Economic Conditions, Neighborhood Organization, and Urban Crime

McGahey, Richard

doi:10.1086/449124

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Account must also be taken of alternative ways in which young people out of school may spend their timefor example by working in the informal economy (McGahey, 1986;Sullivan, 1989).…”

Section: Exclusion and Offending Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Hagan (1993) has argued 'through branching, snowballing and multiplying processes ... successive criminal acts and contacts may further embed youths in criminal networks that are isolated from the personalised networks of job-seeking.' This deepening 'investment' in 'crime' is paralleled by a progressive dis-investment in a conventional lifestyle as crime comes to constitute an increasingly important source of income, social organisation, identity and self-esteem (McGahey, 1986). However, this embededness may be compounded by the very forces which are ostensibly striving to prevent it.…”

Section: Accelerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Independent Effects of Permanent Exclusion from School on the Offending Careers of Young People

Berridge¹,

Brodie²,

Pitts³

et al. 2001

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RDS is part of the Home Office. The Home Office's purpose is to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced and the protection and security of the public are maintained.RDS is also a part of the Government Statistical Service (GSS). One of the GSS aims is to inform Parliament and the citizen about the state of the nation and provide a window on the work and performance of government, allowing the impact of government policies and actions to he assessed. Therefore -Research Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide the public and Parliament with information necessary for informed debate and to publish information for future use. AcknowledgementsThis has been a complex research study and many people have provided us with valuable assistance.We are especially grateful to Include (formerly Cities in Schools) which provided us with access to a sample of young people permanently excluded from school. Martin Stephenson, Chief Executive of Include, Rachel Pope, Kath Pinnock and past and present project managers at Include co-operated with us and supported the project throughout. The police services, local authority youth justice sections and education departments who work with Include were also extremely helpful. Further support in accessing offending data was provided by the Home Office Research and Statistics Department.In Luton, we are grateful to the Luton Youth Offending Team and Luton Education Department for their input to the research study, and to Mark Radley of Social Software for his advice and help with youth offending databases. Thanks as well to colleagues at the University of Luton, Ian Toon and Dani Agbewu-Lokku who helped with fieldwork and data processing.Accessing offending data proved to be an extremely challenging task, and we are grateful to Dr Carol Hayden and Tim Martin for providing us with information regarding their work on offending careers and school exclusion. Although it has not proved possible to use this in the final report, their time and the quality of their work were extremely helpful in enabling us to develop our analysis.Throughout the study we have appreciated the support and advice forthcoming from the Home Office, and especially that provided -at different times -by John Graham, Julie Vennard, Diane Caddle, Claire Flood-Page and Vicki Harrington.Finally, we would like to thank the 28 young people and the parents we interviewed, who gave their time and shared their experiences in the hope that this research would have a positive influence on the experiences of other young people excluded from school.Any errors are, of course, the responsibility of the authors.ii achieved higher-level qualifications felt that they were having to work harder in order to compensate for their past. vii viii the young person's life, in regard to family circumstances, educational experience...

show abstract

“…Account must also be taken of alternative ways in which young people out of school may spend their timefor example by working in the informal economy (McGahey, 1986;Sullivan, 1989).…”

Section: Exclusion and Offending Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accelerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Independent Effects of Permanent Exclusion from School on the Offending Careers of Young People

Berridge¹,

Brodie²,

Pitts³

et al. 2001

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spelman also has speculated whether the "War on Drugs may have had the unintended side effect of increasing, not reducing, the crime rate" (2000:117). 4 Crutchfield and Pitchford (1997), Laub and Sampson (1993), and Hagan (1993) found that the incarceration of juveniles reduces the likelihood of obtaining a steady job in the future, while McGahey (1986) provides evidence that persistent unemployment undermines informal social control, which contributes to crime. Therefore, it is plausible to assume that neighborhoods experiencing further economic decline "as a result of incarceration will experience an increase in crime" (Rose and Clear, 1998:461). crime in various major categories and suggests that imprisonment has a high payoff in terms of crimes prevented (Marvell andMoody, 1994, 1996;Levitt, 1996;Besci, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Weak Effect of Imprisonment on Crime: 1971–1998

DeFina

Arvanites

2002

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. This article studies the impact of increasing incarceration rates on crime rates. First we seek to replicate the findings of previous studies utilizing the pooled, fixed-effects models (which are based on the assumption that the effect of imprisonment does not vary across states). Next we test the validity of this assumption. Finally, we present a new methodology to examine the imprisonment-crime relationship. Methods. Annual state-level data from 1971-1998 are used to estimate 51 state-specific regression models in which crime rates for seven major categories are functions of incarceration rates and a wide array of socioeconomic and dummy control variables. Results. Our findings are consistent with prior studies. More important, the assumptions upon which the fixed-effect models are based were found to be statistically invalid. The results of our new methodology reveal that imprisonment rates are not significantly related to crime in the majority of states for any of the seven crimes studied. Conclusions. Because the state-level lagged imprisonment coefficients varied from significant negative effects to significant positive effects (depending on the state and type of crime), we argue that it is inappropriate to speak about "the" effect of imprisonment on any particular crime or at the national level.

show abstract

“…We argue that understanding how to generate community-level change focused on the reduction of youth violence should be a fundamental undertaking for the public-health community. Clearly, economic viability is an important component of community-level change, but the history of job relocation and economic impact of tax-based programs (e.g., empowerment zones) suggests more failures than successes with community-level change (McGahey, 1986;Peters andFisher, 2002, 2004). In fact, the majority of success stories focus on gentrification or displacement of disadvantaged residents over community-based urban-renewal efforts that find mechanisms for improving community social order for established residents.…”

Section: Theoretical Explanations For Youth Violence At the Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite large-scale, government-funded, community economic-development (CED) efforts targeted at areas of concentrated economic disadvantage (e.g., enterprise zones, empowerment zones, community-development block grants), there have been few defined success stories (Boarnet, 2001). Indeed, underemployment, poor housing, and youth violence remain a stable fact in many inner-city communities (Teitz, 1987;Porter, 1997;Gottlieb, 1997;Bushway and Reuter, 2002;Boarnet and Bogart, 1996;McGahey, 1986;Rogers and Tao, 2004;Spencer and Ong, 2004).…”

Section: Economic Development Community Organization Crime and Viomentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighborhood Effects on Crime and Youth Violence: The Role of Business Improvement Districts in Los Angeles

MacDonald¹,

Bluthenthal²,

Golinelli³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.

show abstract

Economic Conditions, Neighborhood Organization, and Urban Crime

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

The Independent Effects of Permanent Exclusion from School on the Offending Careers of Young People

The Independent Effects of Permanent Exclusion from School on the Offending Careers of Young People

The Weak Effect of Imprisonment on Crime: 1971–1998

Neighborhood Effects on Crime and Youth Violence: The Role of Business Improvement Districts in Los Angeles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About