Across the 10 study waves, ever in a gang but not in the reference period for the current wave, ever in a gang including during the reference period for the current wave). Recall that we restricted the sample to young men who reported serious delinquency at least once during the 10 focal study waves, but not necessarily at every wave, and therefore young men can fall in the “no serious delinquency” category at any given wave. The table also summarizes the significance tests used to identify which values differed significantly among the three gang-status groups. Because mostJ Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.Pagevalues differed significantly, we indicated non-significant contrasts with subscript letters; within rows, values with the same subscript letter did not differ significantly (see Table 2).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptA major contribution of the current study is examining what types of serious delinquency gang members combined. We therefore organized Table 2 to emphasize what looking at combinations of activities revealed that was not evident when we looked at each activity on its own. The first rows replicate prior research (including with the PYS; Gordon et al., 2004, White et al., 2008) by confirming that gang members engaged in more delinquency than did non-gang involved youth and that the elevation in delinquency among gang youth occurred primarily during spells of active gang membership. For example, the second row of Table 2 shows that young men who had reported serious delinquency at some point across the 10 focal study waves, but never reported gang membership, said they were involved in some kind of serious delinquency at just about one-third (31 ) of study waves. In Monocrotaline dose contrast, ganginvolved young men reported serious delinquency more often, especially during the waves when they were in a gang (79 ) versus waves when they were not in a gang (41 ). Similar patterns were seen for any drug sales and any serious violence (rows 3 and 9 of Table 2). For serious theft (row 6), reports were highest among active gang members; however, in periods before and after gang participation these youth reported serious theft at a similar proportion of waves as did youth who were never in gangs. The additional rows of the table provide new information, extending prior studies by showing that gang-involved youth were especially Leupeptin (hemisulfate) mechanism of action likely to combine multiple types of delinquency, that this multi-type delinquent activity was most elevated during their spells of active gang participation, and that this elevation was restricted to a subset of configurations of delinquency. To begin, the middle rows of Table 2 show that, during active gang membership, the increase of each type of delinquent activity was larger in combination with another activity (rows 5, 8, and 11) than on its own (rows 4, 7, and 10). For instance, ganginvolved youth combined drug selling with other serious delinquency during 48 of the waves when they were active gang members; they did so during just 13 of the waves before or after gang membership (row 5; final two columns). Serious theft combined with another activity and serious violence combined with another activity were likewise over 3 times higher during active gang membership than before or after (rows 8 and 11; final two columns). In contrast, specialization in a single activity increased less or not at all when young men participated in.Across the 10 study waves, ever in a gang but not in the reference period for the current wave, ever in a gang including during the reference period for the current wave). Recall that we restricted the sample to young men who reported serious delinquency at least once during the 10 focal study waves, but not necessarily at every wave, and therefore young men can fall in the “no serious delinquency” category at any given wave. The table also summarizes the significance tests used to identify which values differed significantly among the three gang-status groups. Because mostJ Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.Pagevalues differed significantly, we indicated non-significant contrasts with subscript letters; within rows, values with the same subscript letter did not differ significantly (see Table 2).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptA major contribution of the current study is examining what types of serious delinquency gang members combined. We therefore organized Table 2 to emphasize what looking at combinations of activities revealed that was not evident when we looked at each activity on its own. The first rows replicate prior research (including with the PYS; Gordon et al., 2004, White et al., 2008) by confirming that gang members engaged in more delinquency than did non-gang involved youth and that the elevation in delinquency among gang youth occurred primarily during spells of active gang membership. For example, the second row of Table 2 shows that young men who had reported serious delinquency at some point across the 10 focal study waves, but never reported gang membership, said they were involved in some kind of serious delinquency at just about one-third (31 ) of study waves. In contrast, ganginvolved young men reported serious delinquency more often, especially during the waves when they were in a gang (79 ) versus waves when they were not in a gang (41 ). Similar patterns were seen for any drug sales and any serious violence (rows 3 and 9 of Table 2). For serious theft (row 6), reports were highest among active gang members; however, in periods before and after gang participation these youth reported serious theft at a similar proportion of waves as did youth who were never in gangs. The additional rows of the table provide new information, extending prior studies by showing that gang-involved youth were especially likely to combine multiple types of delinquency, that this multi-type delinquent activity was most elevated during their spells of active gang participation, and that this elevation was restricted to a subset of configurations of delinquency. To begin, the middle rows of Table 2 show that, during active gang membership, the increase of each type of delinquent activity was larger in combination with another activity (rows 5, 8, and 11) than on its own (rows 4, 7, and 10). For instance, ganginvolved youth combined drug selling with other serious delinquency during 48 of the waves when they were active gang members; they did so during just 13 of the waves before or after gang membership (row 5; final two columns). Serious theft combined with another activity and serious violence combined with another activity were likewise over 3 times higher during active gang membership than before or after (rows 8 and 11; final two columns). In contrast, specialization in a single activity increased less or not at all when young men participated in.
