In this study, we build on recent social disorganization research, estimating models of the relationships between disorder, burglary, cohesion, and fear of crime using a sample of neighborhoods from three waves of the British Crime Survey. The results indicate that disorder has an indirect effect on burglary through fear and neighborhood cohesion. Although cohesion reduces disorder, nonrecursive models show that disorder also reduces cohesion. Part of the effect of disorder on cohesion is mediated by fear. Similar results are obtained in nonrecursive burglary models. Together, the results suggest a feedback loop in which decreases in neighborhood cohesion increase crime and disorder, increasing fear, in turn, further decreasing cohesion.Social disorganization theory reemerged in the mid-1980s as one of the major theoretical perspectives in the study of crime. Originally developing out of the work of the early Chicagoans (Shaw and McKay, 1942), the theory focuses on the ecological (especially neighborhood) distribution of crime and delinquency, hypothesizing that it is due to variation in the capacity of neighborhoods to constrain its residents from violating norms. This capacity is considered a function of neighborhood cohesion, reflected by the size, density, and breadth of network ties, and levels of organizational participation among residents (Bursik, 2000; Sampson and Groves, *We are grateful to Steve Messner for his advice on an earlier version of this paper. CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 39 NUMBER 2 2001 293 294 MARKOWITZ ET AL.1989). Recent conceptualizations focus on a direct form of informal control or collective efficacy-the ability to effectively intervene in neighborhood problems and to supervise residents to maintain public order (Sampson et al., 1997. As these complementary mechanisms weaken, neighborhoods are assumed to lose their ability to control crime. The strength of neighborhood cohesion and collective efficacy in turn is thought to reflect a broad range of macroconditions, including poverty, urbanization, industrialization, de-industrialization, population turnover, and ethnidracial heterogeneity; as they increase, the strength of cohesion and informal control decreases (see Figure 1A) (for more detailed discussions and reviews of the theory, see Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Kornhauser, 1978: andSkogan, 1990).
The social disorganization perspective assumes that social interaction among neighbors is a central element in the control of community crime. Moreover, social interaction among neighbors that occurs frequently, such as every day, is assumed to be most effective. This analysis tests that assumption by exploring the consequences of frequent and infrequent interaction. I construct 10 alternative measures of social interaction and separately examine the effect of each on the rates of three serious crimes across 60 urban neighborhoods. Findings suggest that type of interaction matters. Getting together once a year or more with neighbors has the most consistent and generally strongest effect on burglary, motor vehicle thejl, and robbery. Further this form of interaction mediates a significant proportion of the effect of ecological characteristics on community crime. Implications for community crime research are discussed.
This study explains racial/ethnic differences in serious adolescent violent behavior using a contextual model derived from prior urban, developmental, and criminological theory. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, we compare involvement in serious violence among Asians, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and whites. Results indicate that statistical differences between whites and minority groups are explained by variation in community disadvantage (for blacks), involvement in gangs (for Hispanics), social bonds (for Native Americans), and situational variables (for Asians). The lesser involvement in violence among Asians compared to blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans is accounted for by similar factors. Differences in violent behavior among the latter three minority groups are not significant. Theoretical and policy implications of the findings are discussed.
The systemic crime model predicts that informal surveillance of space reduces street crime. Conversely, community decline theory posits that street crime reduces informal surveillance by increasing residents' perception of risk and fear. Moreover, functions of crime theory suggests that some types of crime may increase surveillance. Using data for 100 urban neighborhoods, the analysis examines these predictions and disentangles reciprocal effects. Baseline recursive equations indicate that informal surveillance is inversely associated with robbery/ stranger assault, and that robberyhtranger assault is inversely associated with informal surveillance. In contrast, burglary rates are not affected by informal surveillance, but burglary has a positive effect on surveillance when robberyhtranger assault is controlled. Simultaneous equations indicate that robberyhtranger assault has a moderately strong inverse effect on informal surveillance, and that it is mediated by residents' perceptions of risk. When risk perception is controlled, informal surveillance has an inverse effect on robberyhtranger assault. The latter analysis also indicates that burglary increases surveillance, suggesting that some types of crime serve positive functions. The results, therefore, lend support to systemic, community decline, and functions of crime theory, and they suggest that the relationship between informal surveillance and crime is complex. Implications for community crime research are discussed.The concentration of crime within a small number of urban communities is an unfortunate, yet enduring, social fact. One of the dominant sociological explanations asserts that this concentration is, at least in part, a reflection of local residents' ability (or inability) to control local conditions through informal means. Indeed, the role of informal control in explaining the link between ecological characteristics, networks, and crime is widely invoked by researchers within and outside of criminology (for recent examples in the urban literature, see Massey and Denton, 1993;Wilson, 1996). Although it is commonly asserted that informal control is a
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.