Collective efficacy

Last updated

In the sociology of crime, the term collective efficacy refers to the ability of members of a community to control the behavior of individuals and groups in the community. [1] Control of people's behavior allows community residents to create a safe and orderly environment. Collective efficacy involves residents monitoring children playing in public areas, acting to prevent truancy and street corner "hanging" by teenagers, and confronting individuals who exploit or disturb public spaces.

Contents

Advocates of collective efficacy claim that these measures increase community control over individuals, thus creating an environment where violent crime is less likely to occur. [2] [3] Researchers have argued that increasing collective efficacy can lead to a significant reduction of crime in communities. [2] [4] Communities with high levels of collective efficacy have been found to have lower rates of violence [1] and homicide, [5] suggesting that community participation in preventing violence reduces crime.

Collective efficacy depends on the values shared by community members. If members of a community trust each other and are willing to cooperate to prevent violence and crime, it is more likely that they will be able to create a safe community environment.

Collective efficacy can also have a negative context when used to target individuals for stalking or gang stalking and invasions of privacy. Sometimes stalkers will employ collective efficacy measures to attempt to interfere with the life of a targeted individual, or otherwise create negative public opinions with libel and slander. Collective efficacy has also been used to describe a violent flash mob, where large groups prearrange a time and place to corner a targeted individual with 'demands' for collective efficacy involving threats if the individual fails to meet the demands of the group.

The concept of collective efficacy has been used to explain why urban neighborhoods differ in the amount of crime that takes place in them. In urban areas where neighbors monitor group behavior and are willing to intervene to break out fights or otherwise prevent disorder, violent crime is less likely to occur. [6]

Description

Collective efficacy includes behaviors, norms and actions that residents of a given community use to achieve public order (sociologists refer to these as “informal mechanisms”). In communities where these informal practices are enforced on a day-to-day basis by community members, individuals are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior. [7] A key element of the collective efficacy perspective is that it focuses on the effects of informal norms and practices of the community in preventing crime, rather than on the effects of formal, established institutions (such as police forces). [6]

In order for collective efficacy to develop in a specific community or neighborhood, it is necessary that members of the community have strong feelings of trust and solidarity for each other. [2] In communities without clear rules for cooperation between neighbors, or where neighbors distrust or fear each other, residents are less likely to work together to supervise the behavior of individuals in the community. Conversely, it is in those communities where people trust each other more and are more willing to cooperate that community supervision is more likely to deter crime. Collective efficacy thus requires that community members feel strongly bonded to each other.

Collective efficacy is thought to reduce the likelihood of crime by preventing public disputes from erupting into violence. [1] In communities where residents are less active in enforcing order, groups of peers and associates who gather in public places are more likely to use violent means to solve disputes. The emergence of violence in turn increases the probability of these groups turning into criminal gangs, drug trafficking rings, and prostitution rackets, among other types of delinquent associations.

Collective efficacy not only reduces crime in public places, but also lowers the likelihood of some forms of crime in private spaces (for example, inside the home). A 2002 Chicago study, for example, found that collective efficacy reduces the probability of both female homicide and physical violence against females by male partners. [3] According to the author of the study, these results can be explained by the finding that communities with high levels of trust, cooperation, and supervision are more likely to offer women several types of assistance, including support, advice, shelter, and social pressure on batterers to desist. [8] The 2002 study, however, also found that the association between collective efficacy and lower levels of crime against women is stronger in communities where violence between intimate partners is commonly seen as negative. In other words, collective efficacy reduces crime in public and private spaces, but its effectiveness for deterring specific types of crime is higher in communities where those types of crime are disapproved of.

Factors influencing collective efficacy

Collective efficacy develops more easily in some types of communities than in others. Those communities that experience high levels of population decline, as well as those where most of the residents belong to social groups that possess a smaller share of the resources available in society, are less likely to develop a sufficient level of collective efficacy to significantly prevent or reduce crime.

Economic downturns affect some areas more than others, leading individuals in affected areas to move to neighborhoods that offer better economic opportunities. Since developing mutual trust and cooperation with neighbors requires time, those communities where individuals are more likely to move out have lower levels of collective efficacy. [1] [2] In communities more seriously affected by residential instability, social bonds between residents are weaker, meaning that they will be less likely to cooperate in monitoring the behavior of others.

Lower income individuals, such as members of racial/ethnic minorities or female household heads, tend to live close to each other. These individuals usually lack the resources to live in areas with large proportions of affluent individuals. Residents of lower income communities are thus more likely to be excluded from contact with more advantaged people. This isolation creates feelings of helplessness and lack of control among residents of lower income neighborhoods. These feelings in turn make it less likely for trust and cooperation to develop between residents of disadvantaged communities. Lack of trust and cohesion between individuals reduces the probability that they will be willing to monitor the behavior of others or intervene to prevent crime. [2] [9]

Competing theories

Collective efficacy is an alternative to broken windows theory, which argues that efforts to prevent small crimes such as vandalism and public drinking reduce the likelihood of crime. According to broken windows theory, when residents and authorities do not work to prevent small crimes, a sense of disorder develops in the community. This sense of disorder creates fear in the minds of residents, who become convinced that the neighborhood is unsafe. As a consequence, individuals withdraw from the community, weakening the social controls that previously kept criminals in check. This process reproduces itself, so that disorder causes crime, and crime in turn creates more fear and disorder. [10]

Proponents of collective efficacy argue that disorder is not the most important factor that explains differences in crime. Evidence shows that disorder depends on the proportion of economically and socially disadvantaged people living in the community, as well as the level of trust and solidarity between neighbors. [2] The influence of disorder on crime is seriously attenuated when collective efficacy is taken into account, suggesting that the latter is more relevant for explaining differences in crime between neighborhoods.

This argument does not imply that disorder is irrelevant for explaining differences in crime. A sense of disorder can increase crime by weakening social ties among community residents. For example, fear resulting from disorder can drive residents away from the community, preventing trust and solidarity from developing among neighbors. In these conditions, collective efficacy will be less likely to develop, and crime may increase as a result. [2]

Example

A study of Chicago adolescents tested whether collective efficacy explains differences in violent crime across neighborhoods, or whether these differences can instead be explained by the amount of time teenagers spend away from structured activities (such as school or work). [9] The study found that having more unstructured time makes teenagers more likely to engage in crime, while living in a neighborhood with high collective efficacy reduces the probability of adolescents committing a crime. The association between unstructured time and crime is weaker in neighborhoods with high collective efficacy. These results suggest that the monitoring of public spaces and the willingness of neighbors to intervene to prevent violence reduce crime, even when we take into account how teenagers use their time. Moreover, collective efficacy reduces the probability that time spent away from activities such as school or work will lead to crime among teenagers.

Collective efficacy and social ties

Collective efficacy focuses on how trust and solidarity among residents of the same community reduce crime. This suggests that strong relationships between neighbors make it less likely that a crime will be committed. However, high rates of crime are observed in some communities where residents have strong feelings of trust and solidarity for each other, leading some researchers to question the argument that mutual trust and solidarity reduce crime. [11] These researchers have suggested that the reason why some communities with high trust and solidarity have high crime while others have low crime is that relationships of trust and solidarity have different effects depending on the cultural context of the community.

In communities with certain cultural characteristics, cooperation and trust between individuals can foster collective efficacy. In other communities, cooperation and trust can lead to individuals being shielded from severe punishment for certain offenses. The latter communities are more accepting of some forms of criminal behavior. This means that trust and solidarity are likely to lead people to cooperate in order to protect individuals who engage in culturally accepted forms of crime. Consequently, individuals in communities that are tolerant of certain forms of crime will be more likely to commit these types of crime.

The above argument implies that social trust and solidarity can increase some forms of crime rather than reduce it if the community is accepting of those forms of crime. According to this "social cohesion" view, relationships between people can make crime more likely, which is the opposite argument to that made by proponents of collective efficacy theory.

The "social cohesion" argument is supported by a study undertaken in Chicago that shows that trust and cooperation are less likely to reduce crime in communities with high cohesion. This result suggests that whether community solidarity increases or reduces crime depends on whether community culture is more or less accepting of certain types of crime. [11]

Related Research Articles

Violence Use of physical force or power with the intent to inflict harm

Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. Other definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

Broken windows theory Criminological theory of the norm-setting and signalling effect of urban disorder and vandalism

The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes. The theory suggests that policing methods that target minor crimes, such as vandalism, loitering, public drinking, jaywalking and fare evasion, help to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness.

Civil disorder Forms of unrest caused by a group of people

Civil disorder, also known as civil disturbance or civil unrest, is an activity arising from a mass act of civil disobedience in which the participants become hostile toward authority, and authorities incur difficulties in maintaining public safety and order, over the disorderly crowd. It is, in any form, prejudicial to public law and order.

Juvenile delinquency Illegal behavior by minors

Juvenile delinquency, also known as "juvenile offending", is the act of participating in unlawful behavior as a minor or individual younger than the statutory age of majority. For example, in the United States of America a juvenile delinquent is a person who is typically below 18 years of age and commits an act that otherwise would have been charged as a crime if they were an adult. Juvenile crimes can range from status offenses, to property crimes and violent crimes.

Anti-social behaviours are actions that harm or lack consideration for the well-being of others. It has also been defined as any type of conduct that violates the basic rights of another person and any behaviour that is considered to be disruptive to others in society. This can be carried out in various ways, which includes, but is not limited to, intentional aggression, as well as covert and overt hostility. Anti-social behaviour also develops through social interaction within the family and community. It continuously affects a child's temperament, cognitive ability and their involvement with negative peers, dramatically affecting children's cooperative problem-solving skills. Many people also label behaviour which is deemed contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct as anti-social behaviour. However, researchers have stated that it is a difficult term to define, particularly in the United Kingdom where many acts fall into its category. The term is especially used in British English.

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is an agenda for manipulating the built environment to create safer neighborhoods.

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk. When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop. Additional rules apply to stops that occur on a bus.

Social disorganization theory

In sociology, the social disorganization theory is a theory developed by the Chicago School, related to ecological theories. The theory directly links crime rates to neighbourhood ecological characteristics; a core principle of social disorganization theory that states location matters. In other words, a person's residential location is a substantial factor shaping the likelihood that that person will become involved in illegal activities. The theory suggests that, among determinants of a person's later illegal activity, residential location is as significant as or more significant than the person's individual characteristics. For example, the theory suggests that youths from disadvantaged neighborhoods participate in a subculture which approves of delinquency, and that these youths thus acquire criminality in this social and cultural setting.

Deterrence (penology)

Deterrence in relation to criminal offending is the idea or theory that the threat of punishment will deter people from committing crime and reduce the probability and/or level of offending in society. It is one of five objectives that punishment is thought to achieve; the other four objectives are denunciation, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation.

Neighbourhood Watch in the United Kingdom is the largest voluntary crime prevention movement covering England and Wales with upwards of 2.3 million household members. The charity brings neighbors together to create strong, friendly and active communities in which crime can be tackled. Neighbourhood Watch Network is the umbrella organization supported by the Home Office to support Neighbourhood Watch groups and individuals across England and Wales.

The fear of crime refers to the fear of being a victim of crime as opposed to the actual probability of being a victim of crime. The fear of crime, along with fear of the streets and the fear of youth, is said to have been in Western culture for "time immemorial". While fear of crime can be differentiated into public feelings, thoughts and behaviors about the personal risk of criminal victimization, distinctions can also be made between the tendency to see situations as fearful, the actual experience while in those situations, and broader expressions about the cultural and social significance of crime and symbols of crime in people's neighborhoods and in their daily, symbolic lives.

Crime prevention is the attempt to reduce and deter crime and criminals. It is applied specifically to efforts made by governments to reduce crime, enforce the law, and maintain criminal justice.

Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) is a community driven policing strategy designed for the Chicago Police Department that aims to bridge the gap between the police force and the citizens of Chicago. CAPS started in 1993 as a pilot program in five of the 25 police districts in Chicago - Englewood, Marquette, Austin, Morgan Park and Rogers Park - after a realization that the community and police were becoming increasingly isolated from one another throughout Chicago since the early 1960s. The original five districts, characterized by high crime rates and cases of extreme poverty, provided the Chicago Police Department with an initial benchmark from which to determine the program's strengths and weaknesses. By 1995, the Chicago Police Department implemented CAPS across all Chicago neighborhoods with the goal of blending traditional policing strategies with alternative strategies aimed at encouraging community members and police to work together in order to prevent and control crime. The program's motto, "Together We Can," emphasizes the need for increased lines of communication between the community and the police, so that together they could come up with solutions for chronic neighborhood problems.

Street crime is a loose term for any criminal offense in a public place. The difference between street crime and white-collar crime is that street crime is often violence that occurs in a public area whereas white-collar crime is non-violent crime conducted by governments or private industries for the purpose of financial gain. According to London's Metropolitan Police Force, "Robbery, often called 'mugging', and thefts from victims in the street where their property is snatched and the victim is not assaulted is also considered 'street crime'."

A collective action problem or social dilemma is a situation in which all individuals would be better off cooperating but fail to do so because of conflicting interests between individuals that discourage joint action. The collective action problem has been addressed in political philosophy for centuries, but was most clearly established in 1965 in Mancur Olson's The Logic of Collective Action.

Criminology Study of the causes and manifestations of crime

Criminology is the study of crime and deviant behaviour. Criminology is an interdisciplinary field in both the behavioural and social sciences, which draws primarily upon the research of sociologists, political scientists, economists, psychologists, philosophers, psychiatrists, biologists, social anthropologists, as well as scholars of law.

Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center Program (MJTC) is an intensive mental health intervention for violent and treatment resistant youth in juvenile detention.

Concentrated disadvantage Sociological term based on socioeconomic status of neighborhoods

A concentrated disadvantage is a sociological term for neighborhoods with high percentages of residents of low socioeconomic status. It is expressed as the percent of households located in census tracts with high levels of concentrated disadvantage.

Legal cynicism

Legal cynicism is a domain of legal socialization defined by a perception that the legal system and law enforcement agents are "illegitimate, unresponsive, and ill equipped to ensure public safety." It is related to police legitimacy, and the two serve as important ways for researchers to study citizens' perceptions of law enforcement.

Community Crime Prevention relates to interventions designed to bring reform to the social conditions that influence, and encourage, offending in residential communities. Community crime prevention has a main focus on both the social and local institutions found within communities which can influence crime rates, specifically juvenile delinquency.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Sampson, Robert. J., Stephen. W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. "Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy." Science 277 (5328): 918-924.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. "Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods." American Journal of Sociology 105 (3): 603.
  3. 1 2 Browning, Christopher R. 2002. "The Span of Collective Efficacy: Extending Social Disorganization Theory to Partner Violence." Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (4): 833-850.
  4. ↑ Ludwig, Jens, Greg J. Duncan, and Paul Hirschfield. 2001. "Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence from a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2): 655-679.
  5. ↑ Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2001. "Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence*." Criminology 39 (3): 517-558.
  6. 1 2 Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon-Rowley. 2002. "Assessing "Neighborhood Effects": Social Processes and New Directions in Research." Annual Review of Sociology: 443-478.
  7. ↑ Simons, Ronald L., Leslie Gordon Simons, Callie Harbin Burt, Gene H. Brody, and Carolyn Cutrona. 2005. "Collective Efficacy, Authoritative Parenting and Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of a Model Integrating Community-and Family-Level Processes*." Criminology 43 (4): 989-1029.
  8. ↑ Bowker, L. H. 1993. "A Battered Woman´s Problems Are Social, not Psychological," in R. J. Gelles and D. R. Loseke (eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence, 154-165. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.
  9. 1 2 Maimon, David and Christopher R. Browning. 2010. "Unstructured Socializing, Collective Efficacy, and Violent Behavior among Urban Youth*." Criminology 48 (2): 443-474.
  10. ↑ Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. 1982. Archived 2015-01-02 at the Wayback Machine "Broken Windows." Atlantic Monthly 249 (3): 29-38.
  11. 1 2 Browning, Christopher R., Seth L. Feinberg, and Robert D. Dietz. 2004. "The Paradox of Social Organization: Networks, Collective Efficacy, and Violent Crime in Urban Neighborhoods." Social Forces 83 (2): 503-534.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.