PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Florida]On: 18 May 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 930571349]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Justice QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713722354

Fear of Crime among Gang and Non-Gang Offenders: Comparing theEffects of Perpetration, Victimization, and Neighborhood FactorsJodi Lane; Kathleen A. Fox

First published on: 18 May 2011

To cite this Article Lane, Jodi and Fox, Kathleen A.(2011) 'Fear of Crime among Gang and Non-Gang Offenders:Comparing the Effects of Perpetration, Victimization, and Neighborhood Factors', Justice Quarterly,, First published on:18 May 2011 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2011.574642URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.574642

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

JUSTICE QUARTERLY 2011, 1–33, iFirst Article

ISSN 0741-8825 print/1745-9109 online/11/000001-33© 2011 Academy of Criminal Justice SciencesDOI: 10.1080/07418825.2011.574642

Fear of Crime among Gang and Non-Gang Offenders: Comparing the Effects of Perpetration, Victimization, and Neighborhood Factors

Jodi Lane and Kathleen A. FoxTaylor and FrancisRJQY_A_574642.sgm10.1080/07418825.2011.574642Justice Quarterly0741-8825 (print)/1745-9109 (online)Article2011Taylor & Francis0000000002011Professor JodiLanejlane@crim.ufl.edu

This is the first study to examine adult offenders’ fear of property, personal,and gang crime. We examine five research questions among 2,414 jail inmates,focusing on how afraid offenders are of crime. We compare current, ex-gang,and non-gang members. We ask if more experience with crime perpetration andvictimization and more perceptions of social disorganization increase offenders’fear of crime. Finally, we ask if the importance of these factors in predictingfear varies by gang status. Results show that offenders, generally, were not veryafraid of crime. Although ex-gang and current gang members believed theywere more likely to experience property, personal, and gang crime, theyreported less fear than non-gang members. Crime perpetration did not influ-ence offenders’ fear, but less experience with personal crime victimizationpredicted fear of personal and gang crime among non-gang members. Theresults also indicate that perceptions of social disorganization better explainfear among non-gang members than ex-gang and current gang members.

Keywords gang members; fear of crime; social disorganization; crime;victimization; perceived risk

Jodi Lane is an associate professor of criminology, law and society in the Department of Sociologyand Criminology & Law at the University of Florida. She earned her Ph.D. at the University ofCalifornia, Irvine and previously worked at RAND Corporation. Her research interests include fear ofcrime, juvenile justice, corrections, crime policy, and program evaluation. Kathleen A. Fox is anassistant professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. She earnedher Ph.D. in criminology, law and society from the University of Florida. Her research interestsinclude crime victimization, gangs, fear of crime, gender, and corrections. Correspondence to: JodiLane, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, 3219 Turlington Hall,P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611-7330, USA. E-mail: jlane@ufl.edu

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

2 LANE AND FOX

Introduction

Criminal offenders face more objective risk of victimization than the generalpublic because their lifestyle involves committing crime and often increasestheir associations with other offenders (e.g., Chen, 2009; Lauritsen, Sampson, &Laub, 1991; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990). Although policymakers and the mediararely characterize them as such, criminals and victims are often the samepeople, and these experiences are not unrelated (Fagan, Piper, & Cheng, 1987).For example, Shaffer and Ruback (2002) argue that violent victimization oftenprecedes violent offending in juveniles. Gang members, in particular, not onlyregularly associate with other offenders, but also often face retaliation andvictimization as a result of their gang-related status and activities (Taylor,2008). Despite this increased risk of victimization, very few studies have exam-ined fear of crime among offenders generally or gang members in particular.Existing fear of crime studies focusing on offending populations have primarilyfocused on fear among juvenile offenders who were on probation (Lane, 2006)or who were incarcerated (Lane, 2009; May, 2001a; May, Vartanian, & Virgo,2002). These studies, generally, found that juvenile offenders were not veryafraid of crime, except for serious offenses, such as shooting and murder (Lane,2006, 2009). Melde, Taylor, and Esbensen (2009) examined perceived risk andfear among gang and non-gang elementary students, finding that gang memberswere actually less afraid over time than non-gang youths.

The authors are aware of no fear of crime studies that have specificallyexamined fear of street crime among adult offenders. This group is important tostudy not only because they face more victimization risk than the generalpublic, but also because their fear levels may differ from those of juvenileoffenders because of their age and longer life experience. They may have grownup and/or lived many years in socially disorganized and violent environments;fear and self-protection may have become a standard part of their daily lives.Specifically, they may expect to be victimized because of who they are andwhere they live, leading to more fear and/or protective behaviors. For exam-ple, Cobbina, Miller, and Brunson (2008) found that young men in disadvantagedneighborhoods, especially, took regular precautions to protect themselves, suchas carrying a weapon, traveling in groups, and avoiding neighborhoods wherethey might be at risk.

Prior studies indicate that perceptions of neighborhood characteristics asso-ciated with social disorganization (e.g., racial heterogeneity, disorder, andcollective efficacy) are related fear of crime generally and fear of gang crimespecifically in the general public (Covington & Taylor, 1991; Katz, Webb, &Armstrong, 2003; Lane & Meeker, 2003, 2004, 2005; Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, &Lui, 2001). Yet, there are no studies specifically examining the impact ofperceptions of social disorganization on fear of crime in adult offenders, manyof whom likely live in disorganized communities (see Block, Galary, & Brice,2007). Results from previous studies with incarcerated juvenile offenders areequivocal with regard to the effects of neighborhood disorder on fear. May

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 3

(2001a) found that youths who perceived disorder in their neighborhoods weremore afraid while on the street, while Lane (2009) found that incarceratedjuveniles did not perceive disorder as a problem in their home communities.This study furthers the research on the impact of factors related to social disor-ganization on fear among offenders, by examining the effects of racial hetero-geneity and collective efficacy in addition to disorder. Although the offenders inthe current sample were in jail at the time of the survey, most were there forfewer than three months, and they were being asked about their fear in theircommunities, where they likely experienced social disorganization.

Possibly more important in a practical sense, there are theoretical and policyimplications if offenders’ own victimization and perpetration lead them to fearcrime. One important possibility is that fear of crime may lead to more criminalbehavior (e.g., weapon carrying or use) as offenders try to protect themselvesfrom victimization or retaliate for perceived wrongs or become more embold-ened if they believe their criminal knowledge, experience, peer associations,and weapons make them relatively invincible (see Cobbina et al., 2008). Or, itmay be that carrying weapons and knowing others do so may make one morefearful (see Liska, Sanchirico, & Reed, 1988; Wilcox, May, & Roberts, 2006).Current gang membership or previous gang membership may enhance the likeli-hood that fear will increase criminal behavior due to the heightened victimiza-tion risk associated with current or previous gang membership. Jankowski(1991), for example, found that fear of victimization by rival gangs often spursgang members to attack others first (see also Vigil, 1988). Decker and VanWinkle (1996) also found that perceived threat of violent victimization oftenprompted gang violence. Moreover, these researchers found that the threat ofviolence is a key factor in the decision to both join (see also, Chin, 1996; Klein,1995; cf. May, 2001a) and leave the gang; yet, some ex-gang members continueto feel threatened with violent victimization even after leaving the gang(Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). If fear is a key factor in the decisions to join,leave, and commit gang-related crimes, then theoretical attempts to under-stand gang members’ and ex-gang members’ criminal behavior would need toinclude fear or a measure of it (such as need for protection, need to hang out ingroups, or feelings of threat) as a predictor.

One key policy implication of such a finding would be that attempts todecrease the impact of crime generally and gang crime specifically on communi-ties should focus on not only protecting the public, but also protecting theoffenders and gang members from each other, including finding alternatives totheir seeking gang membership as a place for personal protection. But, beforewe can know how fear affects offenders’ behaviors, we first need to understandthe levels and causes of their fear.

Building upon previous fear of crime literature, this study examines the impactof offenders’ own victimization experience, self-reported crime perpetration,perceptions of neighborhood factors related to social disorganization, andperceived risk on their fear of property, personal, and gang crimes. Specifically,using a large sample of Florida jail inmates (n = 2,414), the analyses compare

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

4 LANE AND FOX

results for non-gang members, ex-gang members, and current gang members. Wecompare the three groups, including ex-gang members separately, because ex-gang members are theoretically different from the other two groups. Althoughthey may not be currently immersed in the gang culture and face immediatedanger, they may continue to feel threatened with victimization because of theirprevious gang status, especially if they still have markers, such as tattoos ormonikers, that prevent complete separation in the eyes of their rivals (e.g., seeDecker & Van Winkle, 1996). In this sense, the predictors of their fear and theirfear levels may be more similar to those of current gang members. In contrast,if their gang affiliation ended many years ago and they no longer carry such mark-ers, they may be more similar to non-gang members in the predictors and levelsof their fear. In other words, we expect that they have some relevant character-istics of both non-gang members and gang members.

Social Disorganization, Crime, Gangs, and Fear

Social disorganization theory is an ideal backdrop for this study because of itsunique historical contribution to both the study of crime and gangs and the studyof fear of crime. Traditionally, the theory has been used to study the negativeeffects of racial diversity, residential mobility, and poverty on community crimelevels based on the idea that these factors make it difficult for local residents tomaintain informal social control in the area when social ties are weak (Bursik,1988; Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Shaw & McKay, 1972). Some studies, though, haveshown that neighborhoods with strong collective efficacy (defined as cohesionamong neighborhood residents combined with shared expectations for informalsocial control of public space) (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001, p. 1) may be betterable to control crime, even when faced with these negative structural character-istics (Markowitz et al., 2001; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999, 2001; Sampson,Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). It is clear that areas with more social disorganizationstruggle with more crime and gang problems (Bursik, 2002), and one element thatpoints to social disorganization is a neighborhood’s inability to control gangs(Sampson, 1993). Gang members also commit significantly more crime, includingviolence, compared with non-gang members (Battin, Hill, Abbott, Catalano, &Hawkins, 1998; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Huff, 1998; Thornberry, 1998). Giventhat offenders typically live close to where their crimes occur, it is likely thatoffenders, both gang members and non-gang members, live in socially disorga-nized areas (see Block et al., 2007) and that their objective victimization risk ishigher than that of most people in the general public (e.g., Chen, 2009; Lauritsenet al., 1991; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990).

As there are few studies of gang members’ or non-gang offenders’ fear levels,we know little about how afraid they are, how offenders perceive their neighbor-hoods, or how those perceptions and experiences affect their own fears aboutcrime. Studies of the general public indicate that concerns about diversity/racialheterogeneity, disorder, and decline are predictive of greater general crime fear

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 5

(Covington & Taylor, 1991; Ferguson & Mindel, 2007; Franklin & Franklin, 2009;Schafer, Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Taylor & Hale, 1986) and gang-related fear(Katz et al., 2003; Lane, 2002; Lane & Meeker, 2003, 2004, 2005). With regard toracial and ethnic heterogeneity, findings indicate that when some people seeothers who are different from them, they may become more afraid because theyfind it difficult to understand their behaviors and mannerisms (see Merry, 1981).According to the disorder perspective, people who see community problems, suchas rundown homes, messy yards, trash, youths hanging out, etc. often worry thatthese are indicators of crime and, therefore, become more afraid. Finally, thecommunity concern perspective argues that people become more afraid of crimewhen they believe the community is in decline or no longer the way it used to be(see Covington & Taylor, 1991; Lane & Meeker, 2003; Taylor & Hale, 1986 for areview of these ideas and studies). These findings are rather consistent for thegeneral public; yet, there is no information about whether these neighborhoodcharacteristics have a similar effect on people involved in crime, either gangmembers or non-gang members.

Interestingly, the effects of collective efficacy on public fear are not clear.One study found that it did not have a direct impact on fear of crime, but collec-tive efficacy was related to more neighborhood satisfaction, which was relatedto less fear of crime. Furthermore, these authors found that collective efficacywas also related to taking more preventive measures, and those who took precau-tions were actually more fearful (Ferguson & Mindel, 2007). Xu, Fiedler, andFlaming (2005) also found that social cohesion and shared expectations had nodirect significant effects on fear. In contrast, Gibson, Zhao, Lovrich, and Gaffney(2002) found that more collective efficacy was related to less fear of crime. Yet,another study found that it increased fear in Blacks and did not affect fear amongothers, concluding that more communication among Blacks in neighborhoods maylead to more information sharing about crime and, therefore, more fear (Roman& Chalfin, 2008). Thomas (2007) echoed this result, arguing the collective effi-cacy increased rumors about crime in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, leading toboth more personal and altruistic fear. Markowitz et al. (2001) argued that fearwas part of a feedback loop and that neighborhood cohesion reduced disorder,disorder increased fear, but fear decreased cohesion.

Why Victimization and Perpetration Should Affect Fear but Might Not

It seems intuitive that people who are most likely to experience victimization—especially those who are involved in criminal activity and gangs—would be moreafraid of crime. These people likely know the risks they face and know the realconsequences of victimization, even if, so far, they have only been a perpetrator.They are more likely than the general public to have seen victimization and itsconsequences first hand. Most of the research on victimization among gangs hascompared youths who are in gangs with those who are not and regularly finds thatgang youths are more involved in criminal activity and suffer more violent

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

6 LANE AND FOX

victimization than other youths (e.g., Battin et al., 1998; Curry, Decker, & Egley,2002; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Huff, 1998; Melde et al., 2009; Peterson, Taylor,& Esbensen, 2004; Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, & Freng, 2007; Thornberry, 1998).

Research has also shown that people join gangs for protection, which impliesthat they often are at least initially afraid of crime (e.g., Decker, 1996; Decker& VanWinkle, 1996; Melde et al., 2009; Padilla, 1992; Peterson et al., 2004).Yet, Melde et al. (2009) found, although youth gang members have a higherperceived risk of victimization than non-gang youths, they report less fear thannon-gang youths over time. Melde et al. (2009) argued that although the objec-tive risk of crime is higher, gang youths feel protected by their membership ingangs and must at least appear outwardly fearless to be respected and acceptedby other members of the gang. As Anderson (1999, p. 92) previously argued,those involved in the criminal lifestyle often must exhibit “nerve” to berespected, and part of showing nerve is displaying no fear of dying (see alsoMiller, 2001). In essence, research among people involved in crime shows thatthe cognitive recognition of victimization risk does not neatly coincide with theemotional response to that risk. Even if gang members feel fear, they generallydo not express it. It also may be that gang members, and possibly othersinvolved in crime, do not even feel fear because they believe they are “invinci-ble” due to their membership in the gang, their physical and mental toughness,or their ability to carry weapons to fend off violent attackers. Moreover, thoseinvolved in criminal activity may feel they are familiar with people who poserisks (i.e., other criminals) and may, therefore, feel they have enough knowl-edge to protect themselves, while people in the general public may be morescared because potential attackers are unknown and seem to be culturally,racially, or ethnically distinct from themselves (Madriz, 1997; Merry, 1981).

Research focusing on the general population also indicates cognitive percep-tions of risk and emotional responses are not perfectly correlated and thatobjective risk also is not necessarily related to fear (e.g., women are oftenmuch more afraid, even though they are less likely to be victimized by streetcrime) (see Warr, 1994, 2000 for a review). In sum, the relationship betweenobjective and subjective victimization risk and fear is complex, whether or notone is involved in crime.

Demographic Predictors of Fear

Research on fear among the general public has shown relatively consistentpredictors of fear with regard to personal characteristics, and we include threeof these variables (gender, race, and age) as controls in the analyses presentedhere. Research consistently shows that women are more afraid of crime andgang crime in particular than men, and racial and ethnic minorities are typicallymore afraid than Whites (see Lane & Meeker, 2003; Warr, 1994 for a review).Early research using poorer measures of fear indicated that older people weremore afraid of crime, but more recent studies show that younger people are

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 7

more afraid of both crime generally and gang crime more specifically (Ferraro,1995, 1996; Lane & Meeker, 2003; Warr, 1994).

Importance of Measuring Perceived Risk and Fear of Specific Offenses and Perpetrators

Fear research in the last 20 or more years has focused on refining measures,specifically differentiating between perceived risk (the cognitive component, or“likelihood” that crime will happen) and fear (the emotional component, or feltreaction to crime) (Ferraro, 1995). Studies have shown both that these aredifferent but related concepts and that they sometimes have different predic-tors (Ferraro, 1995; Mesch, 2000; Rader, May & Goodrum, 2007; Schafer et al.,2006). Most studies include perceived risk as a predictor of fear, as this onedoes, finding that risk is a strong predictor of fear.1 However, as noted earlier,for offending populations, perceived risk may not be a strong predictor of fear.

For both perceived risk and fear, measures now generally differentiatebetween types of crime (e.g., listing specific offenses, such as burglary, assault,murder, etc.), based on the calls of key scholars to do so (see Ferraro, 1995;Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987, 1988; Warr, 1994, 2000). This is important becausefear can vary by type of crime (e.g., people may be more afraid of violent crimebecause of the possibility of more serious consequences, even though propertycrime is statistically more likely to happen to them). Researchers have alsobegun to further refine measures by examining fear of specific offenses byspecific perpetrators (e.g., gangs and terrorists) (see Lane, 2006; Lane &Meeker, 2003, 2004, 2005; Nellis, 2009a, 2009b; Wilcox, Ozer, Gunbeyi, &Gundogdu, 2009), under the assumption that different types of perpetratorsmay invoke different levels of fear. This article follows that tradition bycomparing fear of crime generally with fear of gang crime specifically.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The primary research questions driving this study were (1) Are adult offendersafraid of property, personal, and/or gang-related crime? (2) Are gang membersand ex-gang members more or less afraid than non-gang members? (3) Do moreexperience with crime perpetration (or more immersion in the criminal life-style) and more experience with victimization among offenders increase theirfear of crime? (4) Do perceptions of social disorganization (disorder, racialheterogeneity, and collective efficacy) increase offenders’ fear of crime? (5) Dothe importance of more crime perpetration, more experience with victimiza-tion, and perceptions of social disorganization vary by gang status?

1. Some argue that risk, fear, and constrained behaviors are part of a larger concept called the“threat of victimization” and that they affect each other (see Rader, 2004; Rader et al., 2007).

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

8 LANE AND FOX

Based on the limited prior research with offenders (see Lane, 2006, 2009;May, 2001a), we hypothesized (1) that offenders would not be very afraid ofcrime, but would be more afraid of serious and violent offenses than nonviolentones; (2) that gang members, who likely are more immersed in the criminal life-style than the other groups, would be less afraid than ex-gang members whowould be less afraid of crime than non-gang members, who would be the leastimmersed in the criminal activity (committed the least number of crimes); (3)that more immersion in the criminal lifestyle, or more experience with perpe-tration, would be related to less fear because these offenders would rely onpersonal experience to judge their safety and would feel more familiar with andaware of others who might want to victimize them; (4) that victimization wouldbe inversely related to fear, based on the assumption that although at higherrisk for victimization, offenders, especially gang members, would feel theunique ability to protect themselves from other criminals; and (5) that percep-tions of social disorganization would be more important for non-gang membersthan gang members because gang members would rely more on their personalexperience with the criminal culture than indirect indicators of crime whenworrying about possible victimization.

Data

Data for the current study were derived from self-report surveys administeredto inmates incarcerated in Florida county jails. Fourteen of twenty jails (70% ofthe target population) allowed the research team access to visit each housingunit within the facilities between September 2008 and January 2009.2 Thesecounty jails are not only among the largest in the state, but several are listedalso among the top 50 largest jails in the country (Sabol & Minton, 2008). Alleligible inmates were invited by the researchers to complete a survey abouttheir personal characteristics, neighborhood, and crime.3 Inmates wereinformed that participation was voluntary, no compensation would be provided,and all responses would remain anonymous (e.g., identifying information, suchas names and inmate numbers, was not collected). The location in which thesurveys were administered varied within each jail (e.g., in the day room, aseparate room in the housing unit, or a multipurpose room). In an effort toassure inmates that the jail would not have access to their responses, correc-tional officers were asked not to handle the survey materials or approachinmates who were completing the survey. Given the research that indicatesspecific procedures enhance the accuracy of survey responses (Turner, Lessler,& Devore, 1992), the research team ensured that participating inmates were

2. Due to limited staff availability to escort the research team, two jails restricted the number ofhousing units and inmates who were able to participate.3. Ineligible inmates in all jails included those housed in disciplinary confinement and psychiatricand communicable disease units. Additionally, four jails did not permit high-security inmates toparticipate and three jails deemed federal inmates ineligible for participation.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 9

spaced adequately from each other, and respondents were asked to answerquestions privately (rather than verbally) by marking each answer individually.Inmates were instructed that the questions would be read aloud, and they couldeither follow along with the researcher (110 or 4.6% did so) or complete thesurvey at their own pace. Respondents had also the option of completing thesurvey in English or Spanish, although few participants selected the Spanishversion (n = 212, 8.8%).

The sample was comprised of 2,414 inmates who completed the survey.Determining the response rate presented challenges, given the nature ofsampling-incarcerated inmates. While the inmates within each housing unitwere quieted during the survey announcement, it was impossible to count thenumber of inmates who actually heard it. Many inmates were hidden from view,appeared to be asleep, or had headphones on and may have been listening tomusic. Furthermore, most of the units housed large numbers of inmates (oftenbetween 60 and 100 inmates), which rendered counts during the announcementimpossible. Consequently, the response rate (25%) was determined based on theofficial number of inmates present within each housing unit as tracked by thecorrectional officers supervising each unit. The response rate is similar to thatof other research on incarcerated inmates, and is a conservative estimatebecause it is unlikely that all inmates housed in each unit actually heard thestudy announcement (Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby,& Donaldson, 1996).

Measures

Fear of Crime

Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they were personallyafraid of a wide variety of specific crimes occurring while outside of jail. Forexample, inmates were asked to specify how afraid they were of having some-one break into their home while they were away, being attacked with aweapon, being carjacked, etc. (e.g., Ferraro, 1995). Response optionsincluded: not afraid (coded as 1), somewhat afraid (coded as 2), afraid (codedas 3), and very afraid (coded as 4) (see Lane & Meeker, 2003). The 17 itemswere combined into three indexes, which were created to measure (1) fear ofproperty crime (theft, vandalism, and burglary), (2) fear of personal crime(robbery, threatened with a weapon, attacked without a weapon, attackedwith a weapon, stabbed, witness intimidation, home invasion, shot at, shot,and being killed), and (3) fear of gang crime (carjacking, property damage bygang graffiti, home invasion by a gang member, gang attack, and gang harass-ment). The indexes ranged from 1 (indicating less fear) to 4 (indicating morefear). Unless otherwise specified, all indexes were created by adding theresponses to all variables included in the index and dividing by the number ofincluded variables, to allow for meaningful interpretation of the index scores.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

10 LANE AND FOX

Cronbach’s alpha scores indicate high reliability for the fear of property crimeindex (alpha = .832), fear of personal crime index (alpha = .955), and fear ofgang crime index (alpha = .953).

Perceived Risk of Crime Victimization

Similar to the fear of crime survey items and coding, respondents werepresented with the same list of crimes and were asked to rate the likelihoodthat each crime would actually happen to them in the future while outside ofthe jail (see also Melde et al., 2009). Response options included: very unlikely(coded as 1), somewhat unlikely (coded as 2), somewhat likely (coded as 3), andvery likely (coded as 4). Using the same crimes as in the fear indexes, wecreated three indexes to measure (1) perceived risk (or likelihood) of propertycrime, (2) perceived risk of personal crime, and (3) perceived risk of gangcrime. The indexes ranged from 1 (indicating less perceived risk) to 4 (indicatingmore perceived risk). High reliability was determined for the perceived risk ofproperty crime index (alpha = .741), perceived risk of personal crime index(alpha = .924), and perceived risk of gang crime index (alpha = .910).

Perceptions of Neighborhood Factors related to Social Disorganization

Based on established measures, perceptions of neighborhood factors related tosocial disorganization were assessed using a number of items designed tomeasure the degree to which respondents believed their neighborhood wascharacterized by (1) racial heterogeneity, (2) physical disorder, (3) social disor-der, and (4) collective efficacy (Melde et al., 2009; Sampson & Raudenbush,2001; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). Racial heterogeneity was measured using asingle item that asked inmates to determine the extent to which their neighbor-hood was racially mixed. Response options were: not very mixed (coded as 1),somewhat mixed (coded as 2), and very mixed (coded as 3). The original surveyquestion also provided an option for respondents to report that they did notknow how racially mixed their neighborhood was (only 5% marked this optionand were coded as missing). Physical disorder and social disorder were derivedfrom Skogan and Maxfield (1981) and were measured by asking respondents torate the extent to which a number of items were not a problem (coded as 1),some problem (coded as 2), or a big problem (coded as 3) in their neighborhood.Items indicative of physical disorder included: garbage on the streets, graffiti,abandoned cars, needles and syringes used for drugs, people vandalizing otherpeople’s property, and buildings or storefronts sitting abandoned or burned out.Social disorder was measured with the following items: people hanging aroundwith nothing to do (loitering), people drinking alcohol in public places, peopledrunk in public places, people who looked like they were selling drugs, andpeople using illegal drugs. Both disorder indexes ranged from 1 to 3 and yielded

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 11

high reliability (.881 for physical disorder and .892 for social disorder). Measuresof collective efficacy were derived from Sampson et al. (1997), and respondentswere asked to rate the likelihood, from very unlikely (coded as 1) to very likely(coded as 4), that their neighbors would do something if they saw unattendedchildren misbehaving, that their neighbors would be willing to help each other,and that they could trust their neighbors. The collective efficacy index rangedfrom 1 to 4, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .741.

Gang Membership

Consistent with much of the prior literature, respondents were asked to self-identify as never having belonged to a gang, belonging to a gang in the past, orcurrently belonging to a gang (Curry, 2000; Decker, Katz, & Webb, 2008;Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001; Melde et al., 2009; Peterson et al.,2004; Taylor, 2008; Webb, Katz, & Decker, 2006).

Crime Perpetration and Victimization

Inmates were asked to indicate the number of times they had ever committed13 crimes. Two additive indexes were created, including a property crimeperpetration index (theft and vandalism) and a personal crime perpetrationindex (threatened with a weapon, assaulted without a weapon, assaulted with aweapon, robbed, carjacked, witness intimidation, home invasion, drive-by-shooting, stabbed, shot-at someone, and shot and hit someone). Respondentswho indicated they did not commit particular types of crime were coded aszero. Given the potential for large numbers to skew the distributions, bothindexes were truncated at the 99th percentile (Nagin & Smith, 1990), whichresulted in few affected cases for the property crime perpetration index (22outliers) and personal crime perpetration index (24 outliers). Cronbach’s alphasindicated high reliability for the property (.813) and personal crime perpetra-tion indexes (.770).

Crime victimization was measured using items and coding schemes thatmirrored crime perpetration. Respondents were asked to identify the number oftimes they had ever experienced each of the same property and personalcrimes. Additive indexes, truncated at the 99th percentile, were created tomeasure property crime victimization (alpha = .591; 23 outliers) and personalcrime victimization (alpha = .693; 24 outliers).

Control Variables

Sex (0 = female; 1 = male), race (0 = non-White; 1 = White), and age (continu-ous) were included in the models as control variables.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

12 LANE AND FOX

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for each of the three groups. One-wayanalyses of variance (ANOVA) using Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD)post-tests were conducted to examine differences across groups (see Table 1).The majority of all three groups were males, but ex-gang and current gangmembers were significantly more likely to be males compared with non-gangmembers. Most respondents were non-White, while current gang members weresignificantly more likely to be minority compared with the other groups. Currentgang members were significantly younger than ex-gang members, and ex-gangmembers were significantly younger than non-gang members.

Non-gang members reported committing significantly fewer property andpersonal crimes than both ex-gang and current gang members. Ex-gang membersreported committing significantly fewer personal crimes than current gangmembers. Ex-gang members were victimized by property crimes significantlymore often than both non-gang and current gang members. Current gang membersreported significantly more personal victimizations than ex-gang members, whoreported significantly more victimizations than non-gang members (see Table 1).

In terms of perceptions of social disorganization, all three groups reportedaverage perceptions of racial heterogeneity in their neighborhoods, and therewere no significant differences among the groups on this measure. For bothphysical and social disorder, current gang members and ex-gang members weresignificantly more likely to say that they were a problem compared with non-gang members. The reverse was true for collective efficacy, in that non-gangmembers reported significantly higher levels of collective efficacy in theirneighborhoods than ex-gang members who reported significantly more collec-tive efficacy than current gang members did (see Table 1).

Perceived risk of property crime was similar (and differences were nonsignif-icant) across groups. Perceived risk of personal crime was significantly higherfor current gang members compared with both ex- and non-gang members. Forperceived risk of gang crime, current gang members felt significantly more atrisk than ex-gang members, who felt significantly more at risk than non-gangmembers. Although the differences were not significant, gang membersreported more perceived risk of gang crime than of personal and then propertycrime, while the other two groups reported more perceived risk of propertycrime and the least amount of perceived risk for gang crime.

Research Questions 1 and 2: Are adult offenders afraid of property, personal,and/or gang-related crime? Are gang members and ex-gang members more orless afraid of crime than non-gang members? We hypothesized that offenderswould not report much fear of crime but would be more afraid of violent offensesthan nonviolent ones. In addition, we expected that gang members would be theleast afraid, and non-gang members would be the most afraid. The results inTable 1 indicate that overall none of the groups reported high fear of crime;

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 13

Tabl

e 1

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

amon

g no

n-ga

ng,

ex-g

ang,

and

cur

rent

gan

g m

embe

rs a

nd o

ne-w

ay A

NO

VA w

ith

Tuke

y H

SD p

ost-

test

for

pai

rwis

e co

mpa

riso

ns

Non

-gan

g m

embe

rs(n

= 2

,020

; 85

%)Ex

-gan

g m

embe

rs(n

= 2

25;

9%)

Curr

ent

gang

mem

bers

(n =

145

; 6%

)Si

gnif

ican

t co

ntra

sts

Mal

e14

39 (

73%)

172

(81%

)12

8 (9

1%)

N <

E;

N <

CW

hite

860

(44%

)88

(42

%)41

(29

%)N

> C

; E

> C

Age

Rang

e 18

–84

Rang

e 18

–59

Rang

e 18

–43

N >

C;

N >

E;

E >

CM

ean

(SD

)32

.79

(11.

44)

30.2

7 (9

.87)

24.4

8 (5

.91)

Prop

erty

cri

me

perp

etra

tion

Rang

e 0–

120

Rang

e 0–

120

Rang

e 0–

120

N <

E;

N <

CM

ean

(SD

)4.

99 (

15.2

2)10

.20

(24.

88)

8.62

(21

.65)

Pers

onal

cri

me

perp

etra

tion

Rang

e 0–

225

Rang

e 0–

225

Rang

e 0–

225

N <

E;

N <

C;

E <

CM

ean

(SD

)6.

99 (

22.2

2)19

.37

(42.

32)

33.6

7 (5

7.40

)Pr

oper

ty c

rim

e vi

ctim

izat

ion

Rang

e 0–

27Ra

nge

0–27

Rang

e 0–

23N

< E

; E

> C

Mea

n (S

D)

2.61

(4.

32)

3.88

(5.

99)

2.09

(3.

46)

Pers

onal

cri

me

vict

imiz

atio

nRa

nge

0–10

7Ra

nge

0–10

7Ra

nge

0–10

7N

< E

; N

< C

; E

< C

Mea

n (S

D)

6.80

(13

.37)

13.6

0 (2

0.75

)18

.30

(24.

35)

Raci

al h

eter

ogen

eity

Rang

e 1–

3Ra

nge

1–3

Rang

e 1–

3M

ean

(SD

)1.

98 (

.782

)2.

07 (

.76)

2.03

(.8

3)Ph

ysic

al d

isor

der

Rang

e 1–

3Ra

nge

1–3

Rang

e 1–

3N

< E

; N

< C

Mea

n (S

D)

1.70

(.6

3)1.

82 (

.61)

1.94

(.5

5)So

cial

dis

orde

rRa

nge

1–3

Rang

e 1–

3Ra

nge

1–3

N <

E;

N <

CM

ean

(SD

)1.

97 (

.63)

2.19

(.5

9)2.

24 (

.67)

Colle

ctiv

e ef

fica

cyRa

nge

1–4

Rang

e 1–

4Ra

nge

1–4

N >

E;

N >

C;

E >

CM

ean

(SD

)2.

68 (

.84)

2.49

(.8

0)2.

23 (

.76)

Perc

eive

d ri

sk o

f pr

oper

ty c

rim

eRa

nge

1–4

Rang

e 1–

4Ra

nge

1–4

Mea

n (S

D)

1.93

(.8

1)1.

95 (

.78)

1.95

(.7

8)Pe

rcei

ved

risk

of

pers

onal

cri

me

Rang

e 1–

4Ra

nge

1–4

Rang

e 1–

3.90

N <

C;

E <

CM

ean

(SD

)1.

71 (

.71)

1.80

(.6

7)2.

09 (

.66)

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

14 LANE AND FOX

Tabl

e 1

(Con

tinu

ed)

Non

-gan

g m

embe

rs(n

= 2

,020

; 85

%)Ex

-gan

g m

embe

rs(n

= 2

25;

9%)

Curr

ent

gang

mem

bers

(n =

145

; 6%

)Si

gnif

ican

t co

ntra

sts

Perc

eive

d ri

sk o

f ga

ng c

rim

eRa

nge

1–4

Rang

e 1–

4Ra

nge

1–4

N <

E;

N <

C;

E <

CM

ean

(SD

)1.

49 (

.69)

1.70

(.7

3)2.

12 (

.80)

Fear

of

prop

erty

cri

me

Rang

e 1–

4Ra

nge

1–4

Rang

e 1–

3N

> C

; E

> C

Mea

n (S

D)

1.62

(.7

7)1.

57 (

.74)

1.27

(.4

6)Fe

ar o

f pe

rson

al c

rim

eRa

nge

1–4

Rang

e 1–

4Ra

nge

1–3.

70M

ean

(SD

)1.

75 (

.86)

1.74

(.7

5)1.

59 (

.64)

Fear

of

gang

cri

me

Rang

e 1–

4Ra

nge

1–4

Rang

e 1–

3.33

N >

CM

ean

(SD

)1.

63 (

.90)

1.60

(.7

7)1.

44 (

.58)

SD =

sta

ndar

d de

viat

ion;

one

-way

ana

lyse

s of

var

ianc

e (A

NO

VA)

usin

g Tu

key

HSD

pos

t-te

st in

dica

te s

igni

fica

nt d

iffe

renc

es a

mon

g no

n-ga

ng m

embe

rs (

N),

ex-

gang

m

embe

rs (

E),

and

curr

ent

gang

mem

bers

(C)

.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 15

instead, offenders acknowledged that they were generally “somewhat afraid” ofeach type of crime. All three groups generally were more afraid of personal crimethan property or gang crime. Non-gang and ex-gang members were significantlymore afraid of property crime compared with current gang members. While therewere no significant differences across groups for fear of personal crime, non-gangmembers were significantly more afraid of gang crime than current gangmembers. Table 2 takes a closer look at each crime included in the property,personal, and gang crime indexes, showing the percent of respondents in eachgroup who were “afraid” or “very afraid” of each offense.4 The results reportedhere show that few of the respondents in any group reported being either afraidor very afraid of any of the crimes. All three groups reported being most afraid

4. The data presented in Table 2 were dichotomized for ease of interpretation; however, the vari-ables with original variation preserved were used to determine statistical differences.

Table 2 Number and percent “afraid” or “very afraid” of crime victimization andone-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post-test for pairwise comparisons

Non-gang members

(n = 2,020; 85%)

Ex-gang members

(n = 225; 9%)

Current gang members

(n = 145; 6%)Significant contrasts

Property crimeTheft 220 (11%) 19 (9%) 4 (3%) N > C; E > CVandalism 251 (13%) 24 (12%) 8 (6%) N > C; E > CHome burglary 404 (21%) 36 (18%) 11 (8%) N > C; E > C

Personal crimeRobbed 368 (19%) 36 (17%) 15 (11%) N > C; E > CThreatened with weapon 393 (20%) 38 (18%) 16 (12%)Attacked without weapon 283 (15%) 29 (14%) 8 (6%) N > C; E > CAttacked with weapon 433 (22%) 43 (21%) 23 (17%)Stabbed 408 (21%) 36 (17%) 24 (17%)Witness intimidation 261 (13%) 22 (11%) 10 (7%) N > CHome invasion 359 (18%) 32 (15%) 15 (11%) N > CShot at 429 (22%) 38 (18%) 28 (20%)Shot 505 (26%) 47 (23%) 40 (29%)Killed 605 (31%) 64 (31%) 46 (33%)Carjacked 348 (18%) 25 (12%) 12 (9%) N > C

Gang crimeGang graffiti vandalism 260 (13%) 23 (11%) 6 (4%) N > C; E > CGang home invasion 381 (20%) 31 (15%) 18 (13%)Gang drive-by shooting 442 (23%) 41 (20%) 26 (19%)Gang attack 368 (19%) 35 (17%) 17 (12%)Gang harassment 321 (16%) 31 (15%) 11 (8%) N > C

One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) using Tukey HSD post-test indicate significant differencesamong non-gang members (N), ex-gang members (E), and current gang members (C).While datapresented in this table were dichotomized for ease of interpretation, variables with the variationpreserved were used to determine statistical differences.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

16 LANE AND FOX

of being killed, with about 1/3 indicating they were afraid or very afraid. Theirnext biggest fear was of being shot. These results confirm the first hypothesisthat the offenders were not very afraid and that they were more afraid of violentversus nonviolent crimes.

When comparing across groups, we found that current gang members reportedbeing significantly less afraid of property crime generally and of each individualproperty crime compared with both ex-gang members and non-gang members.There were no significant differences among non-gang, ex-gang, and current gangmembers on the fear of personal crime index, although both non-gang membersand ex-gang members were significantly more afraid of robbery and beingattacked with a weapon than gang members were. Interestingly, current gangmembers were slightly more likely to be afraid of being shot and of being killedthan the other groups were, though these differences were not significant.Current gang members were significantly less afraid of gang crime than were non-gang offenders, which was driven by greater fear among non-gang members ofgraffiti and gang harassment (see Tables 1 and 2). In sum, hypothesis two waspartially confirmed—current gang members reported less fear of both propertyand gang crime, but not less fear of personal crime overall.

Multivariate Analyses

Research Questions 3 and 4: Do more experience with crime perpetration andvictimization increase fear of crime? Do perceptions of social disorganization(disorder, racial heterogeneity, and collective efficacy) increase fear of crime?Tables 3–6 report the results of ordinary least squares regression (OLS) equa-tions designed to answer the remaining three research questions. We also reportthe results of coefficient comparison tests (z-tests) for the primary variables ofinterest (perpetration, victimization, disorder, collective efficacy, andperceived risk) when they are significant. Table 3 presents findings for the fullsample, predicting fear of property crime, personal crime, and gang crime sepa-rately. Across all models, women were significantly more afraid compared withmen, as we expected based on prior research. Non-Whites were significantlymore afraid of personal and gang crime, but not of property crime. Olderoffenders were more afraid of property crime, possibly, because they had moretime to gather things of value.

Here we included two dummy variables for current (coded 1) and ex-gangmembers (coded 1), where non-gang members were the reference group (coded0). As predicted in hypothesis two, we find that current gang members aresignificantly less afraid of all three types of crime, but the coefficients for ex-gang members are not significant. The results in Table 3 also show that thosewho are less involved in committing personal crime are more afraid of personalcrime, confirming hypothesis three. We hypothesized that victimization wouldbe inversely related to fear because although those more involved in crime havea higher risk of victimization, they, especially gang members, likely also feel

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 17

the unique ability to defend themselves against others (Melde et al., 2009).Table 3 shows that in only one model (gang crime), those who have beenvictimized by personal crime are less afraid. Otherwise, victimization is notsignificantly related to fear.

In all models in Table 3, more perceptions of racial heterogeneity, physicaldisorder, and social disorder predict fear, as prior research with the general

Table 3 Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models predicting fear of property,personal, and gang crime among the full sample

Property crime Personal crime Gang crime

b (SE)B

Male −.198 (.035)***−.120

−.229 (.039)***−.122

−.232 (.041)***.120

White −.006 (.032)−.004

−.098 (.035)**−.059

−.131 (.037)***−.077

Age .004 (.001)**.063

.000 (.002)−.002

−.000 (.002)−.001

Ex-gang members −.043 (.053)−.017

−.026 (.059)−.009

−.043 (.062)−.015

Current gang members −.306 (.064)***−.102

−.235 (.073)***−.069

−.346 (.077)***.100

Property crime perpetration −.001 (.001)−.033

— −.002 (.001)−.033

Personal crime perpetration — −.001 (.001)*−.054

.000 (.001)−.015

Property crime victimization −.002 (.004)−.011

— −.004 (.004)−.021

Personal crime victimization — −.002 (.001)−.039

−.003 (.001)*−.056

Racial heterogeneity .071 (.019)***.076

.085 (.022)***

.081.065 (.022)**.060

Physical disorder .093 (.034)**.079

.138 (.038)***

.103.155 (.040)***.113

Social disorder .076 (.034)*.067

.101 (.038)**

.078.084 (.039)*.063

Collective efficacy .040 (.019)*.045

.022 (.021)

.023.040 (.022).040

Perceived risk of crime .235 (.020)***.258

.296 (.025)***

.253.327 (.027)***.268

Constant .605 (.110)*** .800 (.123)*** .717 (.126)***F 23.692*** 24.894*** 22.591***R2 .122 .124 .135

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

18 LANE AND FOX

public would suggest. Interestingly, greater perceptions of collective efficacyare associated with higher fear of property crime. We do not control forincome, but we speculate that people who live in nicer neighborhoods, wherecollective efficacy may be greater, may worry more about property crimebecause they may have more expensive possessions. Consistent with priorresearch on the general public, higher perceived risk is significantly associatedwith higher fear in all three models.

Research Question 5: Does the importance of crime perpetration, victimiza-tion, and social disorganization vary by gang status? One of the primaryresearch questions asked if the predictors or importance of the predictorsvaried by gang status. To investigate this question, we conducted separate anal-yses to examine fear of property crime (Table 4), fear of personal crime (Table5), and fear of gang crime (Table 6) among non-gang, ex-gang, and current gangmembers.

Table 4 presents the results for fear of property crime. With regard toperpetration and victimization, findings show that neither is predictive ofproperty fear for any of the three groups. These results are contrary to thehypotheses, which predicted that both perpetration and victimization wouldbe inversely related to fear. We also expected perceptions of social disorgani-zation (i.e., disorder, diversity, and reduced collective efficacy) to be relatedto fear among non-gang members but not current or ex-gang members becausethe latter two groups are likely more immersed (or were in the case of ex-gang members) in the criminal lifestyle and likely rely more on personal expe-rience than indirect indicators of crime to determine their perceived safety.This hypothesis generally was supported in that physical and social disorderand perceived racial heterogeneity were significantly and positively related toproperty fear among non-gang members, but not ex- or current gang members.Coefficient comparison tests (z-tests) indicated only that racial heterogeneityhad a stronger impact on fear for non-gang members compared with gangmembers (z = −2.118). Interestingly, collective efficacy was not a significantpredictor in any of the property fear models. Table 4 also shows thatperceived risk is related to property fear for non- and ex-gang members, butnot current gang members. Coefficient comparison tests indicated perceivedrisk had a stronger impact on fear for ex-gang members than gang members (z= 2.152) and on non-gang members compared with gang members (z = −2.988),but there were no significant differences when comparing non-gang memberswith ex-gang members (z = −.239). In addition, female non-gang and currentgang members were more afraid. Older non-gang and ex-gang members alsowere more afraid, although the impact was very small.

Table 5 presents similar models predicting fear of personal crime. Similar tothe models predicting fear of property crime, and contrary to our hypothesis,personal crime perpetration is unrelated to fear of personal crime across allthree groups. In contrast, personal crime victimization is now significantly andnegatively related to personal fear for non-gang members only, which partlysupported the hypothesis that victimization would be inversely related to fear.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 19

As the fear of property crime models illustrates, and again supporting thehypothesis, perceptions of social disorganization (racial diversity and physicaland social disorder) are significantly and positively related to fear in non-gangmembers only. Collective efficacy remains unrelated to fear, and perceived riskcontinues to be a significant and positive predictor for non-gang and ex-gangmembers only. The coefficient comparison tests indicate that the effect ofperceived risk on personal fear was stronger for ex-gang members compared withnon-gang members (z = −2.009) and current gang members (z = 3.017), and itmattered more for non-gang members than current gang members (z = −2.059).In contrast to the fear of property crime models (Table 4), minority non-gangmembers were more afraid than Whites of personal crime, and age is now nonsig-nificant in all three models. In addition, only female non-gang members are more

Table 4 Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models predicting fear of propertycrime among non-gang, ex-gang, and current gang members

Non-gang members

Ex-gang members

Current gang members

b (SE)B

Male −.198 (.038)***−.120

−.134 (.134)−.073

−.304 (.144)*−.187

White .003 (.035).002

−.041 (.110)−.027

−.057 (.087)−.061

Age .004 (.002)*.054

.011 (.006)*

.149.008 (.007).101

Property crime perpetration −.001 (.001)−.031

.000 (.002)−.023

.000 (.002)−.040

Property crime victimization .000 (.004)−.005

−.004 (.009)−.037

.000 (.013)−.006

Racial heterogeneity .079 (.021)***.084

.052 (.070)

.054−.032 (.048)−.060

Physical disorder .090 (.038)*.075

.139 (.128)

.115.128 (.079).160

Social disorder .079 (.038)*.067

.024 (.132)

.019.091 (.073).127

Collective efficacy .038 (.021).043

.018 (.073)

.020.041 (.054).070

Perceived risk of property crime .243 (.022)***.264

.261 (.072)***

.270.066 (.055).120

Constant .592 (.120)*** .393 (.425) .755 (.315)F 22.37*** 2.37* 1.80R2 .115 .119 .134

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.*p < .05.***p < .001.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

20 LANE AND FOX

afraid than males. Gender is no longer a significant predictor for current gangmembers (see Table 5).

Table 6 shows the results for fear of gang crime. Again, across all threegroups, perpetration is nonsignificant and unrelated to fear, contradicting ourhypothesis that those who perpetrated more crime would be less fearful. Similarto the models predicting personal fear (Table 5), personal crime victimization isnegatively and significantly related to fear of gang crime for non-gang membersonly (Table 6), which partially supports our hypothesis that victimization wouldbe negatively related to fear. Similar to the results presented in both Tables 4and 5, perceptions of social disorganization (racial heterogeneity and physicaldisorder) predict fear of gang crime for non-gang members only; yet, percep-tions of social disorder are no longer a significant predictor for this group. Even

Table 5 Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models predicting fear of personalcrime among non-gang, ex-gang, and current gang members

Non-gang members

Ex-gang members

Current gang members

b (SE)B

Male −.224 (.042)***−.119

−.215 (.125)−.115

−.281 (.203)−.129

White −.101 (.039)**−.060

−.080 (.100)−.054

.012 (.125)

.009Age .000 (.002)

−.009.004 (.005).056

.010 (.010)

.095Personal crime perpetration −.002 (.001)

−.050.000 (.001)

−.049−.002 (.001)−.175

Personal crime victimization −.003 (.002)*−.052

.000 (.003)−.021

.003 (.003)

.111Racial heterogeneity .089 (.024)***

.082.063 (.064).065

−.013 (.072)−.018

Physical disorder .141 (.043)***.103

.134 (.115)

.109.143 (.115).124

Social disorder .105 (.043)*.079

.077 (.120)

.062.090 (.102).088

Collective efficacy .025 (.024).024

−.015 (.067)−.017

.057 (.078)

.068Perceived risk of personal crime .293 (.028)***

.244.452 (.074)***.417

.091 (.094)

.094Constant .806 (.135)*** .510 (.412) .821 (.439)F 24.96*** 5.11*** 1.189R2 .123 .218 .090

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 21

with this small difference in the effects of perceptions of social disorganizationon types of fear for non-gang members, our hypothesis that these factors wouldbe more important for non-gang members is supported. As Tables 4 and 5 alsoillustrate, perceived risk is a significant predictor of gang-related fear for non-gang members and ex-gang members, but not current gang members. As inTable 5, perceived risk is the only variable for which the coefficient comparisontests showed significant differences across groups. Specifically, perceived riskhad a stronger impact on fear of gang crime for ex-gang members compared

Table 6 Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models predicting fear of gang crimeamong non-gang, ex-gang, and current gang members

Non-gang members

Ex-gang members

Current gang members

b (SE)B

Male −.241 (.044)***−.125

−.043 (.133)−.022

−.296 (.190)−.144

White −.147 (.041)***−.085

−.024 (.109)−.016

.053 (.113)

.044Age −.001 (.002)

−.015.010 (.006).128

.007 (.009)

.077Property crime perpetration −.002 (.001)

−.037.002 (.003).071

−.002 (.004)−.084

Personal crime perpetration .000 (.001)−.016

−.001 (.002)−.074

−.001 (.001)−.143

Property crime victimization −.002 (.005)−.010

−.004 (.010)−.035

.000 (.018)−.002

Personal crime victimization −.004 (.002)*−.067

−.002 (.003)−.051

.003 (.003)

.120Racial heterogeneity .066 (.025)**

.059.051 (.068).051

−.005 (.064)−.008

Physical disorder .172 (.045)***.122

.111 (.125)

.089.083 (.103).082

Social disorder .077 (.045).056

.080 (.130)

.063.139 (.097).153

Collective efficacy .042 (.025).041

.014 (.073)

.014.053 (.070).072

Perceived risk of gang crime .335 (.030)***.254

.460(.076)***

.435.076 (.070).106

Constant .738 (.139)*** .102 (.441) .767 (.412)F 22.90*** 3.89*** 1.099R2 .138 .212 .104

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

22 LANE AND FOX

with current gang members (z = 3.716) and for non-gang members comparedwith current gang members (z = −3.400). Similar to the models predictingpersonal fear of crime, Table 6 shows minorities and women are more afraid inthe non-gang group, but race and gender are nonsignificant for ex-gang andcurrent gang members. Age remains nonsignificant in all three modelspresented in Table 6.

Discussion and Conclusions

Summary of Findings and Comparison with Prior Studies

The current study examined the effects of indicators of social disorganization(physical disorder, social disorder, racial heterogeneity, and collective efficacy)and perceived risk on fear of crime among a large sample of offenders (jailinmates). Separate analyses among non-gang members, ex-gang members, andcurrent gang members revealed several important relationships. We firstsummarize some of the basic findings across groups on the variables included inthese analyses. Results showed that both current and former gang membersreported committing more property and personal crime than non-gangmembers, and current gang members reported committing more personal crimethan ex-gang members. This is consistent with prior research indicating thatgang members commit more crime than non-gang members (Battin et al., 1998;Curry et al., 2002; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Huff, 1998; Thornberry, 1998)and with our expectations. Moreover, current gang members reported experi-encing more personal victimization than both ex-gang members and non-gangmembers, and former gang members reported more property victimization thanex- and non-gang members. These findings are also consistent with other studiesthat find gang members experience more victimization compared with non-gangmembers (Peterson et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 2007).

Interestingly, there were no significant differences across groups in percep-tions of neighborhood racial heterogeneity, but current and former gangmembers perceived more physical and social disorder in their neighborhoodsthan did non-gang offenders. In contrast, non-gang offenders perceived signifi-cantly more collective efficacy in their neighborhoods than former gangmembers who perceived significantly more than current gang members. Itappears, then, that gang members lived in more disordered neighborhoods thannon-gang offenders, who perceived more trust and willingness to help amongtheir neighbors.

There were no significant differences among groups in perceived risk of prop-erty victimization, but current gang members felt significantly more at-risk ofpersonal crime victimization than former and non-gang members. In otherwords, this group likely recognized that their current lifestyle put them inharm’s way. With regard to gang crime specifically, current gang members feltsignificantly more at-risk than ex-gang members who, in turn, felt significantly

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 23

more at-risk than non-gang offenders. So, the greater the distance from gangmembership, the less one felt at risk of being victimized by gang crime.

With regard to our primary hypotheses, we found some of our hypotheseswere supported, others were partially supported, and some garnered nosupport. We expected that offenders would not be very afraid of crime but thatnon-gang members (or those supposed less immersed in the criminal lifestyle)would be more afraid (Lane, 2006; May, 2001a; Melde et al., 2009). We alsoexpected offenders would be more likely to be afraid of violent crimes thannonviolent ones. These hypotheses were supported in that all three groupsgenerally reported that they were “somewhat afraid,” but all three groupsreported more fear of personal crime than property or gang crime. In addition,we found that gang members were significantly less afraid of property crimethan both ex- and non-gang members. There were no significant differencesacross the three groups in fear of personal crime, except that non- and ex-gangmembers were more afraid or robbery and being attacked with a weapon thangang members were. Current gang members were less afraid of gang crime thannon-gang members were. In the multivariate models for the full sample, currentgang members were significantly less afraid of all three types of crime.

A key question is “why” gang members generally are less afraid, which ourdata cannot address. Lane (2006) argued that greater fear among those not asinvolved in the criminal lifestyle may be a result of their greater insecurityabout their knowledge regarding the rules of street life or their ability toprotect themselves when confronted, similar to what May (2001b, p. 167) calledthe “shadow of powerlessness.” Lane (2006) also argued that some people whoare more caught up in the criminal lifestyle may simply see victimization as acalculated risk that “comes with the job,” and so they may not feel fear theway others do (see also Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Gang members may, infact, think they can protect themselves through carrying weapons, hanging outin groups, or avoiding areas where they might be in greater danger (Lane, 2006).In a similar vein, Melde et al. (2009) argued that for youths, being part of a gangmakes one feel more protected, despite their greater risk of victimization.Based on this study, this may also be true for adults. It may be that gangmembers rely more on their cognitive perceptions of risk (rather than emotionalfear) than ex- and non-gang members do, because risk is part of their everydaylives. May (2001a) argued that those involved in crime may be reluctant toadmit fear, which is consistent with Anderson’s (1999, p. 92) finding that peopleinvolved in crime must exhibit “nerve,” which, in part, means displaying no fearof personal harm (see also Melde et al., 2009; Miller, 2001). Even if they feelfear, then, they may not feel comfortable expressing it. These findings mightargue for developing measures to allow men, especially those who feel the needto exhibit toughness, to discuss fear while also appearing strong. For example,measures might ask about their perceived need to portray strength (e.g., tohang with their friends in groups, or with the gang) and in what situations (e.g.,where and when) versus asking them to admit weakness as typical measures do(e.g., choosing not to be out alone) (see Cobbina et al., 2008).

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

24 LANE AND FOX

We also hypothesized that more immersion in the criminal lifestyle (or moreself-reported perpetration) would be related to less fear. In addition, weexpected that victimization would be more common among those most involvedin crime (especially gang members) and would be inversely related to fear. Wedeveloped these hypotheses because we expected those who were moreinvolved in the criminal lifestyle (e.g., gang members) would feel more confi-dent about their street knowledge and abilities to protect themselves, despitetheir increased risk of victimization (Melde et al., 2009). We did find that thosewho were less involved in crime were more afraid. However, in only one modelfor the full sample (fear of gang crime) did we find that those who were victim-ized by personal crime were less afraid. In the models comparing the threegroups, we found that neither perpetration nor victimization predicted fear ofproperty crime or gang crime regardless of gang status. For fear of personalcrime and fear of gang crime, we found that personal crime victimization wasnegatively and significantly related to fear only for non-gang members, partlysupporting the expectation that victimization would be inversely related tofear. In sum, as the literature would suggest, those who were more involved incrime (i.e., gang members) were generally less afraid, but perpetration withineach group was not generally a predictor of fear. The results for prior victimiza-tion were more equivocal—for non-gang members only, victimization was nega-tively related to fear. These data cannot provide an explanation for thevictimization findings, but mixed results on the effects of victimization are notuncommon in the literature (i.e., sometimes it is related to more fear andsometimes not). In our sample, gang members experienced the most personalvictimization, followed by ex-gang members and then non-gang members. Wewonder if the explanation here might also be that those most involved, or gangmembers (and therefore also most victimized), have found a way to protectthemselves (e.g., through personal confidence in their own strength, throughhanging with groups of tough friends, or carrying weapons) and do not worry asmuch about being victimized in the future. It may also be that the non-gangmembers who have been victimized are more likely to take precautions and sofeel less afraid.

We hypothesized based on prior research that factors related to social disor-ganization would be more important for non-gang members than ex-gang andcurrent gang members because the latter two groups would rely more on theirpersonal experience with the criminal culture in worrying about possible victim-ization. For the full sample, perceptions of racial heterogeneity and social andphysical disorder were significantly related to property, personal, and gang-related fear, as one might expect based on research with the general popula-tion. In addition, those who perceived more collective efficacy were moreafraid of property crime, which is consistent with some research showing themore collective efficacy is related to more fear (Roman & Chalfin, 2008;Thomas, 2007). When comparing the models for the three groups, we find thatthe indicators of social disorganization (racial heterogeneity, physical disorder,and social disorder) are key predictors of property, personal, and gang fear for

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 25

non-gang offenders but are not significant for current gang or ex-gang members.This supports our hypothesis that these indicators would be more important fornon-gang offenders than ex-gang and current gang members. Interestingly,collective efficacy is not a significant predictor in any equations, which adds tothe equivocal results on this particular variable (see Ferguson & Mindel, 2007;Gibson et al., 2002; Roman & Chalfin, 2008; Thomas, 2007; Xu et al., 2005).

Taken together, these results imply that neighborhood factors are betterpredictors of fear for those who have less experience with perpetration,victimization, and gangs. Yet, when one is more experienced in the criminaland gang lifestyle, cognitive perceptions of risk based on actual experiencemay be more important. In other words, experienced offenders may be betterable to tell what really matters in predicting victimization—either because theyhave been victimized themselves or because they do the victimizing (Chen,2009; Lauritsen et al., 1991; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990; Shaffer & Ruback,2002). In contrast, those less involved in offending or not offending at all (likethe general public and less-involved offenders) may rely on tangential issuessuch as diversity and disorder to tell them if and when they should be afraidbecause they do not have as much personal experience with victimization oroffending (Lane, 2006). This is an area of research that needs more attentionbecause these findings only add to the mixed results of the impact of victimiza-tion especially.

Perceived risk is also a significant predictor of all three types of fear (prop-erty, personal, and gang) for non-gang offenders and for ex-gang members, butit is not significant in any equation for current gang members. Again, this seemsto point to the message that those most immersed in the criminal lifestyle areleast affected by it in terms of fear, even though we know they are at greaterobjective risk and feel more at risk than the others do (Lane, 2006; Melde et al.,2009).

When we examined the traditional personal characteristics that are relatedto fear among the full sample of offenders, we again found that they were morelikely to matter for non-gang offenders. Specifically, non-gang women weremore afraid of all three types of crime, older non-gang members were moreafraid of property crime, and minority non-gang offenders were more afraid ofpersonal and gang crime. Women gang members were also more afraid of prop-erty crime but not of personal or gang crime.

It is not unexpected that women would be more afraid, because this is aconsistent finding across prior studies involving the general public. Muchresearch has focused on the differential socialization of men (expected to bestrong, masculine and not admit weakness, including fear) and women(expected to be more vulnerable and weaker) as an explanation for greaterexpressed fear among women (Goodey, 1997; Madriz, 1997; May, 2001b; Rader,2008; Reid & Konrad, 2004). What is unexpected is that gender is not a signifi-cant predictor of fear of personal or gang crime for either current or formergang members. Most explanations for greater fear among women focus on theirgreater vulnerability to harm (including the shadow thesis regarding the

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

26 LANE AND FOX

inherent threat of sexual assault in other crimes) (see Ferraro, 1995, 1996;Warr, 1985) or their perceived inability to fight off an attack when one occurs(Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). Some argue that women are more afraid becausethey are always at-risk of being verbally or physically harassed or attacked bymen (Stanko, 1985). This physical vulnerability to the experience and effects ofcrime would seem to be similar for women gang members, who are actuallymore at-risk of being victimized, unless there is something unique about beinga gang member (or past one) that makes them more resilient to the emotionaleffects of crime. Miller (2001) argued that girls understand that part of being ina gang means not only being able to handle violent victimization but also thatit affords a level of protection, since people watch out for each other. Cobbinaet al. (2008) also found that women felt safer when they were in the companyof men and were carrying a weapon. This may be one situation in which bothmen and women are emotionally bolstered by their gang membership, eventhough they are cognitively aware of the increased risk of being hurt. It may bethat in gangs, women feel both threatened and protected by men (and women)in their daily lives but on balance believe they are protected. This is an inter-esting idea that might further be explored in qualitative research comparingwomen who are involved in offending, and specifically gangs, with those whoare not.

Non-White non-gang offenders were more afraid of personal and gang crimethan were White non-gang offenders, and this was true even after controllingfor perceptions of neighborhood heterogeneity and physical and social disorderas well as crime perpetration and victimization. It may be that non-Whiteoffenders who are not in gangs are more likely to live in higher crime areasthan White non-gang offenders. Or, it may be something unique about the livesand socialization experience of non-Whites that makes them more fearfulunless they have the buffer of believing that a gang is there to help. Thissample includes both Blacks and Hispanics. It may be that, like women, minori-ties in the USA are socialized generally to be more afraid as a way to protectchildren from harm and that this socialization carries throughout their lives(e.g., to be more aware of the possibility of crime around them than othersmight be). Hughes et al. (2006, p. 757) review literature discussing the“promotion of mistrust” among some minority families where parents “empha-size the need for wariness and distrust in interracial interactions” as a way ofprotecting children from stereotypes and negative interactions. It may be thatmistrust, or caution, is also one way to ensure a greater likelihood of survival inareas where victimization is more likely. In other words, like women, minori-ties may feel the need to constantly be aware and to protect themselves fromcrime. Disadvantage, discrimination, and objective risk of victimization may allbe additional factors that could contribute to the feeling that one should bemore afraid. Future research on these issues might examine the effects offactors such as these on fear among minority groups. Qualitative research, inparticular, would be able to delve deeper into the feelings of minority groupsin this regard.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 27

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

While the current study is a step forward toward better understanding fear ofcrime among non-gang, ex-gang, and current gang members, some limitationspoint to the need for more research. First, the data are cross-sectional self-reports among a sample of jail inmates, and caution should be used beforegeneralizing the findings to other samples or populations. While the responserate was relatively low (25%), this is consistent with other studies on incarcer-ated offenders and is a conservative estimate, given that we could not estimatethe number of housed inmates that actually heard the study announcement(Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). These results show important findings (e.g.,that those most involved in the criminal lifestyle are least afraid and leastaffected by neighborhood factors) that may be explored further by futureresearch examining jail inmates or gang members and non-gang members indifferent locations and over time.

Furthermore, respondents were not provided with a definition of their neigh-borhood when asked about social disorganization outside of the jail (see Martin,2003, for an overview of several alternative methods). Some respondents mayhave identified with multiple neighborhoods. However, some research suggeststhat when presented with the vague term of “neighborhood,” respondents willrefer to the location that is most relevant and influential in their lives (Coulton,Korbin, Chan, & Su, 2001). In addition, prior research on gangs indicates thatthey are often neighborhood-based, pointing to the likelihood that they wouldhave a clear idea in their own minds of their own neighborhoods, therebymaking this a minimal concern.

A third possible limitation is that gang membership was measured using theself-report method. While defining and measuring gang membership continue tobe a topic of debate, prior research has provided strong support for the validityof self-reports from gang members (Curry, 2000; Esbensen et al., 2001; Webbet al., 2006). It is possible that some offenders may have lied about their gangmembership in this study because they were concerned about the effect ofadmitting it on their incarceration or pending court experiences despite ourprotection of their identity. However, the research design included efforts toreduce this possibility, including assuring participants’ anonymity (e.g., by notcollecting inmate names or identification numbers) and conducting the surveysin a private setting where they indicated answers privately rather than verbally(Turner et al., 1992).

Finally, some readers might be concerned that the respondents were askedabout their fear of crime and perceived risk on the outside while they were incar-cerated rather than while they were living in their communities. We believe thatbecause the offenders were in jail (versus prison), they were close enough in timeto their community living experience (both before entering jail and their likelyrelease dates) that they could easily recall their fear of crime while living in thecommunity and anticipate their victimization risk upon release. A large majorityof respondents had been in jail for less than six months (17.9% for three to six

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

28 LANE AND FOX

months), and most of them for less than three months (59.6%). They did not haveto remember that long ago to know how afraid they felt in their communities.Still, future studies could get more current contextualized measures of fear andrisk if they interviewed offenders while they were living in their communities,but researchers also might face more struggles in trying to recruit willing partic-ipants than we faced within jails where large numbers of offenders were easilyaccessible. Additionally, the data did not permit an examination of whether fearwas related to inmates’ constrained behaviors. Given the literature on the impor-tance of considering constrained behavior, future research may contribute to ourunderstanding of offenders’ fear of crime by including those measures (e.g.,Cobbina et al., 2008; Liska et al., 1988; May, 2001a; Wilcox et al., 2006).

Even with these limitations, this study has important implications for fear ofcrime research among offenders. It shows, like other studies have, that beingmore involved in crime and gangs likely provides an emotional protectionagainst fear in the face of heightened objective and perceived risk of victimiza-tion by crime. This appears to be true for men and women, an important resultgiven the consistent finding over time that women in the general public aremore afraid than men. Do women suddenly feel more resilient if they havepeople around them who they believe can or will protect them (e.g., a strongman or a group of people)? If so, this has many implications for the possibility ofmaking women feel safer. For example, fear of crime research often hasfocused on the possibility that people do not walk alone as a way to protectthemselves from crime. These results may indicate that this approach actuallyworks to lessen fear. Finding ways to help women have this protective support(absent the gang) may lessen their fears, which is an important policy implica-tion in attempts to help those who are incapacitated by fear.

In addition, without the apparent perceived protection of gang membership,non-White offenders are more afraid even after controlling for perceived neigh-borhood factors. Fear of crime researchers have yet to focus on socializationexperiences among non-Whites in the USA and the relationship of thesemessages to fear of crime in youth and over the life course. This study impliesthat this may be an important focus of future studies on fear of crime.

This study also points to the increased importance of neighborhood factors infear as one gets further removed from criminal activity. Studies to date haveyet to examine this issue specifically—the relative importance of neighborhoodfactors as participation in crime and gangs increases. New research thataddresses this issue has the potential to add greatly to the literature on neigh-borhood factors and fear of crime.

Policy Implications

Although the number of crimes committed (our measure of perpetration) andvictimization experience were generally not related to fear, there was somethingabout being a gang member that made one less fearful than the other groups

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 29

despite more perceived risk. We have no measures of behavioral precautions, butit could be, as others have argued, that gang members feel protected by moreperson and gun power than those not in these groups (Melde et al., 2009; Miller,2001). In essence, even though they know their lifestyle puts them at risk forvictimization, they believe they can fend off attackers because of their gangstatus and the street benefits that come with it. If this is true, policymakers maybe able to reduce gang crime by helping people find more constructive ways toprotect themselves than joining a gang. These strategies might include a combi-nation of increased police presence and response times to improve perceptionsof external protection, reduce disorder and decline to improve the neighborhood,and teach people how to protect themselves through target hardening. For thosenot yet involved in gangs, it seems that these things might matter (since socialdisorganization factors predicted fear for non-gang members only). For gangmembers, the policy implications seem more complex and beyond the scope ofthese data. Yet, it seems that one key would be to work with rival gangs todevelop truces, similar to the one that occurred in Los Angeles between the Cripsand Bloods in the 1990s, which some believe reduced gang violence (Cotton,1992). This might allow any crime-related power related to gang membership tobe reduced through negotiation and agreement.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issuesfor funding this research. Views expressed in this article are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent those of the funding agency. The authors wishto thank the jail administrators and inmates who participated in this researchand Kathy Zambrana and Jen Klein for their valuable research assistance.

References

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of theinner city. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). Thecontribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminol-ogy, 36, 93-115.

Block, R., Galaray, A., & Brice, D. (2007). The journey to crime: Victims and offendersconverge in violent index offences in Chicago. Security Journal, 20, 123-137.

Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency:Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519-551.

Bursik, R. J., Jr. (2002). The systemic model of gang behavior: A reconsideration. InC. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America III (pp. 71-81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions ofeffective community control. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Chen, X. (2009). The link between juvenile offending and victimization: The influence ofrisky lifestyles, social bonding, and individual characteristics. Youth Violence andJuvenile Justice, 7, 119-135.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

30 LANE AND FOX

Chin, K. (1996). Chinatown gangs: Extortion, enterprise, & ethnicity. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Cobbina, J. E., Miller, J., & Brunson, R. K. (2008). Gender, neighborhood danger, andrisk avoidance strategies among urban African-American youths. Criminology, 46,673-709.

Cotton, P. (1992). Violence decreases with gang truce. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 268, 443-444.

Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents’ perceptions ofneighborhood boundaries: A methodological note. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 29, 371–383.

Covington, J., & Taylor, R. B. (1991). Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods:Implications of between- and within-neighborhood sources for current models. Socio-logical Quarterly, 32, 231-249.

Curry, G. D. (2000). Self-reported gang involvement and officially recorded delinquency.Criminology, 38, 1253-1274.

Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A., Jr. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency ina middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275-292.

Decker, S. H. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly,19, 243-264.

Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2008). Understanding the black box of gangorganization: Implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violentvictimization. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 153-172.

Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Esbensen, F. A., & Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs and delinquency in a survey of urbanyouth. Criminology, 31, 565-589.

Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and defini-tional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency,47, 105–130.

Fagan, J., Piper, E. S., & Cheng, Y. (1987). Contributions of victimization to delinquencyin inner cities. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 586-613.

Ferguson, K. M., & Mindel, C. H. (2007). Modeling fear of crime in Dallas neighborhoods:A test of social capital theory. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 322-349.

Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. New York, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? SocialForces, 75, 667-690.

Ferraro, K. F., & LaGrange, R. L. (1987). The measurement of fear of crime. SociologicalInquiry, 57, 70-101.

Ferraro, K. F., & LaGrange, R. L. (1988). Are older people afraid of crime? Journal ofAging Studies, 2, 277-287.

Franklin, C. A., & Franklin, T. W. (2009). Predicting fear of crime: Considering differ-ences across gender. Feminist Criminology, 4, 83-106.

Gibson, C. L., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2002). Social integration, indi-vidual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. JusticeQuarterly, 19, 537-564.

Goodey, J. (1997). Boys don’t cry: Masculinities, fear of crime, and fearlessness. BritishJournal of Criminology, 37, 401-418.

Huff, C. R. (1998). Comparing the criminal behavior of youth gangs and at-risk youths.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P.(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and direc-tions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747-770.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 31

Jankowski, M. S. (1991). Islands in the street: Gangs and American urban society. Berke-ley, CA: University of California Press.

Katz, C. M., Webb, V. J., & Armstrong, T. A. (2003). Fear of gangs: A test of alternativetheoretical models. Justice Quarterly, 20, 95-130.

Klein, M. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lane, J. (2002). Fear of gang crime: A qualitative examination of the four perspectives.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 437-471.

Lane, J. (2006). Exploring fear of general and gang crimes among juveniles on probation:The impacts of delinquent behaviors. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 34-54.

Lane, J. (2009). Perceptions of neighborhood problems, fear of crime and resultingbehavioral precautions: Comparing institutionalized girls and boys in Florida. Journalof Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 264-281.

Lane, J., & Meeker, J. W. (2003). Fear of gang crime: A look at three theoretical models.Law & Society Review, 37, 425-456.

Lane, J., & Meeker, J. W. (2004). Social disorganization perceptions, fear of gang crimeand behavioral precautions among Whites, Latinos, and Vietnamese. Journal ofCriminal Justice, 32, 49-62.

Lane, J., & Meeker, J. W. (2005). Theories and fear of gang crime among Whites andLatinos: A replication and extension of prior research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(6), 627-641.

Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending andvictimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265-292.

Liska, A. E., Sanchirico, A., & Reed, M. D. (1988). Fear of crime and constrained behav-ior: Specifying and estimating a reciprocal effects model. Social Forces, 66, 827-837.

Madriz, E. (1997). Nothing bad happens to good girls: Fear of crime in women’s lives.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A. E., & Liu, J. (2001). Extending social disorganizationtheory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology,29, 293-319.

Martin, D. G. (2003). Enacting neighborhood. Urban Geography, 24, 361-385.May, D. C. (2001a). Adolescent fear of crime, perceptions of risk and defensive behav-

iors: An alternative explanation of violent delinquency. Lewiston, NY: Edwin MellenPress.

May, D. C. (2001b). The effect of fear of sexual victimization on adolescent fear ofcrime. Sociological Spectrum, 21, 141-174.

May, D. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Virgo, K. (2002). The impact of parental attachment andsupervision on fear of crime among adolescent males. Adolescence, 37, 267-287.

Melde, C., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2009). “I got your back:” An examination ofthe protective function of gang membership in adolescence. Criminology, 47, 565-594.

Merry, S. E. (1981). Urban danger: Life in a neighborhood of strangers. Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.

Mesch, G. S. (2000). Perceptions of risk, lifestyle activities, and fear of crime. DeviantBehavior, 21, 47-62.

Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, and gender. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Nagin, D. S., & Smith, D. A. (1990). Participation in and frequency of delinquentbehavior: A test for structural differences. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6,335-356.

Nellis, A. M. (2009a). Fear of terrorism. In K. Borgeson & R. Valeri (Eds.), Terrorism inAmerica (pp. 117-144). Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Press.

Nellis, A. M. (2009b). Gender differences in fear of terrorism. Journal of ContemporaryCriminal Justice, 25, 322-340.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

32 LANE AND FOX

Padilla, F. M. (1992). The gang as an American enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.

Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2004). Gang membership and violentvictimization. Justice Quarterly, 21, 793-815.

Rader, N. E. (2004). The threat of victimization: A theoretical reconceptualization offear of crime. Sociological Spectrum, 24, 689-704.

Rader, N. E. (2008). Gendered fear strategies: Doing gender and fear management strat-egies in married and divorced women’s lives. Sociological Focus, 41, 34-52.

Rader, N. E., May, D. C., & Goodrum, S. (2007). An empirical assessment of the “threatof victimization:” Considering fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance and defensivebehaviors. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 475-505.

Reid, L. W., & Konrad, M. (2004). The gender gap in fear: Assessing the interactive effectsof gender and perceived risk on fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum, 24, 399-425.

Roman, C. G., & Chalfin, A. (2008). Fear of walking outdoors: A multilevel ecologic anal-ysis of crime and disorder. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 306-312.

Sabol, W. J., & Minton, T. D. (2008). Jail inmates at mid-year 2007 (NCJ 221945).Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, US Department of Justice.

Sampson, R. J. (1993). The community context of violent crime. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.),Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 259-286). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and theoffender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,27, 110-139.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of publicspaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology,105, 603-651.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Disorder in urban neighborhoods—Does itlead to crime? Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime:A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). Fear of crime and criminal victim-ization: Gender-based contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 285-301.

Shaffer, J. N., & Ruback, R. B. (2002). Violent victimization as a risk factor for violentoffending among juveniles. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1972). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study ofrates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local communities inAmerican cities (Rev ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M.G. (1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhoodreactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Stanko, E. A. (1985). Intimate intrusions: Women’s experience of male violence. Boston,MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S.(1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. Journal of SexResearch, 33, 67-76.

Taylor, T. J. (2008). The boulevard ain’t safe for your kids: Youth gang membership andviolent victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 125-136.

Taylor, R. B., & Hale, M. (1986). Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal ofCriminal Law & Criminology, 77, 151-189.

Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as arisk factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 44, 351-380.

Thomas, S. A. (2007). Lies, damn lies, and rumors: An analysis of collective efficacy,rumors, and fear in the wake of Katrina. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 679-703.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011

FEAR, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND GANGS 33

Thornberry, T. P. (1998). Membership in youth gangs and involvement in serious andviolent offending. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenileoffenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 147-166). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Turner, C. F., Lessler, J. T., & Devore, J. W. (1992). Effects of mode of administrationand wording on reporting of drug use. In C. F. Turner, J. T. Lessler, & J. C. Gfroerer’s(Eds.), Survey measurement of drug use: Methodological studies (pp. 177-219).Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on DrugAbuse.

Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in Southern California. Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Warr, M. (1985). Fear of rape among urban women. Social Problems, 32, 238-250.Warr, M. (1994). Public perceptions and reactions to violent offending and victimization.

In A. J. Reiss, Jr., & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence: Conse-quences and control (Vol. 4, pp. 1-66). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. InD. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Criminal Justice2000, Vol. 4, pp. 452-489). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Webb, V. J., Katz, C. M., & Decker, S. H. (2006). Assessing the validity of self-reports bygang members: Results from the Arrestee Abuse Monitoring Program. Crime &Delinquency, 52, 232-252.

Wilcox, P., May, D. C., & Roberts, S. D. (2006). Student weapon possession and the “fearand victimization hypothesis:” Unraveling the temporal order. Justice Quarterly, 23,502-529.

Wilcox, P., Ozer, M., Gunbeyi, M., & Gundogdu, T. (2009). Gender and fear of terrorismin Turkey. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 341-357.

Xu, Y., Fiedler, M. L., & Flaming, K. H. (2005). Discovering the impact of communitypolicing: The broken windows thesis, collective efficacy, and citizens’ judgment.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 147-186.

Downloaded By: [University of Florida] At: 13:40 18 May 2011