Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 783–808 | Cite as

Violence in Urban Neighborhoods: A Longitudinal Study of Collective Efficacy and Violent Crime

Original Paper



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.


Collective efficacy Violence Disadvantage Neighborhood 



This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (LP0453763; fDP0771785; RO700002; DP1093960; DP1094589 and DE130100958).


  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012). Greater Brisbane (QLD) (Greater Capital City Statistical Division), retrieved from
  2. Australian Communications and Media Authority (2012) Communications report 2011–12. ACMA, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura Albert (1995) Self efficacy in changing communities. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura Albert (1997) The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 52:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumer EP (2002) Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology 40:579–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 48:33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry WD (1984). In: Niemi RG (ed) Nonrecursive causal models, vol 37. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  9. Bingenheimer JB, Robert TB, Earls FJ (2005) Firearm violence exposure and serious violent behavior. Science 308:1323–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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:
  11. Boggess LN, Hipp JR (2010) Violent crime, residential instability and mobility: does the relationship differ in minority neighborhoods? J Quant Criminol 26:351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne MW, MacCallum RC, Kim CT, Andersen BL, Glaser R (2002) When fit indices and residuals are incompatible. Psychol Methods 7:403–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Browning CR (2002) The span of collective efficacy: extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. J Marriage Family 64:833–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Browning CR, Cagney KA (2002) Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. J Health Soc Behav 43:383–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Browning CR, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J (2005) Sexual initiation in early adolescence: the nexus of parental and community control. American Soc Rev 70:758–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bursik RJ (1988) Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency. Criminology 26:519–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bursik RJ (1999) The informal control of crime through neighborhood networks. Sociol Focus 32:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime. Lexington Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan M, Mummery K (2005) Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with physical activity among city dwellers in regional Queensland. Prev Med 40(4):363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felson M (2002) Crime and everyday life. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  21. Finkel SE (1995). In: Lewis-Beck MS (ed) Causal analysis with panel data, Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 61:1135–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 26:7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hipp JR (2010) A dynamic view of neighborhoods: the reciprocal relationship between crime and neighborhood structural characteristics. Soc Probl 57:205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hipp JR, Tita GE, Greenbaum RT (2009) Drive-bys and trade-ups: examining the directionality of the crime and residential instability relationship. Soc Forces 87:1777–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hugo G, Helen F, George T (2013) Internal migration and regional Australia, 2006, 2011. Australian population and migration research centre policy brief. Retrieved from
  28. 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
  29. Kamata A, Bauer DJ (2008) A note on the relationship between factor analytic and item response theory models. Struct Equ Model 15:136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Kubrin CE, Herting JR (2003) Neighborhood correlates of homicide trends. Sociol Q 44:329–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Land KC, McCall PL, Cohen LE (1990) Structural covariates of homicide rates: are there any invariances across time and social space? Am J Sociol 95:922–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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):64–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacDonald JM, Hipp JR, Gill C (2013) Neighborhood effects of immigrant concentration on changes in neighborhood crime rates. J Quant Criminol 29:191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maimon D, Browning CR (2010) Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology 48:443–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Markus A, Jupp J, McDonald Pr (2009) Australia’s immigration revolution. Allen & Unwin, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 47:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McMillan DW, Chavis DM (1986) Sense of community: a definition and theory. J Commun Psychol 14:6–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 44:509–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Morenoff JD, Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (2001) Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology 39:517–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pattillio ME (1998) Sweet mothers and gangbangers: managing crime in a black middle-class neighborhood. Soc Forces 76:747–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paxton P, Hipp JR, Marquart-Pyatt S (2011) Nonrecursive models: endogeneity, reciprocal relationships, and feedback loops. Sage, Los AngelesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peterson RD, Krivo LJ (2010) Divergent social worlds: neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 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):145–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 49:79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reynald DM (2009) Guardianship in action: developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prev Commun Saf 11:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sampson RJ (1988) Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: a multilevel systemic model. Am Sociol Rev 53:766–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sampson RJ (2002) Transcending tradition: new directions in community research, Chicago style. Criminology 40:213–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Sampson RJ (2012) Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effects. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94:774–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F (1999) Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. Am Sociol Rev 64:633–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shaw C, McKay H (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  59. Skogan WG (1986) Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In: Albert J (ed) Communities and crime. University of Chicago Press, ReissGoogle Scholar
  60. Skogan WG (1990) Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Steenbeek W, Hipp John R (2011) A longitudinal test of social disorganization theory: feedback effects among cohesion, social control and disorder. Criminology 49:833–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taylor RB (2015) Community criminology: Fundamentals of spatial and temporal scaling, ecological indicators, and selectivity bias. New York University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor RB, Covington Jeanette (1988) Neighborhood changes in ecology and violence. Criminology 26:553–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Warner BD, Roundtree PW (1997) Local social ties in a community and crime model: questioning the systemic nature of informal social control. Soc Probl 44:520–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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 42:283–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weisburd D, Elizabeth G, Sue-Ming Y (2012) The Criminology of Place, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 52:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Wilson WJ (1987) The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass and public policy. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  71. Winship C, Radbill L (1994) Sampling weights and regression analysis. Sociol Methods Res 23:230–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wood L, Billie G-C, Max B (2012) Streets apart: does social capital vary with neighbourhood design? Urban Studies ResearchGoogle Scholar
  73. 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 47:918–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyThe University of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.School of Social ScienceThe University of QueenslandSt Lucia, BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations