Violence in Urban Neighborhoods: A Longitudinal Study of Collective Efficacy and Violent Crime
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCollective efficacy Violence Disadvantage Neighborhood
- 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, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Bandura Albert (1997) The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Berry WD (1984). In: Niemi RG (ed) Nonrecursive causal models, vol 37. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime. Lexington Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Felson M (2002) Crime and everyday life. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Finkel SE (1995). In: Lewis-Beck MS (ed) Causal analysis with panel data, Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- 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, NJGoogle Scholar
- Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Kubrin CE, Hipp JR (2014) Do fringe banks create fringe neighborhoods? Examining the spatial relationship between fringe banking and neighborhood crime rates. Justice QGoogle Scholar
- Markus A, Jupp J, McDonald Pr (2009) Australia’s immigration revolution. Allen & Unwin, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
- Peterson RD, Krivo LJ (2010) Divergent social worlds: neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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 BrunswickGoogle Scholar
- 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, KalyvasGoogle Scholar
- Shaw C, McKay H (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Skogan WG (1986) Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In: Albert J (ed) Communities and crime. University of Chicago Press, ReissGoogle Scholar
- Skogan WG (1990) Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
- Weisburd D, Elizabeth G, Sue-Ming Y (2012) The Criminology of Place, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Wilson WJ (1987) The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass and public policy. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Wood L, Billie G-C, Max B (2012) Streets apart: does social capital vary with neighbourhood design? Urban Studies ResearchGoogle Scholar