Ith a recently emergent gang problem, in contrast to larger cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, which have longer traditions of gang activity and research (Howell, 2012). Gang activity and homicides in Pittsburgh escalated in the early 1990s coincident with the crack cocaine epidemic, peaking just prior to the middle of the decade, and then falling through the late 1990s (Cohen Tita, 1999; Cork, 1999; Kelly Ove, 1999; Mamula, 1997).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptBackground and Prior ResearchScholars have longstanding interest in typologies of crime and delinquency, including the possibility of both specialists and generalists in crime (Farrington, Snyder, Finnegan, 1988; Sullivan, McGloin, Ray, Caudy, 2009; White Labouvie, 1994). The question of specialization is relevant to gang research because images of inner-city drug supermarkets embroiled in violence and young super predators engaged in a wide array of crimes are strongly embedded in media and public perceptions (e.g., Curtis, 1998; Howell, 2012; Kelly Ove, 1999; Thompson, Brownfield, Sorenson, 1996). These perceptions call to mind versatile delinquents who engage in more than one type of crime MK-886 mechanism of action within a short span of time, especially drug sales combined with extreme violence (e.g., armed robbery, aggravated assault) or those activities plus serious theft (e.g., burglary, dealing in stolen goods). On the other hand, gang research also suggests that some gangs are purely territorial and may specialize in violence in order to protect their turf (Coughlin Venkatesh, 2003). Surprisingly, person-oriented analyses of prospective, representative samples have not documented which of these possible configurations of serious delinquency is most likely among gang members. Although an increasing number of studies using latent class analyses have examined constellations of delinquent behavior, these studies offer limited insight into the cooccurrence of delinquency typical of gang members. For example, we are aware of only oneJ Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.Pagelatent class analysis of delinquent behavior that DuvoglustatMedChemExpress 1-Deoxynojirimycin explicitly included an indicator of gang membership (Thompson, Brownfield, Sorenson, 1996); most instead included group or gang fighting (Dembo Schmeidler, 2003; Dembo, Williams, Fagan, Schmeidler, 1994; Kulik, Stein, Sarbin, 1968). It is also the case that prior latent class analyses were not focused sharply on serious delinquency–drug selling, serious violence, and serious theft– in relation to gang association. Instead, latent class analyses have included a wide array of activities, often minor delinquency, antisocial or risky behaviors (such as shoplifting, sexual activity, and failing to use seatbelts), or a total delinquency score encompassing such behaviors (Childs Sullivan, 2013; Dembo et al., 2011, 2012; Hasking, Scheier, Abdallah, 2011; Thompson, Brownfield, Sorenson, 1998; Willoughby, Chalmers, Busseri, 2004). Thompson, Brownfield, and Sorenson’s (1996) latent class analysis of the Seattle Youth Study is most relevant to this paper because it had a central focus on testing whether gang members were delinquency specialists or generalists. Their analyses revealed two classes among both gang and non-gang youth: non-delinquents and delinquent generalists. In other words, neither gang nor non-gang youth were found to be specialists. Their study was limited, howe.Ith a recently emergent gang problem, in contrast to larger cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, which have longer traditions of gang activity and research (Howell, 2012). Gang activity and homicides in Pittsburgh escalated in the early 1990s coincident with the crack cocaine epidemic, peaking just prior to the middle of the decade, and then falling through the late 1990s (Cohen Tita, 1999; Cork, 1999; Kelly Ove, 1999; Mamula, 1997).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptBackground and Prior ResearchScholars have longstanding interest in typologies of crime and delinquency, including the possibility of both specialists and generalists in crime (Farrington, Snyder, Finnegan, 1988; Sullivan, McGloin, Ray, Caudy, 2009; White Labouvie, 1994). The question of specialization is relevant to gang research because images of inner-city drug supermarkets embroiled in violence and young super predators engaged in a wide array of crimes are strongly embedded in media and public perceptions (e.g., Curtis, 1998; Howell, 2012; Kelly Ove, 1999; Thompson, Brownfield, Sorenson, 1996). These perceptions call to mind versatile delinquents who engage in more than one type of crime within a short span of time, especially drug sales combined with extreme violence (e.g., armed robbery, aggravated assault) or those activities plus serious theft (e.g., burglary, dealing in stolen goods). On the other hand, gang research also suggests that some gangs are purely territorial and may specialize in violence in order to protect their turf (Coughlin Venkatesh, 2003). Surprisingly, person-oriented analyses of prospective, representative samples have not documented which of these possible configurations of serious delinquency is most likely among gang members. Although an increasing number of studies using latent class analyses have examined constellations of delinquent behavior, these studies offer limited insight into the cooccurrence of delinquency typical of gang members. For example, we are aware of only oneJ Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.Pagelatent class analysis of delinquent behavior that explicitly included an indicator of gang membership (Thompson, Brownfield, Sorenson, 1996); most instead included group or gang fighting (Dembo Schmeidler, 2003; Dembo, Williams, Fagan, Schmeidler, 1994; Kulik, Stein, Sarbin, 1968). It is also the case that prior latent class analyses were not focused sharply on serious delinquency–drug selling, serious violence, and serious theft– in relation to gang association. Instead, latent class analyses have included a wide array of activities, often minor delinquency, antisocial or risky behaviors (such as shoplifting, sexual activity, and failing to use seatbelts), or a total delinquency score encompassing such behaviors (Childs Sullivan, 2013; Dembo et al., 2011, 2012; Hasking, Scheier, Abdallah, 2011; Thompson, Brownfield, Sorenson, 1998; Willoughby, Chalmers, Busseri, 2004). Thompson, Brownfield, and Sorenson’s (1996) latent class analysis of the Seattle Youth Study is most relevant to this paper because it had a central focus on testing whether gang members were delinquency specialists or generalists. Their analyses revealed two classes among both gang and non-gang youth: non-delinquents and delinquent generalists. In other words, neither gang nor non-gang youth were found to be specialists. Their study was limited, howe.
