the Homeboy Industries Way. Retrieved from
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/27013337.
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and
prospects. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_3/03d.pdf/.
De Masi, M. E., & Bohn, C. T. (2010). Children with incarcerated parents: A journey of
children, caregivers and parents in New York State. Retrieved from https://www.ccf.ny.gov/
files/2413/7968/3887/ChildIncarceratedParents.pdf/.
DeNavas-Walt, C., & and Proctor, B. D. (2015). Current population reports, 2014. Retrieved
from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-
252.pdf/.
Dilulio, J. J. (1995, November 27). The coming of the super-predators. Retrieved from
https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-j-Dilulio-jr/the-coming-of-the-super-predators/.
Dreier, H. (2018). A betrayal. Retrieved from https://features.propublica.org/ms-13/a-betrayal-
ms13-gang-police-fbi-ice-deportation/.
Driscoll, B. A. (1999). The tracks north: The railroad bracero program of World War II. Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Esbensen, F. A., & Tusinski, K. E. (2007). Youth gangs in the print media. Retrieved from
https://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol14is1/esbensen.pdf/.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 115
Farley, R. (2016, April 12). Bill Clinton and the 1994 crime bill. Retrieved from https://www.
factcheck.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-the-1994-crime-bill/.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2017). Crime in the U.S. 2017. Retrieved from https://
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-29/.
Feld, B. C. (1999). Transformation of the juvenile court—Part II: Social structure, race, and the
“crack down” on youth crime. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_
articles/291/.
Ferenczy, T. (2019). Incarcerated Americans, 1920-2014. Retrieved from https://commons.
wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg&oldid=
353204131/.
Fernandez, V. G. (2019). Sigue adelante! Living the bracero program, 1941-1964. Doctoral
dissertation. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
Finckenauer, J. O. (2000, July). Meeting the challenge of transnational crime. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000244b.pdf/.
Fox, S. J. (1970). Juvenile justice reform: A historical perspective. Stanford Law Review, 22,
1187-1239.
Fremon, C. (2008). G-Dog and the homeboys: Father Greg Boyle and the gangs of East Los
Angeles. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Gilliard, D. K., & Beck, A. J. (1996, August). Prison and jail inmates, 1995. Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/PJI95.PDF/.
Glaser. B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2011). Parents in prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Washington, D.C. 2011.
Grasso, A. (2017). Broken beyond repair: Rehabilitative penology and American political
development. Retrieved from https://www.sas.upenn.edu/andrea-mitchell-center/sites/www.
sas.upenn.edu. dcc/files/uploads/Grasso%20Paper.pdf/.
Grosso, C., Fagan, J., Laurence, M., Baldus, D., Woodworth, G., Newell, R. (2019, March 11).
Death by stereotype: Race, ethnicity, and California’s failure to implement Furman’s
narrowing requirement. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=3354842/.
Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlack, A. J. (2002, October). Runaway/thrownaway children:
national estimates and characteristics. Retrieved from https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=ccrc/.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 116
Hanson, J., & Donato, R. (2019). The braceros: Mexican workers in the Jim Crow South, 1949-
1951. Social Education, 83(1), 51-57.
Harris, P. (2000, March 18). Gang mayhem grips LA. Retrieved from www.children.org/global-
poverty/global-poverty-facts/facts-about-poverty-in-usaGang Mayhem Grips LA https://
www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/18/usa.paulharris/.
Hegemann, R. A., Smith, L. M., Barbaro, A. T., Bertozzi, A. L., Reid, S. E., & Tita, G. E.
(2011). Geographical influences of an emerging network of gang rivalries. Physica A,
390(21/22), 3894-3914.
Homeboy Industries. (2019). Website. Retrieved from https://homeboyindustries.org/.
Howell, J. C., & Moore, J. P. (2010). History of street gangs in the United States. Retrieved from
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/content/documents/history-of-street-gangs.pdf/.
Hoy, C., Barker, B., Regan, J., Dong, H., Richardson, L., Kerr, T., & Debeck, K. (2016).
Elevated risk of incarceration among street-involved youth who initiate drug dealing. Harm
Reduction Journal, 13(1), 1-8.
Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2002). Reentry trends in the United States. Retrieved from
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/reentry.pdf/.
Hurley, L. (2016, January). U.S. justices expand ban on mandatory life sentences for juvenile
killers. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-sentences-
idUSKCN0V31YO/.
Hutchison, R. (1993). Blazon nouveau: Gang graffiti in the barrios of Los Angeles and Chicago.
In S. Cummings and D. J. Monti (eds.), Gangs (pp. 137-171). Albany, NY: State University
of New York.
Jarjoura, G. R., Triplett, R. A., & Brinker, G. P. (2002). Growing up poor: Examining the link
between persistent childhood poverty and delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
18(2), 159-187.
Jasen, L. (2018). Father Boyle opens our eyes to the importance of forgiveness and kinship in
our lives. Retrieved from https://sicpspirit.org/4553/news/father-boyle-opens-our-eyes-to-
the-importance-of-forgiveness-and-kinship-in-our-lives/.
Justice Policy Institute. (2014). $ticker $hock: Calculating the full price tag for youth
incarcerated. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/
sticker_shock_final_v2.pdf/.
Kanth, A. K. (Ed.). (2004, September). Street children and homelessness. Retrieved from
http://www.oneworld.org/guides/streetchildren/.
Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2006). Policing gangs in America. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 117
Kaufman, L. (2012, February 27). Homegirl Café: Where rival gang members unite. Retrieved
from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homegirl-caf-los-angeles_b_1300199?guccounter=1/.
Ke, J., & Wenglensky. (2010, February). Grounded theory. Available at http://avantgarde-jing.
blogspot.com/2010/03/grounded-theory.html/.
Koseff, A. (2018, September 30). Hundreds serving time for murder could get sprung under new
California law. Retrieved from https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert/article219283515.html/.
Le Pelley, M. E., Reimers, S. J., Calvini, G., Spears, R., Beesley, T., & Murphy, R. A. (2010,
February). Stereotype formation: Biased by association. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
139(1), 138-161.
Leap, J., Franke, T. M., Christie, C. A., & Bonis, S. (2010). Nothing stops a bullet like a job:
Homeboy Industries’ gang prevention and intervention in Los Angeles. In R. Cohen, J.
Hoffman, & L. Knox, Eds., Beyond suppression: Global perspectives on youth violence,
pp. 127-137. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Leeper Piquero, N., Carmichael, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). Research note: Assessing the
perceived seriousness of white-collar and street crimes. Retrieved from https://doi.org/
10.1177/0011128707303623/.
Lesniewski, N. (2019, July 23). Kamala Harris, Jerry Nadler bill would decriminalize
marijuana, expunge most convictions. Retrieved from https://www.rollcall.com/news/
kamala-harris-jerry-nadler-want-decriminalize-marijuana-expunge-convictions/.
Levitt, S. D. (2004, Winter). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that
explain the decline and six that do not. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 163-190.
Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Fagan, J., Piquero, A. R., & Losoya, S. H.
(2009). Estimating a dose-response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism
in serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 47(3), 699-740.
Mackenzie, D. L., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Preventing future offending of delinquents and
offenders: What have we learned from experiments and meta-analyses? Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 565-595.
Marshall, T. F. (1999). Restorative justice: An overview. Retrieved from http://www.
antoniocasella.eu/restorative/Marshall_1999-b.pdf/.
Martin, R. (2016). Broken windows. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/
stable/10.5749/j.ctt1g69w99.12/.
Massey, D. S. (1987). Understanding Mexican migration to the United States. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(6), 1372-1403.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 118
May, J., Osmond, K., & Billick, S. (2014). Juvenile delinquency treatment and prevention: A
literature review. Psychiatric Quarterly, 85(3), 295-301.
McGray, D. (2012). Homeboy Industries reboots the lives of tattooed former gangbangers, and
even one CEO. Available at https://www.fastcompany.com/
1679680/homeboy-industries-reboots-the-lives-of-tattooed-former-gangbangers-and-even-
one-ceo/.
McGuire, C. (2007). Working paper on Central American youth gangs in the Washington, DC,
area. Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America.
McKenzie, W. (2019, Winter). Redemption: Creating hope for gang members—A conversation
with Father Gregory Boyle, founder and director of Homeboy Industries. Retrieved from
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/poverty/father-boyle.html/.
McLennan, R. (2008). The crisis of imprisonment: Protest, politics, and the making of the
American penal state, 1776-1941. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McNally, R. B. (1982). Nearly a century later: The child savers—Child advocates and the
juvenile justice system. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/juvfc33&div=31&id=&page=/.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2019). Definition of homeboy. Retrieved from https://www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeboy/.
Monahan, K., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Juvenile justice policy and practice: A
developmental perspective. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 577-619.
Moore, J. W., & Vigil, D. (1993). Barrios in transition. In J. W. Moore and R. Pinderhughes
(eds.), In the barrios: Latinos and the underclass debate (pp. 27-49). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Moore, K. A. (2006). Defining the term “at risk.” Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/
wp-content/uploads/2006/01/DefiningAtRisk1.pdf
Morton, M. H., Dworsky, A., & Samuels, G. M. (2017). Missed opportunities: Youth
homelessness in America—National estimates. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of
Chicago.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Effects of parental imprisonment on children. Crime and
Justice: A Review of Research, 37, 133-206.
National Gang Intelligence Center. (2015). National gang report, 2015. Retrieved from https://
www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publications-national-gang-report-2015.pdf/view/.
National Institute of Justice. (2014, March 10). From juvenile delinquency to young adult
offending. Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/juvenile-delinquency-young-
adult-offending/.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 119
National Runaway Safeline. (2017). Crisis connection content data report for calendar year
2017. Retrieved from https://www.1800runaway.org/runaway-statistics/crisis-hotline-online-
services-statistics/.
Nisar, M., Ullah, S., Ali, M., & Alam, S. (2015). Juvenile delinquency: The influence of family,
peer and economic factors on juvenile delinquents. Applied Science Reports, 9(1), 37-48.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017). Statistical briefing book.
Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/.
Pelly, M., Zhang, Y., & McGuire, S. J. J. (2018, December). Homeboy Industries: Redefining
social responsibility. Journal of Case Research and Inquiry, 4, 17-47.
Petersilia, J. (2011, October). Beyond the prison bubble. National Institute of Justice Journal,
268, 26-31.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2010). Collateral costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility.
Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2010/
collateralcosts1pdf.pdf/.
Pisciotta, A. (1994). Benevolent repression: Social control and the American reformatory-prison
movement. New York: New York University Press.
Pohl, J. (2019). California prison rehab program fails to keep criminals from reoffending
audit finds. Retrieved from https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-
worker/article225360870.html#storylink=cpy/.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its
variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530, 74-96.
Pyrooz, D. C., & Sweeten, G. (2015). Gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years in the
United States. Journal of Adolescent Health. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.11.018/.
Rabuy, B., & Kopf, D. (2016). Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an endless
cycle of poverty and jail time. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/
reports/incomejails.html/.
Rafter, N. H. (1997). Creating born criminals. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Raphel, A. (2014, April 8). First-time juvenile offenders, probation and recidivism: Evidence
from Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/
criminal-justice/first-time-juvenile-offenders-probation-and-recidivism-evidence-from-los-
angeles/.
Rojas, A. (2019, April 5). MS-13: Betrayed the gang, betrayed by the state. Retrieved from
https://crimlawpracblog.wixsite.com/crimlawpractitioner/single-post/2019/04/05/MS-13-
Betrayed-the-Gang-Betrayed-by-the-State/.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 120
Romo, R. (2010). East Los Angeles: History of a barrio. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Ryan, J. P., Abrams, L. S., & Huang, H. (2014). First-time violent juvenile offenders: Probation,
placement, and recidivism. Social Work Research, 38(1), 7-18.
Sanchez, M., & Lee, G. (2015, October 16). Race, gender, and program type as predictive risk
factors of recidivism for juvenile offenders in Georgia. Journal of Public and Professional
Sociology, 7(2), 1-18.
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2018, March 14). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2018.
Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html/.
Selvin, M. (2017). Homeboy Industries: A history of violence. Hope for the future. Retrieved
from https://blueprint.ucla.edu/feature/homeboy-industries-a-history-of-violence-a-hope-for-
the-future/.
Serjeant, J. (2007, February 8). Little glamour in L.A., “gang capital of America.” Retrieved
from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gangs-losangeles-culture-
idUSN0846153020070208/.
Shulman, E. P., & Harden, P. K., & Chein, J. M., & Steinberg, L. (2015). Sex differences in the
developmental trajectories of impulse control and sensation-seeking from early adolescence
to early adulthood. Retrieved from https://labs.la.utexas.edu/harden/files/2013/05/Shulman-
2014-JOYO.pdf/.
Shulman, E. P., Harden, K. P., Chein, J. M., & Steinberg, L. (2015). Sex differences in the
developmental trajectories of impulse control and sensation-seeking from early adolescence
to early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(1), 1-17.
Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2017). Easy access to the census of
juveniles in residential placement. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/.
Skiba, R. J. (2014). The failure of zero tolerance. Retrieved from https://reclaimingjournal.com/
sites/default/files/journal-article-pdfs/22_4_skiba.pdf/.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe
schools? Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439450/.
Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2002, May). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony
offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology, 40(2), 329-357.
Sridhar, C. R. (2006). Broken windows and zero tolerance: policing urban crimes. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/4418196/.
Steketee, M., Junger, M., & Junger-Tas, J. (2013). Sex differences in the predictors of juvenile
delinquency. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(1), 88-105.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 121
Subramanian, R., Delaney, R., Roberts, S., Fishman, N., & McGarry, P. (2015, February).
Incarceration’s front door: The misuse of jails in America. Retrieved from http://www.
safetyandjusticechallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/incarcerations-front-door-
report.pdf/.
Szambelan, S. (2019). Rehabilitate, punish, or both? Retrieved from https://scholars.carroll.edu/
surf/2019/all/86/.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2012, August). Reflections on the crime decline: Lessons for the future?
Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/60536/410546-
Reflections-on-the-Crime-Decline.PDF/.
Travis, J., Western, B., & and Redburn, F. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United
States: Exploring causes and consequences. Retrieved from https://academicworks.
cuny.edu/jj_pubs/27/.
Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects of maternal incarceration on adolescent children.
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19, 27-35.
Ulrich, L. (2015, April 5). The calling of delight: Gangs, service, and kinship. Retrieved from
https://soundcloud.com/onbeing/greg-boyle-the-calling-of-delight-gangs-service-and-
kinship/.
United Nations International Emergency Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2014). Annual report
2014: Our story. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/media/50786/file/UNICEF_
Annual_Report_2014_ENG.pdf/.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018a). Quick facts United States. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/data/datasets.2010.html/.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018b). State-level child population data for 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/popest/state-detail.html/.
U.S. Congress. (1994, August 21). H.R.3355: Violent crime control and law enforcement act of
1994. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text/.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2017).
OJJDP statistical briefing book. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/
JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05230/.
Valdez, A. (2000). The 18th Street Gang. Yaphank, NY: National Alliance of Gang Investigator
Associations.
Valdez, A. (2007). Gangs: A guide to understanding street gangs (5th ed.). San Clemente, CA:
LawTech Publishing.
Vigil, J. D. (2002). A rainbow of gangs: Street cultures in the mega-city. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.
JOBS, NOT JAIL 122
Wallace, S. (2000, August). You must go home again: Deported L.A. gangbangers take over El
Salvador. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/5673099/You_Must_Go_Home_
Again_Deported_LA_Gangbangers_Take_Over_El_Salvador_--_Harpers_Magazine/.
Walmsley, R. (2013). World prison population list. Retrieved from http://www.prisonstudies.
org/world-prison-brief-data/.
Western, B., Braga, A., & Kohl, R. (2014). A longitudinal survey of newly released prisoners:
Methods and design of the Boston Reentry Study. Cambridge, MA: National Science
Foundation.
Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2008). Effects of correctional boot camps
on offending. Retrieved from https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/
10900/64634/Wilson_Bootcamps_review.pdf?sequence=1/.
Wilson, T. D. (2010). The culture of Mexican migration. Critique of Anthropology, 30(4), 399-
420.
Wolff, K. T., & Intravia, J. (2019). Broken windows/zero-tolerance policing. Retrieved from
Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk youth be
diverted from crime?: A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 43(10), 1310-29.
World Youth Report. (2003). The global situation of young people. Retrieved from https://www.
un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/worldyouthreport.pdf/.
Worldwatch Institute. (2019). Vision for a sustainable world. Retrieved from http://www.
worldwatch.org/node/810/.
Wright, M. (1996). Justice for victims and offenders: A restorative response to crime. Retrieved
from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nc4tAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=
PP1&ots=hsmPzMC-pk&sig=g5-wtLIbIb3Sur7RjRczb53-c50#v=onepage&q&f=false/.
Young, S., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic
interventions: A global perspective. BJPsych Bulletin, 41(1), 21-29.

JOBS, NOT JAIL 123

Appendices

JOBS, NOT JAIL 124
Appendix A: Homeboy Industries’ Organizational Model

JOBS, NOT JAIL 125
Appendix B: The Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Price School of Public Policy
Los Angeles, California

Informed Consent to Take Part
in a Human Research Study

Jobs, Not Jail:
Homeboy Industries, a Radical Approach
to Redirecting Adolescents Away from
the Criminal Justice System
Introduction and Purpose
My name is Sofia Moreno. I am a graduate student at the University of Southern California
(USC), working with my faculty advisor, Professor Deborah Natoli, in the Sol Price School of
Public Policy. I would like to invite you to take part in my research study, which looks at your
experience as trainee in the 18-month intervention/rehabilitation program at Homeboy Industries.
The purpose of this investigation is to learn from trainees, specifically what strategies for success
she or he has implemented in life to avoid reoffending.
Procedures
My research will include a demographic questionnaire, a quantitative survey, and a face-to-
face interview. You will be asked to complete the demographic questionnaire and the
quantitative survey, and you may choose to participate in a face-to-face interview.
If you agree to be interviewed, I would like your permission to audiotape our conversation
and take notes. The interview will be conducted at Homeboy Industries at a time of your choice.
The interview will involve questions about your participation in the intervention and
rehabilitation program at Homeboy Industries. Specifically, I am interested in learning from you
what strategies and insights you would like to share with at-risk youth to help them avoid
entering the criminal justice system. The interview should last approximately 30 minutes. The
recording is intended to accurately record the information you provide and will be used for
transcription purposes only. If you choose to discontinue the interview, you can do so at any
time.
Risks and Benefits
Your participation in this study will involve no physical or mental risks to you. Should you
ever feel uncomfortable for any reason, you may withdraw at any time, with no negative
consequences to you. There is a small risk that people who are not connected with this study will
learn a participant’s identity or their personal information.

(UP-19-00158 v24-05-2019)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 126
There are no direct benefits to research participants. If you are interested in the results of this
study, you may obtain a copy of the whole study when it is completed by writing to me at
semoreno@usc.edu.
Confidentiality
Your responses will be kept strictly confidential. I will guard against a potential breach of
confidentiality by removing identifying information from the data collected and by keeping all
the data in a locked cabinet and in password-protected computers. The key to the codes will be
destroyed upon the completion of the research (all data will be striped of identifying information
and the key to the codes destroyed, paper documents shredded, electronic files purged) and audio
will be transcribed and then will be destroyed.
Compensation
To thank you for participating in this study, you will receive $20 in cash after you complete
the demographic questionnaire and the quantitative survey. If, in addition, you volunteer to
participant in the interview, you will receive an extra $20 at the end of the interview.
Questions
If you have any questions about this research, please feel free to contact me at 562-290-9536.
If you have any questions about your rights or treatment as a research participant in this study,
and wish to speak with someone from the Internal Review Board at USC, you may contact the
IRB by phone at (323) 442-0114; by e-mail at irb@usc.edu; or by U.S. mail at:

USC Institutional Review Board (IRB)
1640 Marengo St., Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90033

CONSENT

If you wish to participate in this study, please sign and date this form below. You will be
given a copy of this consent form to keep for your own records.

_____________________________
Participant’s Name (please print)

_____________________________ _______________
Participant’s Signature Date

(UP-19-00158 v24-05-2019)
JOBS, NOT JAIL 127
Appendix C: The Demographic Questionnaire

1. Age:
❏ 18-24 years old
❏ 25-34 years old
❏ 35-44 years old
❏ 45+

2. Race or Ethnicity:
❏ Asian
❏ Black or African American
❏ Hispanic of any race
❏ Native American or Alaska Native
❏ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
❏ Race and ethnicity unknown
❏ Two or more races
❏ White
❏ Other (please specify)____________________________
❏ Prefer not to respond

3. Gender:
❏ Male
❏ Female
❏ Transgender
❏ Other
❏ Prefer not to respond

4. Marital Status:
❏ Single (never married)
❏ In a relationship
❏ Married
❏ Widowed
❏ Divorced
❏ Separated

5. Number of Children: _______________

6. Ages of Your Children:
❏ 0-10 years old
❏ 10-15 years old
❏ 16-18 years old
❏ 19+

JOBS, NOT JAIL 128
7. Housing Situation:
❏ Living alone
❏ Living with a partner
❏ Living with roommates
❏ Living with parents/guardians/relatives
❏ Living with a spouse

8. Highest Educational Grade Ever Attended: _______________

9. Length of Time You Have Been a Trainee at Homeboy Industries: ________

10. Current Employment Status:
❏ Employed full-time
❏ Employed part-time
❏ Unemployed and currently looking for work
❏ Unemployed and not now looking for work
❏ Student
❏ Retired
❏ Homemaker
❏ Self-employed
❏ Unable to work

11. Present Religion, If Any:
❏ Agnostic
❏ Atheist or None
❏ Buddhist
❏ Hindu
❏ Jewish
❏ Muslim
❏ Protestant
❏ Roman Catholic
❏ Other (Please specify): _______________
12. Frequency that Your Family Members Talk About God, the Scriptures, Prayer, or Other
Religious or Spiritual Practices Together:
❏ At Least Once Per Week
❏ Less than Once Per Week
❏ Never

13. Frequency of Attending Religious Services:
❏ Never
❏ Less than once a year
❏ Once or twice a year
❏ Several times a year
❏ Once a month
❏ 2-3 times a month
❏ Weekly
❏ Several times a week

14. Your Age When You Were First Arrested: _______________

15. Total Length of Your Incarcerations: _______________
JOBS, NOT JAIL 129

16. Is There Anything You Would Like to Add?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

JOBS, NOT JAIL 130
Appendix D: The Quantitative Survey

1 2 3 4 5
Totally Somewhat Undecided Somewhat Totally
Disagree disagree agree agree
1. I made many decisions as an adolescent that got me into trouble with the law.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2. As an adolescent, I was aware that, for certain felonies, juveniles are tried as adults.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
3. As an adolescent, I had friends who were never incarcerated.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4. I used drugs as an adolescent.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
5. If I had had a positive mentor as an adolescent, I never would have gotten into trouble with the
law.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
6. I feel hopeful about my future.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
7. As an adolescent, I felt pressured to join a gang.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
8. It is much more difficult to leave gang life than to enter it.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
JOBS, NOT JAIL 131
9. By 4th grade (9-10 years old), I was aware of gangs.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
10. I liked playing sports as a child (5-10 years old).
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
11. My current community has a problem with adolescent gangs.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
12. If my child joined a gang, I would be okay with that.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
13. I feel that I am in a safe place in my current community.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
14. My experience with Homeboy Industries has made me a better person.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
15. Homeboy Industries has given me the skills to avoid being reincarcerated.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
16. I have found love and compassion at Homeboy Industries.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
17. I believe that everyone deserves a second chance at redemption.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

JOBS, NOT JAIL 132
18. I have a positive relationship with my family.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
19. Homeboy Industries has taught me how to find and keep work in the future.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
20. I have suggestions for how to adapt the programs at Homeboy Industries for adolescent
populations.
1 2 3 4 5
Additional comments, if any _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

In addition to completing this survey, would you be interested in being interviewed by the
researcher for half an hour to further share your experiences related to gang membership,
incarceration, and Homeboy Industries?
❏ Yes
❏ No

JOBS, NOT JAIL 133
Appendix E: The Interview Questions
1. What steps have you taken to avoid reentering the criminal justice system?
2. What advice would you give to families to prevent their children from entering the juvenile
justice system?
3. What were your experiences with gangs like?
4. Has religious faith helped or hindered your rehabilitation efforts?
5. What is the single most significant thing you have learned at Homeboy Industries?
6. Is there anything else you would like to add?

JOBS, NOT JAIL 134
Appendix F: The Rotation Factor Matrix

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Because approximately 54% of all inmates in U.S. jails and prisons are parents, and the vast majority of those parents land back in jail or prison within three years of being released for their first offense, the children of those inmates have many disadvantages in life—psychological, economic, and legal. Juvenile delinquency is a worldwide problem that affects low-income communities in cities around the world, both big and small. The migration patterns from rural areas have pushed many unskilled, uneducated, and economically vulnerable families into cities. ❧ Of the approximately 1 million gang members in the United States, 150,000 of them are in Los Angeles County, the setting of the present study. In fact, Los Angeles County accounts for 15% of all the gang members in the nation, although it has only 3% of the country’s population. Therefore, Los Angeles has been called the “gang capital of the world.” Hispanics constitute approximately half of all the 2.2 million people in prisons or jails in this country. In fact, the United States, which makes up only 5% of the world’s population, has 25% of the world’s incarcerated individuals. Mass incarceration of this magnitude can be directly attributed to punitive policies that have ignited the fear of rising crime in this nation. One of the most successful reentry programs in California that both drastically reduces the recidivism rate of former prisoners and significantly increases family reunification is Homeboy Industries, which was founded in 1988 by Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit priest, to help formerly incarcerated men and women, as well as gang members, to redirect their lives by becoming contributing members of society. In fact, the participants in Homeboy Industries’ 18-month rehabilitation program, who are referred to as “trainees,” have a recidivism rate of rearrests of only 30% (Homeboy Industries, 2019). In addition to the reduced recidivism rate, Father Boyle measures the success of his program’s transformation of the trainees by four other indicators: reduced substance abuse, improved social connectedness, improved housing safety and stability, and reunified families. Father Boyle (2019) has called Homeboy Industries, “the largest gang intervention, rehab, reentry program on the planet.” The participants for the present study were 50 trainees at Homeboy Industries, 33 males and 17 females, who responded to the researcher’s recruitment flyer. After having the participants sign an Informed Consent Form, the researcher quantitatively surveyed the participants. She also conducted qualitative interviews with the first 12 participants who agreed to be recorded. There were two major findings of the statistical factor analysis of the quantitative data. The first was that breaking the cycle of gang membership is a significant predictor for recovering from drug addiction. The second was that establishing a support system is a significant predictor for reducing arrest recidivism. On the other hand, there was no significant predictive association between religious or spiritual faith and reduction in criminal recidivism or recovery from drug addiction.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Asset Metadata

Creator Moreno, Sofía Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Jobs, not jail: Homeboy Industries, a radical approach to redirecting adolescents away from the criminal justice system

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 04/10/2020

Defense Date 10/21/2019

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

Tag ""Mexican capital"",“Gang capital of the world.”,Children of Incarcerated Parents,Dolores Mission,faith-based rehabilitation,Father Greg Boyle,Gang Intervention and Rehabilitation Re-entry Program,Homeboy Industries,immigrant gang members,juvenile delinquency,Los Angeles gangs,OAI-PMH Harvest,positive mentor,recidivism,social justice: breaking the cycle of gang membership,the punishment paradigm,the rehabilitation paradigm,trapped in a gang

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Natoli, Deborah (committee chair), Banerjee, Tridib (committee member), Boyle, Gregory (committee member), Ochoa, Juan Jose (committee member)

Creator Email semoreno@usc.edu,smore33@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-281145

Unique identifier UC11673829

Identifier etd-MorenoSofa-8231.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-281145 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MorenoSofa-8231.pdf

Dmrecord 281145

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moreno, Sofía Elizabeth

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