Hybrid gangs have been identified as having organizational processes that differ from traditional gangs. This study comparatively examines structural processes and characteristics of gangs in a chronic gang city, San Antonio, and an emerging gang city that would be more likely to have “hybrid” gangs, Orlando. A limited number of recent studies have indicated that some gangs may better fit into a social network framework, which calls into question presumptions about hybrid gangs. In this analysis, cooperation between gang members from rival gangs is examined through a social network lens, and findings indicate that such cooperation is a normalized process in the gang landscape.
BarrowsJ.HuffC. R. (2009). Gangs and public policy: Constructing and deconstructing gang databases. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 675–703. doi:10.1111/j.1745–9133.2009.00585.x
4.
BenklerY. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
BimberB.FlanaginA. J.StohlC. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365–388. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.2005.tb00340.x
6.
BoldenC. L. (2012). Liquid soldiers: Fluidity and gang membership. Deviant Behavior, 33, 207–222. doi:10.1080/01639625.2010.548655
7.
BoldenC. L. (2014). Gangs and social networks. In BruinsmaG.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1857–1866). New York, NY: Springer.
8.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
9.
BurtR. S. (1980). Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 79–11. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.000455
10.
BurtR. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
CastellsM. J. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
12.
ClowardR.OhlinL. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York, NY: Free Press.
13.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
CotterellJ. (1996). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
DeckerS.BynumT.WeiselD. (1998). A tale of two gang cities: Gangs as organized crime groups. Justice Quarterly, 15, 395–425. doi:10.1080/07418829800093821
16.
DeckerS.CurryG. D. (2000). Addressing key features of gang membership: Measuring the involvement of young members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 473–482. doi:10.1016/s0047–2352(00)00063–5
17.
EsbensenF. A.DeschenesE. P.WinfreeL. T.Jr. (1999). Differences between gang girls and gang boys: A multi-site survey. Youth and Society, 31, 27–53. doi:10.1177/0044118x99031001002
18.
FleisherM. S. (2002). Doing field research on diverse gangs: Interpreting youth gangs as social networks. In HuffC. R. (Ed.), Gangs in America III (pp. 199–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452232201.n13
19.
FleisherM. S. (2006). Youth gang social dynamics and social network analysis: Applying degree centrality measures to assess the nature of gang boundaries. In ShortJ. F.HughesL. A. (Eds.), Studying youth gangs (pp. 85–98). Oxford, UK: Altamira Press.
20.
GoldmanL.GilesH.HoggM. A. (2014). Going to extremes: Social identity and communication processes associated with gang membership. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17(6), 813–832. doi:10.1177/1368430214524289
21.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. doi:10.1086/225469
22.
HagedornJ. (1998). People and folks: Gangs, crime and the underclass in a rustbelt city (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.
23.
HowellJ. C.MooreJ. P.EgleyA.Jr. (2002). The changing boundaries of youth gangs. In HuffC. R. (Ed.) Gangs in America III (pp. 3–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452232201.n1
24.
HughesL. A.ShortJ. F. (2005). Disputes involving gang members: Micro-social contexts. Criminology, 43, 43–76. doi:10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00002.x
25.
HuntG.MackenzieK.Joe-LaidlerK. (2000). “I’m calling my mom”: The meaning of family and kinship among homegirls. Justice Quarterly, 17, 1–31. doi:10.1080/07418820000094461
26.
JohnsonJ. C. (1994). Anthropological contributions to the study of social networks: A review. In WassermanS.GalaskiewiczJ. (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 113–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452243528.n5
27.
KinnearK. L. (2009). Gangs: A reference handbook (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
28.
KleinM. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
KleinM. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
KleinM. W. (2006). Street gangs patterns and policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
KleinM. W.CrawfordL. Y. (1967). Groups, gangs, and cohesiveness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 75–85. doi:10.1177/002242786700400105
32.
LermanP. (1967). Gangs, networks, and subcultural delinquency. The American Journal of Sociology, 73, 63–72. doi:10.1086/224436
33.
LoflandJ.LoflandL. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34.
McGloinJ. M. (2007). The organizational structure of street gangs in Newark, New Jersey: A network analysis methodology. Journal of Gang Research, 15, 1–34.
35.
MillerJ. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
MillerW. B. (1966). Violent crimes in city gangs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 364, 96–112. doi:10.1177/000271626636400110
37.
PapachristosA. V. (2006). Social network analysis and gang research: Theory and methods. In ShortJ. F.HughesL. A. (Eds.), Studying youth gangs (pp. 99–116). Oxford, UK: Altamira Press.
38.
PapachristosA. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74–128. doi:10.1086/597791
39.
SikesG. (1997). 8 ball chicks. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
40.
SpergelI. A. (1995). The youth gang problem: A community approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
SpergelI. A.CurryG. D. (1990). Strategies and perceived agency effectiveness in dealing with the youth gang problem. In HuffC. R. (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 288–309). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
SpergelI. A.WaK. M.SosaR. V. (2005). Evaluation of the San Antonio comprehensive community-wide approach to gang prevention and intervention and suppression program. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
StarbuckD.HowellJ. C.LindquistD. J. (2004). Hybrid and other modern gangs. In EsbensenF. A.TibbettsS. G.GainesL. (Eds.), American youth gangs at the millennium (pp. 200–214). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
45.
SullivanM. L. (2009, November). Gang disengagement: Process and variation. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology conference, Philadelphia, PA.
46.
ThrasherF. M. (1963). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1927)
47.
ValdezA. (2003). Toward a typology of contemporary Mexican American youth gangs. In KontosL.BrotheronD.BarriosL. (Eds.), Gangs and society: Alternative perspectives (pp. 12–40). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
48.
WeermanF. M.MaxsonC. L.EsbensenF. A.AldridgeJ.MedinaJ.van GemertF. (2009). Eurogang program manual: Background, development, and the use of eurogang instruments in multi-site, multi-method, comparative research. Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/ccj/Eurogang/EurogangManual.pdf
49.
WeiselD. L. (2002). The evolution of street gangs: An examination of form and variation. In ReedW. L.DeckerS. H. (Eds.), Responding to gangs: Evaluation and research (pp. 25–65). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
50.
YablonskyL. (1959). The delinquent gang as a near group. Social Problems, 7, 108–117. doi:10.2307/799161
