Abstract
Objectives
Cross-sectional studies consistently find that neighborhoods with higher levels of collective efficacy experience fewer social problems. Particularly robust is the relationship between collective efficacy and violent crime, which holds regardless of the socio-structural conditions of neighborhoods. Yet due to the limited availability of neighborhood panel data, the temporal relationship between neighborhood structure, collective efficacy and crime is less well understood.
Methods
In this paper, we provide an empirical test of the collective efficacy-crime association over time by bringing together multiple waves of survey and census data and counts of violent crime incident data collected across 148 neighborhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Utilizing three different longitudinal models that make different assumptions about the temporal nature of these relationships, we examine the reciprocal relationships between neighborhood features and collective efficacy with violent crime. We also consider the spatial embeddedness of these neighborhood characteristics and their association with collective efficacy and the concentration of violence longitudinally.
Results
Notably, our findings reveal no direct relationship between collective efficacy and violent crime over time. However, we find a strong reciprocal relationship between collective efficacy and disadvantage and between disadvantage and violence, indicating an indirect relationship between collective efficacy and violence.
Conclusions
The null direct effects for collective efficacy on crime in a longitudinal design suggest that this relationship may not be as straightforward as presumed in the literature. More longitudinal research is needed to understand the dynamics of disadvantage, collective efficacy, and violence in neighborhoods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
At the time of writing, only the Project for Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) and LA FANS in Los Angeles have collected more than one wave of neighborhood survey data that specifically captures collective efficacy (Sampson 2012).
The PHDCN is a longitudinal project sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation in partnership with the National Institutes of Justice and Mental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education. It is a multi-million dollar project examining the social, criminological, economic, organizational, political and cultural structures of Chicago’s communities.
In Australia, the term “suburb” is used to refer to a feature that in the U.S. would be referred to as a “neighborhood”. Throughout, we use the more familiar term “neighborhood” to refer to these. The suburbs in the ACCS sample include those that are adjacent to the main city center and those located in peri-urban areas which have experienced large increases in population growth.
In Australia, the number of mobile phone only users has only increased recently. 90 % of the population was covered by landline phones in 2008, and in 2011 (the last wave of our sample) the number of mobile phone-only users was estimated to still be just 19 % (Australian Communications and Media Authority 2012). By comparison, in the US there were over 45 % mobile only users in 2014 (Blumberg and Luke, 2015).
In contrast to face to face surveys like those used in the PHDCN or the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study, phone response rates tend to be lower. This is true for the ACCS survey’s response rate. Yet the response rates for ACCS are on par with or indeed higher than other studies in Australia and the United States using phone contact (Duncan and Mummery 2005; Pickett et al. 2012; Lai, Zhao and Longmire, 2012; Larsen et al., 2004; Wood et al. 2012.
Factor analysis provides specific weights to each of the variables that compose the measure, which are analogous to an item response theory (IRT) approach; see Kamata and Bauer (2008) for the analytical proof that these approaches are identical.
This equation is: y ij = α + N j ΓN + X ij ΓX + ε ij ; where y ij is the factor score of collective efficacy as reported by the i-th respondent of I respondents in the j-th neighborhood, α is an intercept, N j is an indicator of the neighborhood in which the respondent lives, ΓN is a vector of the effects of these neighborhoods on collective efficacy, X is a matrix of the exogenous household-level predictors, ΓX is a vector of the effects of these predictors on the subjective assessment, and ε ij is a disturbance term. The following individual level characteristics are included in the model: household income, education level, length of residence in the neighborhood, female, age, homeowner, marital status (single, widowed, divorced, and married as the reference category), presence of children, and speaking only English in the home. Previous research found very high correlations between measures using a frequentist approach, as we do here, and those using a Bayesian approach (see Steenbeek and Hipp, 2011, footnote 12 on page 846).
Note that using factor scores for some of our measures that are standardized to a mean value of 0 at each time point is not problematic given that we are not estimating latent trajectory models attempting to capture change over time. Instead, our models are interested in marginal change in the outcome variable at a point in time given a marginal change in the covariate. Thus, the centering of the variables does not impact the substantive interpretation of our results, and is captured in the intercept terms estimated at each time point.
This measure was based on the following language groups: indigenous; East Asian; South-central Asian; Southeast Asian; Southern Asian; Eastern European; Northern European; Southern European; other languages.
The 2006 census measures are included as covariates in each of these equations, as they are clearly temporally prior to the 2010 and 2012 survey waves.
Regarding model fit, for the two-year lag model (Table 2), the χ2 of 173.2 on 73 df (p < 0.01) implies a nonperfect fit, although the RMSEA of 0.098 and the CFI of 0.945 suggest a reasonable approximate fit for this model. Simulation studies have shown that model fit can be impacted by various characteristics of the model, and therefore strictly employing cutoff values is not wise; nonetheless, rough guidelines includes RMSEA values below 0.08 and CFI values above 0.95 (Hu and Bentler 1999). Inspection of modification indices suggested only that estimating the effect of lagged violence on current violence should be freed over the two waves; when freeing this path, or constraining the error covariances at the same time point to be zero (given their nonsignificance), the model fit only improved somewhat (RMSEA = 0.081, CFI = 0.958), and, most importantly, the substantive results remained unchanged. It is important to recall the insights of Browne and colleagues (Browne, MacCallum, Kim, Andersen, and Glaser 2002) that model fit will be negatively impacted due to high statistical power when the R-squares of the equations are quite high, as they are here, ranging from 0.56 to 0.90. In the simultaneous effects model (Table 3) the fit was similar: χ2 of 174.1 on 72 df (p < 0.01) implies a nonperfect fit, although the RMSEA of 0.10 and the CFI of 0.944 suggest a reasonable approximate fit for this model. Freeing the lagged violence effect and constraining the error covariances at the same timepoint to zero again resulted in modest improvement to model fit, but with the substantive results remaining unchanged. The 5-year lag model (Table 4) was exactly identified, and therefore model fit could not be assessed.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012). Greater Brisbane (QLD) (Greater Capital City Statistical Division), retrieved from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/3GBRI?opendocument&navpos=220
Australian Communications and Media Authority (2012) Communications report 2011–12. ACMA, Canberra
Bandura Albert (1995) Self efficacy in changing communities. Cambridge University Press, New York
Bandura Albert (1997) The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman & Company, New York
Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 52:1–26
Baumer EP (2002) Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology 40:579–616
Bernasco W, Block R (2011) Robberies in Chicago: a block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points. J Res Crime Delinq 48:33–57
Berry WD (1984). In: Niemi RG (ed) Nonrecursive causal models, vol 37. Sage, Beverly Hills
Bingenheimer JB, Robert TB, Earls FJ (2005) Firearm violence exposure and serious violent behavior. Science 308:1323–1326
Blumberg SJ, Luke JV (2015) Wireless substitution: early release of estimates from the national health interview survey, National Center for Health Statistics. July–December 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201506.pdf
Boggess LN, Hipp JR (2010) Violent crime, residential instability and mobility: does the relationship differ in minority neighborhoods? J Quant Criminol 26:351–370
Browne MW, MacCallum RC, Kim CT, Andersen BL, Glaser R (2002) When fit indices and residuals are incompatible. Psychol Methods 7:403–421
Browning CR (2002) The span of collective efficacy: extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. J Marriage Family 64:833–850
Browning CR, Cagney KA (2002) Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. J Health Soc Behav 43:383–399
Browning CR, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J (2005) Sexual initiation in early adolescence: the nexus of parental and community control. American Soc Rev 70:758–778
Bursik RJ (1988) Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency. Criminology 26:519–551
Bursik RJ (1999) The informal control of crime through neighborhood networks. Sociol Focus 32:85–97
Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime. Lexington Books, New York
Duncan M, Mummery K (2005) Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with physical activity among city dwellers in regional Queensland. Prev Med 40(4):363–372
Felson M (2002) Crime and everyday life. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Finkel SE (1995). In: Lewis-Beck MS (ed) Causal analysis with panel data, Sage, Thousand Oaks
Franzini L, Caughy M, Spears W, Esquer MEF (2005) Neighborhood economic conditions, social processes and self-rated health in low-income neighborhoods in Texas: a multilevel latent variables model. Soc Sci Med 61:1135–1150
Groff ER, Weisburd D, Yang SM (2010) Is it important to examine crime trends at a local “Micro” level?: a longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. J Quant Criminol 26:7–32
Hipp JR (2010) A dynamic view of neighborhoods: the reciprocal relationship between crime and neighborhood structural characteristics. Soc Probl 57:205–230
Hipp JR, Tita GE, Greenbaum RT (2009) Drive-bys and trade-ups: examining the directionality of the crime and residential instability relationship. Soc Forces 87:1777–1812
Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55
Hugo G, Helen F, George T (2013) Internal migration and regional Australia, 2006, 2011. Australian population and migration research centre policy brief. Retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apmrc/pubs/policy-briefs/APMRC_Policy_Brief_Vol_1_6_2013.pdf
Hunter A (1985) Private, parochial and public social orders: the problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In: Gerald D, Suttles G, Mayer N, Zald N (eds) The challenge of social control: citizenship and institution building in modern society. Ablex Publishing, NJ
Kamata A, Bauer DJ (2008) A note on the relationship between factor analytic and item response theory models. Struct Equ Model 15:136–153
Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kubrin CE, Herting JR (2003) Neighborhood correlates of homicide trends. Sociol Q 44:329–355
Kubrin CE, Hipp JR (2014) Do fringe banks create fringe neighborhoods? Examining the spatial relationship between fringe banking and neighborhood crime rates. Justice Q
Lai Y-L, Zhao S, Longmire D (2012) Specific crime-fear linkage: the effect of actual burglary incidents reported to the police on residents’ fear of burglary. J Crime J 35(1):13. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2011.631408
Land KC, McCall PL, Cohen LE (1990) Structural covariates of homicide rates: are there any invariances across time and social space? Am J Sociol 95:922–963
Larsen L, Harlan SL, Bolin B, Hackett EJ, Hope D, Kirby A, Nelson A, R TR, Wolf S (2004) Bonding and bridging: understanding the relationship between social capital and civic action. J Plan Educ Res 24(1):64–77
MacDonald JM, Hipp JR, Gill C (2013) Neighborhood effects of immigrant concentration on changes in neighborhood crime rates. J Quant Criminol 29:191–215
Maimon D, Browning CR (2010) Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology 48:443–474
Markus A, Jupp J, McDonald Pr (2009) Australia’s immigration revolution. Allen & Unwin, Australia
Mazerolle L, Wickes R, McBroom J (2010) Community variations in violence: the role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context. J Res Crime Delinq 47:3–30
McMillan DW, Chavis DM (1986) Sense of community: a definition and theory. J Commun Psychol 14:6–23
Mears DP, Bhati AS (2006) No community is an island: the effects of resource deprivation on urban violence in spatially and socially proximate communities. Criminology 44:509–548
Miethe TD, Meier RF (1994) Crime and its social context: toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. State University of New York Press, New York
Morenoff JD, Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (2001) Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology 39:517–560
Pattillio ME (1998) Sweet mothers and gangbangers: managing crime in a black middle-class neighborhood. Soc Forces 76:747–774
Paxton P, Hipp JR, Marquart-Pyatt S (2011) Nonrecursive models: endogeneity, reciprocal relationships, and feedback loops. Sage, Los Angeles
Peterson RD, Krivo LJ (2010) Divergent social worlds: neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation, New York
Pickett JT, Ted C, Kristin MG, Marc G (2012) Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and whites’ perceptions of victimization risk: do racial stereotypes matter? Criminology 50(1):145–186
Rankin BH, Quane JM (2002) Social contexts and urban adolescent outcomes: the interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-American youth. Soc Probl 49:79–100
Reynald DM (2009) Guardianship in action: developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prev Commun Saf 11:1–20
Sampson RJ (1988) Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: a multilevel systemic model. Am Sociol Rev 53:766–779
Sampson RJ (2002) Transcending tradition: new directions in community research, Chicago style. Criminology 40:213–230
Sampson RJ (2006) Collective efficacy theory: lessons learned and directions for future inquiry. In: Cullen FT, Wright J, Blevins K (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory advances in criminological theory. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
Sampson RJ (2012) Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effects. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94:774–802
Sampson RJ, Wikström POH (2008) The social order of violence in Chicago and Stockholm neighborhoods: a comparative inquiry. In: Stathis N (ed) Order, conflict and violence. Cambridge University Press, Kalyvas
Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924
Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F (1999) Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. Am Sociol Rev 64:633–660
Shaw C, McKay H (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University Press, Chicago
Skogan WG (1986) Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In: Albert J (ed) Communities and crime. University of Chicago Press, Reiss
Skogan WG (1990) Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. The Free Press, New York
Steenbeek W, Hipp John R (2011) A longitudinal test of social disorganization theory: feedback effects among cohesion, social control and disorder. Criminology 49:833–871
Taylor RB (2015) Community criminology: Fundamentals of spatial and temporal scaling, ecological indicators, and selectivity bias. New York University Press, New York
Taylor RB, Covington Jeanette (1988) Neighborhood changes in ecology and violence. Criminology 26:553–590
Tita GE, Greenbaum R (2009) Crime, neighborhoods, and units of analysis: putting space in its place. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma G (eds) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New York
Warner BD, Roundtree PW (1997) Local social ties in a community and crime model: questioning the systemic nature of informal social control. Soc Probl 44:520–536
Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang SM (2004) Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42:283–321
Weisburd D, Elizabeth G, Sue-Ming Y (2012) The Criminology of Place, Oxford, New York
Wickes R, Hipp JR, Sargeant E, Homel R (2013) Collective efficacy as a task specific process: examining the relationship between social ties, neighborhood cohesion and the capacity to respond to violence, delinquency and civic problems. Am J Commun Psychol 52:115–127
Wikström POH, Oberwittler D, Treiber K, Hardie B (2012) Breaking rules: the social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wilson WJ (1987) The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass and public policy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Winship C, Radbill L (1994) Sampling weights and regression analysis. Sociol Methods Res 23:230–257
Wood L, Billie G-C, Max B (2012) Streets apart: does social capital vary with neighbourhood design? Urban Studies Research
Zhang L, Messner SF, Liu J (2007) A multilevel analysis of the risk of household burglary in the city of Tianjin, China. Br J Criminol 47:918–937
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (LP0453763; fDP0771785; RO700002; DP1093960; DP1094589 and DE130100958).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hipp, J.R., Wickes, R. Violence in Urban Neighborhoods: A Longitudinal Study of Collective Efficacy and Violent Crime. J Quant Criminol 33, 783–808 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9311-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9311-z