Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Schram, P. J., & Gaines, L. K. (2005). Examining delinquent non-gang members and delinquent gang members: A comparison of juvenile probationers. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 99–115.

Abstract: This study examines differences between juvenile gang and nongang members participating in a juvenile probation program designed to identify and intervene with youth considered to be high risk for subsequent criminal and delinquent activity. After participating in the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Program, both gang and nongang members significantly improved their grade point average, lowered the number of classes missed, and reduced the number of suspensions. Both groups also improved on family functioning and a decrease in reported alcohol and substance abuse. There were also improvements for gang and nongang members concerning subsequent delinquent activity. The results suggest that at some levels, gang affiliation is not an impediment to treatment programming. A limitation to the study was that gang membership was based on self-report and law enforcement identification, which results in false positive and false negative designations. Additionally, the nongang group may have included youths who escaped being identified as gang members.

Article 2: Chan, J. H. F. (2006). Systemic patterns in bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 27(3), 352–369.

Abstract: Using a new non-anonymous questionnaire and a nomination method by which victims were asked to name their aggressors, Chan (2002) collated the responses from individual victims to produce name-clusters that were studied for systemic patterns of bullying and victimization within the whole-school community. Three such patterns emerged: serial bullying, multiple victimization, and the familial pattern in bullying. Serial bullying is the situation where one perpetrator preys on two or more victims, often traversing a broad range of classes and grades to target his/her victims. Although relatively fewer in number, this group of serial bullies was found to be responsible for a sizeable percentage of the bullying problems in the schools sampled. The data obtained support the notion that concentrating intervention efforts on this group will reap tremendous payoffs, by effectively eliminating the origin of much of the school’s various forms of violence. The converse of serial bullying is multiple victimization, that is, more than one perpetrator can converge on one victim. The reasons why some children are chronically victimized and attract attack from multiple sources were discussed in the context of personality dispositions, peer-relational and family-relational factors, as well as its developmental links with workplace victim status in adulthood. The third pattern studied by Chan (2002) involved cases where children in the same family (i.e., siblings) turned up being named as bullies by their peers. Family influences (e.g., rearing practices and parental modeling) on aggressive behavior in children have long been known. But transmission of influences between siblings, through acting as “key pathogens” and/or “partners in crime” is also responsible for the aggregation of delinquent behavior. The familial pattern in bullying found in Chan’s (2002) study is consistent with such transmission pathways. The ability to reveal the hidden patterns of interaction and links among bullies and victims in the context of the whole-school community attests to the significance and practical use of the SLS peer nomination method of asking victims to name the perpetrators of bullying. It makes possible the tracking of bullies and victims beyond class boundaries, thereby providing information that goes beyond individual data and incidence rates. What is more important, intervention and treatment can be more effectively implemented in a systems-wide approach, when there is integrated information from various key sources.