Survey research with gang and non-gang members in prison: operational lessons from the LoneStar Project

Mitchell, Meghan M.; McCullough, Kallee; Wu, Jun; Pyrooz, David C.; Decker, Scott H.

doi:10.1007/s12117-018-9331-1

Cited by 37 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our source of survey data is the LoneStar Project, or the Texas Study of Trajectories, Associations, and Reentry. We will briefly summarize the data here, but for a full description of the LoneStar Project, including research design, study protocols, descriptive statistics, human subjects review, field relations, and operational lessons, see Mitchell et al (2018). Researchers interviewed a sample of prisoners just prior to their release from prison and reinterviewed them at multiple points upon returning to their communities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This applies to administrative and survey data sources. Fong and Buentello (1991) held that prison authorities were reluctant to share gang intelligence data with researchers or allow survey or observational research on gangs in prison, a conclusion that largely remains true to this day (Fleisher & Decker, 2001; Mitchell, McCullough, Wu, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2018). This leaves criminologists without substantial assessment of the validity of an important group of high-rate offenders.…”

Section: The Overlap Between Prison Administrative and Survey Data Somentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Prison Administrative and Survey Data Sources Tell the Same Story? A Multitrait, Multimethod Examination With Application to Gangs

Pyrooz

Decker

Owens

2019

Crime & Delinquency

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement is critical to advancing theory and research in criminology. Yet, criminologists are often forced to rely on data sources that are not intended to be used for research or collected in contexts where subjects may have incentives to misreport. This is particularly true of data in institutional corrections research. This study leveraged novel data to examine correspondence in key measures found in prison administrative and survey data on 802 prisoners in Texas, focusing on the measurement properties of an important group rarely studied in prison: gang members. We observed high rates of correspondence between data sources for gang membership (82%) and the gang with which they were affiliated (86%). A multilevel test of item correspondence demonstrated that the measures of gang membership performed as well or better than more episodic measures and worse than more durable measures common in corrections research. A multitrait, multimethod matrix revealed that gang membership, and nearly all other measures, satisfied the principles of validity. Finally, there were no differences in correspondence rates between gang and nongang members for nearly every measure, regardless of the method to measure gang membership. Prison administrative and survey data generally tell the same story, which is promising for institutional corrections research, particularly research focused on gangs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Overlap Between Prison Administrative and Survey Data Somentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Prison Administrative and Survey Data Sources Tell the Same Story? A Multitrait, Multimethod Examination With Application to Gangs

Pyrooz

Decker

Owens

2019

Crime & Delinquency

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The emerging literature on prison gangs seeks to examine several interrelated issues, namely, what prison gangs are (Camp & Camp, 1985; Maxson, 2012); how prison gangs influence carceral governance structures and engage in violence (Butler, Slade, & Nunes Dias, 2018; Dias & Darke, 2016; DiIulio, 1990; Gaes, Wallace, Gilman, Klein-Saffran, & Suppa, 2002; Porter, 1982; Skarbek, 2010, 2011, 2014; Skarbek & Freire, 2018; Trammell, 2012; Weide, 2015; Worrall & Morris, 2012); how prison gangs’ organizational objectives and behaviors develop, expand, and evolve (Buentello, Fong, & Vogel, 1991; Camp & Camp, 1985; Clemmer, 1940; Fong & Buentello, 1991; Fontes, 2018; Fontes & O’Neill, 2018; Gundur, 2018; Hunt, Riegel, Morales, & Waldorf, 1993; Jacobs, 1977; Lessing, 2014, 2016; Mitchell, McCullough, Wu, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2018; Sullivan & Bunker, 2007; Tapia, 2018; Tapia, Sparks, & Miller, 2014); how prison administrations can control them (Fleisher & Decker, 2001; Fleisher, Decker, & Curry, 2001; Forsythe, 2006; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010); their influence on recidivism (Dooley, Seals, & Skarbek, 2014); how they migrate (Etter Sr, 2010; Fontes, 2018; Savenije, 2004; Wolf, 2010); and how prison gangs use their organizational structures to underwrite criminal activity through illicit enterprise in the free world (Fontes, 2016, 2018; Lessing, 2016; Skarbek, 2014), specifically in the context of the Mexican drug trade and its related violence (Bowden, 2010; Grayson, 2010;…”

Section: The Development Of Inmate Groups Into Prison Gangs: What We mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Violence and Protection in Prison and on the Outside: The Organizational Evolution of the Transnational Prison Gang Barrio Azteca

Gundur

2019

International Criminal Justice Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barrio Azteca is a criminal organization that has significantly evolved since its inception as a prison solidarity group—first into a true prison gang and then into an organized criminal enterprise operating in the free world. Today, Barrio Azteca has declined in power and effectiveness in carceral settings but continues to play an important role in the wholesale and retail drug trade in the Paso del Norte area. Its organizational life cycle appears to parallel that of a licit enterprise, except that it primarily competes in the criminal protection marketplace. Thus, to survive and compete in the market for criminal protection, Barrio Azteca adapted to shifts in control dynamics, demonstrating uncommon resilience, first specializing in protection in response to changes in carceral violence and, later, expanding into the drug-trafficking market in response to violence in the criminal underworld both inside and outside prison. This article traces that history of adaptation and persistence, situating it within a synthesis of currently accepted theoretical models of criminal organizational evolution, and in so doing, provides the first organizational history of a prison gang—Barrio Azteca—published in the academic literature.

show abstract

“…Study participation rate (95%), item refusal/do not know rates (<1%), and respondent evasiveness were statistically indistinguishable between gang and non-gang members. A complete description of baseline data collection procedures is provided by Mitchell et al (2018). State and prisoner identification numbers were used to make data linkages with administrative data from state agencies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gang Affiliation and Prisoner Reentry: Discrete-Time Variation in Recidivism by Current, Former, and Non-Gang Status

Pyrooz

Clark

Tostlebe

et al. 2020

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Reentry experiences for the 600,000 people released annually from federal and state prisons differ vastly. We contend that gangs, which rose to prominence alongside mass incarceration, are an overlooked source of variation in reentry experiences. Drawing on precepts from the street gang literature, we test whether patterns of recidivism differ by official and survey measures of current, former, and non-gang status. Methods: Data from a representative sample of 802 prisoners interviewed prior to their release in 2016 were linked to 36 months of post-release arrest, conviction, and imprisonment records. Survival curves and multivariable discrete-time survival analysis were used to test for differential patterns of recidivism. Results: The conditional risk of recidivism varied by gang status. Current gang members maintained the greatest risk for all recidivism types. While former gang members were more likely to get arrested than non-gang members, there were no differences in conviction and imprisonment. Official and survey gang measures mostly told the same story, although official measures appeared to be more reliable determinants of recidivism than survey measures. Conclusions: Distinguishing former from current and non-gang members is important for policy, practice, and research. These findings renew calls to understand and respond to social groups and networks like gangs for prisoner reentry.

show abstract

Survey research with gang and non-gang members in prison: operational lessons from the LoneStar Project

Cited by 37 publications

References 55 publications

Do Prison Administrative and Survey Data Sources Tell the Same Story? A Multitrait, Multimethod Examination With Application to Gangs

Do Prison Administrative and Survey Data Sources Tell the Same Story? A Multitrait, Multimethod Examination With Application to Gangs

Negotiating Violence and Protection in Prison and on the Outside: The Organizational Evolution of the Transnational Prison Gang Barrio Azteca

Gang Affiliation and Prisoner Reentry: Discrete-Time Variation in Recidivism by Current, Former, and Non-Gang Status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About