Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 171–192 | Cite as

Understanding the Structure of a Large Heroin Distribution Network: A Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Data

Original paper

Abstract

An analysis is reported of 2,408 wiretap conversations gathered in the course of prosecuting a heroin dealing organization in New York City in the 1990s. The five-step analysis, which included a social network analysis of phone contacts, revealed a large, loosely structured group of 294 individuals, most of whom had very limited contacts with others in the group. The group’s active core comprised 38 individuals with extended contacts, little status differentiation and some task specialization. A smaller more tightly connected group of 22 individuals was somewhat independent of the remainder of the core and appeared to constitute a “communal business”. The existence was not confirmed of the large criminal conspiracy described by the prosecution that operated at all levels of trafficking and dealing, from wholesale distribution to street sales. Rather, it appeared that the 294 individuals comprised one segment of the heroin market in the city. However, the discrepancy could be due to the fact that the prosecution drew upon a wider set of information about the individuals concerned than provided by the wiretap data. The study supports recent analyses that see organized crimes, such as drug trafficking, as mostly the work of small groups of loosely linked entrepreneurs rather than large, highly structured criminal syndicates.

Keywords

Network analysis Wiretap data Organized crime Drug trafficking Mid level drug dealing Heroin distribution network 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was primarily supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (1K21DA00242). Viewpoints in this paper do not necessarily represent the official positions of the U.S. Government, National Institute on Drug Abuse or John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at a NIDA Drug Abuse Workshop, October 2004, Bethesda, MD and the 11th Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis Seminar held at University of Cincinnati in June 2003. The author acknowledges the assistance of Ms. Haley Kobilinsky with coding and wishes to thank Prof. Ronald V. Clarke of Rutgers University and Dr. Bruce Johnson of National Development Research Institutes, Inc, New York City for their advice and support. She also thanks Zachary Weiss, Assistant District Attorney, White Plains NY, for facilitating this analysis of court data. Finally, the author wishes to acknowledge the insightful comments made by the anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Adler PA (1985) Wheeling and dealing: an ethnography of an upper-level drug dealing and smuggling community. Colombia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler PA (1992) The “post” phase of deviant careers: Reintegrating drug traffickers. Deviant Behav 13:103–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albanese JS (2004) Organized crime in our times. Anderson Publishing, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes JA (1972) Social networks. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkowitz SD (1982) An introduction to structural analysis: the network approach to social research. Butterworths, ToronotoGoogle Scholar
  6. Boissevain J (1974) Friends of friends: networks, manipulators, and coalitions. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: a family of measures. Amer J Sociol 92:1170–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonacich P (2001) The evolution of exchange networks. J Social Struct 2(5). Retrieved October 20, 2005, from http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume2/Bonacich.htmlGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti SP, Everett MG (1992) Notions of position in social network analysis. Soc Method 22:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgatti SP, Everett MG (1999) Models of core/periphery structures. Soc Network 21:375–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgatti SP, Foster P (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. J Manag 29(6):991–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET for Windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  13. Breiger RL (2004) The analysis of social networks. In: Hardy M, Bryman A (eds) Handbook of data analysis. Sage, London, pp 505–526Google Scholar
  14. Brown R, Clarke RV (2004) Police intelligence and theft of vehicles for export: recent UK experience. In: Maxfield M, Clarke RV (eds) Understanding and preventing car theft. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  15. Browne D, Mason M, Murphy R (2003) Drug supply and trafficking: an overview. Howard J Crim Justice. 42(4):324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burt RS (1976) Position in networks. Soc Forces 55:93–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burt R (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke RV, Brown R (2003) International trafficking in stolen vehicles. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice. A review of research 30. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Delaney PD, Denning DE, Kaye J, and McDonald AR (1993) Wiretap laws and procedures what happens when the U.S. government taps a line. Computer professionals for social responsibility. Retrieved October 20, 2005 from http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/cpsr/privacy/wiretap/wiretap.procedure.htmlGoogle Scholar
  20. DesRoches F (1999) Wholesale drug dealers, paper presented to panel on ‘The Structure and operation of illegal commodity markets’. Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  21. Dorn N, Murji K, South N (1992) Traffickers: Drug markets and law enforcement. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorn N, Oette L, White S (1998) Drugs importation and the bifurcation of risk: capitalization, cut outs and organized crime. Brit J Criminol 38:537–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Everett MG, Borgatti SP (1999) The centrality of groups and classes. J Math Sociol 23(3):181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fijnaut C, Bovenkerk F, Bruinsma G, van de Bunt H (1998) Organized crime in the Netherlands. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. Finckenauer J (2000) Meeting the challenge of transnational crime. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Finckenauer JO, Waring EJ (1998) Russian mafia in America: immigration, culture, and crime. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soci Network 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedkin NE (1991) Theoretical foundation for centrality measures. Amer J Sociol 96:1478–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuentes RJ (1998) Life of a cell: managerial practice and strategy in Colombian cocaine distribution in the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, City University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Granovetter M (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Soc Theory 1:201–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Amer J Sociol 91:481–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Granovetter M (1995) The economic sociology of firms and entrepreneurs. In: Portes A (ed) The economic sociology of immigration: essays in networks, ethnicity and entrepreneurship. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 128–165Google Scholar
  33. Guerette R, and Clarke RV (2005) Border enforcement, organized crime, and deaths of smuggled migrants on the United States-Mexico border. Euro J Crim Policy Res 11(2):159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hobbs D (2001) The firm: organizational logic and criminal culture on a shifting terrain. Brit J Criminol 41(4):549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ianni AF, Ianni RE (1990) Network analysis. In: Andrews, PP, Peterson MB (eds) Criminal intelligence analysis. Palmer Enterprises, Loomis, CA, pp 67–84Google Scholar
  36. Kilduff M, Tsai W (2003) Social networks and organizations. Sage, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. Kleemans E, van de Bunt H (1999) The social embeddedness of transnational criminal Organizations. Trans Org Crime 5(1):97–119Google Scholar
  38. Kleinknecht W (1996) The new ethnic mobs: the changing face of organized crime in America. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Klerks P (2001) The network paradigm applied to criminal organizations. Connections. 24(3):53–65Google Scholar
  40. Knoke D, Kuklinski JH (1981) Network analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcus P (1995) The prosecution and defense of criminal conspiracy cases. Matthew Bender, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Markovsky B, Willer D, Patton T (1988) Power relations in exchange networks. Amer Sociol Rev 53:220–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markovsky B, Skvoretz J, Willer D, Lovaglia M, Erger J (1993) The seeds of weak power: an extension of network exchange theory. Amer Sociol Rev 58:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore MH (1987) Organized crime as a business enterprise. In: Edelhertz H (ed) Major issues in organized crime. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 51–63Google Scholar
  45. Moreno JL (1934) Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama. Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Natarajan M (2000) Understanding the structure of a drug trafficking organization: a conversational analysis. In: Natarajan M, Hough M (eds) Illegal drug markets: from research to prevention policy. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 273–298Google Scholar
  47. Natarajan M, Belanger M (1998) Varieties of upper-level drug dealing organizations: a typology of cases prosecuted in New York City. J Drug Issues 28(4):1005–1026Google Scholar
  48. Pearson G, Hobbs D (2001) Middle market drug distribution. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Pearson G, Hobbs D (2003) King pin? A case study of a middle market drug broker. Howard J Crim Justice 42(4):335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Potter GW (1994) Criminal organizations: vice, racketeering, and politics in an American city. Waveland, Prospect Heights, ILGoogle Scholar
  51. Reuter P (2004) The political economy of drug smuggling. In: Vellinga M (ed) The political economy of the drug industry. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 129–147Google Scholar
  52. Reuter P, Hagga J (1989) The organization of high-level drug markets: an exploratory study. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott J (1991) Social network analysis: a handbook. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Sparrow M (1991) The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: an assessment of the prospects. Soc Networks 13:251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Marshall A (1997) The state of network organization: a survey in three frameworks. J Org Comput 7(2 & 3):83–151 (Retrieved on June 15, 2005. http://web.mit.edu/marshall/www/papers/NWOrg.pdf)Google Scholar
  56. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  57. Watts D (1999) Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. Amer J Sociol 13(2):493–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wellman B (1992) Which types of ties and networks give what kinds of social support? Adv Group Process 9:207–235Google Scholar
  59. Zabludoff S (1997) Colombian narcotics organizations as business enterprises. Trans Org Crime 3(2):20–49Google Scholar
  60. Zhang S and Chin K (2003) The declining significance of triad societies in transnational illegal activities. A structural deficiency perspective. Brit J Criminol 43(3):469–488Google Scholar
  61. Zhang S, Chin K (2004) Characteristics of chinese human smugglers. US Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice, United StatesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations