Murder as Interaction: A Network Approach to Street Gang

Homicide1

Andrew V. Papachristos
The University of Chicago

A Paper submitted for presentation at the 2004 Annual Conference of the

American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.

ABSTRACT
Using a network approach, this essay argues that there exists a unique structure to gang-
related homicides. Viewing murder as an interaction rather than an outcome reveals stable
patterns of relations between and among gangs which choreograph homicides in years with
high or low murder rates, regardless of the events that trigger individual homicidal episodes.
I use homicide records and observation data to reconstruct and analyze patterns of
interaction among gangs. The findings suggest a distinct structure of gang homicides that
are stable over time and, in fact, seem to predict gang homicides in later years. Furthermore,
counter-intuitive to conceptions of gang violence as the by-product of rival gangs battling
with each other, gang members are just as likely to be killed by their own gang as an
opposing one. Implications for future research, hypothesis testing, and theory construction
are also discussed.

Andrew V. Papachristos
The University of Chicago
Department of Sociology
1126 E. 59th St., Rm. 307
Chicago, IL 60637
773-919-6900
andrewp@uchicago.edu

1
I would like to thank Andrew Abbott, Tracey Meares, Jeff Fagan, George Tita, Robert Sampson, Damon
Phillips, John Padgett, and Dave Kirk for their comments on different aspects of this work.
INTRODUCTION

Sociologists generally conceive of murder as an outcome, the result of too much poverty and

inequality or too little social capital and social control. Murders and their motives, from

genocide to mercy killing, generally appear circumscribed by the details surrounding an

individual event. Consistent with such perceptions, conventional wisdom associates street

gang homicide with such matters as turf defense, status threats, or retaliation at the micro-

level (Block and Block 1993; Decker and Curry 2002; Short and Strodtbeck 1965) and with

concentrated poverty, inequality, and geographic and social isolation at the macro-level

(Curry and Spergel 1988; Rosenfeld, Bray, and Egley 1999). Moreover, gang homicides

occur in “episodic spurts” (Block and Block 1993) that rise and fall in an unpredictable

fashion stimulated by unknown events or else at the whim of gang members. Gang

homicide is thus perceived as a rather chaotic event that decimates inner city communities in

the form of drive-by shootings and stray bullets. Seldom do we think of gang murders as

having a structure in the sense of patterned relations that determine who kills whom and for

what reason.

The present essay seeks to revise this view of gang homicide as a random and

unpredictable phenomenon. I argue, in fact, that there exists a unique structure to gang-

related homicides. Viewing murder as an interaction rather than an outcome reveals stable

patterns of relations between gangs which choreograph homicides in years with high or low

murder rates, regardless of events or motives that trigger individual homicidal episodes.

Understanding the social structure of gang homicide involves not only rethinking the

dominant approaches to gangs but also re-integrating gang research with developments in

sociology, in particular network analysis and theory. It requires that gangs be viewed

dynamically as both an outcome of neighborhood processes as well as a structure which

3DSDFKULVWRV 2

shapes and determines the social behaviors of its members and the contours of its social

context.

To explore the social structure of gang homicide in Chicago and discuss its relevance

theoretically and methodologically, I use homicide records and observation data to analyze

patterns of interaction among gangs. Specifically, using a network approach I reconstruct

patterns of gang homicide at the city and community levels and analyze the influence of

these relations on homicide. Consistent with Simmel’s (1908a) formalistic approach to

sociology, I find persistent patterns of antagonistic relations among gangs as well as intricate

alliance structures. Conflictual interactions in the form of murders between gangs appear to

be stable over time although the intensity of interaction varies. Events which intensify

conflictual interaction tend to be highly specific, yet the patterns of such interaction occur

along pre-existing lines of gang-relations. Rarely do gang murders occur between groups

without any prior interaction. Furthermore, counter-intuitive to conceptions of gang

violence as the by-product of rival gangs battling with each other, gang members are just as

likely to be killed by their own gang as an opposing one. My main goal is to analyze the

network of gang homicides to examine how it structures social behaviors, in this case

homicide, and discuss the relevance of such an approach for future research, hypothesis

testing, and theory construction.

Viewing murder as an interaction dynamically shifts the locus of gang research while

simultaneously posing unique new questions for network analysts.2 Gang research for much

of the past two-decades, has largely focused on outcomes or micro-level description,

ignoring the macro- and middle levels of analyses and the processes and structures that link

gangs with other social phenomena. Examining gang homicide from a network approach

2
A network approach to gangs is only in its infancy (e.g. Kennedy, Braga, and Piehl 1997; Tita 2003). The
present work can be seen as an application and theoretical extension of such an approach.
3DSDFKULVWRV 3

resurrects key sociological questions concerning social control, the use of group norms to

mediate behavior, and the power of interaction to affect neighborhood level social

interaction. For network analysts, conceiving of murder as an interaction forces a new

understanding of asymmetric and negative relations in that such interactions appear to create

rather stable and persistent structures. Issues of transitivity and structural balance may also

be revisited from this perspective to understand how such negatives structures are created

and maintained.

INTERACTION AND UNIT OF ANALYSIS: FROM GANG HOMICIDE TO

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The use of homicide as a representation of interaction that creates a social structure requires

some justification. As Simmel (1908b) points out, conflict is one of the basic forms of

interaction in that, at the very least, conflict ensures that two parties interact if only to

resolve differences, build group solidarity, achieve some kind of unity, or release tension,

even “if it be through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties” (p. 70). Thrasher

(1927), Short and Strodtbeck (1965), Klein (1971), and others (Jankowski 1991) demonstrate

that conflict with authority, neighborhood residents, or other gangs tends to solidify gang

cohesion and thus bolster group processes in the gang. Conflict, then, not only appears as a

defining trait of the gang, but also as one of its key forms of interaction. 3 I use a specific

violent event, homicide between gangs, as the main indicator of gang interaction. Gang

homicide, if anything, is a conflictual form of interaction including at a minimum the

interaction of the victim and the offender at the time of the actual event.

3
In fact, both Thrasher (1927: 46) and Klein (1971: 111) include such an element of conflict in their
definition of the term “gang.”
3DSDFKULVWRV 4

Definitions of “gang-related” homicide, however, vary drastically, altering

significantly how the event is perceived interactionally (for a review, see Maxson and Klein

1996). Liberal definitions, such as those used in Los Angeles, classify any homicide

involving a gang member as “gang-related.” In contrast, more conservative definitions, such

as those used in Chicago, classify a homicide as “gang-related” only if the crime itself was

motivated by gang activity such as turf defense, drug dealing, or existing gang conflicts. So, a

homicide of one gang member by another gang member because of a personal dispute (e.g.

the infidelity of a lover, intoxication, argument, etc.) would be classified as “gang-related” by

the former definition by not by the latter. The Chicago data used here adheres strictly to the

conservative definition of gang-related.

The use of a conservative definition has a crucial advantage: it ensures that the actual

reason for the interaction (content) is a group one even though the actual event may entail

only two individuals. That is, the homicide is motivated, and often preceded, by an extra-

individual (gang) circumstance. The unit of analysis is the gang and not the gang member as

would be the case in the liberal definition. The drawback, however, is that conservative

definitions tend to underestimate the total number of interactions.4 For the sake the precise

definition of the interaction and unit of analysis, I err on the side of conservatism.

Applying a network framework to gang homicide requires a two-step analytic move.

First, there must exist a distinct patterning of interactions that are not simply random.

Second, and in order for these patterns to constitute a structure, these patterns of interaction

must have an influence on homicide. To these ends, the analysis starts by recreating the

homicide patterns of a single year and then extrapolating to patterns in other years. To

analyze these structures, I (1) examine the role of specific gangs in the network and types of

4
This underestimation is relative. With an average of 182 gang-related homicides a year over the past 10
years, the conservative definition in Chicago provides an adequate sample size for most statistical methods.
3DSDFKULVWRV 5

interaction using descriptive network analysis and, (2) test the stability of these structures

over time and the randomness of the network structures using Quadratic Assignment

Procedures.

DATA AND METHODS

The primary source of data comes from incident-level records of all homicides in the City of

Chicago from 1994 to 2002 as provided by the Chicago Police Department.5 Data is

recorded at the incident-level and contains demographic, geographic, motive, and gang

information on both the offender and victim. Qualitative data in the form of participant

observation from my on-going field research is used to evaluate the accuracy of the homicide

data and to elaborate on aspects of the network analysis.

The methodological approach of this paper is two-fold, switching levels of analysis

for explanatory purposes. First, I rely on a network analysis of homicide incidents to

represent the structure of gang interactions for the entire city of Chicago for three years,

1994, 1998, and 2002. Standard network measures are calculated using UCINET 6.0

(Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman 2002) with all equations, unless otherwise noted, following

those suggested by Wasserman and Faust (1994). Directed graphs and network diagrams

were created using NetDraw 1.0 (Borgatti 2002). Second, while a network analysis of gangs

in the entire city of Chicago provide a macro-level glimpse of the structure of gang conflict,

like too many other studies it overlooks the relationship between gang interactions and the

neighborhood context. To rectify this potential oversight, I conduct similar network analysis

using as an example from one area of Chicago which has been part of my on-going research.

5
Data was provided by the Chicago Police Department’s division of Research and Development. The
analysis of the data reflects the findings and opinions of the author and in no way represents the views of
the providing agencies. I am indebted to Tracey Meares and Jeffrey Fagan for their assistance in gathering
and use of this data.
3DSDFKULVWRV 6

The use of qualitative data at this level proves indispensable in explaining specific patterns of

gang interaction as well as understanding the local context of such interactions.6

GANG HOMICIDE IN CHICAGO

I begin by recreating the structure of gang homicide in Chicago by establishing the basic

dyadic homicide interactions for all gang-related homicides for the year 1994, the year with

the highest gang homicide rate in city’s history. In total, there were 284 gang-related

homicides and gang data for both the victim and the offender is available for 226 (79.5

percent) of those incidents.7 Forty-seven different gangs were involved in homicides leaving

a total potential network size of 2,269 possible connections.8 To establish a city-wide

structure, I built up from the basic dyadic homicides by letting each node represent a

different gang and each arc a specific homicide event. Figure 1 displays the directed graph

of all gang-related murders in 1994.

[Figure 1 Here]

Different shaped nodes represent the predominant race of the gang: squares signify

Black gangs, triangles Hispanic gangs, circles White gangs, and diamonds Asian gangs. Each

node is labeled with an abbreviation of the gang name and full names are listed in Appendix

A. Clusters of gangs that are enclosed by a broken circle share a common ancestry or

alliance.9 Arcs represent at least one homicide with the arrow indicating the direction of

victim. Double-headed arrows indicate at least one homicide occurring in both directions—

6
Due to length, much of the qualitative data has been excluded from this present paper. For more details,
please contact the author.
7
There was a total of 931 homicides in 1994 with a homicide rate of 33.4 per 100,000. The total gang-
related homicide rate was 9.9 for all races, 18.3 for Blacks, and 13.9 for Hispanics.
8
Since self-selection is possible in the case of homicide, meaning members of the same gang kill each
other, the total potential network size is g * g.
9
Alliances of Chicago gangs are well known in the gang world, law enforcement, and the media. Gang
Nations represent cognitive sub-groups identified by gang members and not necessarily functional sub-
groups, such as cliques and blocks, as identified by network analysis
3DSDFKULVWRV 7

i.e. the gangs killed at least one member of each gang in different events. The thickness of

the line represents the intensity of the conflict as indicated by the number of homicides

between gangs ranging from one to 36 homicides. Isolates represent gangs in which the only

homicide that occurred involved members of the same gang.10

A distinct structure of gang interaction is immediately apparent in Figure 1:

interactions among Black gangs are highly interconnected with intense patterns of conflict

whereas interactions among Hispanic gangs are more diffuse and isolated. That is, Black

gangs interact with a greater number of gangs in their immediate network and to a greater

degree, thus producing a tightly interconnected network structure. In contrast, the network

structure of Hispanic gang conflict is made up of dyads and triads connected by a single

gang, the Latin Kings.

A brief glance at this structure highlights the importance of specific gangs which

network measures of centrality can evaluate. Three centrality measures are used: out-degree

centrality, in-degree centrality, and an Eigenvector of overall network centrality. Given the

nature of homicide as an interaction and the structure of the data, care must be given in the

interpretation of such measures.11 Measures of degree centrality generally signal the level of

“activity” of a node in the measured set of relations (Wasserman and Faust 1994). Because

the data is asymmetric, meaning it is possible for one gang to kill a member of another gang

without successful retaliation, separate measures of out-degree and in-degree are used. The

out-degree measures the level at which a specific gang is active in the sense of committing

murders: a gang with a high out-degree is more central because it causes more killings. In-

10
Unfortunately, the di-graph does not include an accurate representation of intra-gang homicides for those
gangs connected in the larger network although, as described below, this is an increasingly important
phenomenon.
11
Although not addressed here, new network measures might be necessary to explain such negative
relations.
3DSDFKULVWRV 8

degree measures the opposite—it measures how many members of a gang were killed by

other gangs. Thus, out-degree measures the number of homicides committed by the gang

while the in-degree measures the number of members in that gang killed. The Eigenvector

is used to indicate the most central actors in terms of the overall structure with respects both

to local connections and overall network reach by taking into account out-degree, in-degree,

and the total possible number of connections (Wasserman and Faust 1994). Thus, higher

Eigenvectors indicate that actors are “more central” to distances among all actors, i.e. that

such gangs interact not only more frequent with “local” gangs but also connected to other

gangs with high degrees of centrality. Table 1 gives these measures for the 12 gangs with

the highest levels of degree centrality.

The centrality mean of 4.81 implies that on average gangs in the network are

involved in approximately five homicidal interactions with other gangs in 1994 as either

offender or victim. A single gang, the Gangster Disciples, has the highest centrality

measures both for out-degree (46) and in-degree (48) measures, more than ten-times the

network mean. The Latin Kings, one of only two Hispanic gangs in Table 1, are also highly

centralized, more so with regards to killing other gangs (out-degree = 21) than being killed

(in-degree = 14). The four other most central actors with respects to in- and out-degree

measures, the Mickey Cobras, the Black P-Stones, the Four Corner Hustlers, and the Black

Disciples, are all densely connected Black gangs with multiple paths directly to and around

the Gangster Disciples. For the most part, all of the gangs in Table 1 have out- and in-

degree measures greater than the mean suggesting that these 12 gangs are responsible for

much of the interaction found in the larger network.12 Furthermore, with the exception of

12
This pattern is consistent with the findings of Block and Block (1993) which show that four gangs in
Chicago (The Black Gangster Disciples, the Vice Lords, the Latin Kings, and the Latin Disciples) were
responsible for 55 percent of all gang-related homicides from 1987 to 1990.
3DSDFKULVWRV 9

the Latin Kings and Mickey Cobras, the interaction of these gangs occurs between other

gangs listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Centrality Measures for Selected Gangs in the 1994 Gang Homicide
Network

Gang Out-Degree In-Degree Eigenvector

GD 46 48 .529
LK 21 14 .123
MC 15 4 .254
BPS 18 31 .338
BD 24 30 .221
FCH 18 19 .389
MIVL 10 4 .214
BGD 8 3 .137
BlkSouls 7 7 .158
MLD 6 5 .024
VL 7 17 .399
Ambro 4 1 .008
Network Mean 4.81 4.81 .082

The Eigenvector scores support the central role and overall power of the Gangster

Disciples (.529), followed by other densely connected Black gangs, the Black P-Stones (.338),

the Four Corner Hustlers (.389), and the Vice Lords (.399). The Eigenvector of the Latin

Kings (.123) suggests that it has a considerably low level of overall centrality in regards to the

larger network.

In addition to the importance of individual gangs in the network, Figure 1 suggests

at least two distinct patterns of gang interaction—intra-racial conflict and intra-gang conflict.

First, consistent with other research on violence, almost all of the interaction is intra-racial:

only eight homicides (approximately 3 percent) occur between gangs of different races.

Furthermore, the gang homicide problem in Chicago is almost completely a Black and

Hispanic one. White gangs are only peripherally connected in the larger network and Asian

gangs are completely isolated. Most striking in terms of racial differences, there are almost
3DSDFKULVWRV 10

twice as many Hispanic gangs as there are Black gangs, 25 as compared to 13 respectively,

but there is more interaction among the fewer Black gangs. Thus, it appears that, in part,

differential homicide rates seem related not to the number of gangs but to the density of interaction among

gangs.13 While it is beyond the scope of this paper, heightened interaction may be linked with

population density or other structural or ecological factors, a matter taken up in the

discussion section.

Second, much of the intense conflict between Black gangs occurs within the same

gang or between gangs that share a common ancestry or alliance. To simplify, I call the

former intra-gang conflict and the latter intra-nation conflict. Generically, Chicago gangs are

divided into two gang “nations,” the People and the Folks, which consist of gangs with often

complex historical or geographic based alliances (Knox 2001). In addition, gangs that share

some common ancestry often refer to the group of related gangs as a “Nation” (see,

Venkatesh and Levitt 2000). For example, all of the gangs in the cluster around the Gangster

Disciples share a common lineage to a single gang known as the Devil’s Disciples and,

therefore, refer to the conglomerate of “Disciple” gangs as the “Black Gangster Disciples

Nation” (Papachristos 2001). Similarly, the cluster of gangs that share a Vice Lord name

constitute the “Almighty Vice Lord Nation” and share a common ancestry as well as a

geographic point of origin (Knox and Papachristos 2002). These gang federations often

share a common identity and members can often be found to interact more often on social

biases than non-affiliate members.

Of all the gang-related homicides in 1994, 32 were intra-gang (11.3 percent) and 41

were intra-nation (14.4 percent). Overall, a quarter of all homicidal gang interaction in 1994 occurred

13
Between 1992 and 2001, Black gang-related homicides rates have been almost double those of Hispanics
suggesting that per capita there are more interaction among Black gangs than Hispanic ones. This might
also suggests that even if the number of Black and Hispanic gangs were equal, there would still be a greater
number of interactions among Black gangs.
3DSDFKULVWRV 11

within the same gang or between gangs with some alliance. Large portions of the violent interaction

among gangs in Chicago occurs not from what is traditionally thought of as disturbances

among rival gangs (e.g. turf wars) but from gangs that are supposedly part of the same

Nation.14 This finding suggests that the role of gang Nations and alliances are perhaps more

symbolic than functional. According to gang norms, these alliances are explicitly designed to

structure patterns of interaction among gangs—i.e. to keep members of the same and

affiliated gangs from fighting with each other and to come to the mutual aid of others in the

Nation.

The pattern just described replicates itself almost identically in 1998. Figure 2

provides the structure of gang homicide in 1998 and Table 2 provides the centrality

measures of the 12 most central gangs.

[Figure 2 Here]

In 1998 there were 704 homicides of which approximately 26 percent (n = 186) were

gang-related. Although the network mean of 3.63 is slightly lower than 1994, the patterns of

interaction are almost identical—Black gangs are densely interconnected with interaction

among highly central gangs while Hispanic gangs are configured in a star-like network with a

single gang, the Latin Kings, at the Center. Gangs that were highly central in 1994 remain so

in 1998 as do patterns of intra-gang (12 percent of total gang-related homicides) and intra-

nation homicide (30 percent). More significantly, these patterns remain quite similar in spite

of the fact that the overall and gang-related homicide rates were considerably lower in 1998

14
This pattern of interaction, with the exception of Decker and Curry (2002), is almost completely absent
in the gang literature.
3DSDFKULVWRV 12

than in 1994.15 That is, even though the rate of interactions was less, the patterns of

interaction were the same.

Table 2: Centrality Measures for Selected Gangs in the 1998 Gang Homicide
Network

Gang Out-Degree In-Degree Eigenvector

GD 33 28 .707
VL 8 4 .141
FCH 8 8 .062
BD 18 17 .606
PP 1 0 .001
BPS 4 3 .058
CVL 3 5 .095
SD 9 3 .011
LK 9 14 .056
TVL 2 7 .116
BGD 3 0 .046
NB 3 5 .052
Network Mean 3.63 3.63 .060

In 2002 the structure of homicide changes slightly for the Hispanic gangs but

remains stable for the Black gangs. Figure 3 displays the structure of gang homicides for

2002 and Table 3 lists the centrality measures of selected gangs.

[Figure 3 Here]

2002 had one of the lowest overall homicide rates in almost a decade. Overall, there were

647 homicides (22.3 per 100,000) of which 132 (20 percent; 4.6 per 100,000) were gang-

related. As seen in the Figure 3 and in the centrality measures in Table 3, even though the

rate of homicide is lower in 2002, the structure of Black gang homicide is remarkably similar

with dense interconnected gangs and specific gangs, most notably the Gangster Disciples

(Eigenvector = .441), the Four Corner Hustlers (.425), and the Black P-Stones (.420), at the

15
In 1994 the overall homicide rate was 33.4 per 100,00 and the gang-related rate was 9.9 compared to
1998 with an overall rate of 24.3 and a gang-related rate of 6.5.
3DSDFKULVWRV 13

center of much of the interaction. The star-like Hispanic network seen in 1994 and 1998,

however, dissipates into more isolated, non-connected sub-graphs.16 Still, within the

Hispanic network the Latin Kings remain the most central (Eigenvector = .116). High levels

of intra-gang and intra-nation homicides also remain as a crucial pattern of interaction and

appear to have increased over time. Of the 133 gang-related homicides in 2002, 36 (27.1

percent) were intra-gang and 22 (16.5 percent) were intra-nation. Thus, approximately 44

percent of all gang-related homicides in 2002 occurred between members of the same gang or gang Nation,

almost two times higher than in 1994.

Table 3: Centrality Measures for Selected Gangs in 2002 Gang Homicide Network

Gang Out-Degree In-Degree Eigenvector

GD 28 29 .441
VL 6 4 .385
FCH 10 12 .425
BD 4 3 .139
PP 3 0 0
BPS 5 8 .420
CVL 3 0 .156
SC 3 0 0
LK 4 5 .116
TVL 5 5 .338
BGD 2 2 .210
NB 6 4 .175
Network Mean 2.61 2.61 .090

16
One possible reason for the disruption of this network is efforts by law enforcement that target specific
Hispanic gangs. It is interesting to note that during these time periods several massive prosecution and
other law enforcement efforts have been mounted directly to disrupt the hierarchies of several of these
gangs, including the Gangster Disciples, the Black P-Stones, the Mickey Cobras, and the Latin Kings. The
network data shows little effect of these prosecutions on Black gangs over time since there is little
movement of these gangs’ position in the overall network. In contrast, it appears as though there was
considerable change in the Latin Kings position. This might suggest that the disruption of dense,
interconnect network merely shifts interaction around whereas the disruption of the star-like network has a
more disruptive effect on the overall structure.
3DSDFKULVWRV 14

The patterns of gang homicidal interaction described in the di-graphs and centrality

measures appear to be relatively stable over time with the exception of the dissipation of the

Hispanic network in 2002. These descriptions suggest stability in the form of interaction but

they do not necessarily prove that they influence homicide as an outcome. That is, are these

gang homicide patterns randomly generated? While statistical tests of network properties lag

behind descriptive methods, Quadratic Assignment Procedures (QAP) provide a basic

method for testing the null hypothesis of independence among the gang homicide

networks—that the homicide network at time A is correlated with the homicide patterns at

time B versus the null hypothesis that the networks are randomly created each year. To test

this null hypothesis, I ran QAP correlations using UCINET 6.0 for the 1994, 1998, and 2002

overall networks as well as the race specific networks. For a time series data such as those

used here, the simulations are run to see the relationship between the homicide networks

with the earlier of the years serving as the independent variable and the later year as the

dependent variable. Table 4 provides the results.

Table 4: QAP Correlations for the 1994, 1998, and 2002 Gang-Related
Homicide Networks

Hispanic
Overall Network Black Network
Network
1994 1998 1994 1998 1994 1998

1998 .526*** .500*** .637***

2002 .435*** .561*** .422*** .621*** 0.12 0.072

Includes only those gangs in network all three years.
N = 5000 Monte Carlo simulations
*** = .001

The QAP correlations provide enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of

independence for the overall networks, the Black networks, and the early Hispanic networks.

For the overall networks, there is a moderate correlation between the structures from 1994
3DSDFKULVWRV 15

and 1998 (.526, -level = .001) and 1998 and 2002 (.561, -level = .001). The correlation is

somewhat smaller, although still statistically significant, between 1994 and 1998 (.435, -level

= .001). These findings suggest, even given the change in structure in 2002, that overall

patterns of gang homicide are not random and that the effect is somewhat stronger in years

closer in time. Thus, it appears that the there is a social structure to homicide that helps to

shape homicide patterns over time.

Disaggregated by race, the patterns of the Black network are similar to the overall

network with higher correlations between closer years. Moreover, the correlation between

the 1998 homicide structure and the 2002 structure is highly significant (.621, -level = .001).

Consistent with the di-graphs, for Hispanic gangs the 1994 and 1998 homicide structures are

highly correlated (.637, -level = .001), but the significance is lost in 2002 when the structure

dissipates. That is, there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of

independence for 2002. The Hispanic network in this year provides the exception—the

previous patterns of interaction do not appear to determine the homicide patterns in 2002.

To summarize, the patterns depicted in the network graphs and tested in the QAP

correlations suggest patterns of interaction between gangs are relatively stable and produce

structures that predict homicide patterns. The analysis also highlights two key attributes

about conflicutal gang interaction: (1) the same gangs are at the center of most homicidal

activity and (2) large portions of interaction occurs between the same gangs or gangs within

the same alliance structure. An examination of a subsection of the larger network in a

confined geographic area not only permits a closer look at such patterns of interaction and

their replication at a smaller level of analysis, but it also provides insight into how such

patterns are influenced by their social context, an important caveat given the rich

ethnographic history of gang research.

3DSDFKULVWRV 16

GANG CONFLICT ON THE WEST-SIDE: “A VICE LORD THING”

The contours of gang conflict on the West-Side of Chicago are not a secret.17 Residents,

police, gang members, the media, and even scholars readily acknowledge that the West-Side

is home to one of Chicago’s oldest Black street gangs, the Vice Lords. Whereas accounts

from the 1960’s by Keiser (1969) depict inter-racial conflict between the Vice Lords and

White ethnic gangs over turf, present-day gang conflict occurs mainly among different Vice

Lord factions. The comments of “Jimmy,”18 a 45 year-old ranking member of the Unknown

Vice Lords, offer his description of gang interaction on the West-Side:

You see, back in the day, when I was comin’ up, we was fighting against the Whites,
over some stupid shit. There was this pool, see, and we had to fight ‘em just so we
could hang over there . . . [today], all this craziness up in here, its all Lords trippin’
on each other. You got 4’s [Four Corner Hustlers] trippin’ on Unknowns [Unknown
Vice Lords]. You got Insanes [Insane Vice Lords] trippin’ on Travelers [Traveling
Vice Lords]. Ain’t nobody care about the GD’s [Gangster Disciples] up in here no
more. Man, all this nonsense, it’s all a Vice Lord thing.

Jimmy’s remarks concerning gang conflict among the different Vice Lord gangs are

reflected in both the homicide and the qualitative data. Figure 4 shows two networks of

gang conflict on the West-Side. Figure 4a displays the conflict network based on homicide

data while Figure 4b shows a network based on field data.19 To construct the network in

Figure 4b, I coded fieldnotes for any mention of conflict between gangs on the West-Side.

17
By the “West-Side” of Chicago, I am referring to the North Lawndale, Garfield Park, and Austin
Community Areas which are predominately Black (more than 80 percent) and have some of the highest
rates of poverty, unemployment, and crime in the city. Similar to Hunter and Suttles’ (1972) concept of the
community of “extended liability,” the West-Side represents a large geographic area which posseses some
sense of identify. The identity of the West-Side is particularity strong in the gang milieu in contrast with
the South-Side, an area consisting largely of Disciple gangs. When asked to describe the boundaries of the
“West-Side” during my fieldwork, residents were consistent in indicating the areas west of the University
of Illinois until the suburb of Oak Park, north to Chicago, and south until just about 18th Street.
18
Names of all neighborhood residents, gang members, law enforcement officials, and all other individuals
mentioned in the ethnographic data have been changed for the sake of anonymity.
19
The homicide data used in this figure is taken from the 11th and 15th police districts, those areas which
cover roughly the cognitive areas cited by residents.
3DSDFKULVWRV 17

The results were cross-checked and a link between gangs was established when any two

different sources mentioned the same pattern of conflict.20

Key similarities exist between these networks. First, consistent with the city-wide

network, almost all of the conflict is either intra-gang or intra-nation accounting for 60

percent of the interaction in Figure 4a and 70 percent in Figure 4b. More importantly,

with the exception of three gangs (the Gangster Disciples, the New Breed, and the Black

Souls), gang conflict occurs mainly among Vice Lord gangs—gang violence on the West-

Side is indeed “a Vice Lord thing.”

Second, a single gang, the Four Corner Hustlers21, is at the center of either conflict

network occupying the core of a star-like structure. Unlike the city-wide networks, the

Gangster Disciples play only a peripheral role in gang interaction on the West-Side, mostly

because of geography and history: the Vice Lords began on the West-Side whereas the

Gangster Disciples originated on the South-Side. While the Gangster Disciples do exist and

operate on the West-Side, they do not occupy as central a role in this part of the city. The

West-Side is so dominated by Vice Lord gangs that a portion of it, near 18th and Lawndale, is

referred to affectionately by gang members as “Vice Lord City.” If similar methods were

applied to the South-Side, one might expect to find the roles of the Gangster Disciples and

the Vice Lords reversed. Like the city structure, the networks in Figure 4 show that specific

gangs are at the center of interaction and that interaction between Black gangs is dense with

much of the interaction occurring within the same gang alliance. In these respects, the larger

structure is recreated at this level of analyses.

20
The fieldwork data used in Figure 4b differs from the homicide data in two important ways. First, it
does not distinguish directionality of the conflict. While most informants could identify conflict patterns,
often with explicit detail, they could not distinguish in which direction the hostility flowed. Second, the
fieldwork data is not limited to homicides but includes any conflicts known to informants.
21
Although not obvious by in its name, as is the case with other Vice Lord gangs, the Four Corner Hustlers
are in fact one of the key Vice Lord factions (also, Knox and Papachristos 2002).
3DSDFKULVWRV 18

CONCLUSION

The strength of a network approach rests in its view of expressing the social environment as

patterns of relationships among interacting units which produce a persistent structure that

can affect behavior or action. Many of the unanswered questions in gang research result

from the failure of the dominant approaches to consider, either theoretically or

methodologically, gang-relations—how gangs interact and respond to each other and their

social environs. The findings of the present study suggest that interaction between gangs

structure violence in Chicago by generating persistent types and patterns of interaction over

time. The theoretical and methodological implications of these findings not only address

many of the shortcomings in gang research but also potentially offer a link between the field

and other areas of sociology.

Theoretically, gangs have been viewed as important structural entities in cities since

the work of Thrasher (1927) and Shaw and McKay (1942). Underclass theories extend these

views by arguing that gangs have become structurally embedded entities in extreme poverty

areas, meaning that gangs now function as quasi-institutions that influence other behaviors,

regulate norms, and fulfill key social functions (Bursik 2002; Bursik and Grasmick 1993;

Hagedorn 1988; Venkatesh 1997). At the macro- or middle-levels of analysis, how gang-

relations and activities are shaped by extra-gang forces such as processes of social

disorganization or de-industrialization is unknown as these claims remain relatively untested

empirically.

The network approached used here provides a method for testing such social

disorganization and underclass hypotheses. If gangs are in fact embedded structures, then

patterns of gang interaction should either facilitate or hinder social behaviors other than
3DSDFKULVWRV 19

violence. Take for example, the issue of social control. If gangs are important structural

actors, gang conflict should decrease levels of social control and, conversely, increase incidences

of violence or deviant behavior. Similarly, if, as argued by Venkatesh (1997), gangs are

central actors in the social, physical, and economic context of underclass communities, then

patterns of gang-relations should have either a positive or negative influence on the

distribution of social capital or the development of collective efficacy (e.g. Sampson,

Morenoff, and Earls 1999).

Methodologically, linking gang-relation data with other demographic or survey data

provides a platform from which to test such hypotheses. A methodological direction can be

borrowed from the application of network methods in organizational sociology which have

used network measures to assess the effect of social structures on outcomes such as

organizational competition and collaboration (e.g. Podolny, Stuart, and Hannan 1996) and

patterns and intensity of stock trading (e.g. Baker 1984), to name just a few examples. Such

studies link network data with other multi-variate analysis techniques, including regression

and maximum likelihood estimates. Similarly, work by Gould (1995) incorporates

autoregressive indicators of social networks into other contextual or neighborhood based

statistical models.

Thinking of homicide as an interaction also has implications for network analysis and

theory, particularly structural balance theory. Homicides between gangs occur not only

between rival gangs but also between gangs within the same alliance structures apparently

breaking the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” rule associated with structural balance

theories (e.g. Davis 1967). Given that these gang Nation structures were intentionally

created to form unified alliances that would respond to rivals in a cohesive fashion, intra-

nation homicide appears to directly contradict principles of structural balance. Thinking of it

3DSDFKULVWRV 20

as an issue of network transitivity, such findings beg the question: is murder transitive?

Additionally, homicide, as well as other negative interactions such as hostile take-overs or

war, require a reformulation and interpretation of standard network measures of centrality,

power, and cohesive sub-groupings.

Applied to gangs, such an approach possesses tremendous theoretical explanatory

power by linking gang network measures, at multiple levels of analysis, to social structural

variables such as population density, structural disadvantage, social mobility, and social

control. At the neighborhood level, this can be done by deriving the context specific gang

network and including such network measures in multi-variate models as either predictor or

outcome variables. For example, the link between gangs and neighborhood level social

control, as hypothesized by Bursik (2002; Bursik and Grasmick 1993), can be tested by

including context specific gang network measures using autoregressive parameters with

standard social disorganization models. In addition to understanding the relationship

between gangs and social control, such analyses can also shed light on the relationship

between neighborhood characteristics such as population density, poverty, or mobility on

the development of gang activity. Such analyses will not only help to evaluate seventy-five

years of relatively untested theoretical claims about gangs but they can also provide an

understanding of the role gangs in key sociological processes and structures.

REFERNCES
Baker, Wayne E. 1984. “The Social Structure of a National Securities Market.” American Journal of Sociology 89: 775-809.
Block, Richard and Carolyn R. Block. 1993. “Street Gang Crime in Chicago.” Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Borgatti, S.P. NetDraw 1.0. Harvard: Analytic Technologies
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard:
Analytic Technologies.
Bursik, Robert J. 2002. “The Systemic Model of Gang Behavior,” In Gangs in America III, edited by Huff, C. Ronald.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bursik, Robert J. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New
York: Lexington Books.
3DSDFKULVWRV 21

Curry, David and Irving A. Spergel. 1988. “Gang Homicide, Delinquency, and Community” Criminology, 26 (August):
381-405.
Davis, James A. 1967. “Clustering and Structural Balance in Graphs,” Human Relations 20: 181-187.
Decker, Scott and G. David Curry. 2002. “Gangs, Gang Homicides, and Gang Loyalty: Organized Crime or Disorganized
Criminals,” Journal of Criminal Justice 30: 343-352.
Gould, Roger V. 1995. Insurgent Identities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hagedorn, John. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs, Crime, and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chicago: Lake View.
Hunter, Albert and Gerald D. Suttles 1972. “The Expanding Community of Limited Liability.” Pp. 44-81. In The Social
Construction of Communities. Edited by Gerald D. Suttles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jankowski, Martin Sanchez. 1991. Islands in the Street: Gangs and American Urban Society. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Kennedy, David M., Anthony A. Braga, and Anne M. Piehl. 1997. “The (Un)Known Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang
Violence in Boston,” In Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention, edited by David Weisburd and J. Thomas McEwen.
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Keiser, Lincoln. 1969. Vice Lords: Warriors of the Street. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Klein, Malcolm W. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Knox, George W. 2001. An Introduction to Gangs (5th edition). Peotone, IL: New Chicago School Press.
Knox, George W. and Andrew V. Papachristos 2002. The Vice Lords: A Gang Profile Analysis. Peotone, IL: New Chicago
School Press.
Maxson, Cheryl and Malcolm Klein. 1996. “Defining Gang Homicide: An Updated Look at Member and Motive
Approaches,” In Gangs in American (2nd edition), edited by C. Ronald Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Papachristos, Andrew V. 2001. A.D., The Neighborhood Impact of Federal Gang Prosecution. Peotone, IL: New Chicago School
Press.
Podolny, Joel M., Toby Stuart, and Michael Hannan. 1996. “Networks, Knowledge, and Niches: Competition in the
World-Side Semiconductor Industry, 1984 -1991.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (3): 659-689
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Community Life.” The American Prospect 35-42.
Rosenfeld, Richard, Timothy M. Bray, and Arlen Egley. 1999. “Facilitating Violence: A Comparison
of Gang-Motivated, Gang-Affiliated, and Nongang Youth Homicides,” Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, Vol. 15: 495-516.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. “Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective
Efficacy for Children,” American Sociological Review, v64: 633-700.
Shaw, Clifford R. & McKay, Henry D. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Short, James and Fred Strodtbeck. 1965. Group Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Simmel, Georg. 1908a. [1971] “The Problem of Sociology.” In Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms, edited by
Donald N. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-------------------. 1908b. [1971]. “Conflict.” In Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms, edited by Donald N. Levine.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thrasher, Fredric M. 1927 [2001]. The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. (unabridged edition). Peotone, IL: New
Chicago School Press, Inc.
Tita, George. 2003. “Beyond Pin Maps: Mapping the Social and Geographical Dimensions of Gang Crime.” Presentation
at the Project Safe Neighborhoods National Conference, Philadelphia.
Venkatesh, Sudhir A. 1997. “The Social Organization of Street Gang Activity in an Urban Ghetto,” American Journal of
Sociology, v103: 82-111.
Venkatesh, Sudhir A. and Steve D. Levitt. (2000). “Are We a Family or a Business? History and Disjuncture in the Urban
American Street Gang.” Theory and Society 29: 427-462.
Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
 Figure 1: Chicago Gang Conflict Network Based on Gang-Related Homicides, 1994

Bshps
InsUnk
Pauch
LaFam LtnCnts CmpBys
S pnLrds
GayLrds LtnDrg
LtnLvrs
LtnEgls BGD

InsDrg
ImpG MLD
S tnDis
Brzrs PRS tn
BD S pnCbr
BlkS ouls 22Bys
GD
S pnGD
S imCtyRoy
MC
LK CD
LtnBroOrg VL
T VL LtnDis

LtnJiv

T itPS tn 26Bys LaRaza

MIVL AllLov
FCH
BPS
CVL Ambro
UnkVL CNts

PP RedS crp FlyDrgn

Notes:
Square represents Black Gang
Triangle represents Hispanic Gang
Diamond represents Asian Gang
Circle represents White Gang
Direction of Arrow indicates direction of homicide
Thickness of line indicates number of homicides between gangs
Circled nodes represent gangs that share an alliance or ancestry
 Figure 2: Chicago Gang Conflict Network Based on Gang-Related Homicides, 1998

AshVikings MilKings

LtnEgls LtnDis
BlkS ouls

S imCtyRoy PP
MC
LaFam
ImpG Ambro
T itPS tn BD BGD
LaRaza
LtnS ouls
BlkS tns NB InsDrg
GD 26Bys
S tnDis
LtnS aints
BPS
CVL
LK MLD
FCH
KingCbrs
T VL

S pnCbr
UndrVL
InsDuc
VL
InsPopes
MIVL LtnDrg
RVL
CiInsVL
LtnCnts

Notes:
S pnVL
Square represents Black Gang
Triangle represents Hispanic Gang
Diamond represents Asian Gang
Circle represents White Gang
Direction of Arrow indicates direction of homicide
Thickness of line indicates number of homicides between gangs
Circled nodes represent gangs that share an alliance or ancestry
 Figure 3: Chicago Gang Conflict Network Based on Gang-Related Homicides, 2002

BS
LaFam S GD

FCH
LtDrg
IS C
LtEgl

CVL PRS t

BPS CD
T VL LK MilKngs
NB

CB
MIVL BlkS t
VL GD SD
MLD
22Boys
T itPS
SC
CiVL
BD LtJiv LaRaz

ImpIG
MC Bis
BGD PP

26Boys LtCnts
MB

LtDis OA
Notes:
Square represents Black Gang
Triangle represents Hispanic Gang
Diamond represents Asian Gang
Circle represents White Gang
Direction of Arrow indicates direction of homicide
Thickness of line indicates number of homicides between gangs
Circled nodes represent gangs that share an alliance or ancestry
 Figure 4: Gang Conflict Networks on the West-Side

Figure 4a: Conflict Network Based on Homicide Figure 4b: Conflict Network Based on Field Data
Data

T VL
NB GD CVL
GD

BS
FCH T VL

FCH
UnkVL
UnderVL

MIVL

CVL

UknVL

MIVL

VL

Notes:
Square represents Black Gang
Direction of Arrow indicates direction of homicide
Thickness of line indicates number of homicides between gangs
Circled nodes represent gangs that share an alliance or ancestry

Gang Names and Abbreviations
African American Gangs
BPS – Black P-Stones
FCH – Four Corner Hustlers
GD – Gangster Disciples
BGD – Black Gangster Disciples
BD – Black Disciples
BlkSt. – Black Stones
CVL – Conservative Vice Lords
TVL – Traveling Vice Lords
BS or BlkSouls – Black Souls
CiVL – Cicero Insane Vice Lords
VL – Vice Lords
MIVL – Mafia Insane Vice Lords
TitPS – Titanic P-Stones
NB – New Breed
MC – Mikey Cobras
UnkVL – Unknown Vice Lords
ImpG – Imperial Gangsters
UnderVL – Undertaker Vice Lords
RVL – Renegade Vice Lords
Appendix A
Hispanic Gangs White & Asian Gangs
LK – Latin Kings GayLrds – Gay Lords
SD or StnDis – Satan’s SimCtyRoy – Simon City
Disciples Royals
ISC – Insane Spanish Cobras RedScrp – Red Scorpions
MLD – Maniac Latin Disciples FlyDrg – Flying Dragons
PP – Party People
PRSt. – Puerto Rican Stones
LDrg – Latin Dragons
LE – Latin Eagles
CD – Cullerton Dueces
22B – Two-Two Boys
MilK. – Milwaukee Kings
LaFam. – La Familia
CB or CmpBys– Campbell
Boys
LJ or LtnJiv – Latin Jivers
SC or SpnCbr – Spanish
Cobras
ImIG – Imperial Insane
Gangsters
LaRaz. – La Raza
MB. – Morgan Boys
Bis. – Bishops
OA – Orchastra Albany
LD or LtnDis – Latin Disciples
LC or LtnCnts– Latin Counts
26Boys – Two-Six Boys
SGD or SpnGD– Spanish
Gangster Disciples
Pauch — Pauchucos
LtnBroOrg – Latin Brothers
Organization
InsUnk – Insane Unknowns
SpnLrds – Spanish Lords
LtnLvrs – Latin Lovers
InsDrg – Insane Dragons
AllLov –Allport Lovers
Cnts – C –Notes
Ambro – Ambrose
Brzrs – Brazers
SpnVL – Spanish Vice Lords
KngCbrs – King Cobras
InsPopes – Insane Popes