The Organizational Structure of Street Gangs in Newark, New Jersey: A Network Analysis Methodology by

The social organization of street gangs has remained an empirical topic of interest for decades. In part, this may be due to the fact that different sources of data often reveal varied levels of organization. Specifically, law enforcement accounts typically suggest higher levels of cohesion than do investigations relying on interviews with or observations of street gang members. It is possible this divergence may be a product of methodological specifications. This manuscript suggests that seeking specific information from experienced law enforcement (i.e., avoiding generalities) in combination with using appropriate analytic methods (e.g., network analysis) holds utility. In constructing this argument, the article presents research from a problem analysis of the local street gang landscape in Newark, New Jersey. The analytic strategy uses visual analysis and descriptive statistics to assess general organization, sub-group cohesion, and individual social positions within four street gangs. Findings indicate that Newark street gangs generally lack cohesion. Pockets of intense connections and clear variations in individual social positions are evident, however. Therefore, the results highlight the layered nature of street gang organization. In its conclusion, the paper discusses methodological implications of these results for the utility of law enforcement data and network analysis, both for gang research as well as other criminological topics of interest. Introduction The social organization of street gangs has remained an empirical topic of interest for decades (Decker, 2001). In part, this may be due to the fact that gang structure has criminogenic importance–as gangs become more cohesive and tight, the context to support an intense exchange of deviant or criminal definitions becomes stronger and fosters more crime (see Klein, 1971, 1995; c.f. Cartwright, Howard, & Reuterman, 1970). At the same time, there is a divergence among data sources with regard to how organized street gangs typically are. The vast majority of empirical work suggests that the 2 Journal of Gang Research Volume 15, Number 1 Fall, 2007 general gang landscape consists of transient, flexible, relatively flat, decentralized groups (Curry & Decker, 2003; Decker, 1996; Decker & Van Winkle, 1994, 1996; Klein & Maxson, 1994; Klein, Maxson, & Cunningham, 1991), though a handful of scholars suggest street gangs are well-structured and entrepreneurial (Padilla, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Skolnick et al., 1988; Taylor, 1990). Even so, public perception continues to include an unrealistic assumption of tight organization and structure (Sanders, 1994). This perception is likely influenced by the fact that some law enforcement, government, and media sources support this notion (Conley, 1993; Fox & Amador, 1993; Ward, 2005). In all likelihood, this disagreement supports the view of many researchers that law enforcement data/perceptions of street gangs are not as accurate as direct observations or interviews with/surveys of gang members themselves (see Klein, 1995). Indeed, some academics have suggested that police data are biased towards revealing “worse” gang problems by the personal interests of the agency (Bursik and Grasmick, 1995; Hagedorn, 1990). The productive question to ask is what may be producing this divergence. It may be the case that law enforcement agencies believe that highly organized gangs are relatively more dangerous for public safety. Such viewpoints fit within a moral panic framework (McCorkle & Miethe, 1998) and may help certain department secure funds (Zatz, 1987). At the same time, however, it is worth asking if this divergence may be a product, at least in part, of methodological choices. First, St. Cyr (2003) found that gang task force members in St. Louis had quite different perceptions of gangs than other subjects did, in large part because they had no direct experience with gangs and relied on media accounts (see also Takata & Zevitz, 1990). It is not a surprise then that failing to ensure that the sources of law enforcement data have street experience may produce inaccurate statements. Second, questions or measures meant to capture social organization may also, unintentionally, court general responses if they are too broad. Research has shown that even when gang members are pushed past general questions to provide specifics about gang structure, their answers can shift and provide insight (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998). Thus, there is a possibility that research which explicitly attempts to seek specific information from law enforcement officials–who have experiential knowledge–may reveal a view of street gang organization that is consistent with the empirical literature. At the same time, a relatively novel (at least in criminology) analytic technique may hold utility. Network analysis can provide unique insight into the layered, often nuanced, nature of group organization, as well as McGloin: A Network Analysis Methodology 3 differential individual-level positions within a social network. At a minimum, this technique can move past the discussion of whether a gang is organized or not, or whether a member is core or peripheral, in favor of a discussion with finer distinction. More practically, if one is seeking specific and detailed data about gang organization in order to avoid “general statements”, this method is well-matched and can handle such information. This paper comments on these issues by describing a local problem analysis of street gangs in Newark, New Jersey. Relying on network analysis, this inquiry will comment on how well data on the specific relationships among gang members produced by law enforcement “match” what typically defines the empirical literature. Accordingly, the next section discusses gang organization, with a particular focus on police perceptions. The paper then progresses to a description of network analysis, with a focus on its use in criminological research. After reviewing the data and analytic method, findings on the group structure of local street gangs, as well as individual social positions, are presented. Finally, the discussion section reviews the implications of these findings for gang research, as well as for criminological methods, in general. Street Gang Organization The discussion of street gang organization is often coupled with a consideration of drug sales. Decker and Van Winkle (1994) reviewed the literature on gangs and drugs and articulated two sides of the debate. The instrumental-rational view suggests that gangs are rational, formal, cohesive, and organized groups that have hierarchies, rules, and specialized social roles (Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Skolnick, 1990; Skolnick et al., 1988; Taylor, 1990). Still, this side has minimal empirical support when compared to the opposing viewpoint, which sees gangs as informal groups that lack cohesion and true organization (Curry & Decker, 2003; Decker, 1996; Decker & Van Winkle, 1994; Klein & Maxson, 1994; Klein, Maxson, & Cunningham, 1991). Indeed, Klein (1995, p. 61), when reviewing the structure of a traditional street gang, states that a typical gang: “is an amorphous collection of subgroups, cliques, pairs and loners. This is not the picture of a tight structure. It’s loose and somewhat fragmented, despite each member’s commitment to the group and the submersion of his own identity into that of the group...This is not an organization that can readily act as a unit.” The vast majority of research on street gang organization supports this latter viewpoint–it is rare to find empirically rigorous investigations that reveal structured, cohesive street gangs. As Yablonksy’s (1962) research on New York City gang members revealed, “each gang member seemed to have 4 Journal of Gang Research Volume 15, Number 1 Fall, 2007 his own unique image of the gang. The wide variations of response tended to refute the widely held image of the violent gang as cohesive, tightly organized group–the one so prevalent in the literature” (p. 106). Likewise, in her organizational analysis of four gangs in Chicago and Los Angeles, Weisel (1999) found that, while gangs could be labeled formal organizations, they were, in practice, quite disorganized. In particular, “...rules are present, but not adhered to, meetings occur but irregularly and informally, leadership is ephemeral, and role specialization is limited” (Weisel, 1999, p. 213). This notion that street gangs typically do not evidence tight organization and cohesion has emerged from investigations across an array of cities, including Denver (Esbensen, Huizinga, & Weiher, 1993), Kansas City (Fleisher, 1998), Seattle (Fleisher, 1995), St. Louis (Decker & Van Winkle, 1994), and Milwaukee (Hagedorn, 1988). Within this aggregate finding, however, researchers have found that there is some variation with regard to the structure/organization across gangs (Decker et al., 1998; Fagan, 1989; Klein & Maxson, 1989; Thrasher, 1927). At the same time, there is variation across data sources. For example, Takata and Zevitz (1990), relying on surveys and interviews of adults and youth in Racine, found that adults tended to view street gangs as formal groups that are a serious problem, whereas youth (including gang members) viewed street gangs as less serious and less organized. Based upon his interviews with gang members, Yablonsky (1959) argued that most gangs did not meet the stereotype of being well-organized and cohesive. Rather, they were characterized by little cohesion, shifts in membership, diffuse roles, unclear leadership, and limited consensus regarding norms–accordingly, he termed them “near groups”. Yablonksy was clear to point out that this diverged from the common viewpoint of police, the media, and many adults. Police Perceptions of Street Gangs Perhaps the clearest concern about the validity and reliability of police data regarding gangs comes from researchers who have adopted a moral panic perspective. Zatz (1987), studying law enforcement in Phoenix in the late 1970s, argued that police essentially constructed a gang problem as a means of acquiring LEAA funds. By reviewing juvenile court records and interviewing social service agencies, she suggested that police had exaggerated the number and size of local gangs, as well as the seriousness of the problem. McCorkle and Miethe (1998) also found that police played a primary role in the creation of a moral panic regarding street gangs in Las Vegas. On a related note, Katz (2001) investigated what factors produced and structured the emergence of a police gang unit in a Midwestern city. McGloin: A Network Analysis Methodology 5 Although the police department did not actively engage in constructing the gang problem, the department nonetheless created and operated a gang unit in response to pressure from community stakeholders. As a consequence of such research, some academics believe that the perceptions of law enforcement are systematically biased–or perhaps pressured–towards constructing serious, organized, violent street gangs. Nonetheless, many researchers continue to rely on police data when studying gangs (see for example Klein, 1995; Maxson, Gordon, & Klein, 1985). In this context, it is useful to distinguish more and less reasonable research uses of police-based information. When Katz (2003) investigated the validity of gang intelligence files, many “red flags” emerged. In particular, there was a significant knowledge gap between the people who had street level expertise and those who maintained the intelligence files (in addition, such files were rarely updated or purged). Moreover, St. Cyr (2003) found that a task force meant to address the gang problem in St. Louis viewed gangs in a manner more consistent with moral panic, across an array of measures, when compared to juvenile detectives (as well as gang and nongang youth). When discussing this divergence, she stated: “the police were exposed to gangs largely from job...experiences, and task force members’ exposure came through the media...” (p. 41). As a general principle, law enforcement sources can be most useful when queried about specific problems about which they may have particular expertise (Kennedy et al., 1996, 1997). Klein (1995) argues strongly for the veracity of his data stemming form interviews with law enforcement, suggesting that dialogues with researchers about specific issues can reveal valid expertise. This viewpoint is not without corroboration–Weisel (2002) found that police views of street gangs were not markedly different from gang members’ own views. In addition, Maxson (1998) found that surveys of law enforcement were fairly consistent with previous ethnographic work suggesting that, as opposed to public viewpoints, gangs were not proliferating because of entrepreneurial migration. At a minimum, therefore, in order to avoid general statements that are likely shaped by media accounts as opposed to direct experience, people removed from the gang landscape should not be data sources. At the same time, particularly in the context of Katz’s (2003) work, it would appear prudent to not rely on intelligence files when interested in nuanced information, such as gang organization and structure. Stelfox (1996: 31) offers a particularly persuasive comment: “As a consequence of the restrictions on the type of intelligence which can be stored in a database there is a great deal of intelligence which officers come by during the course of 6 Journal of Gang Research Volume 15, Number 1 Fall, 2007 patrol and investigations which cannot be recorded in any official system. This leads to a heavy informal exchange of information between officers and places a premium on personal knowledge and access to information sources (it also, incidentally, puts a great deal of tactical intelligence beyond the control of managers).” The implication is that, despite its maligned status in certain circles, police data can hold utility, if gathered in a considerate manner. The question now is whether there are certain methodological specifications that would best complement this data source. Is there a method that can shed unique insight on specific information regarding the social organization of street gangs? This paper suggests that network analysis is ideally suited to such an inquiry. Network Analysis The central goal of network analysis is to reveal the presence of any regular patterns in social relationships (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Network analysis relies heavily on graphical displays of social data, though analytic methods have evolved over recent years (see for example Bonacich, 1987; Doreian, 1986). Visual displays remain useful, however. At a basic level, they can provide clarity to the pattern of relationships within a network of multiple actors that at matrix simply cannot convey at the same visual level. For example, if one studies wiretaps among a drug trafficking network (similar to Natarajan, 2000), recognizing pockets of intense communication among a group of 10 individuals would be relatively easy, but exponentially more difficult as the network expands into the hundreds. Graph theory and statistical techniques have expanded the capability of network analysis. One example is the capacity to identify the “most prominent” actor in a social network, together with cohesive subgroup(s). One can also use techniques to identify structural equivalence within the graphical pattern of social relations–that is, actors in the network who occupy identical social positions (Wasserman & Faust, 1994), which can provide the base for a taxonomy of the subjects. It may also be possible to collapse the sociogram into a display of the relations among these positions, lending even more clarity to the data under examination. These examples illustrate the capacity of network analysis to examine, describe, and quantify social relationships among actors, something that holds particular utility in street gang research. Although network analysis is relatively uncommon in criminology, it has been used on occasion. For example, some researchers have used it to address interand intra-organizational relationships within the criminal McGloin: A Network Analysis Methodology 7 justice system, focusing on such issues as intelligence sharing and whether network structure predicts policy adoption (Alter, 1988; Curry & Thomas, 1992; Gustafson, 1997; Miller, 1980). Other research focused on the relationship among perceived causes of general and specific forms of crime, such as drug use (Campbell & Muncer, 1990; Muncer et al., 1992). Network analysis has been used to address such questions as whether or not criminal networks actually exist (Coles, 2001), what delinquent and organized crime networks look like (Finckenauer & Waring, 1998; Krohn & Thornberry, 1993; McAndrew, 2000; Sarnecki, 2001), as well as whether network structural mediates the effects of delinquent peers (Haynie, 2001). Finally, another stream of the literature has suggested its use in law enforcement investigations, particularly in cases of organized crime and criminal conspiracy (Coady, 1985; Davis, 1981; Howlett, 1980; Ianni & Ianni, 1990; Sparrow, 1991). The absence of network analysis as a major analytical strategy within gang research is surprising. Krohn (1986) suggested that network analysis holds theoretical importance, since network structure and its constraints on behavior may help to explain delinquency patterns across diverse populations. This is particularly relevant since gangs are inherently social groups. Indeed, Fleisher (2002:200) notes, “...gangs are social networks composed of individual gang members, and that gang member behavior is determined in part by a gang member’s location in the structure of the social network.” Cohen (1990) also stresses that gangs are collectivities–that is, he defines their members as relational affiliates. The dynamic nature of the relationships between gang members is a defining part of the organization and can exert a robust influence on the behavior of the group, both collectively and as individuals. Interestingly, most gang literature has focused on social relations and activities (see Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943; Yablonsky, 1962)–it simply has not utilized an analytical technique that can capture and appropriately describe such data.1 Recent gang research has begun to rely on network analysis, helping to shape a growing sense of its potential utility (see for example McGloin, 2005a; Papachristos, 2006). Network analysis emerged as an important tool in the Boston Gun Project, as researchers sought to understand the gangs that were involved in violent, criminal behavior by investigating the relationships among them (Braga et al., 2001; Kennedy et al., 1996, 1997, 2001). This analysis helped to explain why particular geographical areas experienced such violence, given the concentration of contentious relationships. It also illustrated what gangs were most integral to the network–that is, the gangs that had the most connections–which highlighted their vulnerability for law enforcement 8 Journal of Gang Research Volume 15, Number 1 Fall, 2007 intervention. Thus, rather than addressing one gang set to the exclusion of the remainder of the landscape–a common strategy within law enforcement (Stelfox, 1996)–the knowledge of the connections among the gangs provided unique leverage when undertaking an intervention strategy. Whereas the Boston Gun Project focused on the gang as the unit of analysis, if one is going to use this technique to shed insight on internal gang structure, it requires shifting the unit of analysis to the gang member. Previous sections argued that it is better to ask about specifics than to rely on generalities when seeking information on street gangs. Accordingly, the questions and method should be suited to eliciting specific information and allowing the analytic technique to make judgments about the level of social organization within a gang. One manner in which to achieve this is to solicit information about the relationships among gang members and “build up” the social organization of the gang. Typical research on gang organization asks gang members to report on the presence and importance of rules and meetings, internal discipline, and reported cohesion within the group (Cartwright, Howard, & Reuterman, 1970; Decker, 2001; Weisel, 1999; Yablonsky, 1962). This certainly does shed light on elements of organization, but more systematic ways to investigate the structure of street gangs are available. The question before us now is whether such a systematic way (i.e., network analysis), in combination with more specific queries put before law enforcement, reveals social organizations consistent with moral panic and stereotypes or with the majority of scholarly work, largely based on observations and interviews/surveys with gang members. The Current Focus Klein (1995:103) notes: “We badly need more careful research on gang structures...The gang phenomenon is complex, and it challenges us as social scientists and interested laypersons.” This investigation therefore revisits the issue of street gang organization. In particular, it also comments on the efficacy of police data as the source of such an inquiry along with the complementary analytic strategy of network analysis. As opposed to seeking general information about perceived cohesiveness of the gang, the frequency of meetings, and the adherence to rules, this research adopts the gang member and his or her associations as the focus of interest. This shift in measurement provides the opportunity to investigate: (1) the general structure and organization of the street gang networks, based on the connections among its members, and; (2) the differential social positions that members occupy within these groups. Both streams of inquiry rely on visual inspection through sociograms, as well as summary statistics that help to clarify these McGloin: A Network Analysis Methodology 9