Sage Handbook of Social Network

Analysis

Edited by John Scott & Peter J. Carrington

First published 2011

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or
criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any
form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the
publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with
the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries
concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.

SAGE Publications Ltd

1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP

Chapter 17 © Peter J. Carrington 2011

 Contents
Contributors and contact details

1 Introduction
John Scott and Peter J. Carrington

Part I. General issues

2 Social Network Analysis: An Introduction

Alexandra Marin and Barry Wellman

3 The Development of Social Network Analysis—with an Emphasis on Recent

Events
Linton C. Freeman

4 Network Theory
Stephen P. Borgatti and Virginie Lopez-Kidwell

5 Social Physics and Social Networks

John Scott

6 Social Networks in Economics

Sanjeev Goyal

7 Relational Sociology, Culture, and Agency

Ann Mische

Part II. Substantive topics

8 Personal Communities: The World According To Me

Vincent Chua, Julia Madej and Barry Wellman

9 Social Support
Lijun Song, Joonmo Son and Nan Lin

10 Kinship, Class, and Community

Douglas R. White

11 Animal Social Networks

Katherine Faust
12 Networking Online: Cybercommunities
Anatoliy Gruzd and Caroline Haythornthwaite

13 Corporate Elites and Intercorporate Networks

William K. Carroll and J. P. Sapinski

14 Political Dimensions of Corporate Connections

Matthew Bond and Nicholas Harrigan

15 Policy Networks
David Knoke

16 Social Movements and Collective Action

Mario Diani

17 Crime and Social Network Analysis

Peter J. Carrington

18 Terrorist Networks: The Threat of Connectivity

Renée C. van der Hulst

19 Scientific and Scholarly Networks

Howard D. White

20 Cultural Networks
Paul DiMaggio

21 Social Networks, Geography, and Neighbourhood Effects

Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie

22 A Multiple-Network Analysis of the World System of Nations, 1995-1999

Edward L. Kick, Laura A. McKinney, Steve McDonald, Andrew Jorgenson

Part III. Concepts and Methods

23 A Brief Introduction to Analyzing Social Network Data

Robert A. Hanneman and Mark Riddle

24 Concepts and Measures for Basic Network Analysis

Robert A. Hanneman and Mark Riddle

25 Survey Methods for Network Data

Peter V. Marsden
26 Survey Sampling in Networks
Ove Frank

27 Qualitative Approaches
Betina Hollstein

28 Analyzing Affiliation Networks

Stephen P. Borgatti and Daniel S. Halgin

29 Positions and Roles

Anuška Ferligoj, Patrick Doreian and Vladimir Batagelj

30 Relation Algebras and Social Networks

Philippa Pattison

31 Statistical Models For Ties and Actors

Marijtje A.J. van Duijn and Mark Huisman

32 Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks

Garry Robins

33 Network Dynamics
Tom A.B. Snijders

34 Models and Methods to Identify Peer Effects

Weihua An

35 Kinship Network Analysis

Klaus Hamberger, Michael Houseman and Douglas R. White

36 Large-Scale Network Analysis

Vladimir Batagelj

37 Network Visualization
Lothar Krempel

38 A Reader's Guide to SNA Software

Mark Huisman and Marijtje A.J. van Duijn
 171
Crime and Social
Network Analysis
Peter J. Carrington

Applications of social network analysis in the and behavior are not innate, but are learned from
study of crime fall mainly into three topic areas: “intimate personal groups.” According to the sixth
the influence of the personal network on ego’s proposition of this theory, the likelihood that a
delinquency or crime, the influence of neighbor- child or adolescent will be delinquent is affected
hood networks on crime in the neighborhood, by the relative strength of criminal and anticrimi-
and the organization of criminal groups and nal “definitions” (i.e., norms) among his or her
activities. Of course, the literature is not so neatly close associates:
organized as this scheme suggests – even the
boundaries of the relevant literature are fuzzy – 6. A person becomes delinquent because of an
but the following account is organized around excess of definitions favorable to violation of law
these categories, while acknowledging the over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.
instances of work that straddle them, or lie only This is the principle of differential association. It
partly within them. refers to both criminal and anticriminal associa-
tions and involves counteracting forces. (Sutherland
et al., 1992: 89)

INFLUENCE OF PERSONAL NETWORKS Later reformulations of differential association

theory have resulted in the “social learning”
ON DELINQUENCY AND CRIME theory (Burgess and Akers, 1966) and “peer
influence” theory of delinquency (Warr, 1993,
The most common use of social network analysis 2002): the latter claiming that “peer influence is
in criminology has been in analyses of the effects the principal proximate cause of most criminal
of personal networks on adolescents’ delinquency conduct” (Warr, 2002: 136; emphasis in the
(and, to a lesser extent, on adults’ crime). Almost original).
all of this research is based, explicitly or implic- Consistently strong empirical correlations
itly, on one or both of two theories of crime and between subjects’ delinquency and that of their
delinquency: differential association theory and friends or “peer group,” even in the presence of
social control theory. controls for other factors, has been interpreted as
strong support for differential association theory
(Shoemaker, 2005: 152; Warr, 2002: 76). However,
Differential association theory the theory has been criticized on the grounds
(among others) of the difficulty of measuring the
According to this theory of delinquency, first relative strength of pro- and anticriminal definitions
formulated in 1939 by Edwin Sutherland (1939; among ego’s associates (Shoemaker, 2005: 151;
Sutherland et al., 1992), criminal attitudes see also “Measuring peers’ delinquency” below).
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 237

Sutherland’s seventh proposition offered some Social control theory has been interpreted in
guidance on this issue: network terms to imply that delinquents tend to be
social isolates, rejecting and being rejected by
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, their peers (Ekland-Olson, 1983: 275–76) and
duration, priority, and intensity. (Sutherland et al., other potential agents of informal social control,
1992: 89) and conversely that nondelinquents tend to be well
connected with such agents. This is in clear
Luckenbill commented in 1992 on the measure- contrast with differential association theory, which
ment issue: characterizes both delinquents and nondelinquents
as being embedded in peer and family networks
In a precise description of the criminal behavior but with differing normative balances. The contra-
of a person, these modalities would be rated in dictory implications of the two theories of
quantitative form and a mathematical ratio would delinquency have motivated social network
be reached. A formula in this sense has not been research researchers to attempt to assess the level
developed, and the development of such a of empirical support for each theory.
formula would be extremely difficult. (Sutherland
et al., 1992: 89)

To anyone familiar with social network Krohn’s network theory

analysis, its potential usefulness in operationaliz- of delinquency
ing the main concepts in differential association
theory is obvious. The “intimate personal groups” Marvin Krohn’s (1986) network theory represents
in which criminal learning occurs are simply ego’s an early attempt to apply social network analysis
personal network (Chua et al., this volume). explicitly to the explanation of delinquency.
Measuring the “frequency, duration, priority, and Krohn’s theory combines elements of social
intensity” of associations is a staple of personal control and differential association theories of
networks research (Hanneman and Riddle, this delinquency. According to this theory, the social
volume). Evaluating communication processes cohesion of ego’s personal network, as indicated
and the diffusion of information in networks by its multiplexity and density, affects both ego’s
are staples of social network research on commu- social integration (as in social control theory)
nication and information diffusion (e.g., Monge and the balance of influences of procriminal and
and Contractor, 2003; Myers, 2000; Shih and anticriminal definitions in the network (as in
Chang, 2009; Valente, 1995). Differential associa- differential association theory). At the macrostruc-
tion theory can be seen as a specific instance tural level, the delinquency rate of a community
of the more general network theory of social will be inversely related to the density and
learning, that ego’s attitudes and behavior are multiplexity of its social networks, which are
affected by the attitudes and behavior of the affected by social structural characteristics of
members of his or her personal network, and the the community, such as population density,
effects are conditioned by the characteristics of geographic mobility, and the social stratification
the network. This would be consistent with system.
Sutherland’s own insistence that “the processes Krohn’s theory treats attachment to parents,
which result in systematic criminal behavior are teachers, and other adults as an aspect of social
fundamentally the same in form as the processes bonding, and therefore as an element of social
which result in systematic lawful behavior” (cited control theory, not of differential association
in Warr, 2002: 75). theory. This distinction between adults and age
peers is consistent with much of the subsequent
research that tests or employs differential associa-
tion theory, whether informed by social network
Social control theory analysis or not: the “intimate personal groups”
within which the balance of procriminal and
Social control theory, first formulated by Hirschi anticriminal definitions are measured are often
(1969), proposes that the propensity for antisocial, assumed to be exclusively composed of the young
deviant, or criminal behavior is innate but is person’s age peers, or “friends,” so that differen-
normally restrained by internalized and external tial association theory is treated as being equiva-
informal social control, due to bonding to social lent to peer influence theory (Warr, 2002: 73).
control agents such as parents, family, peers, Relationships with parents and family are taken as
school, and community – that is, to the social evidence of social bonding. However, Sutherland’s
integration of the individual. Thus, delinquency formulation of differential association theory does
and crime are a result of weak social bonds. not distinguish between adult agents of social
238 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

control such as parents, and the young person’s secondary school students and stepwise path
age peers (Sutherland et al., 1992: 89; Warr, 2002: analysis, he found that frequency of contact with
73). Differential association research that is more deviant parents and with deviant peers both have
informed by social network analysis considers the positive influences on the respondent’s formation
influence of persons in any role vis-à-vis ego, of positive definitions of deviant behavior,
using the type and strength of the tie, not genera- which in turn increases the frequency of the
tional equivalence, as the criterion of inclusion in respondent’s criminal behavior; however, the
the personal network. impact of deviant friends was much greater.
Krohn’s network theory of delinquency has Lonardo et al. (2009) found that parents’ and
received limited attention. Following Friday and peers’ deviance were associated with adolescents’
Hage (1976), Krohn et al. (1988) found that deviance, but having a deviant romantic partner
multiplexity or role overlap in personal networks, was especially influential.
including parents and friends, partly explained the
cigarette smoking behavior of high school
students in a Midwestern city: youth who partici-
Measuring peers’ delinquency
Research on delinquent peers traditionally relied
pated jointly with their parents or friends in
on the respondent’s assessment of his or her peers’
activities, such as homework, athletics, church,
delinquency. This approach has been criticized
and membership in other organizations, were less
for vulnerability to measurement error due to
likely to smoke cigarettes. Haynie (2001) found
limitations on the respondents’ ability to observe
that personal network density is an important
and remember their peers’ delinquent attitudes
conditioner of the association between ego’s and
and behavior, and also to bias arising from projec-
peers’ delinquency: the relationship was stronger
tion by respondents of their own attitudes and
for egos with higher-density networks. Going
behavior onto their peers; thus inflating the crucial
beyond Krohn’s theory, she found that ego’s
correlation between the delinquency of self and of
centrality and popularity also condition the rela-
peers (see Meldrum et al., 2009, for a review of
tionship, but less so than network density: the
this issue). Research comparing the size of the
relationship is stronger for egos with higher
correlations obtained from respondents’ reports
centrality and higher popularity.
and peers’ own reports of their delinquency has
found that the correlation is indeed considerably
larger when respondents’ reports are used.
Network composition Weerman and Smeenk (2005: 518) interpret this
finding to mean that the true correlation lies some-
Most of the research that refers to social networks where between the two estimates. This is an
in relation to differential association or social instance of the more general measurement prob-
control theory is concerned only with the compo- lem in research on egocentric networks: that
sition of the peer network – the number or “proxy reports” provided by ego of alters’ charac-
proportion of delinquent friends and (in some teristics and behavior are of variable accuracy,
cases) of family members – and ignores its struc- depending on the type of information solicited
tural features (e.g., Capowich et al., 2001; Deptula (see Marsden, this volume, for a discussion).
and Cohen, 2004; Elliott and Menard, 1996;
Giordano et al., 1993; Gutierrez-Lobos et al.,
2001; Hanson and Scott, 1996; Laird et al., 1999;
Gender composition
A somewhat different approach to the relationship
Lee, 2004; McCarthy and Hagan, 1995; Weerman
between peer network composition and ego’s
and Bijleveld, 2007). In one of the more sophisti-
delinquency is to examine the gender composition
cated attempts to measure the balance of criminal
of the peer network. The general idea is that
and anticriminal definitions in the peer network,
female-dominated networks tend to provide “more
Haynie (2002) found that it is the proportion of
social control, fewer opportunities and less
friends who are delinquent that is most strongly
motivation for offending and may therefore
correlated with ego’s delinquency, rather than the
discourage crime,” for both males and females,
number of delinquent friends, the average level of
but especially for females (McCarthy et al., 2004).
delinquency of friends, or the total level of friends’
This suggests social control theory, but the effect
delinquency. She also found that consensus (either
of female-dominated networks may also be due to
pro- or antidelinquency) in the peer network was
differential association, as females are much less
most strongly associated with ego’s own behavior.
criminal than males. Lacasse et al. (2003) found
Bruinsma (1992) is a rare example of differential
that the gender composition of adolescents’ friend-
association research that includes parents as
ship networks affects the incidence of potentially
possible sources of deviant definitions in ego’s
offensive sexual behavior but not the subject’s
personal network. Using data on 1,096 Dutch
tolerance of such behavior. Haynie and Piquero
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 239

(2006) found that the relationship between the as family and close friends, tend to know one
onset of puberty and violent victimization is another and therefore tend to form closed com-
moderated by the gender composition of boys’ munication circles, in which the same information
personal networks: the relationship is weaker for and attitudes are recycled. Furthermore, following
boys with a higher proportion of girls in their the principle of homophily (McPherson et al.,
network. For girls, no moderating effect of 2001; and see below, under “Gangs, groups and
network composition was found. In a sample of networks”), one’s close friends tend to hold atti-
adult heroin injectors in Baltimore, Curry and tudes and opinions similar to one’s own. In con-
Latkin (2003: 482) found that “for females but not trast, persons to whom one is weakly tied, such as
males, a higher number of females in one’s acquaintances, school friends and colleagues, and
network was associated with a lower frequency of more distant family members, are more likely to
arrests.” Lichtenstein (1997) found that in a small have attitudes that are less congruent with one’s
sample of Alabama women incarcerated for own and to belong to social circles that one is not
drug-related crimes, their personal networks com- a member of. Thus, weak ties are more likely to
prised mainly male intimates, and the use of crack form “bridges” between otherwise unconnected
cocaine was attributed to the influence of these social circles and consequently to be sources
male intimates. Weerman and Bijleveld (2007) of new information and attitudes. In relation to
found that differences in the personal networks of delinquency, Granovetter’s theory implies that
non-, minor, and serious delinquents in a sample the close friends of nondelinquents will also be
of Dutch high school students were mainly due to nondelinquent, and it is the weak ties of nondelin-
cross-gender friendships. Delinquent students quents who are more likely to be delinquent and
appeared to be more popular than nondelinquents therefore to exert a delinquent influence. Patacchini
in cross-gender friendships (girls nominated and Zenou (2008) found support for this hypoth-
delinquent boys more often, boys nominated esis: the proportion of weak versus strong ties
delinquent girls more often), while non-, minor, in the friendship network was found to have a
and serious delinquents were on average not more positive impact on the onset of delinquency.
or less popular among students from their own
gender.
Structure: centrality, cohesiveness,
and bridging
Types of ties
Baerveldt and Snijders (1994) found no support
Houtzager and Baerveldt (1999) differentiated for hypotheses concerning the relationship
different types of ties among Dutch high school between ego’s delinquency and segmentation in
students. They found that a respondent’s level of the network. Baron and Tindall (1993) found that
self-reported delinquency was not associated with the strength of a gang member’s delinquent
the emotional closeness of peer relations, the attitudes was positively associated with his or her
occurrence of positive relations such as practical centrality (betweenness and geodesic closeness)
support, emotional support, friendship and in the gang, as well as to weak conventional
intimate friendship, or with unpopularity. Using bonds. Pearson and West’s (2003) study of the
the same data, Baerveldt et al. (2004) analyzed adoption of “risky behaviors” (smoking and can-
10 different types of ties and found no evidence nabis use) by students in a Scottish high school
that delinquents have poorer peer relationships, suggests that ego’s position in the peer network
and evidence of a correlation between ego’s level (“as a group member, a group peripheral or a rela-
of delinquency and that of both weakly and tive isolate”) and the cohesiveness of the network
strongly tied peers – implicitly suggesting both have positive effects on ego’s influence on
support for differential association theory but not other members of the network. Lee (2004) used
for social control theory. Weerman and Smeenk data from the National Household Survey on
(2005) found that both “regular friends” and “best Drug Abuse to examine the network positions of
friends” in the networks of Dutch high school marijuana users, nonusers, and sellers. Users
students affect ego’s delinquency, with little tended to cluster in subgroups that were both more
difference in strength of effect. central and more cohesive than those of nonusers;
Patacchini and Zenou (2008) analyzed data sellers tended to be at the center of user groups.
from the Add Health survey within the framework However, the centrality and cohesiveness of
of Granovetter’s (1973) “strength of weak ties” groups of users varied significantly across survey
theory. Granovetter proposed that the individuals sampling units.1
to whom one is weakly tied are more likely to be Using a cross-sectional analysis of data from
sources of influence for change than those to the first wave of the AddHealth survey, Schreck
whom one is more strongly tied. Strong ties, such et al. (2004) found that centrality in dense
240 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

delinquent peer networks was associated with Espelage et al. (2007) used p* modeling (Robins,
higher risk for violent victimization, while this volume) to study the microstructures in
centrality in dense conventional networks had the a seventh-grade friendship network and their
opposite effect. McGloin and Shermer (2009) relationships with bullying behavior; they found
used longitudinal analysis of data from the same evidence of both homophily (selection) and peer
survey to examine the roles of network density, influence.
Bonacich centrality, and ego’s involvement with From their analyses of a two-wave survey of
the peer network, as well as ego’s self-control Dutch high school students, Snijders and Baerveldt
(Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990) and other varia- (2003) found that similarity in delinquency affects
bles on ego’s future delinquency. Concerning both tie formation and tie dissolution. This
direct network effects, McGloin and Shermer provides support for the selection hypothesis, but
found that network density reduces delinquency the study did not test the influence hypothesis.
and that centrality and involvement increase it; the Using actor-oriented social network modeling
strength of the effect of centrality is positively (“SIENA” – see Snijders, this volume) with data
related to the overall level of deviance in the peer on students in 16 Dutch high schools, Baerveldt et
network (2009: 53). Involvement with the peer al. (2008) found that influence was a “universal”
network is inversely related to ego’s self-control process, found in all 16 schools; whereas selection
(2009: 59). Mangino (2009: 147) found that operated in only four schools. The strength of
“African American boys who are a social bridge selection depended on network differences
across two or more large but cohesive peer groups between the schools. The authors suggested that
are less delinquent than are their counterparts who the networks with significant selection were dom-
are members of a single peer group,” and this is inated by a small number of lifetime persistent
due to the enhanced prosocial influence of parents delinquents. From a longitudinal analysis of a
on these bridging children. sample of Swedish adolescents, employing
SIENA, Burk et al. (2007, 2008) concluded that
both selection and peer influence play roles in
Peer influence versus selection the co-evolution of early adolescent friendship
networks, but the role of peer influence is
The strong and consistent correlation observed stronger.
between adolescents’ delinquency and that of their Using data from the AddHealth survey, Haynie
peers is susceptible of at least three interpreta- and Osgood (2005: 1109) found that “the norma-
tions: (1) differential association – that peers tive influence of peers on delinquency is more
influence ego’s delinquency; (2) selection limited than indicated by most previous studies,
(homophily), or the “birds of a feather [flock [and] normative influence is not increased by
together]” theory – that individuals prefer to being more closely attached to friends or spending
associate with people who are similar to them; or more time with them.” They also found support
(3) neither, because the correlation is spurious. for the opportunity theory of Osgood et al. (1996),
Researchers have used longitudinal social which derives from Cohen and Felson’s (1979)
network analyses to assess the relative explana- routine activity theory: that having delinquent
tory power of the influence and selection theories. friends provides more opportunities for delinquent
The consensus is that the two processes reinforce behavior, regardless of their normative influence.
each other through interaction (as Thornberry Using data from the same survey, McGloin (2009)
[1987] proposed), but the evidence on the relative found support for a version of peer influence
contribution of each process to the correlation theory modified by balance theory: an imbalance
is mixed. at T1 between ego’s and the best friend’s level
Structural equation modeling of a three-wave of delinquency predicts a change in ego’s delin-
cross-lagged panel model of data from the National quency in the direction of the best friend’s level
Youth Survey led Elliott and Menard (1996) at T2. Using SIENA to analyze data on middle-
to conclude that peer influence leading to delin- school students in Oregon, Light and Dishion
quency tends to precede and be stronger than (2007) tested the “confluence hypothesis”: that
selection of delinquent peers. However, another rejection by peers leads to the formation of cliques
cross-lagged panel model analysis of data of high-risk youth, who then reinforce one anoth-
from the same survey found that “the effect of er’s deviant propensities. Thus, peer rejection
delinquency on peer associations is larger than leads to selection of deviant peers, who influence
that of peer associations on delinquency” ego’s own delinquency. They found strong support
(Matsueda and Anderson, 1998). Brook et al. for the first part of the hypothesized causal
(2003) found that marijuana use at T1 in a sample chain – that rejected youth form cliques – but
of Colombian adolescents predicted having only weak support for peer influence within these
marijuana-using friends at T2 (i.e., selection). cliques.
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 241

Diffusion in peer networks Reverse or complex causality

Kirke (1990, 1995, 2006) studied the diffusion of Some research has examined the effect that
illicit drug use in the networks of teenagers’ delinquency and crime have on ego’s personal
strong peer ties. She concluded that drug use network, or the mediating role of personal
is diffused through strong ties from users to networks in three-variable causal schemes.
nonusers, who then become users and potential Following up earlier research results suggesting
sources of new diffusion to additional nonusers; that one’s occupation may affect the quality of
thus, “a cycle of drug diffusion occurs in one’s personal network, Romans et al. (2001)
which, under specified social conditions, the found no differences in network quality between
structure influences individual action and the networks of a convenience sample of female
individual action influences the structure” (1990: sex workers and those of two large community
Abstract). Korobow et al. (2007) analyzed samples of age-matched women in New Zealand.
an agent-based simulation model of tax (non-) Kandel and Davies (1991) found that illicit drug
compliance incorporating social networks and use led to strong bonds among young adult males
found that individuals with limited knowledge of but not among females. Moss et al. (2003) found
their immediate network neighbors’ payoffs are that the children of drug-dependent fathers are
more likely to be compliant than those who can more likely to have deviant peers from preadoles-
factor knowledge of neighbor payoffs into their cence through mid-adolescence, and speculated
decisions. that these deviant affiliations may lead to the
children’s own antisocial behavior. Van der Poel
and van de Mheen (2006) found that crack use by
a sample of 16- to 24-year-olds accelerated a
Desistance process of marginalization that had begun before
Personal networks have also been implicated in their drug abuse. With crack use, their personal
desistance from delinquency, crime, or drug abuse. networks shrank and the proportion of crack users
Gainey et al. (1995) studied the personal networks in them increased. Schroeder et al. (2007) found
of a sample of heavy cocaine users who were that changes in the personal network, especially
seeking treatment. They found that the sample partner criminality, partly mediate the effect of
had “stable and supportive conventional bonds illicit drug use on future offending. Bernburg et al.
(1995: 27) and their closest emotional ties were to (2006) found that deviant peer affiliations mediate
nonusers. However, they were significantly more the impact of juvenile justice intervention on
likely to have certain types of functional ties, such future delinquency.
as lending or borrowing things or money, with
users. Gainey et al. speculated that the nature of
cocaine users’ social networks may partly explain
the decision to seek treatment. Sommers et al. Conclusion
(1994) found that forming new personal networks The differential association and social control theo-
was part of the process of “getting out of the ries of crime and delinquency both invoke the
life” of female long-term street offenders. The immediate micro-level social environment of the
supportiveness of the personal network was individual to explain his or her behavior. Social
also found by Shivy et al. (2007) to be a factor network analysis has been used to operationalize, or
influencing successful re-entry into the workforce model, this environment as a personal network.
of ex-offenders. Zhang (1998) advocates the Variations in the attributes of the personal network,
inclusion of data on social networks in evaluation such as its composition, types of ties, and structural
of the effectiveness of boot-camp treatments for features, have been used to explain variations in
delinquents. ego’s delinquency or crime and to assess the com-
There is a sizeable literature on the role of peting claims of the social control and differential
personal networks in the success of substance association theories. Much work remains to be done
abuse treatment programs. The consensus on measuring the relevant attributes of personal
finding of these studies is that the composition of networks and on establishing causal pathways.
the personal network – primarily the number or
proportion of deviant peers – and its emotional
supportiveness, especially the quality of ties
with family members, have a substantial impact
on the likelihood of treatment success (e.g., NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORKS
Griffith et al., 1998; Knight and Simpson, 1996;
Skeem et al., 2009; Sung et al., 2004; Wild et al., Social network analysis has also been applied
2006). to the explanation of crime at the level of the
242 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

neighborhood. It has long been observed that high crime rates: high rates of incarceration
crime rates are higher in disadvantaged and of parent-aged men, concentrated in certain
heterogeneous neighborhoods. One explanation neighborhoods, can damage local social networks
for this phenomenon proposes that crime is caused (and other prosocial neighborhood institutions),
by social disorganization, or the breakdown of and this in turn leads to lower collective
informal social control, in the neighborhood, efficacy and higher community crime rates. Other
which in turn is caused by socioeconomic disad- researchers (e.g., Galster and Killen, 1995;
vantage, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential Galster and Mikelsons, 1995; Kennedy et al.,
mobility (Shoemaker, 2005). While this explana- 1998) have also found links between neighbor-
tion is usually treated as a theory in itself, it can hood structural conditions, social networks, and
also be seen as a neighborhood-level version of crime but have relied on the concepts of social
the social control theory of individual criminality. cohesion and social capital. According to Sampson
A competing explanation proposes that delinquent (2006a: 37; see also Sampson, 2003), while
and criminal peer influences are stronger in social networks contribute to social cohesion,
disadvantaged neighborhoods; this is differential this in itself is insufficient to capture the concept
association theory but at the neighborhood level. of collective efficacy, which includes the
additional elements of “mutual trust and shared
expectations.”
Social disorganization theory
The precise meaning of the mediating concept of Differential social organization
“social disorganization” was left unspecified for a theory
long time after the theory was first proposed by
Shaw et al. (1929). Sampson (1987) argued that Other research has found that the relationship
social disorganization is a weakening of social between neighborhood networks and the
bonds within the community, consequently a neighborhood crime rate is not always the straight-
weakening of informal social control. Certain forward negative one implied by social control or
structural conditions in the neighborhood, such as collective efficacy theory (e.g., Friedman et al.,
concentrated disadvantage, ethnic heterogeneity, 2007; Gayne, 2004; Triplett et al., 2003; Warner
and residential mobility, impair the community’s and Rountree, 1997). Pattillo (1998) showed that
ability to informally regulate behavior in the in a black, middle-class community in Chicago,
neighborhood to conform to its shared values – the dense social networks attributable to home
resulting in an increased level of crime, whether ownership and residential stability were crimino-
committed by residents or by outsiders (Sampson, genic as well as protective. These dense networks
2006a: 49–50). Thus, social disorganization theory of kin, friends, and neighbors facilitated informal
is a form of social control theory, but at the level social control of neighborhood youth, consistent
of the neighborhood rather than the individual. (but inversely) with social disorganization theory,
Sampson (2004a, 2004b; Sampson et al., 1997: but also facilitated the integration of local
918) later introduced the concept of collective criminals and their criminogenic influence. This
efficacy: “defined as social cohesion among finding suggests support also for differential
neighbors combined with their willingness to association and peer influence theories but at the
intervene on behalf of the common good.” level of the neighborhood: some types of neigh-
Sampson (1987: 110) and Leighton (1988: 365) borhoods are differentially likely to foster an
suggested that this cohesion among neighbors excess of procriminal over anticriminal definitions
might rest on social networks among residents of via their criminogenic networks of deviant
the community, and Sampson (2006b: 151–153) adolescents and adults.
emphasized the role of the weak ties that are said Matsueda (2006) theorized the varying
to characterize neighborly relations in the modern composition, structure, and prosocial versus
city. Sampson’s conceptualization of social antisocial effects of neighborhood social networks
disorganization as impaired collective efficacy is in terms of Sutherland’s (1939) little-known
a “contextual” and “situational” view, not an theory of differential social organization – the
individual-developmental one: “. . . whereas “sociological counterpart to his social psychologi-
collective efficacy predicts the event-based rate of cal theory of differential association” (Matsueda
violence in a neighborhood, it does not necessar- 2006: 3):
ily predict rates of offending by neighborhood
youth” (2006a: 50). Society has become organized in such a way that
In a similar vein, Clear (2008) introduced a premium has been placed both on perpetrating
neighborhood social networks as the intervening crime and on refraining from crime. An individual
variable in the effect of high incarceration rates on may now be a member of a group organized for
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 243

crime and at the same time be a member of a But social disorganization theory, in its modern
group organized against crime. (Sutherland et al., version as Sampson’s collective efficacy theory, is
1992: 105–6) radically different. Collective efficacy theory and
research sees neighborhood networks as networks
In other words, differential social organization of (prosocial) residents, which vary, according to
at the neighborhood level leads to differential exogenous structural conditions, in their efficacy
association at the individual level. in exerting informal social control of crime and
Consistent with this theory, Browning et al. delinquency in the neighborhood – whether due
(2004) found that social networks in Chicago to locals or to outsiders. In this theory, the social
neighborhoods characterized by a high level of control that reduces neighborhood crime is exerted
social organization and a high level of crime play not through the personal networks of potential
a dual role: promotion of prosocial collective delinquents or criminals but through the personal
efficacy but also provision of social capital to networks of prosocial residents, who are seen as
offenders. James et al. (2004) analyzed data from putative social control agents. The implication for
semi-structured interviews with a random sample collective efficacy research using social network
of 24 women in the American CASAWORKS analysis is that it is not the attributes of the
substance abuse program and found that residence personal networks of potential delinquents and
in poor neighborhoods exposed women to local criminals that explain neighborhood crime but the
law-breaking and substance-abusing networks, attributes of the whole network existing among
while at the same time limiting their access to the residents of the neighborhood, particularly its
supportive, prosocial networks. Harding (2009) cohesion and its capacity for the mobilization of
compared the age composition of adolescent collective action.
boys’ social networks and their criminogenic A major conceptual difficulty in collective
influence in neighborhoods with varying levels of efficacy theory, as some of the cited research
disadvantage. He found that the boys in more suggests, is that the population of the neighbor-
disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely hood cannot be divided so neatly into potential
to spend most of their time with older males and delinquents and criminals, and prosocial residents
that this resulted in “cross-cohort socialization” who are potential social control agents; many, if
into crime. not most, residents fall into both categories, as
each individual experiences some balance of
prosocial and antisocial definitions. Furthermore,
the whole network of the neighborhood contains
Conclusion ties not only among the supposedly prosocial
residents, but also among the supposedly antiso-
The social disorganization and differential social cial residents who are potential delinquents or
organization theories that explain the rates of criminals, and finally, between members of these
crime and delinquency in neighborhoods can be nonmutually exclusive groupings. As Sweetser
seen as the neighborhood-level analogues of the (1942: 533) put it,
social control and differential association theories
of individual crime and delinquency. Social . . . that many boys in the most delinquent
network analysis has been used to model neigh- areas fail to absorb the delinquent “tradition” and
borhood networks, and variations in the attributes remain law-abiding is thus possible if the culture
of neighborhood networks have been used of the delinquency area be conceived in terms
to explain variations in their rates of crime and of the spatial interpenetration of a delinquent
delinquency. and a law-abiding tradition, perpetuated by
In Sutherland’s differential social organization differential acquaintance and association among
theory, structural aspects of the neighborhood neighbors.
such as disadvantage, heterogeneity, and residen-
tial mobility, are exogenous variables that affect A methodological difficulty of research on neigh-
the balance of antisocial and prosocial influences borhood networks is that it is extremely difficult
in neighborhood networks, which in turn affect to collect data on the attributes of, and ties among,
neighborhood crime rates. This theory and associ- the population of the whole neighborhood. In
ated research can therefore be subsumed under the practice, this research has relied on the personal
influence of personal networks on individual networks of samples of residents. However, infer-
criminality, and social network research in this ence from sampled personal networks to whole
tradition generally analyzes the characteristics of networks is by no means straightforward (Frank,
personal networks of potential delinquents and this volume). More research is needed that
criminals, as outcomes of exogenous structural addresses these conceptual and methodological
conditions. issues.
244 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

CRIMINAL NETWORKS arising from police investigations [Renée van der

Hulst, personal communication].)
Social network analysis is also used to model the
social organization of crime. Network models are
employed in this literature to provide static and Gangs, groups, and networks
dynamic representations of criminal groups and
criminal activities. This research tends to be Studies reviewed in this section mainly deal with
exploratory and descriptive rather than theory- applications of social network analysis to criminal
testing, although two theoretical issues underlie groups that have fewer members than those
much of it: studied under the rubric of “organized crime,” and
commit more localized and relatively unsophisti-
cated “street crime.” Many of these studies
1 What intra- and inter-organizational network concern “youth gangs” or “delinquent groups,”
structures emerge in response to various task- which are further distinguished from organized
related and environmental contingencies? and crime not only by the age of the members but
2 What are the performance-related conse- also by the presumed motives for participation:
quences of the adoption of various intra- and primarily instrumental in the case of organized
inter-organizational network structures? (Here, crime, but a mix of instrumental and expressive
“performance” refers mainly to indicators of motives in the case of youth gangs.
organizational success, such as profitability, Analysis of sociograms and sociomatrices
longevity, etc.) (Hanneman and Riddle, this volume), recording
subjects’ friends or companions (and co-offend-
These are also two of the fundamental questions ers), has a long history in the study of criminal
in the sociology of organizations (e.g., Aldrich, organization: indeed, it was Moreno’s invention of
1979; Handel, 2003; Perrow, 1986) and of indus- this technique to study the social structure of
trial organization studies (e.g., Pepall et al., 2008; incarcerated offenders at Sing Sing prison (1932)
Williamson, 1975), and social network analysis is and the Hudson School for Girls (1934) that is
used in the study of criminal networks in ways identified by many historians as the birth of social
that parallel its applications in those disciplines network analysis (e.g., Freeman, 2004: 7).
(e.g., Burt, 1983, 1992, 2000; Carrington, 1981; However, Moreno’s invention of sociometry is
Cross and Parker, 2004; Kilduff and Krackhardt, predated by Shaw and McKay’s (1931: 200–221)
2008; White, 1981, 2002). use of a two-mode incidence matrix (Borgatti and
Waring (2002: 43) has argued that the nature of Halgin, this volume) to study co-offending
criminal activity makes it best conceptualized as a cliques.2 Spaulding (1948) reviewed the early
network form of organization, rather than other development of the use of the concepts and
forms, such as the hierarchy or market, and that methods of social network analysis to study
criminal activity is therefore subsumed within a “cliques, gangs, and networks.”
broader class of activities organized as networks,
including policy coalitions, joint ventures, movie
projects, friendships, and business, political, and Do gangs exist?
community elites. Felson (2009) identified four Social network analysis has been used to address
levels of criminal cooperation, ranging from a central question in the literature on delinquent
“primordial clusters” to “an extended patrimonial and criminal groups and gangs: Do they really
system.” exist? Or are so-called gangs really just spontane-
A key difference between network research on ous, temporary, and opportunistic loosely knit,
criminal networks and on peer influence and shifting alliances of unorganized individuals?
neighborhood networks is that, in principle, There is a striking parallel to the question (see
criminal networks include only people who are below) of the degree of “organization” of
already involved in criminal activity, so the so-called organized crime groups. Network analy-
research questions involve not the etiology of ses of putative gang members have generally
crime, but its organization and the causes and found that they – like so-called organized crime
consequences thereof. Also, in contrast to peer groups – exhibit local clustering within larger
network studies, criminal network analyses are loosely knit networks, that is, small groups with
usually of whole networks rather than of personal two to a dozen or so members, with varying
or egocentric networks: that is, the networks are degrees of connection to other such groups (Daly,
generally not conceptually centered on individu- 2005; Fleisher, 2002; Hood and Sparks, 1970;
als, but comprise entire criminal groups, however Klein and Crawford, 1967; McGloin, 2005;
defined. (However, these “whole networks” are Reiss, 1988; Sarnecki, 1990, 2001, 2009; Short
often assembled from egocentric network data and Strodtbeck, 1965; Spergel, 1990: 203–4;
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 245

Warr, 1996, 2002: 39; Whyte, 1943). These find- (sub-)network, in which a central member is
ings motivate the use of local clustering (clique) connected to all other members, none of whom
analysis to identify delinquent groups within is connected to one another. Within these two
larger networks (e.g., Cadwallader and Cairns, structural types, she also distinguished networks
2002; Clarke-McLean, 1996; Sarnecki, 2001). by their size and role differentiation. She used
A different way of asking whether criminal qualitative analysis to explore why networks take
groups are really groups is to analyze the temporal on these forms and to look at the consequences
stability of their composition, that is, their of these structures for the activities of network
membership. Warr, for example, writes of “. . . the members. In a simulation study, Calvó-Armengol
extreme instability of [the membership of] most and Zenou (2004) found that Nash equilibria
delinquent groups . . . all groups are . . . so short- for delinquent competition and cooperation are
lived that it may make little sense to even speak of determined by the structure of links in the crimi-
delinquent groups at all . . .” (1996: 33; emphasis nal network.
in the original). Other research on delinquent Morselli and Tremblay (2004) showed that
groups has reached similar, though not always so nonredundancy in ego’s criminal contacts affects
extreme, conclusions (Sarnecki, 1990, 2001; van his or her criminal success, measuring nonredun-
Mastrigt, 2008; Warr, 1996). On the other hand, dancy by the “effective size” of the egocentric
Clarke-McLean (1996) found “reasonably stable” criminal network (Burt, 1992). McGloin
networks among a sample of 92 incarcerated and Piquero (2010) showed that redundancy,
youth – perhaps because they were incarcerated. measured by the density of ties in the egocentric
criminal network, is positively associated with
crime type specialization in ego’s co-offenses.
Homophily Individual centrality – and its inverse, periph-
Network research on delinquent groups has gener- erality – has been used as an indicator of the
ally found evidence of homophily (McPherson et extent of ego’s embeddedness in a criminal group
al., 2001) in relation to age, place of residence, (Sarnecki, 2001, 2004). Central members tend to
and criminal experience (Clarke-McLean, 1996; be the most criminally experienced and active
Daly, 2005; Sarnecki, 2001). There is strong (Sarnecki, 1990, 2001), to have the most criminal
gender homophily (Clarke-McLean, 1996), but it attitudes (Baron and Tindall, 1993), and to be at
is weaker for female offenders (Daly, 2005; most risk of violent victimization (Schreck et al.,
Fleisher, 2002; Sarnecki, 2001, 2004; Warr, 1996). 2004). Females tend to be less central than males
Carrington (2002) used a probabilistic model and (Sarnecki, 2004). Using data from the AddHealth
Canadian co-offending data to show that the lower Survey and Nash equilibrium analysis, Calvó-
level of homophily among female offenders is Armengol et al. found that an adolescent’s
explained by the offender sex ratio, and it does not Bonacich centrality in a network of delinquents
imply any preference (see also van Mastrigt, “is a key determinant of her level of [delinquent]
2008). Other research on mixed-sex delinquent activity” (2005: 1).
groups has found evidence of recruitment of girls McGloin (2005: 625–26) suggested that gang
by older males and of male influence over, and suppression efforts concentrate on members
exploitation of, females (Fleisher and Krienert, who are “cut-points” – that is, individuals who
2004; but cf. Pettersson, 2005), as well as gen- constitute the only connections between two
dered criminal roles in the group (Mullins and individuals or groups and are therefore ideally
Wright, 2003; Waring, 1993). There is racial or placed as “contagion agents” for a “deterrence
ethnic homophily in delinquent groups in the message.” However, the effectiveness of such
United States (Clarke-McLean, 1996; Daly, 2005) “key player” interdiction strategies (Borgatti,
and, in a more complex way, in Sweden (Pettersson, 2006) is called into question by empirical research
2003; Sarnecki, 2001). discussed below (Milward and Raab, 2006;
Morselli and Petit, 2007), suggesting the adapta-
bility of criminal networks in the face of threats,
Structure and by simulations that treat network structure as
Waring (1993) used data from presentence reports endogenous (Easton and Karaivanov, 2009).
for white-collar criminals sentenced in U.S.
federal courts during the 1980s to study the struc-
tures of white-collar co-offending networks. She Intergang networks
constructed 377 co-offending networks involving Papachristos (2009) studied the “social structure
747 sample members, focusing on networks that of gang homicide” by analyzing the social
had either of two configurations: the complete network formed by gang-related homicides in
(sub-)network, or clique, in which all members Chicago in 1994. The 66 gangs whose members
are directly connected to one another; and the star were involved in the homicides as perpetrators or
246 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

victims were defined as the nodes of the network, network analysis to study the organization of a
and the homicides themselves defined the directed cocaine trafficking group and found that it did fit
ties from the gang of the perpetrator to the gang of the classic “corporate” type of organization.
the victim. Longitudinal analyses supported the On the other hand, in a study of wiretapped
hypothesis of contagion (diffusion) of homicidal conversations among 294 members of a heroin-
behavior. Structural analyses confirmed that dealing network in New York City, combining
homicides were influenced by, and in turn affected, network concepts and measures, such as
the nature of members’ gang affiliations and the cohesiveness (density), subgroups (cliques), and
dominance structure of intergang relations. individuals’ power (centrality), with several other
forms of analysis, Natarajan (2006) concluded
that this population did not form a unitary
Organized crime organization or “conspiracy” but was a “loosely
structured network . . ., with little or no hierarchy”
The distinction between organized crime and (189). However, while this network had little
criminal gangs and groups is not clear-cut, but it “formal organization,” it did not lack what might
points to differences in scale, reach, type of be called “network organization”: there were
criminal activity, and motivation. The following elements of local clustering and stratification of
review of network analyses of organized crime is centrality. Similar conclusions are reached by
necessarily selective; additional references are several other recent studies of smuggling and
available in two recent literature reviews (Morselli, trafficking, such as Kenney’s (2007) analysis of
2009b; von Lampe, 2009). the Colombian drug trade, Heber’s (2009a)
Early research in the United States on the analysis of drug traffickers in Stockholm,
organization of the Mafia used a formal organiza- Desroches’s (2005) study of drug trafficking in
tion or hierarchical model, epitomized by the Canada, Xia’s (2008) review of organizational
reports in the 1950s and 1960s of the Kefauver structures in Chinese organized crime, and several
and McClellan Committees of the U.S. Senate studies of human smuggling and trafficking
(Albanese, 2007: 105–6; Cressey, 1969). However, (Kleemans, 2009; Lehti and Aromaa, 2006;
lack of fit with data on many criminal organiza- Soudijn and Kleemans, 2009; Surtees, 2008;
tions and activities led to dissatisfaction with this Zhang, 2008; Zhang and Gaylord, 1996).
model as being overly structured. On the other
hand, the economic enterprise model (Reuter,
1983), which conceptualizes criminal businesses Social capital
and markets as operating according to the
same principles of economic rationality as legal Two recurrent themes in the literature on organ-
business enterprises, has also been criticized for ized crime are the related problems of trust and of
its inadequacy (Liddick, 1999) – as it has in the access to resources. Criminal enterprise requires
analysis of legal business activity (Powell, 1990; the cooperation and coordination of multiple
White, 1981, 2002; Williamson, 1975). actors, sometimes very distant from one another
Some early research (e.g., Albini, 1971; Ianni, geographically, but criminal actors lack recourse
1974; Ianni and Reuss-Ianni, 1972; Lupsha, 1983) to conventional legal procedures for enforcement
suggested a network model, in which no particular of agreements. Thus, the issue of trust is
structure is assumed a priori, but rather the social especially salient in criminal enterprise, and social
organization of the group is derived “bottom-up” relations support trust, whether they are preexist-
(von Lampe, 2009: 94) from the observed ing (e.g., family, ethnicity, friendship) or have
configurations and qualities of connections and developed in the course of criminal collaboration
transactions among the actors, and the attributes (Bruinsma and Bernasco, 2004; Felson, 2009;
of the actors. While network analysis makes no Granovetter, 1985: 492; Kleemans, 2007;
prior assumptions about structure, a preference for Kleemans and de Poot, 2008; Kleemans and
the “network model” of organized crime implies van de Bunt, 1999; Morselli, 2003, 2005;
rejection of both the formal organization model Tremblay, 1993; von Lampe and Johansen, 2004;
and the economic model: the former having von Lampe, 2009; Waring, 2002: 38–39; but
too much structure, the latter too little (Waring, cf. van de Bunt, 2008). Another theme is the need
2002: 33). Thus, in the network model, criminal for connections – with suppliers, customers, and
groups and activities are seen as “a system of sources of funding and expertise (Morselli, 2005).
loosely structured [profit-oriented] relationships” Kleemans and his colleagues define the “social
(Albini, 1971, cited in Albanese, 2007: 110). opportunity structure” as “social ties providing
However, adoption of network analysis methods access to profitable criminal opportunities”
does not necessarily imply adoption of the net- (Kleemans and de Poot, 2008: 75) and emphasize
work model: for example, Natarajan (2000) used that access to such opportunities is limited and
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 247

distributed unequally over the population and over outlaw motorcycle gangs to assess structural
the life course (van Koppen et al., 2010). Their “weaknesses and vulnerabilities” in these groups
“social opportunity structure” is very similar to by identifying core, peripheral, and cut-point
the concept of social capital. For example, Lin members, and estimating overall gang cohesion
(2001: 19) defines social capital as “investment and communication flow paths, based on
in social relations with expected returns in the measures of density, centrality, clustering, and
marketplace,” or alternatively, “a social asset by bridging.
virtue of actors’ connections and access to Morselli (2003, 2005) used the concept of
resources in the network or group of which they structural holes (Burt, 1992; Hanneman and
are members.” Thus, Bouchard and Nguyen (2010) Riddle, this volume) to analyze the careers of two
contrasted the payoff from the social capital of a organized criminals, in an instance of criminal
sample of young cannabis cultivators, defined as network analysis that uses personal networks
“who you know – connections” or “resources in rather than whole networks. In a combined crime-
social networks,” with the payoff from criminal script and network analysis, Morselli and Roy
capital, defined as “what you know – talent” (2008) used two measures of brokerage (Burt,
or “[criminal] education, training, experience” 2005) – betweenness centrality (Hanneman and
(the equivalent of human capital in the noncrimi- Riddle, this volume), and brokerage leverage
nological literature). McCarthy and Hagan (1995; (Gould and Fernandez, 1989) – to analyze two
Hagan, 1997; Hagan and McCarthy, 1998) linked Canadian “ringing networks” involved in the sale
the notions of “who” and “what” one knows by of stolen vehicles. Morselli (2009a) used degree
defining criminal capital as the criminal knowl- centrality and betweenness centrality (brokerage)
edge and skill that are derived from embeddedness to study the organization of the criminal activities
in criminal networks. of the Hells Angels motorcycle club in the
province of Quebec – in particular to test the
hypothesis that they exhibited the tightly struc-
Structure tured hierarchical organization of the traditional
organized crime paradigm. The results indicated
Bruinsma and Bernasco (2004) found differences that the organization of criminal activities was
in cohesiveness (density), multiplexity, and more complex and nuanced.
clustering in the structures of networks operating
in the Netherlands and involved in international
trafficking in heroin, women, and stolen cars. Implications for interdiction
Networks of heroin trafficking – a high-risk
activity – were characterized by dense, multiplex Extending the work of Calvó-Armengol and
ties in a single cluster. Ties among those involved colleagues (above), Easton and Karaivanov (2009)
in the trafficking of women and stolen cars were identified “optimal criminal networks” by finding
less dense, tended to be uniplex and instrumental, Nash equilibria for simulated networks whose size
and each network had two or more clusters, con- and structure were allowed to vary (i.e., were
nected in a chain by intermediate individuals or endogenous) according to individuals’ decisions
clusters. They concluded that these differences concerning their level of criminal activity and
“appear to be related to the legal and financial their links to others in the network, taking into
risks . . . and . . . the [consequent] required level account crime-reduction efforts of the authorities.
of trust” (2004: 79). Canter (2004) used partial- They concluded that models that assume fixed
order scalogram analysis to compare the organiza- (i.e., exogenous) criminal network size and struc-
tion of 29 British drug-dealing, property-crime, ture can produce misleading results; for example,
or hooligan networks, along six dimensions of the policy of “taking out” the key player (Borgatti,
network structure. He identified three types of 2006) may not reduce crime, because criminals
groups – ad hoc, oligarchies, and organized may reconfigure their network in response.
criminals – that differed on two dominant axes Milward and Raab (2006: 333) concluded from
related to group size and leadership centrality. their review of research on the responses of Al
There was only a weak relationship between the Qaeda and of Colombian cocaine traffickers to
tripartite typologies of criminal activities and efforts by control agents to suppress them that the
of organizational structures. Heber (2009b) identi- resilience of “dark networks” lies in their ability
fied two central roles in the Swedish black market to “rebalance differentiation and integration
in construction labor: “fixers” and “network entre- mechanisms in their internal structure.” Morselli
preneurs”, and described the characteristics of the and Petit (2007) reached a similar conclusion
networks of each. McNally and Alston (2006) from their analysis of the reaction of a drug
used intelligence data on the associations and importation network in Montreal, Canada, to law
communications of members of three Canadian enforcement targeting.
248 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

Methodological and publishing their research. More generally, accu-

programmatic work rate and comprehensive data on “dark networks”
are, as the term implies, inherently difficult to
A substantial part of the literature on criminal obtain. The empirical research cited in this section
networks, or more generally “dark networks,”3 is a testament to the ingenuity and assiduousness
consists of methodological and programmatic of the authors. Perhaps the gradual diffusion of
papers that advocate the adoption of the “network knowledge of the value of social network analysis
model” or the use of social network analysis to in the study of criminal groups will result in better
study organized crime or that explain how to do access for criminologists to classified data.
network analysis, sometimes with illustrative case
studies. Classic examples are Davis (1981), Ianni
and Reuss-Ianni (1990), and Sparrow (1991a,
1991b). More recent examples include McIllwain
DISCUSSION
(1999), Coles (2001), Chattoe and Hamill (2005),
McAndrew (2000), Robins (2009), and van
der Hulst (2009). Many recent programmatic The use of social network analysis in criminology
contributions present new analytic methods or is in its infancy. The great majority of so-called
software for criminal network analysis (e.g., network studies of crime and delinquency con-
Borgatti, 2006; Carley et al., 2002; Chen, 2002; sider only the composition, or characteristics, of
Hadjidj et al., 2009; Hu et al., 2009; Huang, 2005; the members or of the networks, and not of the
Kaza et al., 2009; Marshall et al., 2008; Oatley, structure of their relationships. Most analyses of
2006; Oatley et al., 2005; Oatley et al., 2008; network structures are impressionistic, relying on
Rhodes and Keefe, 2007; Schwartz and Rouselle, visual examination of sociograms, rather than
2009; Smith and King, 2002; Stovin and Davies, being computational. Even the computational
2008; Tsvetovat and Carley, 2007; Tutzauer, analyses tend to limit themselves to the simplest
2007; Xu and Chen, 2003, 2005a, 2005b; Xu network concepts and indices, such as density and
et al., 2004). centrality. Few criminologists appreciate the
usefulness of social network analysis in modeling
criminological concepts and propositions, or
are trained in network methods, or use network
Conclusion analysis software. Suitable data are difficult to
Much of the social network research on criminal obtain or to generate.
networks is exploratory and descriptive, and it Nevertheless, a small number of criminologists
seeks to give a (literally) graphic account of the are knowledgeable in the concepts and methods of
structure of the networks being studied. Some social network analysis, and some have shown
research goes beyond description and explores the great ingenuity in finding or generating suitable
causes or consequences of compositional and data. They have produced a number of sophisti-
morphological variations in criminal networks. cated and powerful criminological network analy-
Researchers on organized crime networks, whose ses over the past decade. Much more needs to be
members are presumed to be predominantly done, particularly in training in social network
rational-instrumental in their behavior, have analysis and access to data. The recent publication
explored both task-related and environmental of the first pedagogical article on social network
determinants of network attributes and also the analysis to appear in a criminological journal
outcomes of these attributes in terms of organiza- (McGloin and Kirk, 2010) may be a harbinger of
tional success. Research on criminal networks has future developments.
also investigated the implications of network
attributes for interdiction strategies.
As van der Hulst (this volume) has pointed out
in relation to network analyses of terrorism, NOTES
researchers on criminal networks tend, with a few
exceptions, to fall into two distinct classes, each This chapter has benefited greatly from discus-
operating under severe constraints. Academic sions at the 7th Blankensee-Colloquium, Human
researchers have expertise in criminological theory Capital and Social Capital in Criminal Networks,
and research but tend to lack “domain expertise” Berlin, 2008, and from bibliographic suggestions and
and access to good data. Operational (crime) comments on a previous draft by Sean Bergin, Martin
analysts have domain expertise and access to clas- Bouchard, Reagan Daly, Edward Kleemans, Chris
sified data but tend to lack the motive or training Lewis, Carlo Morselli, Lynn Vincentnathan, Renée
to do research on criminological issues – or van der Hulst, Klaus von Lampe, and Frank Weerman.
may be prevented by secrecy considerations from Preparation of this chapter was supported by a grant
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 249

from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Browning, C.R., Feinberg, S.L. and Dietz, R.D. (2004) ‘The
Council of Canada. paradox of social organization: Networks, collective
1 For explanations of these and other network efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods’. Social
concepts, please see the chapters in this volume by Forces, 83(2): 503–34.
Hanneman and Riddle. Bruinsma, G.J.N. (1992) ‘Differential association theory
2 Frank and Carrington (2007; Frank, 2001) also reconsidered: An extension and its empirical test’. Journal
used a two-mode incidence matrix and a probabilistic of Quantitative Criminology, 8: 29–49.
model to estimate the “dark figures” in estimates of Bruinsma, G.J.N. and Bernasco, W. (2004) ‘Criminal groups
co-offending and individual criminal activity based on and transnational illegal markets – A more detailed
official data. examination on the basis of Social Network Theory’. Crime
3 “Dark networks” include both criminal and Law and Social Change, 41(1): 79–94.
terrorist networks, which are sometimes not distinct. Burgess, R.L. and Akers, R.L. (1966) ‘A differential associa-
I have included sources on “dark networks” in this tion-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior’. Social
chapter if they are particularly germane to the study Problems, 14: 128–47.
of organized crime; for a review of the literature on Burk, W.J., Kerr, M. and Stattin, H. (2008) ‘The co-evolution
social network analysis of terrorist networks, please of early adolescent friendship networks, school involve-
see the chapter by van der Hulst in this volume. ment, and delinquent behaviors’. Revue Française de
Sociologie, 49(3): 499–522.
Burk, W.J., Steglich, C.E.G. and Snijders, T.A.B. (2007)
‘Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models
for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors’.
REFERENCES International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4):
397–404.
Albanese, J.S. (2007) Organized Crime in Our Times. 5th ed. Burt, R.S. (1983) Corporate Profits and Cooptation. New York:
Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Academic Press.
Albini, J.L. (1971) The American Mafia: Genesis of a Legend. Burt, R.S. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of
New York: Irvington. Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Aldrich, H. (1979) Organizations and Environments. Englewood Burt, R.S. (2000) ‘The network structure of social capital’, in
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw (eds), Research in
Baerveldt, C. and Snijders, T.A.B. (1994) ‘Influences on and Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
from the segmentation of networks – hypotheses and Burt, R.S. (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to
tests’. Social Networks, 16(3): 213–32. Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baerveldt, C., Van Rossem, R., Vermande, M. and Weerman, Cadwallader, T.W. and Cairns, R.B. (2002) ‘Developmental
F. (2004) ‘Students’ delinquency and correlates with strong influences and gang awareness among African-American
and weaker ties: A study of students’ networks in Dutch inner city youth’. Social Development, 11(2): 245–65.
high schools’. Connections, 26(1): 11–28. Calvó-Armengol, A., Patacchini, E. and Zenou, Y. (2005) Peer
Baerveldt, C., Voelker, B. and Van Rossem, R. (2008) Effects and Social Networks in Education and Crime.
‘Revisiting selection and influence: An inquiry into the Working Paper. Vol. 645. Stockholm: Research Institute of
friendship networks of high school students and their Industrial Economics.
association with delinquency’. Canadian Journal of Calvó-Armengol, A. and Zenou, Y. (2004) ‘Social networks
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50(5): 559–87. and crime decisions: The role of social structure in facilitat-
Baron, S.W. and Tindall, D.B. (1993) ‘Network structure and ing delinquent behavior’. International Economic Review,
delinquent attitudes within a juvenile gang’. Social 45(3): 939–58.
Networks, 15(3): 255–73. Canter, D. (2004) “A partial order scalogram analysis of
Bernburg, J.G., Krohn, M.D. and Rivera, C.J. (2006) ‘Official criminal network structures.” Behaviormetrika, 31(2):
labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delin- 131–52.
quency – A longitudinal test of labeling theory’. Journal of Capowich, G.E., Mazerolle, P. and Piquero, A. (2001) ‘General
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1): 67–88. strain theory, situational anger, and social networks – An
Borgatti, S. (2006) ‘Identifying sets of key players in a social assessment of conditioning influences’. Journal of Criminal
network’. Computational & Mathematical Organization Justice, 29(5): 445–61.
Theory, 12(1): 21–34. Carley, K.M., Lee, J.-S.L. and Krackhardt, D. (2002)
Bouchard, M. and Nguyen, H. (2010) ‘Is it who you know, ‘Destabilizing networks’. Connections, 24(3): 79–92.
or how many that counts? Criminal networks and cost Carrington, P.J. (1981) ‘Horizontal co-optation through corpo-
avoidance in a sample of young offenders’. Justice rate interlocks’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Quarterly, 27: 130–58. Carrington, P.J. (2002) ‘Sex homogeneity in co-offending
Brook, J.S., Brook, D.W., Rosen, Z. and Rabbitt, C.R. (2003) groups’, in J. Hagberg (ed.), Contributions to Social
‘Earlier marijuana use and later problem behavior in Network Analysis, Information Theory and Other Topics in
Colombian youths’. Journal of the American Academy of Statistics. A Festschrift in Honour of Ove Frank. Stockholm:
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(4): 485–92. Stockholm University. pp. 101–16.
250 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

Chattoe, E. and Hamill, H. (2005) ‘It’s not who you know – It’s Felson, M. (2009) ‘The natural history of extended co-offend-
what you know about people you don’t know that counts ing’. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2): 159–65.
– Extending the analysis of crime groups as social net- Fleisher, M.S. (2002) ‘Doing field research on diverse gangs:
works’. British Journal of Criminology, 45(6): 860–76. Interpreting youth gangs as social networks’, in C. Ronald
Chen, H.C. (2002) ‘From digital library to digital government: Huff (ed.), Gangs in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A case study in crime data mapping and mining’. Digital pp. 199–217.
Libraries: People, Knowledge, and Technology, Proceedings. Fleisher, M.S. and Krienert, J.L. (2004) ‘Life-course events,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2555. Berlin: social networks, and the emergence of violence among
Springer-Verlag. female gang members’. Journal of Community Psychology
Clarke-McLean, J.G. (1996) ‘Social networks among 32: 607–22.
incarcerated juvenile offenders’. Social Development, 5(2): Frank, O. (2001) ‘Statistical estimation of co-offending youth
203–17. networks’. Social Networks, 23(3): 203–14.
Clear, T.R. (2008) ‘The effects of high imprisonment rates on Frank, O. and Carrington, P.J. (2007) ‘Estimation of offending
communities’, in Michael Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A and co-offending using available data with model support’.
Review of Research. Vol. 37. Chicago: University of Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 31(1): 1–46.
Chicago Press. pp. 97–132. Freeman, L.C. (2004) The Development of Social Network
Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979) ‘Social Change and Crime Analysis. Vancouver, BC: Empirical Press.
Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach’. American Friday, P.C. and Hage, J. (1976) ‘Youth crime in postindustrial
Sociological Review, 44: 588–608. societies: An integrated perspective’. Criminology, 14:
Coles, N. (2001) ‘It’s not what you know – It’s who you 347–68.
know that counts. Analysing serious crime groups as Friedman, S.R., Mateu-Gelabert, P., Curtis, R., Maslow, C.,
social networks’. British Journal of Criminology, 41(4): Bolyard, M., Sandoval, M. and Flom, P.L. (2007) ‘Social
580–94. capital or networks, negotiations, and norms? A neighbor-
Cressey, D.R. (1969) Theft of the Nation. New York: hood case study’. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
Harper Row. 32(6): S160–S170.
Cross, R.L. and Parker, A. (2004) The Hidden Power of Social Gainey, R.R., Peterson, P.L., Wells, E.A., Hawkins, J.D. and
Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Catalano, R.F. (1995) ‘The social networks of cocaine users
Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. seeking treatment’, Addiction Research, 3: 17–32.
Curry, A.D. and Latkin, C.A. (2003) ‘Gender differences in Galster, G.C. and Killen, S.P. (1995) ‘The geography of
street economy and social network correlates of arrest metropolitan opportunity – A reconnaissance and concep-
among heroin injectors in Baltimore, Maryland’. Journal of tual-framework’. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1): 7–43.
Urban Health, 80: 482–93. Galster, G.C. and Mikelsons, M. (1995) ‘The geography of
Daly, R.M. (2005) ‘Delinquent networks in Philadelphia: The metropolitan opportunity – A case-study of neighborhood
structure of co-offending among juveniles’. Ph.D. thesis, conditions confronting youth in Washington, DC’. Housing
University of Pennsylvania. Policy Debate, 6(1): 73–102.
Davis, R.H. (1981) ‘Social network analysis – An aid in Gayne, M.K. (2004) ‘Illicit wigmaking in eighteenth-century
conspiracy investigations’. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Paris’. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 38(1): 119–37.
50(12): 11–19. Giordano, P.C., Cernkovich, S.A. and Demaris, A. (1993)
Deptula, D.P. and Cohen, R. (2004) ‘Aggressive, rejected, and ‘The family and peer relations of black-adolescents’.
delinquent children and adolescents: A comparison of their Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(2): 277–87.
friendships’. Aggression and Violent Behavior 9(1): Gottfredson, M.R. and Hirschi, T. (1990) A General Theory of
75–104. Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Desroches, F.J. (2005) The Crime That Pays: Drug Trafficking Gould, R.V. and Fernandez, R.M. (1989) ‘Structures of media-
and Organized Crime in Canada. Toronto: Canadian tion: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction net-
Scholars’ Press. works’, in Clifford C. Clogg (ed.), Sociological Methodology.
Easton, S.T. and Karaivanov, A.K. (2009) ‘Understanding Vol. 19. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. pp. 89–126.
optimal criminal networks’. Global Crime, 10(1): 41–65. Granovetter, M. (1973) ‘Strength of weak ties’. American
Ekland-Olson, S. (1983) ‘Deviance, social control and social Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–80.
networks’. Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control, Granovetter, M. (1985) ‘Economic action and social structure:
4: 271–99. The problem of embeddedness’. American Journal of
Elliott, D.S. and Menard, S. (1996) ‘Delinquent friends and Sociology, 91: 481–510.
delinquent behavior: Temporal and developmental Griffith, J.D., Knight, D.K., Joe, G.W. and Simpson, D.D.
patterns’, in J. D. Hawkins (ed.), Delinquency and Crime: (1998) ‘Implications of family and peer relations for
Current Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. treatment engagement and follow-up outcomes: An inte-
pp. 28–67. grative model’. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 12(2):
Espelage, D.L., Green, H.D., Jr. and Wasserman, S. (2007) 113–26.
‘Statistical analysis of friendship patterns and bullying Gutierrez-Lobos, K., Eher, R., Grunhut, C., Bankier, B.,
behaviors among youth’. New Directions for Child and Schmidl-Mohl, B., Fruhwald, S. and Semler, B.
Adolescent Development, 118: 61–75. (2001) ‘Violent sex offenders lack male social support’.
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 251

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Ianni, F.A.J. and Reuss-Ianni, E. (1990) ‘Network analysis’. In
Criminology, 45(1): 70–82. Paul P. Andrews, Jr. and Marilyn B. Peterson (eds), Criminal
Hadjidj, R., Debbabi, M., Lounis, H., Iqbal, F., Szporer, A. and Intelligence Analysis. Loomis, CA: Palmer Enterprises.
Benredjem, D. (2009) ‘Towards an integrated e-mail pp. 67–84.
forensic analysis framework’. Digital Investigation, 5(3–4): James, S.E., Johnson, J. and Raghavan, C. (2004) ‘“I couldn’t
124–37. go anywhere” – Contextualizing violence and drug abuse:
Hagan, J. (1997) ‘Crime and capitalization: Toward a develop- A social network study’. Violence against Women, 10(9):
mental theory of street crime in America’, in Terence P. 991–1014.
Thornberry (ed), Developmental Theories of Crime and Kandel, D. and Davies, M. (1991) ‘Friendship networks,
Delinquency. Vol. 7 of Advances in Criminological Theory. intimacy, and illicit drug-use in young adulthood – A
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. pp. 287–308. comparison of 2 competing theories’. Criminology, 29(3):
Hagan, J. and McCarthy, B. (1998) Mean Streets: Youth Crime 441–469.
and Homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Kaza, S., Xu, J., Marshall, B. and Chen, H. (2009) ‘Topological
Press. analysis of criminal activity networks: Enhancing transpor-
Handel, M.J. (ed) (2003) Sociology of Organizations: Classic, tation security’. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Contemporary and Critical Readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Transportation Systems, 10(1): 83–91.
Sage. Kennedy, B.P., Kawachi, I. and Brainerd, E. (1998) ‘The role of
Hanson, R.K. and Scott, H. (1996) ‘Social networks of social capital in the Russian mortality crisis’. World
sexual offenders’. Psychology Crime and Law, 2(4): Development, 26(11): 2029–43.
249–58. Kenney, M. (2007) ‘The architecture of drug trafficking:
Harding, D.J. (2009) ‘Violence, older peers, and the socializa- Network forms of organisation in the Colombian cocaine
tion of adolescent boys in disadvantaged neighborhoods’. trade’. Global Crime, 8(3): 233–59.
American Sociological Review, 74(3): 445–64. Kilduff, M. and Krackhardt, D. (2008) Interpersonal Networks
Haynie, D.L. (2001) ‘Delinquent peers revisited: Does network in Organizations: Cognition, Personality, Dynamics, and
structure matter?’ American Journal of Sociology, 106(4): Culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
1013–57. Kirke, D.M. (1990) ‘Teenage drug abuse: An individualistic
Haynie, D.L. (2002) ‘Friendship networks and delinquency: and structural analysis’. Ph.D. thesis. University College,
The relative nature of peer delinquency’. Journal of Dublin.
Quantitative Criminology, 18(2): 99–134. Kirke, D.M. (1995) ‘Teenage peer networks in the community
Haynie, D.L. and Osgood, D.W. (2005) ‘Reconsidering peers as sources of social problems: A sociological perspective’,
and delinquency: How do peers matter?’ Social Forces, in T. S. Brugha (ed.), Social Support and Psychiatric
84(2): 1109–30. Disorder: Research Findings and Guidelines for Clinical
Haynie, D.L. and Piquero, A.R. (2006) ‘Pubertal development Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
and physical victimization in adolescence’. Journal of Kirke, D.M. (2006) Teenagers and Substance Use. New York:
Research in Crime and Delinquency 43(1): 3–35. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Heber, A. (2009a) ‘The networks of drug offenders’. Trends in Kleemans, E.R. (2007) ‘Organized crime, transit crime, and
Organized Crime, 12(1): 1–20. racketeering. Crime and justice in the Netherlands’, in
Heber, A. (2009b) ‘Networks of organised black market labour Michael Tonry and Catrien Bijleveld (eds) Crime and
in the building trade’. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2): Justice: A Review of Research. Vol. 35. Chicago: University
122–44. of Chicago Press. pp. 163-215.
Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University Kleemans, E.R. (2009) ‘Human smuggling and human
of California Press. trafficking’, in Michael Tonry (ed.), The Oxford Handbook
Hood, R. and Sparks, R. (1970) Key Issues in Criminology. of Crime and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University
New York: McGraw-Hill. Press.
Houtzager, B. and Baerveldt, C. (1999) ‘Just like normal: A Kleemans, E.R. and van de Bunt, H.G. (1999) ‘Social embed-
social network study of the relation between petty crime dedness of organized crime,. Transnational Organized
and the intimacy of adolescent friendships’. Social Behavior Crime, 5(1): 19–36.
and Personality, 27(2): 177–92. Kleemans, E.R. and de Poot, C.J. (2008) ‘Criminal careers in
Hu, D., Kaza, S. and Chen, H. (2009) ‘Identifying significant organized crime and social opportunity structure’. European
facilitators of dark network evolution’. Journal of the Journal of Criminology, 5(1): 69–98.
American Society for Information Science and Technology, Klein, M.W. and Crawford, L.Y. (1967) ‘Groups, gangs, and
60(4): 655–65. cohesiveness’. Journal of Research in Crime and
Huang, C.Y. (2005) ‘File sharing as a form of music consump- Delinquency, 4(1): 63–75.
tion’. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(4): Knight, D.K. and Simpson, D.D. (1996) ‘Influences of family
37–55. and friends on client progress during drug abuse treat-
Ianni, F.A.J. (1974) Black Mafia: Ethnic Succession in ment’. Journal of Substance Abuse, 8(4): 417–29.
Organized Crime. New York: Simon and Schuster. Korobow, A., Johnson, C. and Axtell, R. (2007) ‘An agent-
Ianni, F.A.J. and Reuss-Ianni, E. (1972) A Family Business. based model of tax compliance with social networks’.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. National Tax Journal, 60: 589–610.
252 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

Krohn, M.D. (1986) ‘The web of conformity: A network McAndrew, D. (2000) ‘The structural analysis of criminal
approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior’. Social networks’, in David Canter and Laurence Alison (eds), The
Problems, 33(6): S81–S93. Social Psychology of Crime: Groups, Teams and Networks.
Krohn, M.D., Massey, J.L. and Zielinski, M. (1988) ‘Role Vol. III. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. pp. 51–94.
overlap, network multiplexity, and adolescent deviant- McCarthy, B., Felmlee, D. and Hagan, J. (2004) ‘Girl friends
behavior’. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(4): 346–356. are better: Gender, friends, and crime among school and
Lacasse, A., Purdy, K.T. and Mendelson, M.J. (2003) ‘The street youth’. Criminology, 42(4): 805–35.
mixed company they keep: Potentially offensive sexual McCarthy, B. and Hagan, J. (1995) ‘Getting into street
behaviours among adolescents’. International Journal of crime – The structure and process of criminal embedded-
Behavioral Development, 27(6): 532–40. ness’. Social Science Research, 24(1): 63–95.
Laird, R.D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A. and Bates, J.E. (1999) McGloin, J.M. (2005) ‘Policy and intervention considerations
‘Best friendships, group relationships, and antisocial of a network analysis of street gangs’. Criminology and
behavior in early adolescence’. Journal of Early Adolescence, Public Policy, 4(3): 607–36.
19: 413–37. McGloin, J.M. (2009) ‘Delinquency balance: Revisiting peer
Lee, J.S. (2004) ‘Generating networks of illegal drug users influence’. Criminology, 47(2): 439–77.
using large samples of partial ego-network data’. McGloin, J.M. and Kirk, D.S. (2010) ‘An overview of social
Intelligence and Security Informatics, Proceedings. Lecture network analysis’. Journal of Criminal Justice Education,
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3073. Berlin: Springer- 21: 169–81.
Verlag. McGloin, J.M. and Piquero, A.R. (2010) ‘On the relationship
Lehti, M. and Aromaa, K. (2006) ‘Trafficking for sexual between co-offending network redundancy and offending
exploitation’, in Michael Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: versatility’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
A Review of Research, 34: 133–227. 47: 63–90.
Leighton, B. (1988) ‘The community concept in criminology – McGloin, J.M. and Shermer, L.O’N. (2009) ‘Self-control and
Toward a social network approach’. Journal of Research in deviant peer network structure’. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 25(4): 351–74. Crime and Delinquency. 46(1): 35–72.
Lichtenstein, B. (1997) ‘Women and crack-cocaine use: McIllwain, J.S. (1999) ‘Organized crime: A social
A study of social networks and HIV risk in an Alabama jail network approach’. Crime Law and Social Change, 32(4):
sample’. Addiction Research, 5(4): 279–96. 301–23.
Liddick, D. (1999) ‘The enterprise ‘model’ of organized crime: McNally, D. and Alston, J. (2006) ‘Use of social network
Assessing theoretical propositions’. Justice Quarterly, 16(2): analysis (SNA) in the examination of an outlaw motorcycle
403–30. gang’. Journal of Gang Research, 13(3): 1–25.
Light, J.M. and Dishion, T.J. (2007) ‘Early adolescent antisocial McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J.M. (2001) ‘Birds
behavior and peer rejection: A dynamic test of a develop- of a feather: Homophily in social networks’. Annual Review
mental process’. New Directions for Child and Adolescent of Sociology, 27: 415–44.
Development, 118: 77–89. Meldrum, R.C., Young, J.T.N. and Weerman, F.M. (2009)
Lin, N. (2001) Social Capital. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge ‘Reconsidering the effect of self-control and delinquent
University Press. peers: implications of measurement for theoretical signifi-
Lonardo, R.A., Giordano, P.C., Longmore, M.A. and Manning, cance’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
W.D. (2009) ‘Parents, friends, and romantic partners: 46: 353–76.
Enmeshment in deviant networks and adolescent delin- Milward, H.B. and Raab, J. (2006) ‘Dark networks as organi-
quency involvement’. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, zational problems: Elements of a theory’. International
38(3): 367–83. Public Management Journal, 9(3): 333–60.
Lupsha, P. (1983) ‘Networks versus networking: Analysis of an Monge, P.R. and Contractor, N. (2003) Theories of
organized crime group’, in G. Waldo (ed.), Career Criminals. Communication Networks. New York: Oxford University
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 59–87. Press.
Mangino, W. (2009) ‘The downside of social closure: Moreno, J.L. (1932) Application of the Group Method to
Brokerage, parental influence, and delinquency among Classification. New York: National Committee on Prisons
African American boys’. Sociology of Education, 82(2): and Prison Labor.
147–72. Moreno, J.L. (1934) Who Shall Survive? Washington, DC:
Marshall, B., Chen, H. and Kaza, S. (2008) ‘Using importance Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.
flooding to identify interesting networks of criminal Morselli, C. (2003) ‘Career opportunities and network-based
activity’. Journal of the American Society for Information privileges in the Cosa Nostra’. Crime Law and Social
Science and Technology, 59(13): 2099–114. Change, 39(4): 383–418.
Matsueda, R.L. (2006) ‘Differential social organization, Morselli, C. (2005) Contacts, Opportunities, and Criminal
collective action, and crime’. Crime Law and Social Change, Enterprise. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
46: 3–33. Morselli, C. (2009a) ‘Hells Angels in springtime’. Trends in
Matsueda, R.L. and Anderson, K. (1998) ‘The dynamics of Organized Crime, 12(2): 145–58.
delinquent peers and delinquent behavior’. Criminology, Morselli, C. (2009b) Inside Criminal Networks. New York:
36(2): 269–308. Springer.
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 253

Morselli, C. and Petit, K. (2007) ‘Law-enforcement disruption Perrow, C. (1986) Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay.
of a drug importation network’. Global Crime, 8(2): 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
109–30. Pettersson, T. (2003) ‘Ethnicity and violent crime: The ethnic
Morselli, C. and Roy, J. (2008) ‘Brokerage qualifications in structure of networks of youths suspected of violent
ringing operations’. Criminology, 46(1): 71–98. offences in Stockholm’. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in
Morselli, C. and Tremblay, P. (2004) ‘Criminal achievement, Criminology and Crime Prevention, 4(2): 143–61.
offender networks and the benefits of low self-control’. Pettersson, T. (2005) ‘Gendering delinquent networks.
Criminology, 42(3): 773–804. A gendered analysis of violent crimes and the structure of
Moss, H.B., Lynch, K.G. and Hardie, T.L. (2003) ‘Affiliation boys’ and girls’ co-offending networks’. Young Nordic
with deviant peers among children of substance dependent Journal of Youth Research, 13(3): 247–67.
fathers from pre-adolescence into adolescence: Associations Powell, W. (1990) ‘Neither hierarchies nor markets’, in Barry
with problem behaviors’. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Shaw and L. L. Cummings (eds), Research in Organizational
71: 117–25. Behavior. Vol. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 295–336.
Mullins, C.W. and Wright, R. (2003) ‘Gender, social networks, Reiss, A.J., Jr. (1988) ‘Co-offending and criminal careers’, in
and residential burglary’. Criminology, 41(3): 813–39. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (eds), Crime and Justice:
Myers, D.J. (2000) ‘The diffusion of collective violence: A Review of Research. 10” 117–70.
infectiousness, susceptibility, and mass media networks’. Reuter, P. (1983) Disorganized Crime: The Economics of the
American Journal of Sociology, 106: 173–208. Visible Hand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Natarajan, M. (2000) ‘Understanding the structure of a drug Rhodes, C.J. and Keefe, E.M.J. (2007) ‘Social network
trafficking organization: A conversational analysis’. Crime topology: A Bayesian approach’. Journal of the Operational
Prevention Studies, 11: 273–98. Research Society, 58(12): 1605–11.
Natarajan, M. (2006) ‘Understanding the structure of a large Robins, G. (2009) ‘Understanding individual behaviors within
heroin distribution network: A quantitative analysis of covert networks: The interplay of individual qualities,
qualitative data’. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, psychological predispositions, and network effects’. Trends
22(2): 171–92. in Organized Crime, 12(2): 166–87.
Oatley, G. (2006) ‘Decision support systems for police: Lessons Romans, S.E., Potter, K., Martin, J. and Herbison, P. (2001)
from the application of data mining techniques to “soft” ‘The mental and physical health of female sex workers: A
forensic evidence’. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14: comparative study’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
35–100. Psychiatry, 35(1): 75–80.
Oatley, G.C., Belem, B., Fernandes, K., Hoggarth, E., Holland, Sampson, R.J. (1987) ‘Communities and crime’, in Michael R.
B., Lewis, C., Meier, P., Morgan, K., Santhanam, J. and Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (Eds.), Positive Criminology.
Squires, P. (2008) ‘The gang gun crime problem – Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 91–114.
Solutions from social network theory, epidemiology, Sampson, R.J. (2003) ‘The neighborhood context of
cellular automata, Bayesian networks and spatial statis- well-being’. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 46(3):
tics’, Computational Forensics. New York: Springer. S53–S64.
Oatley, G., Zeleznikow, J., Leary, R. and Ewart, B. (2005) Sampson, R.J. (2004a) ‘Networks and neighbourhoods: The
‘From links to meaning: A burglary data case study’. implications of connectivity for thinking about crime in the
Knowledge-based Intelligent Information and Engineering modern city’, in Helen McCarthy, Paul Miller and Paul
Systems, Part 4, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Skidmore (eds), Network Logic: Who Governs in an
Intelligence, vol. 3684. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Interconnected World? London, UK: Demos. 157–66.
Osgood, D.W., Wilson, J.K., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G. Sampson, R.J. (2004b) ‘Neighbourhood and community:
and Johnston, L.D. (1996) ‘Routine activities and individual Collective efficacy and community safety’. New Economy,
deviant behavior’. American Sociological Review, 11: 106–13.
61: 635–55. Sampson, R.J. (2006a) ‘How does community context matter?
Papachristos, A.V. (2009) ‘Murder by structure: Dominance Social mechanisms and the explanation of crime rates’, in
relations and the social structure of gang homicide’. Per-Olof Wikström and Robert J. Sampson (Eds.), The
American Journal of Sociology, 115(1): 74–128. Explanation of Crime: Context, Mechanisms, and
Patacchini, E. and Zenou, Y. (2008) ‘The strength of weak ties Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
in crime’. European Economic Review, 52(2): 209–36. pp. 31–60.
Pattillo, M.E. (1998) ‘Sweet mothers and gangbangers: Sampson, R.J. (2006b) ‘Collective efficacy theory: Lessons
Managing crime in a black middle-class neighborhood’. learned and directions for future inquiry’, in Francis T.
Social Forces, 76(3): 747–74. Cullen, John Paul Wright and Kristie R. Blevins (eds),
Pearson, M. and West, P. (2003) ‘Drifting smoke rings: Social Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory. Vol. 15.
network analysis and Markov processes in a longitudinal New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. pp. 149–67.
study of friendship groups and risk-taking’. Connections, Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W. and Earls, F. (1997)
25(2): 59–76. ‘Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of
Pepall, L., Richards, D. and Norman, G. (eds) (2008) Industrial collective efficacy’. Science, 277(5328): 918–24.
Organization: Contemporary Theory and Empirical Sarnecki, J. (1990) ‘Delinquent networks in Sweden’. Journal
Applications. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. of Quantitative Criminology, 6(1): 31–50.
254 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

Sarnecki, J. (2001) Delinquent Networks: Youth Co- Sparrow, M.K. (1991b) ‘Network vulnerabilities and
offending in Stockholm. Cambridge: Cambridge University strategic intelligence in law enforcement’. International
Press. Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 5(3):
Sarnecki, J. (2004) ‘Girls and boys in delinquent networks’. 255–74.
International Annals of Criminology, 42: 29–57. Spaulding, C.B. (1948) ‘Cliques, gangs and networks’.
Sarnecki, J. (2009) ‘Delinquent networks: youth co-offending’, Sociology and Social Research, 32: 928–37.
in Hans Joachim Schneider (ed.), Internationales Handbuch Spergel, I.A. (1990) ‘Youth gangs: Continuity and change’, in
der Kriminologie. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (eds), Crime and Justice:
pp. 995–1023. A Review of Research. Vol. 12. Chicago: University of
Schreck, C.J., Fisher, Bonnie S. and Miller, J.M. (2004) Chicago Press. pp. 171–275.
‘The social context of violent victimization: A study of the Stovin, G. and Davies, C. (2008) ‘Beyond the network:
delinquent peer effect’. Justice Quarterly, 21: 23–47. A crime science approach to organized crime’. Policing,
Schroeder, R.D., Giordano, P.C. and Cernkovich, S.A. (2007) 2(4): 497–505.
‘Drug use and desistance processes’. Criminology, 45(1): Sung, H.E., Belenko, S., Feng, L. and Tabachnick, C. (2004)
191–222. ‘Predicting treatment noncompliance clients: A theoretical
Schwartz, D.M. and Rouselle, T. (2009) ‘Using social network and among criminal justice-mandated empirical explora-
analysis to target criminal networks’. Trends in Organized tion’. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26(1):
Crime, 12(2): 188–207. 315–28.
Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. (1931) Social Factors in Juvenile Surtees, R. (2008) ‘Traffickers and trafficking in Southern
Delinquency. Report on the Causes of Crime. Vol. II. and Eastern Europe: Considering the other side of human
Washington, DC: National Commission on Law Observance trafficking’. European Journal of Criminology, 5(1):
and Enforcement. 39–68.
Shaw, C.R., Zorbaugh, F.M., McKay, H.D. and Cottrell, L.S. Sutherland, E.H. (1939) Principles of Criminology. 3rd ed.
(1929) Delinquency Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Press. Sutherland, E.H., Cressey, D.R. and Luckenbill, D.F. (1992)
Shih, H.-Y. and Chang, T.-L.S. (2009) ‘International diffusion Principles of Criminology. 11th ed. Dix Hills, NY: General
of embodied and disembodied technology: A network Hall.
analysis approach’. Technological Forecasting and Social Sweetser, F.L., Jr. (1942) ‘A new emphasis for neighborhood
Change 76: 821–34. research’. American Sociological Review, 7: 525–33.
Shivy, V.A., Wu, J.J., Moon, A.E., Mann, Shay C., Holland, J.G. Thornberry, T.P. (1987) ‘Toward an interactional theory of
and Eacho, C. (2007) ‘Ex-offenders reentering the delinquency’. Criminology, 25(4): 863–91.
workforce’. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4): Tremblay, P. (1993) ‘Searching for suitable co-offenders’, in
466–73. Ronald V. Clarke and Marcus Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity
Shoemaker, D.J. (2005) Theories of Delinquency. 5th ed. and Rational Choice. Advances in Criminological Theory.
New York: Oxford University Press. 5: 17–36.
Short, J.F., Jr. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1965) Group Process and Triplett, R.A., Gainey, R.R. and Sun, I.Y. (2003) ‘Institutional
Gang Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago strength, social control and neighborhood crime rates’.
Press. Theoretical Criminology, 7(4): 439–67.
Skeem, J., Louden, J.E., Manchak, S., Vidal, S. and Haddad, E. Tsvetovat, M. and Carley, K. (2007) ‘On effectiveness of
(2009) ‘Social networks and social control of probationers wiretap programs in mapping social networks’.
with co-occurring mental and substance abuse problems’. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory,
Law and Human Behavior, 33(2): 122–35. 13(1): 63–87.
Smith, M.N. and King, P.J.H. (2002) ‘Incrementally visualising Tutzauer, F. (2007) ‘Entropy as a measure of centrality in
criminal networks’. Proceedings of the Sixth International networks characterized by path-transfer flow’. Social
Conference on Information Visualisation, 2002. Networks, 29: 249–65.
Snijders, T.A.B. and Baerveldt, C. (2003) ‘A multilevel network Valente, T.W. (1995) Network Models of the Diffusion of
study of the effects of delinquent behavior on friendship Innovations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
evolution’. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27(2–3): van de Bunt, H. (2008) ‘A case study on the misuse of hawala
123–51. banking’. International Journal of Social Economics, 35(9):
Sommers, I., Baskin, D.R. and Fagan, J. (1994) ‘Getting out of 691–702.
the life – crime desistance by female street offenders’. van der Hulst, R.C. (2009) ‘Introduction to Social Network
Deviant Behavior, 15(2): 125–49. Analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool’. Trends in Organized
Soudijn, M.R.J. and Kleemans, E.R. (2009) ‘Chinese organized Crime, 12(1): 101–21.
crime and situational context: Comparing human smug- van der Poel, A. and van de Mheen, D. (2006) ‘Young people
gling and synthetic drugs trafficking’. Crime, Law and using crack and the process of marginalization’. Drugs-
Social Change, 52: 457–74. Education Prevention and Policy, 13(1): 45–59.
Sparrow, M.K. (1991a) ‘The application of network analysis to van Koppen, M.V., de Poot, C.J., Kleemans, E.R. and
criminal intelligence – An assessment of the prospects’. Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010) ‘Criminal trajectories in organized
Social Networks, 13(3): 251–74. crime’. British Journal of Criminology, 50: 102–23.
 CRIME AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 255

van Mastrigt, S.B. (2008) Co-Offending: Relationships with White, H.C. (2002) Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic
Age, Gender and Crime Type. Ph.D. thesis. University of Models of Production. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Cambridge. Press.
von Lampe, K. (2009) ‘Human capital and social capital in Whyte, W.F. (1943) Street Corner Society. Chicago: University
criminal networks: introduction to the special issue on the of Chicago Press.
7th Blankensee Colloquium’. Trends in Organized Crime, Wild, T.C., Cunningham, J.A. and Ryan, R.M. (2006) ‘Social
12(2): 93–100. pressure, coercion, and client engagement at treatment
von Lampe, K. and Johansen, P.O. (2004) ‘Organized crime entry: A self-determination theory perspective’. Addictive
and trust: On the conceptualization and empirical relevance Behaviors, 31(10): 1858–72.
of trust in the context of criminal networks’. Global Crime, Williamson, O.E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and
6: 159–84. Antitrust Implications. New York: Macmillan.
Waring, E.J. (1993) ‘Co-offending in white-collar crime: A Xia, M. (2008) ‘Organizational formations of organized crime
network approach’. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University. in China: Perspectives from the state, markets, and
Waring, E.J. (2002) ‘Co-offending as a network form of social networks’. Journal of Contemporary China, 17(54): 1–23.
organization’, in Elin J. Waring and David Weisburd (eds), Xu, J. and Chen, H.C. (2003) ‘Untangling criminal networks:
Crime and Social Organization. Vol. 10. New Brunswick, A case study’. Intelligence and Security Informatics,
NJ: Transaction. pp. 31–47. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2665.
Warner, B.D. and Rountree, P.W. (1997) ‘Local social ties in a Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
community and crime model: Questioning the systemic Xu, J. and Chen, H.C. (2005a) Criminal network analysis
nature of informal social control’. Social Problems, 44(4): and visualization’. Communications of the ACM, 48(6):
520–36. 100–107.
Warr, M. (1993) ‘Age, peers, and delinquency’. Criminology, Xu, J. and Chen, H.C. (2005b) ‘CrimeNet explorer: A frame-
31(1): 17–40. work for criminal network knowledge discovery’. ACM
Warr, M. (1996) ‘Organization and instigation in delinquent Transactions on Information Systems, 23(2): 201–26.
groups’. Criminology, 34(1): 11–37. Xu, J., Marshall, B., Kaza, S. and Chen, H.C. (2004) ‘Analyzing
Warr, M. (2002) Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of and visualizing criminal network dynamics: A case study’.
Criminal Conduct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Intelligence and Security Informatics, Proceedings. Lecture
Press. Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3073. Berlin: Springer-
Weerman, F.M. and Bijleveld, C. (2007) ‘Birds of different Verlag.
feathers: School networks of serious delinquent, minor Zhang, S.X. (1998) ‘In search of hopeful glimpses: A critique
delinquent and non-delinquent boys and girls’. European of research strategies in current boot camp evaluations’.
Journal of Criminology, 4(4): 357–83. Crime & Delinquency, 44(2): 314–34.
Weerman, F.M. and Smeenk, W.H. (2005) ‘Peer similarity in Zhang, S.X. (2008) Chinese Human Smuggling Organizations.
delinquency for different types of friends: A comparison Families, Social Networks and Cultural Imperatives.
using two measurement methods’. Criminology, 43(2): Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
499–523. Zhang, S.X. and Gaylord, M.S. (1996) ‘Bound for the Golden
White, H.C. (1981) ‘Where do markets come from?’ American Mountain: The social organization of Chinese alien
Journal of Sociology, 87: 517–47. smuggling’. Crime Law and Social Change, 25: 1–16.