Snowball-based methods frequently have been used when working with hidden populations whose members are difficult to identify and locate. By the very nature of the processes of these methods, such samples usually are not random or representative, thereby, resulting in selection bias. This study provides a framework on how to generate a randomized community-based sample of Mexican American adolescent females involved with gangs whose understanding merits further examination given their apparent increase in number and degree. Research findings from a more robust sample can accentuate appropriate policy formation as well as prevention and intervention programs aimed at improving the lives of high-risk youth.
Akins, C., & Beschner, G. (1980). Ethnography: A research tool for policymakers in the drug and alcohol fields. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
2.
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update (No. 33). Guildford, UK: University of Surrey, Department of Sociology.
3.
Bandura, A., & Menlove, F. L. (1968). Factors determining vicarious extinction of avoidance behavior through symbolic modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 99-108.
4.
Berk, R. A., & Ray, S. C. (1982). Selection biases in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386-398.
5.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10, 141-163.
6.
Bjerregaard, B. (2002). Self-definitions of gang membership and involvement in delinquent activities. Youth & Society, 34, 31-54.
7.
Boys, A., Marsden, J., & Strang, J. (2001). Understanding reasons for drug use amongst young people: A functional perspective. Health Education Research, 16, 457-469.
8.
Braunstein, M. S. (1993). Sampling a hidden population: Noninstitutionalized drug users. AIDS Education and Research, 5, 131-139.
9.
Burgess, R. G. (1991). Sponsors, gatekeepers, members, and friends: Access in educational settings. In W. B. Shaffir & R. B. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research. (pp. 43-52). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Campbell, A. (1984). Girls in the gang. New York: Basil Blackwell.
11.
Cepeda, A., & Valdez, A. (2003). Risk behaviors among young Mexican American gang-associated females: Sexual relations, partying, substance use, and crime. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 90-106.
12.
Clear, T. R., Rose, D. R., & Ryder, J. A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 335-351.
13.
Codina, E., Kaplan, C. D., Yin, Z., Valdez, A., & Mata, A. (1999). Estimating the extent of injecting heroin use in Laredo, Texas. Journal of Border Health, 4, 3-11.
14.
Curry, G. D., & Spergel, I. A. (1988). Gang homicide, delinquency, and community. Criminology, 26, 381-405.
15.
Decker, S., & VanWinkle, D. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Deschenes, E. P., & Esbensen, F. A. (1999). Violence and gangs: Gender differences in perceptions and behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 63-96.
17.
Dunlap, E., & Johnson, B. D. (1996). Family and human resources in development of a female crackseller career: Case study of a hidden population. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 175-198.
18.
Dunlap, E., & Johnson, B. D. (1999). Gaining access to hidden populations: Strategies for gaining cooperation of drug sellers/dealers and their families in ethnographic research. Drugs and Society, 14, 127-149.
19.
Esbensen, F., & Deschenes, E. P. (1998). A multi-site examination of gang membership: Does gender matter?Criminology, 36, 799-828.
20.
Esbensen, F., Deschenes, E. P., & Winfree, L. T. (1999). Differences between gang girls and gang boys: Results from a multi-site survey. Youth & Society, 31, 27-53.
21.
Esbensen, F., Miller, M. H., Taylor, T. J., He, N., & Freng, A. (1999). Differential attrition rates and active parental consent. Evaluation Review, 23, 316-335.
22.
Esbensen, F., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. (2001). Young gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter?Crime and Delinquency, 47, 105-130.
23.
Fagan, J. (1989). The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs. Criminology, 27, 633-669.
24.
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 790-797.
25.
Fitzgerald, J. L. (1996). Hidden populations and the gaze of power. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 5-21.
26.
Fitzgerald, J. L., & Hamilton, M. (1997). Confidentiality, disseminated regulation and ethico-legal liabilities in research with a hidden population of illicit drug users. Addiction, 92, 1099-1108.
27.
Fleisher, M. S. (1998). Dead end kids: Gang girls and the boys they know. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
28.
Frank, O., & Snijders, T. (1994). Estimating the size of hidden populations using snowball sampling. Journal of Official Statistics, 10, 53-67.
29.
Griffiths, P., Gossop, M., Powis, B., & Strang, J. (1993). Reaching hidden populations of drug users by privileged access interviewers: Methodological and practical issues. Addiction, 88, 1617-1626.
30.
Groger, L., Mayberry, P., & Straker, J. (1999). What we didn’t learn because of who would not talk to us. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 829-835.
31.
Hagedorn, J. M. (1996). The Emperor’s new clothes: Theory and method in gang field research. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 24, 111-122.
32.
Harris, M. C. (1994). Cholas, Mexican-American girls, and gangs. Sex Roles, 30, 289-301.
33.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.
34.
Heckathorn, D. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 44, 174-199.
35.
Heckathorn, D. D. (2002). Respondent-driven sampling II: Deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems, 49, 11-34.
36.
Heckathorn, D. D., Broadhead, R. S., & Sergeyev, B. (2001). A methodology for reducing respondent duplication and impersonation in samples of hidden populations. Journal of Drugs Issues, 31, 543-564.
37.
Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
38.
Horowitz, R. (1990). Sociological perspectives on gangs: Conflicting definitions and concepts. In R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 37-54). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
Jacobs, B. A. (1999). Crack to heroin? Drug markets and transition. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 555-574.
40.
Joe, K. L., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). ‘Just every mother’s angel’: An analysis of ethnic and gender variations in youth gang membership. Gender & Society, 9, 409-431.
41.
Kaplan, C. D., Korf, D., & Sterk, C. (1987). Temporal and social contexts of heroin-using populations: An illustration of the snowball sampling technique. Journal of Mental and Nervous Disorders, 175, 566-574.
42.
Klein, M. C. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. New York: Oxford University.
43.
Kuebler, D., Hausser, D., & Gervasoni, J. (2000). The characteristics of “new users” of cocaine and heroin unknown to treatment agencies: Results from the Swiss Hidden Population Study. Addiction, 95, 1561-1571.
44.
Laidler, K. J., & Hunt, G. (2001). Accomplishing femininity among the girls in the gang. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 656-678.
45.
Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, and gender. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
Miller, W. B. (1975). Violence by youth gangs and youth groups as a crime problem in major American cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
47.
Moore, J. W. (1977). A case study of collaboration: The Chicano Pinto Research Project. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 144-158.
48.
Moore, J. W. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, drugs, and prisons in the barrio of Los Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
49.
Moore, J. W. (1991). Going down to the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in Change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
50.
Moore, J. W., & Hagedorn, J. (2001). Female gangs: A focus on research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
51.
Morgan, P. (1996). Unknown, unexplored, and unseen populations: An introduction into the truly hidden worlds of drugs and alcohol research. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 1-4.
52.
Penrod, J., Preston, D. B., Cain, R. E., & Starks, M. T. (2003). A discussion of chain referral as a method of sampling hard-to-reach populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14, 100-108.
53.
Petersen, R. D. (2000a). Definitions of a gang and impacts on public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 139-149.
54.
Petersen, R. D. (2000b). Gangs and inmate subcultures of female youth. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 20, 100-116.
55.
Petersen, R. D. (2003, November). Family and intimate violence among females in gangs. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.
56.
Petersen, R. D., & Valdez, A. (2000, November). Sexual and intimate partner violence among Mexican American female adolescents. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.
57.
Petersen, R. D., & Valdez, A. (2002, November). Understanding gang-affiliated adolescent females: Developing a typology. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
58.
Petersen, R. D., & Valdez, A. (2004). Intimate partner violence among Hispanic females. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 2, 67-89.
59.
Peterson, D., Miller, J., & Esbensen, F. (2001). The impact of sex composition on gangs and gang member delinquency. Criminology, 39, 411-439.
60.
Pettiway, L. E. (1995). Copping crack: The travel behavior of crack users. Justice Quarterly, 12, 499-524.
61.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.
62.
Shaffir, W. B. (1991). Managing a convincing self-presentation: Some personal reflections on entering the field. In W. B. Shaffir & R. B. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (pp. 72-81). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
63.
Simcha-Fagan, O., & Schwartz, J. E. (1986). Neighborhood and delinquency: An assessment of contextual effects. Criminology, 24, 667-699.
64.
Snijders, T. (1992). Estimation on the basis of snowball samples: How to weight. Bulletin Methodologie Sociologique, 36, 59-70.
65.
Spergel, I. A. (1995). The youth gang problem: A community approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
66.
Tabnak, F., & Sun, R. (2000). Need for HIV/AIDS early identification and preventative measures among middle-aged and elderly women. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 287-288.
67.
Thompson, S. K., & Collins, L. M. (2002). Adaptive sampling in research on risk-related behaviors. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, S57-S67.
68.
Thompson, S. K., & Seber, G. A. F. (1997). Adaptive sampling. New York: John Wiley.
69.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). United States Census 2000. Retrieved November, 11, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
70.
Valdez, A., & Kaplan, C. D. (1999). Reducing selection bias in the use of focus groups to investigate hidden populations: The case of Mexican-American gang members from South Texas. Drugs and Society, 14, 209-224.
71.
Valdez, A., Kaplan, C. D., & Codina, E. (2000). Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members: A comparative study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 46-58.
72.
VanMeter, K. (1990). Methodological and design issues: Techniques for assessing the representatives of snowball samples. National Institute of Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series, 9, 31-43.
73.
Wang, J. Z. (2000). Female gang affiliation: Knowledge and perceptions of at-risk girls. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 618-632.
74.
Watters, J. K. (1993). The significance of sampling and understanding hidden populations. Drugs & Society, 7, 13-22.
75.
Watters, J. K., & Biernacki, P. (1989). Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 26, 416-430.
76.
Wiebel, W. W. (1990). Identifying and gaining access to hidden populations. In E. Y. Lambert (Ed.), The collection and interpretation of data from hidden populations (Research Monograph No. 098., pp. 4-11). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
77.
Willems, J. C., Iguchi, M. Y., Lidz, V., & Bux, D. A. (1997). Change in drug-using networks of injecting drug users during methadone treatment: Pilot study using snowball recruitment and intensive interviews. Substance Use and Misuse, 32, 1539-1554.
78.
Williams, J. H., Pierce, R., Young, N. S., & VanDorn, R. (2001). Service utilization in high-crime communities: Consumer views on supports and barriers. Families in Society, 82, 409-417.
79.
Winship, C., & Mare, R. (1992). Models for selection bias. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 327-350.
80.
Wright, R., & Decker, S. H. (1997). Armed robbers in action. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
81.
Wright, R., Decker, S. H., Redfern, A. K., & Smith, D. L. (1992). A snowball’s chance in hell: Doing fieldwork with active residential burglars. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 148-161.
82.
Yin, Z., Valdez, A., Mata, A. G., & Kaplan, C. (1996). Developing a field-intensive methodology for generating a randomized sample for gang research. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 24, 195-204.
83.
Zatz, M. S., & Portillos, E. L. (2000). Voices from the barrio: Chicano/a gangs, families, and communities. Criminology, 38, 369-401.
