Gangs. For serious violence only, a smaller increase of 1.5 times was evident (18 versus 13 ; row 10). Specialization in theft (row 7) was equally likely across the three gang-status groups. Specialization in drug selling (row 4) was less likely when gang-involved youth were in the gang versus before or after gang membership and versus delinquent youth who were never in gangs. The bottom rows of Table 2 elaborate these results, showing the specific types of serious delinquency that young men combined and revealing that two particular sets of order PNPP activities (i.e., drug selling and violence; drug selling, theft, and violence) were most elevated when youth were in gangs. Among young men who were ever in gangs, the percentage who Deslorelin cost engaged in these activities was 4 to 5 times higher during waves of active gang membership than during waves before or after gang membership (26 versus 7 for drug sales and violence in row 13; 20 versus 5 for all three serious delinquent activities in row 15).J Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.PageCombining serious theft and serious violence was also elevated during periods of active gang membership, but less so (7 versus 3 ; row 14). The configuration of engaging in drug sales and serious theft without serious violence was rare for all youth, at 1 to 2 even among active gang members (row 12). Modeling Configurations of Serious Delinquency among Delinquent Young Men Who Were and Were Not Gang-Involved Table 3 summarizes results from a multinomial logit model of configurations of serious delinquency based on gang membership status. As discussed above, we first tested for moderation by the study’s three time dimensions (i.e., historical period, developmental age, and cohort). Two of the omnibus tests were not significant: F(14, 42161) = 1.29, p =.202 for interactions by cohort and F(28,85844) = 1.22, p = .196 for interactions by youth’s age. One omnibus test was significant: F(28,981) = 3.41, p < .0001 for interactions by historical time; however, the individual tests were significant only for one of the outcome categories: F(4, 103) = 3.84, p < .001 for combining drug sales and theft. Given that only 2 or less of youth engaged in this combination of serious delinquency, very few cases were included in the test of this interaction. Across the three historical periods and three gang status categories, the percentage of boys engaged in both drug sales and serious theft remained less than 2 , suggesting the interaction had little substantive importance. Because there was no evidence of moderation by cohort or youth age, and very little evidence of moderation by historical period, we next ran a main effects model. The omnibus test revealed evidence of significant associations between gang status and configurations of serious delinquency, F(14, 45389) = 22.02, p < .0001. We used the post-estimation commands described above to calculate the value and significance of all 28 odds ratios with all possible outcome reference categories in order to see which individual odds ratios were significant. Table 3 lists the pairs of predictor categories in the columns and the pairs of outcome categories in the rows. The predictor contrasts were organized so that the reference was either youth who were never in gangs (columns 1 and 2) or youth who were ever in gangs but not in the reference period before the current wave (column 3). Outcome contrasts were organized to start with the three co.Gangs. For serious violence only, a smaller increase of 1.5 times was evident (18 versus 13 ; row 10). Specialization in theft (row 7) was equally likely across the three gang-status groups. Specialization in drug selling (row 4) was less likely when gang-involved youth were in the gang versus before or after gang membership and versus delinquent youth who were never in gangs. The bottom rows of Table 2 elaborate these results, showing the specific types of serious delinquency that young men combined and revealing that two particular sets of activities (i.e., drug selling and violence; drug selling, theft, and violence) were most elevated when youth were in gangs. Among young men who were ever in gangs, the percentage who engaged in these activities was 4 to 5 times higher during waves of active gang membership than during waves before or after gang membership (26 versus 7 for drug sales and violence in row 13; 20 versus 5 for all three serious delinquent activities in row 15).J Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.PageCombining serious theft and serious violence was also elevated during periods of active gang membership, but less so (7 versus 3 ; row 14). The configuration of engaging in drug sales and serious theft without serious violence was rare for all youth, at 1 to 2 even among active gang members (row 12). Modeling Configurations of Serious Delinquency among Delinquent Young Men Who Were and Were Not Gang-Involved Table 3 summarizes results from a multinomial logit model of configurations of serious delinquency based on gang membership status. As discussed above, we first tested for moderation by the study's three time dimensions (i.e., historical period, developmental age, and cohort). Two of the omnibus tests were not significant: F(14, 42161) = 1.29, p =.202 for interactions by cohort and F(28,85844) = 1.22, p = .196 for interactions by youth's age. One omnibus test was significant: F(28,981) = 3.41, p < .0001 for interactions by historical time; however, the individual tests were significant only for one of the outcome categories: F(4, 103) = 3.84, p < .001 for combining drug sales and theft. Given that only 2 or less of youth engaged in this combination of serious delinquency, very few cases were included in the test of this interaction. Across the three historical periods and three gang status categories, the percentage of boys engaged in both drug sales and serious theft remained less than 2 , suggesting the interaction had little substantive importance. Because there was no evidence of moderation by cohort or youth age, and very little evidence of moderation by historical period, we next ran a main effects model. The omnibus test revealed evidence of significant associations between gang status and configurations of serious delinquency, F(14, 45389) = 22.02, p < .0001. We used the post-estimation commands described above to calculate the value and significance of all 28 odds ratios with all possible outcome reference categories in order to see which individual odds ratios were significant. Table 3 lists the pairs of predictor categories in the columns and the pairs of outcome categories in the rows. The predictor contrasts were organized so that the reference was either youth who were never in gangs (columns 1 and 2) or youth who were ever in gangs but not in the reference period before the current wave (column 3). Outcome contrasts were organized to start with the three co.
