"Communities, Crime, and Neighborhood Organization," Crime and Delinquency, 35
(No. 3, July, 1989), 437-457.
It is widely believed that voluntary action by neighborhood residents can play an important role in
maintaining order. However, the ability of individuals to act in defense of their community is constrained by
the opportunities for action that are available to them. Participation in collective efforts against crime is
confined to places where the existence of local organizations makes that possible. The distribution of group
activity across the metropolitan landscape thus defines the "opportunity structure" for local collective action.
This article examines the distribution of opportunities to participate in organized efforts to combat crime.
The findings include that there is evidence of "class bias" in relying on volunteer efforts to counter
neighborhood crime; there were more opportunities for participation in better-off metropolitan communities.
However, at the same time a larger "total effect" in the model is that of neighborhood crime driving local
organization. That effect "drowned out"some of the class bias, for better-off areas also had fewer reasons to
organize around crime-related issues. Class bias also was dampened somewhat by the tendency of
residents of better-off areas to get along better with the police.
There was a substantial tendency for less cohesive communities to employ more formally organized
responses to crime. There may be a direct trade-off between the extent to which neighborhoods rely on
more formal and less formal local prevention efforts. The effects of cohesion were both direct and indirect,
and the two were cumulative. The direct link between the extent of neighboring and local organization efforts
suggests that organizations of the type examined here emerge where informal problem-solving capacities
are weak.
Like many studies, this found that predominantly black neighborhoods were somewhat more organized
around crime than their counterparts; the same was true of areas with more young families. However, it also
appears that some of this organizational capacity arises as a response to inadequate police service to black
communities. The residents of older, white and affluent areas got along better with the police, and where
that was the case, residents seemed to rely more heavily on the state for defense against crime. The finding
that places enjoying better service from the police are less actively organized may seem to present a
conundrum for policymakers who want to encourage voluntary efforts to combat crime at the local level.
However, moving toward community policing, in which better service is linked to sustained efforts to
enhance the organizational capacity of high-crime neighborhoods, might be the way to "have it both ways"--
to enhance both the self-defensive capability of urban communities and the quality of the service they receive.
(No. 3, July, 1989), 437-457.
It is widely believed that voluntary action by neighborhood residents can play an important role in
maintaining order. However, the ability of individuals to act in defense of their community is constrained by
the opportunities for action that are available to them. Participation in collective efforts against crime is
confined to places where the existence of local organizations makes that possible. The distribution of group
activity across the metropolitan landscape thus defines the "opportunity structure" for local collective action.
This article examines the distribution of opportunities to participate in organized efforts to combat crime.
The findings include that there is evidence of "class bias" in relying on volunteer efforts to counter
neighborhood crime; there were more opportunities for participation in better-off metropolitan communities.
However, at the same time a larger "total effect" in the model is that of neighborhood crime driving local
organization. That effect "drowned out"some of the class bias, for better-off areas also had fewer reasons to
organize around crime-related issues. Class bias also was dampened somewhat by the tendency of
residents of better-off areas to get along better with the police.
There was a substantial tendency for less cohesive communities to employ more formally organized
responses to crime. There may be a direct trade-off between the extent to which neighborhoods rely on
more formal and less formal local prevention efforts. The effects of cohesion were both direct and indirect,
and the two were cumulative. The direct link between the extent of neighboring and local organization efforts
suggests that organizations of the type examined here emerge where informal problem-solving capacities
are weak.
Like many studies, this found that predominantly black neighborhoods were somewhat more organized
around crime than their counterparts; the same was true of areas with more young families. However, it also
appears that some of this organizational capacity arises as a response to inadequate police service to black
communities. The residents of older, white and affluent areas got along better with the police, and where
that was the case, residents seemed to rely more heavily on the state for defense against crime. The finding
that places enjoying better service from the police are less actively organized may seem to present a
conundrum for policymakers who want to encourage voluntary efforts to combat crime at the local level.
However, moving toward community policing, in which better service is linked to sustained efforts to
enhance the organizational capacity of high-crime neighborhoods, might be the way to "have it both ways"--
to enhance both the self-defensive capability of urban communities and the quality of the service they receive.
Community Prevention
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |