The Geography of Belonging: Why Gangs Form Where They Do

Introduction

Professor Andrea Hagan: Welcome back to Let's Talk About Gangs & Criminal Networks. I'm your host, Professor A., and I'm so glad you're joining me for Week 2 of our course. Last week, in Episode 1, we tackled the challenging question of how to define gangs and criminal networks through a geographic lens. We explored how territorial boundaries and spatial control shape how we categorize and label these groups. We saw how the same organization might be defined differently across geographic locations, and we examined the politics of place-based labeling. We asked fundamental questions about who gets to decide what counts as a gang, and how those definitions are shaped by where groups operate.

Professor Andrea Hagan: If you haven't listened to Episode 1 yet, I encourage you to go back and check it out, because today we're building directly on those foundations. This week, we're moving from definitions to explanations. Our episode, titled The Geography of Belonging: Spatial Theories of Gang Formation, asks a fundamental question: Why do gangs form in some places and not others? More specifically, why here and why now? What is it about certain neighborhoods, certain street corners, certain cities that makes them fertile ground for gang formation, while other seemingly similar places remain relatively gang-free?

Professor Andrea Hagan: By the end of our time together today, you'll be able to: apply spatial theories to explain gang formation in specific geographic contexts; analyze how neighborhood characteristics and environmental factors influence gang behavior; evaluate the role of territorial competition and spatial resources in gang development; understand how geographic mobility and spatial constraints affect gang activities; and analyze how geographic environments affect youth psychological development and pathways to gang involvement. These aren't just abstract academic objectives. Understanding the spatial dimensions of gang formation is essential to developing effective interventions and policies. So, let's dive in.

Segment 1: The Foundations - Social Disorganization and Neighborhood Effects

Professor Andrea Hagan: Last week, we talked about how gangs define and control territorial space. This week, we're asking: what is it about certain neighborhoods, certain places, that makes them more likely to produce gangs in the first place? The answer, in large part, lies in a theory that has been at the heart of criminology for nearly a century: social disorganization theory. This theory was pioneered by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, including Frederic Thrasher, Clifford Shaw, and Henry McKay. These scholars sought to understand why certain Chicago neighborhoods consistently had higher rates of delinquency and crime, even as their ethnic composition changed over time. And here's what they discovered: It wasn't about the people themselves. It was about the place.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Shaw and McKay analyzed juvenile delinquency data across Chicago neighborhoods over several decades. What they found was remarkable. Neighborhoods near the city center, particularly those adjacent to industrial areas, consistently had the highest delinquency rates. And this pattern persisted even as the populations of those neighborhoods changed completely. First, it was Irish and German immigrants. Then it was Polish and Italian immigrants. Later, it was African American and Latino residents. The people changed, but the crime rates stayed high. This led Shaw and McKay to conclude that the structural characteristics of these neighborhoods were driving delinquency. Social disorganization theory posits that a neighborhood's structural characteristics can either strengthen or weaken its ability to control its residents' behavior. Neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, residential instability, and ethnic heterogeneity often experience a breakdown of the social institutions that we rely on for order – things like schools, families, churches, and community organizations.

Professor Andrea Hagan: When these institutions are weakened, a neighborhood's capacity for informal social control diminishes. Parents can't supervise their children as effectively because they're working multiple jobs or dealing with their own struggles. Neighbors don't know or trust each other because people are constantly moving in and out. Schools struggle to maintain discipline and provide quality education. Churches and community centers close or lose their influence. And in that vacuum, gangs can emerge as an alternative form of social order, providing structure, identity, and even a twisted form of protection. Now, this brings us to a more contemporary concept that builds on social disorganization theory: collective efficacy. This term was popularized by sociologist Robert Sampson and his colleagues in a landmark 1997 study published in the journal Science.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Collective efficacy is defined as the willingness of neighbors to intervene for the common good, combined with a sense of mutual trust and solidarity. It's not just about having social ties – you can know your neighbors without trusting them or being willing to act collectively. Collective efficacy is about both cohesion AND the expectation that neighbors will take action when needed. In neighborhoods with high collective efficacy, residents are more likely to watch out for each other's children, challenge disorderly behavior on the street, organize block parties and neighborhood watches, and work together to create a safe environment. If they see teenagers skipping school or hanging out on a corner at odd hours, they'll intervene. If they see drug dealing or vandalism, they'll report it or confront it directly. This informal social control is incredibly powerful in preventing crime and gang formation. But in areas of concentrated disadvantage – areas where poverty, unemployment, and social isolation cluster together – collective efficacy is often eroded.

Professor Andrea Hagan: And here's the key insight from the longitudinal research by Hipp and Wickes published in 2016: the relationship between collective efficacy and violent crime holds over time. It's not just a correlation; there's a causal relationship. When collective efficacy declines in a neighborhood, violent crime increases. When collective efficacy is strengthened through community interventions, crime decreases. This gives us hope that place-based interventions can work. Let me give you a concrete example: Chicago. Chicago has been a living laboratory for gang research for over a century, and it remains so today. The Chicago Police Department maintains detailed maps of gang territories, which tell a powerful story about social disorganization and territorial control. The Gangster Disciples, for instance, control over 586 million square feet of territory – that's more than 900,000 acres, an area larger than many small cities. The Four Corner Hustlers control another 76 million square feet.

Professor Andrea Hagan: The Conservative Vice Lords control nearly 49 million square feet. These aren't random distributions. They're the direct result of historical patterns of racial segregation, economic disinvestment, and social disorganization that have plagued the city's South and West sides for generations. As the black community expanded into neighborhoods like Englewood, Back of the Yards, Auburn Gresham, and the areas around 95th Street in the mid-20th century, these areas were systematically denied resources through a process known as redlining. Banks refused to lend to residents or businesses in these neighborhoods. Insurance companies charged higher rates or refused coverage altogether.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Businesses closed or relocated to the suburbs. Schools deteriorated as property tax revenues declined. And in that context of concentrated disadvantage, gangs like the Gangster Disciples, the Vice Lords, and the Black P Stones took root and flourished. They established clear territorial boundaries, which they defend to this day through violence and intimidation. This is social disorganization theory in action—a textbook example of how place-based structural conditions create the environment for gang formation.

Segment 2: The Environment of Crime - Place, Opportunity, and Set Space

Professor Andrea Hagan: So, social disorganization theory helps us understand why gangs form in certain neighborhoods. But it doesn't fully explain where, within those neighborhoods, gang activity is most likely to occur. Why does a gang claim this corner and not the one two blocks away? Why does gang violence cluster around certain parks, certain housing projects, certain commercial strips? For that, we need to turn to environmental criminology and the concept of routine activities. Environmental criminology argues that crime isn't just a matter of motivated offenders. It's about the intersection of three elements in a specific time and place: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. This is the core insight of routine activities theory, developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen in the late 1970s. In other words, the physical environment itself can create opportunities for crime.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Think about it: a poorly lit street, a deserted park, an abandoned building, a corner with heavy foot traffic but no adult supervision, an alley that provides easy escape routes – these are all features of the urban landscape that can become hotspots for criminal activity. The way our cities are designed, the way we move through them, and the places we frequent all shape our exposure to crime and victimization. Now, let me introduce you to a concept from the research of George Tita, Jacqueline Cohen, and John Engberg: set space. Instead of just looking at where gang members live, these researchers interviewed gang members and had them map the places where they came together as a sociological group to hang out. They called these places set spaces. What they found was fascinating. Set spaces aren't random. They have specific characteristics that make them attractive to gangs.

Professor Andrea Hagan: First, set spaces often provide what we might call strategic visibility. They're places where gang members can see and be seen – where they can monitor their territory, watch for rivals, and project their presence to the community. A corner near a busy intersection, a park with clear sightlines, a parking lot adjacent to a commercial strip – these are ideal set spaces because they allow gangs to control information and movement.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Second, set spaces often have features that facilitate illegal activities. A secluded area for drug transactions. Multiple escape routes in case of police intervention. Proximity to customers or victims. The physical layout of the space matters enormously. Third, and this is crucial, set spaces are often located in areas with weak guardianship. A few residents might feel empowered to challenge gang presence. Business owners might be intimidated. Police patrols might be infrequent. This absence of capable guardians is what allows gangs to claim and hold these spaces. The research on set space shifts our focus from asking Why do individuals join gangs? To ask what features of communities either facilitate gang formation or insulate an area from gang formation? It's a fundamentally geographic question.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Now, here's where it gets really interesting. Most research on neighborhood effects assumes that our risk of victimization or involvement in crime is determined solely by where we live. But as scholars like Corina Graif and her colleagues have pointed out in their work on urban poverty and neighborhood effects, this is what they call the residential trap. Our daily routines take us to many different neighborhoods. A teenager might live in a relatively safe area but attend a school in a high-crime neighborhood. They might travel through a rival gang's territory on their way to a part-time job or to visit a friend or relative. They might hang out at a park or recreation center that's in a different neighborhood entirely.

Professor Andrea Hagan: These activity spaces – the network of places we visit regularly – expose us to a range of risks and opportunities that our home neighborhood alone doesn't account for. This insight has profound implications. It means that when we're trying to understand gang violence or gang recruitment, we can't just look at residential neighborhoods. We need to map the actual spaces where young people spend their time. We need to understand their daily routines, their travel patterns, their social networks, and how these intersect with gang territories and set spaces. This is where geographic mobility and spatial constraints intersect. For many inner-city youth, their world is geographically constrained. They may be afraid to venture beyond a few blocks for fear of encountering a rival gang.

Professor Andrea Hagan: In some Chicago neighborhoods, young people literally cannot cross certain streets because those streets mark gang boundaries. This lack of mobility can limit their access to education, employment, and prosocial activities, further entrenching them in the gang lifestyle. If the only job opportunities are across a rival gang's territory, and you can't safely get there, what are your options? If the best schools are in neighborhoods where you're not safe, how do you pursue education? At the same time, the rise of social media and mobile technologies has created new forms of virtual mobility, allowing gangs to project their influence and engage in conflicts that transcend physical boundaries. A disrespectful comment on Instagram can spark a shooting two neighborhoods away. A YouTube music video can lead to retaliation.

Professor Andrea Hagan: The geography of gang conflict is no longer purely physical – it's also digital. So, environmental criminology teaches us that place creates opportunity. The physical configuration of streets, the location of schools and parks, the presence or absence of guardianship, the characteristics of set spaces – all of these spatial factors shape where and when gang activity occurs.

Segment 3: The Corner and the Crew - Integrating Geography and Networks

Professor Andrea Hagan: Now, I want to introduce you to one more crucial piece of the puzzle, and it comes from a brilliant study published in the American Sociological Review in 2013 by Andrew Papachristos and his colleagues. The paper is titled The Corner and the Crew: The Influence of Geography and Social Networks on Gang Violence. What Papachristos and his team did was combine two perspectives that are often studied separately: geography (the corner) and social networks (the crew). They recognized that gang violence isn't just about WHERE gangs are located; it's also about WHO is connected to whom within and across territories. Here's the key insight: gangs operate in both physical space and social space.

Professor Andrea Hagan: The physical space is the territory, the set space, the corners, and the blocks they control. The social space is the network of relationships – friendships, rivalries, alliances, and conflicts – that connect individuals within and across gangs. When we only look at geography, we might assume that all gang violence is territorial – that it's about defending turf or invading rival territory. But Papachristos found that many gang shootings are actually driven by social network dynamics. Someone has a personal beef with someone in a rival gang. That conflict escalates through social networks. Friends of friends get involved. Retaliation follows retaliation. And suddenly you have a cycle of violence that spreads through the network like a contagion.

Professor Andrea Hagan: But here's where geography comes back in: these network-driven conflicts are still constrained and shaped by physical space. You're more likely to have conflicts with people you encounter regularly, and you encounter people based on where you spend your time. Your activity spaces overlap with certain people and not others. Your gang's territory borders certain rival territories and not others. So geography structures the social networks, and social networks activate the geography. This integration of spatial and network perspectives is crucial for understanding modern gang violence. It helps explain why some neighborhoods have high rates of gang violence even when they don't have high rates of gang membership. It helps explain why violence can spread rapidly across neighborhoods through social connections. And it helps explain why interventions need to address both the physical environment and the social relationships that connect individuals.

Segment 4: Real-World Applications and Case Studies

Professor Andrea Hagan: Alright, so we've covered the theory. Now let's look at how this all plays out in the real world. I want to share three case studies with you that illustrate different aspects of spatial theories of gang formation. These aren't just abstract examples – they're real communities dealing with real challenges, and they show us both the power and the limitations of spatial approaches to understanding gang violence.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Case Study 1: Los Angeles and the GRYD Program. Let's start with Los Angeles, a city that has been at the forefront of place-based gang intervention. The Gang Reduction and Youth Development program, or GRYD, offers a powerful example of how spatial theories can inform policy and practice. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, the GRYD program targets specific high-risk neighborhoods, which they call GRYD zones. These are areas identified through spatial analysis as having the highest rates of gang violence. The program uses data on gang-related homicides, shootings, and assaults to create detailed maps of where violence is concentrated. Then they focus their resources on those specific places. Within these zones, the city deploys community violence interventionists – trusted individuals from the community who can mediate conflicts, interrupt cycles of retaliation, and connect high-risk youth with services.

Professor Andrea Hagan: These aren't police officers or social workers from outside the community. They're people who grew up in these neighborhoods, who understand the dynamics, who have credibility with gang members. They work the streets, building relationships, identifying conflicts before they escalate, and creating alternatives to violence. The program also creates safe passages for students traveling to and from school. Remember what we said about activity spaces? Many young people have to travel through rival gang territories to get to school. Think about what that means for a moment. Imagine being 14 years old and having to calculate every morning whether it's safe to walk to school, which route to take, which colors to avoid, and who you can walk with. That's the reality for thousands of young people in Los Angeles and other cities.

Professor Andrea Hagan: GRYD creates designated routes with adult supervision and monitoring to make those journeys safer. They're literally remapping the safe geography of these neighborhoods for young people. And they run programs like Summer Night Lights, which transform parks into vibrant community hubs after dark. This program is a perfect example of environmental criminology in action. Instead of accepting that certain parks become gang-set spaces after dark, the city floods those spaces with light, activities, and positive adult presence. They employ 500 youth and young adults to run recreation activities, art programs, and cultural events. In 2024, Summer Night Lights had over 100,000 participants. Instead of being set aside for gangs, these parks become places for families, recreation, and positive community activities. They're reclaiming the physical space and changing its function.

Professor Andrea Hagan: And GRYD agencies broker what they call Non-Aggression Agreements with gangs to ensure safety at these sites. They're negotiating the use of space, recognizing the territorial realities while creating alternatives. The results are impressive. In 2024, GRYD zones saw a 45% decrease in gang-related homicides compared to 2023. That's a 56% decrease compared to 2022. There was also a 48% drop in the number of victims shot in gang-related conflicts. Mayor Karen Bass, in announcing these results in March 2025, said: "The reduction in citywide violence is a testament to the dedication of our community violence interventionists, law enforcement, and community members and leaders working together to create a safer city."

Professor Andrea Hagan: Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson added: This is proof that when we make deep, intentional investments in community safety, we can create safer neighborhoods. We must ensure the continued funding of community violence intervention across Los Angeles because we have the power to prevent harm before it occurs, rather than waiting to punish it once it's already happened. What's happening here? GRYD is essentially rebuilding collective efficacy in neighborhoods where it has been eroded. By creating safe spaces, empowering community members to take ownership of their streets, addressing environmental factors that create opportunities for violence, and intervening in the social networks that drive conflicts, the program is demonstrating that place-based interventions can work.

Professor Andrea Hagan: This is social disorganization theory, environmental criminology, and network theory translated into practice. It's theory in action. Case Study 2: Tren de Aragua – A Challenge to Traditional Territorial Models. Now, let's consider a very different case: the Tren de Aragua, or TdA, a Venezuelan gang that has recently gained notoriety in the United States. This case is critical because it challenges some of our traditional assumptions about gang geography. Unlike traditional turf-based gangs in Chicago or Los Angeles, TdA appears to operate as a more decentralized, transnational network. TdA began in a prison in the Venezuelan state of Aragua. While law enforcement agencies in the U.S. have raised alarms about a TdA invasion, experts say there's little evidence of a clear hierarchical structure or a large-scale, coordinated presence here. In fact, Customs and Border Protection encountered only about 26 known TdA members in fiscal year 2024.

Professor Andrea Hagan: In 2024, a rumor spread through law enforcement channels that TdA had issued a green light to attack police officers. This claim was widely shared – it made its way from a local Albuquerque police bulletin to Customs and Border Protection, to the Department of Homeland Security, to sheriff's departments across the country. It even made its way into a formal proclamation by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who called TdA a terrorist organization. But months later, the FBI quietly acknowledged in an internal report that the claim was inaccurate. There was no directive to actively target U.S. law enforcement. Rebecca Hanson, a professor at the University of Florida who has studied TdA extensively and interviewed police in Venezuela about the gang, pointed out that the notion of a coordinated attack order doesn't fit with how TdA operates.

Professor Andrea Hagan: The group is decentralized. There's no evidence of any formal hierarchy or leadership in the U.S. As she put it, "There is not a single case of Tren de Aragua using that policy in Venezuela." It is not a part of their playbook. So where is this green light coming from? Ostensibly, it would come from someone high up, giving an order to lower-ranking members. But Tren de Aragua isn't organized that way. It would seem very strange for Tren de Aragua to have never done this before and then start in the U.S. So why does this case matter for our discussion of spatial theories? Because it challenges our traditional understanding of gang geography. Social disorganization theory and territorial models assume that gangs are rooted in specific neighborhoods, compete for control of physical space, and have clear boundaries and hierarchies.

Professor Andrea Hagan: But TdA suggests that some modern gangs may operate more like fluid networks than as static, territorial organizations. They may not own turf in the traditional sense. They may be more mobile, more adaptable, and more difficult to map using conventional geographic methods. This is an important reminder that our theories need to evolve as the phenomenon itself evolves. The spatial dynamics of transnational gangs may be fundamentally different from those of traditional street gangs. Case Study 3: Chicago – The Persistence of Territorial Control. Finally, let's return to Chicago, because despite the rise of networked gangs like TdA, the traditional territorial model is still very much alive in many American cities. As I mentioned earlier, gangs like the Gangster Disciples and the Four Corner Hustlers control vast swaths of Chicago. Their territories are clearly demarcated. The Chicago Police Department literally maps these boundaries, and gang members themselves know precisely where their territory ends and rival territory begins.

Professor Andrea Hagan: The competition for control of these territories drives much of the violence we see. Why does territorial control matter so much? Because it's not just about pride or identity, although those are important. It's about resources. Control of a street corner means control of a drug market. Control of a neighborhood means the ability to extort businesses, to recruit new members from local schools and parks, and to project power. Territory equals economic opportunity in the illegal economy. The physical configuration of Chicago's neighborhoods also matters. Many of these gang territories are in areas with specific geographic features – they might be bounded by major streets or railroad tracks, creating natural boundaries.

Professor Andrea Hagan: They might include public housing projects that concentrate poverty and create isolated communities. They might be near commercial corridors that provide economic opportunities for illegal markets. The geography isn't incidental; it's fundamental to how these gangs operate. Recent national data shows that gang activity increased significantly from 2021 to 2023, with a 15% increase from 2021 to 2022 and a further 24% increase in 2023, before tapering in 2024.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Nationwide, there are an estimated 30,000 gangs with 850,000 members. Gang-related homicides account for about 13% of all homicides annually – that's about 2,000 gang-related homicides each year – with the vast majority occurring in highly populated urban areas like Chicago, Los Angeles, and other major cities. Chicago remains a powerful reminder of how social disorganization and territoriality can create deeply entrenched patterns of violence that persist for generations. The gang territories mapped today in Chicago neighborhoods like Englewood and Austin look remarkably similar to those from 20 or 30 years ago. The names of the gangs might have changed, the specific individuals might have changed, but the spatial patterns persist.

Segment 5: The Psychology of Place and Pathways to Involvement

Professor Andrea Hagan: We've talked a lot about neighborhoods, territories, and set spaces, but what about the people who live in them? How does the geographic environment shape the psychology of young people and their pathways to gang involvement? Living in a neighborhood characterized by violence, poverty, and a lack of opportunity can have a profound impact on a young person's development. Research has linked these conditions to a host of negative outcomes, including depression, anxiety, substance use, and low self-esteem. The systematic review by García-Rojo and colleagues, published in Crime & Delinquency in 2023, identified social disorganization, unsafe neighborhoods, school failure, absenteeism, family involvement in criminal acts, depression, substance use, low self-esteem, and rebelliousness as key risk factors for juvenile gang membership.

Professor Andrea Hagan: But here's what's important to understand: these aren't just individual pathologies. They're responses to environmental conditions. When you grow up in a neighborhood where you hear gunshots regularly, where you've lost friends or family members to violence, where you don't feel safe walking to school, where there are few legitimate economic opportunities, where the adults around you are struggling just to survive – that environment shapes your psychology, your worldview, your sense of what's possible. For some youth, joining a gang can be a way of coping with these feelings.

Professor Andrea Hagan: The gang provides a sense of belonging, identity, and protection that they may not be getting from their families or communities. This is consistent with Social Identity Theory, which suggests that people have a natural tendency to form groups and to derive a sense of self-worth from their group membership. When conventional institutions – families, schools, churches, community organizations – fail to provide that sense of belonging, gangs can fill the void. The research also shows that geographic isolation compounds these psychological effects. When young people are spatially constrained, when their world is limited to a few blocks, they have fewer opportunities to see alternatives, to meet people from different backgrounds, to envision different futures.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Their identity becomes increasingly tied to their immediate neighborhood and the groups within it. The gang becomes not just a source of belonging, but the primary reference point for their identity. In this sense, the geography of gang formation isn't just about physical space; it's also about psychological space. It's about the search for a place to belong, a place to feel safe, a place to matter, a place to have status and respect. For too many young people in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods, the gang is the only place they can find those things. The title of this episode is The Geography of Belonging, and that's exactly what we're talking about. Young people are searching for belonging, and geography shapes where they find it.

Outro

Professor Andrea Hagan: And that's all the time we have for today. We've covered a lot of ground – from the foundational theories of social disorganization and collective efficacy, to the insights of environmental criminology and routine activities theory, to the concept of set space and the integration of geographic and network perspectives. We've seen real-world applications in Los Angeles, the challenges posed by new forms of gang organization like Tren de Aragua, and the persistent territorial patterns in Chicago. We've explored how the physical environment shapes opportunities for crime, how territorial competition drives gang violence, and how the search for belonging can lead young people down a dangerous path.

Professor Andrea Hagan: I hope this episode has given you a new lens through which to view the problem of gang violence. It's not just about individual choices or moral failings; it's about the social and spatial contexts in which those choices are made. Geography matters. Place matters. Neighborhoods matter. And if we want to address gang violence effectively, we need to understand the role that these spatial factors play in shaping this phenomenon. As you work on this week's assignments, I want you to think about how these spatial theories apply to the readings and the case studies. How do the concepts of social disorganization, collective efficacy, routine activities, and set space help us understand gang formation in different contexts? And how might place-based interventions address the root causes of gang involvement? When you're writing your essay this week, make sure you're citing specific content from this podcast episode along with the academic readings.

Professor Andrea Hagan: Next week, in Episode 3, we'll explore the historical geography of gangs – how they have evolved from local neighborhood groups to transnational networks. We'll trace the spatial dimensions of that evolution and examine how different places have shaped gang development over time. We'll look at the Great Migration, the rise of super-gangs, and the globalization of gang culture. Until then, stay curious, stay critical, and keep thinking geographically. Blessings!