Influence Of Gentrification In Violence Crime

Deviant Behavior

ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

A Theoretical Explanation of the Influence of Gentrification on Neighborhood Crime Michael S. Barton & Colin P. Gruner To cite this article: Michael S. Barton & Colin P. Gruner (2015): A Theoretical Explanation of the Influence of Gentrification on Neighborhood Crime, Deviant Behavior, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2014.983004 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983004

Published online: 16 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]

Date: 31 October 2015, At: 07:35

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983004

A Theoretical Explanation of the Influence of Gentrification on Neighborhood Crime Michael S. Barton and Colin P. Gruner

Deviant Behavior

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA; University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York, USA ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

Gentrification and other types of neighborhood revitalization strategies have been promoted as viable crime reduction strategies, but empirical assessments of this relationship produced inconsistent results. The mixed results were partly due to a narrow theoretical focus on social disorganization and routine activities, but also because of a limited conceptualization of gentrification. The current study draws on gentrification literature more broadly and incorporates insights from additional criminological theories to provide a more complete understanding of how gentrification is related to neighborhood crime. Specifically, three pathways through which gentrification influences neighborhood crime are identified.

Received 7 April 2014 Accepted 17 September 2014

The dramatic decline in crime during the 1990s has been well documented, but the cause of this decline continues to be debated. Recent research has suggested that this decline was associated with the spread of gentrification in American cities during the 1980s and 1990s (Kirk and Laub 2010). The specific definition varies, but gentrification has typically referred to “the process by which higher income households displace lower income [households] of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood” (Kennedy and Leonard 2001: 5). Many studies have referenced the importance of gentrification for crime, but the few studies that empirically assessed this relationship produced mixed results. The inconsistency in results was likely the result of limited theoretical development as much of this research drew on concepts from criminological theories such as social disorganization (Covington and Taylor 1989; Y. Lee 2010; Kreager, Lyons, and Hays 2011; Papachristos et al. 2011; Taylor and Covington 1988; Van Wilsem, Wittebrood, Dirk De Graaf 2006) and routine activities (Covington and Taylor 1989; Kreager et al. 2011) that do not map directly onto the gentrification and crime relationship due to the complexity of the gentrification process.1 These theories suggest that gentrification results in short-term increases in crime because it disrupts the local social order, which results in decreased guardianship and social control (Anderson 1990; McDonald 1986; Skogan 1990). As the gentrification process takes root, the social order of the neighborhood stabilizes and crime declines. The changes to neighborhoods highlighted by the social disorganization and routine activities frameworks do not address all aspects of the gentrification process. For example, in addition to changes to the composition of neighborhood populations, gentrification scholars also highlighted the importance of physical renovations and the potential for fear and resentment among gentrifiers and incumbent residents. As the importance of such changes have been highlighted

CONTACT Michael S. Barton [email protected] Department of Sociology, 139 Stubbs Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA. 1 The only empirical assessment of the gentrification–crime relationship that did not draw on criminological theory was O’Sullivan (2005), who drew on economic theory. This study assessed whether neighborhoods gentrified as a response to declines in crime and therefore did not seek to explain why crime declined. Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

2

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

by the broken windows thesis, the civic communities perspective, and the defended communities thesis, drawing on these theories in addition to social disorganization and routine activities should shed additional light on the relationship between gentrification and crime. The current study highlights how a deeper understanding of what gentrification is and how it shapes neighborhoods combined with the inclusion of theories other than social disorganization and routine activities can further develop understanding of the relationship between gentrification and crime. This study first reviews the overall research on gentrification before discussing research on gentrification and crime. The review of previous research is followed by a discussion of how the gentrification and neighborhood crime literatures can be joined to identify three ways that gentrification influences crime.

Deviant Behavior

What is gentrification? Gentrification has been of interest to urban scholars since the 1960s, but the topic became of special interest during the 1980s and 1990s as cities began to recover after multiple decades of decline. Believed to be partly a desire among middle-class individuals for inexpensive housing and access to urban amenities and partly a strategy promoted by city governments seeking to revitalize deteriorated areas, gentrification was often understood to be “the process by which higher income households displace lower income [households] of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood” (Kennedy and Leonard 2001:5). This process has frequently been discussed as a reversal of the middle-class migration to suburban areas that occurred in the wake of World War II, which resulted in elevated concentrations of disadvantaged populations and higher crime rates in many inner-city areas. Even though it has been studied for about 50 years, gentrification scholars have yet to come to a consensus on a definition (Lees, Slater, and Wyly 2008). Most acknowledge that gentrification was first identified in London during the 1960s by Glass (1964:xviii) who used the term to describe the “invasion” of middle- and upper-class residents into traditionally working-class neighborhoods, resulting in the displacement of incumbent residents and a change of the social character of the neighborhood. Decomposing this definition reveals that gentrification is a process that occurs over time and changes the social composition and “social character,” or culture, of neighborhoods. When describing changes to the social composition of neighborhoods, gentrification scholars frequently discussed changes in the socioeconomic and racial composition of neighborhood populations. To this effect, previous research highlighted the greater representation of white residents, residents with college educations, residents employed in professional occupations, reductions in poverty, and smaller households (Bostic and Martin 2003; Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Ley 1996). Research on the correlates of crime has found similar changes were negatively associated with crime (Sampson 2012; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). When discussing changes to the social character of neighborhoods, previous research emphasized changes in housing and businesses. Discussions of housing focused on the conversion of former manufacturing sites into luxury loft-style apartments, but also described increases in property values overall (Curran 2007; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2006; Zukin 1982). Others noted that gentrification resulted in cultural changes to neighborhoods as traditional family-owned businesses were replaced with chain stores and restaurants (Freeman 2006; Zukin 2010). Changes to the availability of housing and neighborhood culture were important because they disrupted the local social order and were resented by incumbent residents (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Nyden, Edlynn, and Davis 2006). While gentrification scholars generally agreed that the process shaped the social composition and character of neighborhoods, the extent to which each aspect was incorporated into the operationalization of gentrification was greatly influenced by methodological differences. Qualitative studies typically focused on individual gentrifying areas and emphasized the transition from traditional racial or ethnic neighborhood cultures to a uniform, middle-class, white culture (Anderson 1990; Freeman 2006). In contrast, quantitative studies explored changes in larger samples of

Deviant Behavior

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

3

neighborhoods and frequently identified neighborhoods as gentrifiable if they featured a particular characteristic or characteristics, usually measurable with census data, at the beginning of a decade and gentrified if they experienced a change in the identified characteristic or characteristics. Atkinson (2000) used a simple version of this strategy by identifying gentrified neighborhoods as those that experienced gains in the proportion of workers employed in professional occupations between two time points as gentrified. In contrast, Bostic and Martin (2003) developed a more complex measurement that assessed changes in nine sociodemographic variables frequently associated with gentrification. These strategies allowed for the inclusion of large samples, but were often criticized for relying too heavily on census indicators that offered limited measurement of changes to the social character of neighborhoods. Two strategies were offered to address the limitation of using only census-based indicators to identify gentrified neighborhoods. The first was to combine qualitative and quantitative data sources. Hammel and Wyly (1996; Wyly and Hammel 1998, 1999) were the forerunners of this approach. These authors used a combination of fieldwork and census analyses to develop a database of neighborhoods in 23 large American cities that experienced gentrification during the 1990s. More recently, Hwang and Sampson (2014) drew on a combination of census indicators and systematic social observation of Chicago streets using Google Street View to identify gentrified neighborhoods. While the use of qualitative and quantitative information sources allowed for the refined measurement of gentrification, the labor intensiveness of the data collection makes these strategies difficult to replicate. A second, less-labor intensive strategy to supplemented census indicators with non-census based measures of gentrification such as the number of coffeeshops (Papachristos et al. 2011; C. M. Smith 2014) and mortgage lending information (Kreager et al. 2011). Such measures allowed for refined measurement of gentrification that also incorporated changes over time. These strategies were limited, however, in that they were unable to account for unmeasurable influences such as city planning efforts, individual tastes and residential preferences. In addition, they did not allow for the distinction of gentrification-related investments from other types of investment such as incumbent upgrading. Differences in the operationalization of gentrification were important in and of themselves, but also because these differences may have influenced research on neighborhood outcomes, much of which focused on residential displacement and changes in crime. For example, qualitative case studies consistently documented fear of displacement (see Anderson 1990; Freeman 2006; Newman and Wyly 2006), but empirical analyses indicated that displacement affected a small proportion of households (Freeman and Braconi 2004; Newman and Wyly 2006). While residential displacement is not the focus of this article, the potential for fear of displacement has important consequences for the relationship of gentrification with crime. The results of research on the association of gentrification with changes in neighborhood crime were more varied. Some studies found gentrification was positively associated with crime (Covington and Taylor 1989; C. M. Smith 2014; Taylor and Covington 1988; Van Wilsem et al. 2006), while others found a negative association (McDonald 1986; Papachristos, et al. 2011; C. M. Smith 2014). To complicate the issue further, research by Kreager et al. (2011) and Y. Lee (2010) found that the association of gentrification and crime varied over time, with gentrification initially associated with increased crime, but as time progressed the relationship reversed and gentrification was associated with decreased crime. These divergent findings were partly due to differences in how gentrification was measured, but also the result of limited theoretical development as much of this research drew on two criminological theories that were unable to account for the complexity of the gentrification process.

Criminological theory and the association between gentrification and crime Research on gentrification and crime primarily emphasized the importance of the social disorganization framework and routine activities theory. While these theories offer insight into the

4

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

gentrification–crime relationship, neither maps perfectly. Additional insights from the broken windows thesis, civic communities perspective, and defended community thesis should be utilized to improve our understanding of the gentrification–crime relationship.

Deviant Behavior

Social disorganization The most utilized theory in gentrification–crime research was the social disorganization theory (Covington and Taylor 1989; Kreager et al. 2011; Papachristos et al. 2011; Taylor and Covington 1988; Van Wilsem et al. 2006). The original statement of this framework by Shaw and McKay (1969) predicted crime would be higher in neighborhoods characterized by concentrated disadvantage, residential instability, and racial and ethnic heterogeneity. Shaw and McKay (1969) hypothesized that these factors were associated with the formation of tenuous social networks, which in turn decreased the probability of informal social control (Sampson and Groves 1989:775). In a widely cited critique of the disorganization framework, Kornhauser (1978:33) criticized much of the research on social disorganization for being unable to differentiate the effects of structural causes from subcultural causes of crime. To address this critique, recent developments in the form of the systemic model of crime (Bursik 1988; Bursik and Grasmick 1993) and collective efficacy theory (Sampson 2012; Sampson et al. 1997) expanded upon Shaw and McKay’s (1969) framework by explicitly describing why the strength of social networks was an important intervening mechanism. The systemic model of crime built on Kasarda and Janowitz’s (1974) argument that local communities are the result of complex systems of friendship and kinship networks and the work by Hunter (1985), who identified social control as a function of private, parochial, and public social networks. Private networks refer to informal primary groups such as families, whereas parochial networks develop through interaction with broader institutions such as schools and churches. Public networks provide access to goods and services outside of the local community such as street maintenance and policing (1985:233). Drawing on the ideas of Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) and Hunter (1985), the systemic model argues that community disorganization should be defined in terms of the capacity of a neighborhood to regulate itself through formal and informal processes of social control. These processes are based on the complex system of associational ties in a neighborhood, reflected in the operation of private, parochial, and public forms of social control (Bursik 1988:527). The other extension of the social disorganization framework, collective efficacy theory, argues that strong social networks are less likely to form in neighborhoods characterized by concentrated disadvantage, residential stability, and racial and ethnic heterogeneity. These factors hinder the development of social networks and decrease the probability that residents will participate in local social organizations or have the resources required to develop them (Sampson 2012; Sampson et al. 1997). The limited social networks and weaker community organizations decrease the collective efficacy of the neighborhood, which is defined as the “ability of neighborhoods to realize common values among residents and maintain effective social controls” (Sampson et al. 1997:918). Decreased collective efficacy is important because it means that these neighborhoods are less able to draw on informal techniques of social control (Sampson 2012; Sampson et al. 1997; Taylor 2001). Gentrification–crime research emphasized the social disorganization perspective because the process of gentrification results in changes to the three social structural factors highlighted by social disorganization, namely disadvantage, residential stability, and heterogeneity. The influx of affluent households results in a deconcentration of disadvantage, which was important because disadvantaged households often did not have the social capital or social support required to assist each other during times of need (Triplett, Gainey, and Sun 2003). Further, the increase in affluent residents was important for formal social control, as affluent residents were better able to make demands of city officials to address neighborhood issues such as general maintenance and crime control (Freeman 2006; Skogan 1990). Proponents of gentrification as an urban renewal tool suggested that the increased presence of middle-class residents that resulted from gentrification would eventually

Deviant Behavior

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

5

lead to reductions in crime in the neighborhood (Sullivan 2007:583). The influence of gentrification on crime has not, however, been found to be such a straightforward process. The influence of the greater representation of affluent households on crime is unclear because the very act of moving-in decreases the residential stability of the neighborhood and increases the socioeconomic, and often racial, heterogeneity of the neighborhood. Not only was it harder to form networks across cultural, racial, and economic divides, the incorporation of the new residents into existing social networks was often hindered by concerns among incumbent residents of displacement (Freeman 2006; Newman and Wyly 2006). Many researchers discussed racial tensions between white gentrifiers and minority incumbent residents, but tensions between gentrifiers and incumbent residents of the same race were also identified (Anderson 1990; Freeman 2006). Such tensions, whether based in race, class, or a combination of the two, reduce the potential for collective efficacy and thereby informal social control in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification (Van Wilsem et al. 2006). Empirical assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship suggest short- and long-term effects of residential instability. Taylor and Covington (1988) and Van Wilsem et al. (2006) suggested that the association of gentrification and crime was mediated by residential instability. Consistent with the economic heterogeneity angle, Kreager et al. (2011) found that crime rates initially increased in neighborhoods experiencing an influx of investment, but crime declined after a tipping point of gentrification was reached. Gentrification may also result in long-term neighborhood stabilization as the process typically increased the proportion of homeowners in the neighborhood (Kreager et al. 2011). Home purchases represent significant investments, and homeowners are more likely to be involved in crime-fighting behaviors such as neighborhood watches and calling the police to intervene in dangerous or suspicious situations (Hipp 2007:688). Further, continued gentrification may eventually reduce heterogeneity, allowing for the stronger network ties and bonds, which would enable collective efficacy. The greater willingness to engage in crime-fighting behaviors suggests that gentrification would result in long-term declines in crime. Broken windows thesis Research on the broken windows thesis has referenced the importance of gentrification and other forms of urban renewal for reducing the prevalence of social and physical disorder (Beckett and Herbert 2008; Skogan 1990; Taylor 2001), but empirical assessments of gentrification and crime have not drawn on the broken windows thesis. The basic argument of the broken windows thesis is that crime is more likely in neighborhoods characterized by social (public arguments, public drunkenness) and physical (graffiti, vandalism) disorder because these indicate that residents are either unable or unwilling to maintain order in the neighborhood, thereby decreasing the risk of punishment (Kelling and Coles 1996; Taylor 2001). It is surprising that apart from a few anecdotal references, assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship have not drawn on the broken windows thesis. Gentrification scholars generally agreed that the process resulted in reinvestment of capital into disadvantaged neighborhoods. The reinvestment in capital was in turn associated with a reduction in signs of disorder overall, especially in regard to physical disorder as many deteriorated building were renovated (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Kirk and Laub 2010; Taylor 2001). Gentrification and other neighborhood restoration processes were being discussed before Wilson and Kelling (1982) formally stated the broken windows thesis, but very little literature has linked the two together. Areas characterized by incivilities are prime targets for gentrification as property values in these areas tend to be lower than in more affluent areas. From the standpoint of the broken windows thesis, neighborhoods undergoing gentrification should see reduced crime because gentrification removes the signs of disorder in an area, which are the root causes of criminal activity. For example, the higher socioeconomic status of gentrifiers provides them with greater access to social, economic, and political resources. Greater access to resources makes them better able to repair or

Deviant Behavior

6

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

maintain neighborhood buildings, act collectively to solve neighborhood problems, and make demands of local city agencies such as the police or sanitation (Freeman 2006; Skogan 1990). Assessments of the broken windows thesis found disorder to be correlated with felonies overall (Kelling and Coles 1996), robbery (Kelling and Coles 1996; Skogan 1990), and burglary (Rountree et al. 1994). In an often-cited critique, Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) assessed the effectiveness of the broken windows thesis in Chicago and argued that the relationship between disorder and crime was spurious as both crime and disorder were due to low collective efficacy. Gault and Silver (2008) criticized Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) for testing a direct link between disorder and crime though, because Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) original statement of the broken windows thesis claimed that the association between disorder and crime was mediated by weakened community (such as lower collective efficacy), consistent with Sampson and Raudenbush’s (1999) findings. We concur with Gault and Silver’s (2008) critique and suggest that reductions in neighborhood disorder that result from gentrification should make crime less inviting and increase the sense of security among residents. These changes in turn facilitate engagement in collective anti-crime activities. Both the social disorganization and broken windows frameworks suggest that gentrification will reduce crime by enhancing residents’ ability to engage in crime fighting activities and form a sense of collective efficacy. The two theories, however, offer different predictions as to how this plays out over time. The social disorganization framework suggests that crime will initially increase as gentrification begins to occur, but then decrease as the community in the neighborhood re-establishes itself. In contrast to social disorganization, the broken windows thesis predicts a linear effect over time. As gentrification progresses, more and more of the dilapidated and boarded up buildings are renovated and signs of disorder steadily decline. Coinciding with that decline is an increased sense of security among neighborhood residents and an increased willingness to combat crime on the part of residents. Thus, crime should decline in a linear fashion as gentrification progresses.

Civic communities perspective Another theory that bears on the gentrification–crime relationship is the civic communities perspective. According to this perspective, locally oriented capitalism and civic engagement provide the foundation for the trust and cooperation among citizens that forms local communities (M. Lee 2008; Tolbert et al. 2002). Similar to the social disorganization framework, the civic communities perspective argues that rapid population growth can disrupt local communities because it is often associated with decreased homogeneity (Brown, Forsyth, and Berthelot 2014; M. Lee and Thomas 2010). While the basic argument made by the civic communities perspective is similar to those of the classical human ecology and social disorganization frameworks, it is distinctive in three ways. Specifically, because it emphasizes communities rather than neighborhoods as the units of analysis this perspective is not spatially constrained. Further, it places more emphasis on changes in the local business climate and highlights the interrelations between the social, political, economic, religious, and other spheres of community organization (M. Lee 2008; M. Lee and Thomas 2010). Applications of this perspective found that more civically engaged communities featured higher levels of income and residential stability because the owners and managers of locally owned businesses were more likely to embed themselves in local institutions and hire local residents (Tolbert et al. 2002:96). Further, civic and social capital institutions can reduce the community disruption that occurs as a result of rapid population growth by facilitating the integration of new individuals into the preexisting community (Brown et al. 2014). The civic communities perspective has only recently been incorporated into criminological research (M. Lee 2008; M. Lee and Thomas 2010). Assessments of this perspective found that areas characterized by locally oriented small businesses, an economically independent middle class, residential stability, home ownership, and civically engaged people and institutions featured lower rates of violent crime (M. Lee 2008) and smaller increases in violent crime over time (M. Lee and Thomas, 2010).

Deviant Behavior

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

7

The emphasis on the interrelation of different spheres of community and local businesses provides additional insight into the gentrification–crime relationship. The importance of different spheres of community is similar to the systemic model’s focus on the strength of private, parochial, and public social networks (Bursik 1988; Bursik and Grasmick 1993). Residential stability is a key component of civic communities perspective as well because social connections among residents of a neighborhood take time to develop (M. Lee 2008). Given this argument, gentrification may initially result in increased crime as the introduction of new residents and possibility of forced displacement of incumbent residents was associated with the breakdown of close-knit communities (Atkinson 2000; Freeman 2006). The civic community perspective’s emphasis on changes to local businesses also bears on the gentrification–crime relationship as the urban research on gentrification has highlighted the importance of changes in local businesses. For example, gentrification scholars have recognized the potential for the displacement of locally owned businesses (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Zukin 2010). As recognized by Tolbert (2002:96), the removal of locally owned businesses was important because locally owned businesses were more likely to hire informally from within the community. Such changes to local businesses were disruptive because incumbent residents were afraid that they would not be able to afford to shop at the new businesses (Freeman 2006; Zukin 2010). This disruption damages the trust among neighborhood residents. To summarize, discussions of the civic communities perspective suggested that the introduction of new residents and reduction in locally owned and operated businesses disrupted the local social order, which in turn was positively associated with violent crime. Given that gentrification is associated with an increase in new residents and changes in neighborhood businesses, it is reasonable to expect that disruptions to the local social order due to gentrification will result in increased crime, at least in the short term. As the new residents and businesses become established in the neighborhood, crime should decline. Routine activities theory While research on the gentrification–crime relationship has not explicitly assessed the routine activities theory, a few studies have referenced its importance (Covington and Taylor 1989; Kreager et al 2011; Papachristos et al. 2011; Van Wilsem et al. 2006). According to routine activities theory, crime is more likely to occur when a suitable target (high value) that is lacking in capable guardianship converges in space and time with a motivated offender (Cohen and Felson 1979). The first tenet of routine activities, that crime requires a suitable target, is exemplified by the influx of new residents associated with gentrification. Gentrifiers own higher value possessions and may lack capable guardianship due to their unfamiliarity with techniques for protecting themselves while walking on the street (Anderson 1990:149). The location of gentrified neighborhoods near disadvantaged neighborhoods may also attract offenders from nearby neighborhoods (Taylor 2001:326). Offender motivation may be guided by income and wealth disparities between gentrifiers and incumbent residents as well as the resentment that incumbent residents feel toward gentrifiers (Taylor and Covington 1988). An example of how anti-gentrification resentment may be associated with increased victimization is the “mug-a-yuppie” campaign, which was documented in London, New York City, and San Francisco (Atkinson 2004; Mele 2000). Similar examples of crime such as arson and vandalism against gentrifiers were documented in Berlin, Germany (Connolly 2010) and Minneapolis, Minnesota (Stoecker 1994) as well.2 The extent of interpersonal violence that occurred because of gentrification is unknown, so it remains unclear whether these actions were associated with an increase in violence or merely an increase in fear of violence. 2

Although the arsons were attributed to anti-gentrification activists, it is unclear the extent to which gentrification was actually a motivating factor.

Deviant Behavior

8

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

Guardianship in gentrified neighborhoods will change over time in ways that will initially result in increased crime, but should also result in a decline in crime over time. Qualitative studies of gentrification often highlighted the resentment that incumbent residents felt toward the incoming gentrifiers who were seen as threats to the traditional way of life in a neighborhood (Freeman 2006; Mele 2000). This resentment is important as it may encourage incumbent residents to victimize gentrifiers, but it may also discourage incumbent residents from acting as capable guardians. Capable guardians need to be able and willing to intervene on the behalf of an individual or their property. It is plausible to suggest that incumbent residents may be resentful of or at least weakly connected to gentrifiers and therefore less likely to intervene on their behalf. This lowered guardianship could initially lead to more crimes being committed in the neighborhood. This increase in crime would be inflated by the greater ability of gentrifiers to make demands on city services such as the police, because greater utilization of the police entails more crimes being reported to the police and thus recorded in official statistics (Freeman 2006; Skogan 1990). Eventually, the greater ability of gentrifiers to act collectively and make demands of local city agencies should increase formal and informal guardianship as increased presence of formal social control may increase the willingness of neighborhood residents to engage in informal social control (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003:383). The increase in both forms of social control should result in lower crime in the long term. To summarize, the routine activities perspective argues that crime is more likely to occur in neighborhoods characterized by large numbers of suitable targets, lack of guardianship, and motivated offenders. Given these tenets, crime may initially increase due to gentrification as the process increases the interactions between motivated offenders and high values targets lacking in capable guardianship. Over time, however, the number of motivated offenders should decline as the characteristics of gentrifiers make them less likely to engage in crime and more likely to mobilize formal sources of guardianship. Defended communities thesis Similar to the routine activities theory, the defended communities thesis was not assessed in research on the gentrification–crime relationship but offers insight into this relationship. This perspective argues that residents in neighborhoods facing threats to the social order such as racial or economic succession will resist the changes, resorting to criminal action if necessary (Suttles 1972). In this context, legal means of resolving disputes are viewed as unavailable or ineffective, thereby allowing illegal actions to be seen as justifiable and acceptable so long as they serve the purpose of preserving the neighborhood from external threats. This perspective was developed to explain why crime increased in white neighborhoods due to in-migration of black residents, the opposite of gentrification. While residents of the typical defended community were whites fearing increased crime, falling property values, and a loss of neighborhood character, residents of the typical gentrifying neighborhood fear rising rents, evictions, and a similar loss of neighborhood character. New businesses, many of which may not be affordable for incumbent residents to shop at (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Nyden et al. 2006; Sullivan and Shaw 2011), provide visible evidence that the neighborhood is changing to serve the needs of the gentrifiers. In both cases, the introduction of new residents results in disruptions to the conventional social order, which may encourage crime. Applications of the defended community thesis found that anti-black hate crimes were more prevalent in white strongholds experiencing black in-migration (Green, Strolovitch, and Wong 1998; Lyons 2008) and that this relationship was even stronger in neighborhoods characterized by strong informal social control and community attachment (Lyons 2007, 2008). Similar examples of anti-outgroup crime such as arson and vandalism against gentrifiers have been documented (Connolly 2010; Mele 2000; Stoecker 1994). Whether such actions were common in gentrified neighborhoods remains unclear as the only quantitative study that included

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

9

characteristics of victims did not explore differences in the characteristics of victims in gentrified versus non-gentrified neighborhoods (Van Wilsem et al. 2006). The key distinction between the typical defended community and the typical gentrifying neighborhood lies in the level of social organization. It was the solidarity and sense of community that were considered to motivate the criminal acts of resistance to neighborhood transition and neighborhoods targeted for gentrification are often considered to lack this solidarity. This is consistent with Suttles’ (1972) original formulation of neighborhood defense:

Deviant Behavior

Although the defended neighborhood does not always seem to arise from the preexisting cohesive groupings, it may itself create cohesive groupings. The defensive measures of these neighborhoods, of course, generally call for some level of concerted action and thus a certain degree of cohesion. This cohesion is most apparent in street-corner gangs, vigilante-like citizens’ groups, and restrictive covenants. (34)

An example of this is the “Mug a Yuppie” campaign where residents banded together informally in an attempt to force out the gentrifiers (Atkinson 2004; Mele 2000). Research on gentrification and crime also found that following the demolition of public housing, gang homicides increase (C. M. Smith 2014), suggesting that the local gangs became more aggressive as their neighborhoods were altered. Even if neighborhood defense begins with individual acts or gang activities, these very acts of predation upon gentrifiers may enhance the sense of community solidarity among incumbent residents. The fear of displacement may further encourage incumbent residents to organize together using both grass-roots protests and vigilantism to discourage the gentrification process from continuing (Atkinson 2003; Mele 2000; Stoecker 1994). This prediction is different from that of social disorganization theory as increased social cohesion may represent concerted action against gentrification, including crime. Empirical assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship have yet to draw on the defended community perspective, but the findings of previous research on the influence of gentrification on local communities was consistent with predictions made by the defended communities perspective. The more tension present in a neighborhood, the more likely resistance will form and lead to crime. Given that previous research described gentrifiers as being predominantly white (Anderson 1990; Freeman 2006), the added aspect of racial tensions should make gentrification more likely to provoke a defensive response in predominantly black neighborhoods than white neighborhoods. Consistent with this premise, Papachristos et al. (2011) found that gentrification was positively associated with robbery in predominantly black neighborhoods, but negatively associated with robbery in predominantly white neighborhoods. In regard to time, the defended communities theory suggests that crime will spike as gentrification begins and then fade over time. The greatest reaction to the newcomers should be when they first enter the neighborhood and start to change its character. While the resentment may not fade among incumbent residents, the volume of resentment will fade as the gentrifiers become an (albeit unwelcome) part of the neighborhood. Crimes against gentrifiers should level off both because incumbent residents may be displaced or move out and because those crimes would no longer be expected to convince the gentrifiers to leave. This initial increase followed by a decrease in crime is consistent with the findings of Kreager et al. (2011). Unlike the other theories discussed, the eventual decrease in crime posited by the defended communities is due to a “regression to the mean” effect, which means that gentrification should not result in lowered levels of crime in a neighborhood.

Summary of criminological theory and the gentrification–crime relationship Most criminological theories make similar predictions in regard to the relationship between gentrification and crime, but the causal mechanisms described by each theory are quite different. Social disorganization theory and the civic communities perspective predict that gentrification will result in short-term increases in crime because sociodemographic shifts disrupt the local social order, making it difficult for residents to organize against crime. Over time, however, the

10

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

deconcentration of poverty and reductions in residential mobility will increase the ability and willingness of neighborhood residents to organize against crime. Community organization would be aided by the reduction of physical disorder as the broken windows thesis argues the removal of signs of disorder should encourage neighborhood residents to engage with their local community. Routine activities and defended community theories likewise argue for short-term increases in crime, but for different reasons. Routine activities predicts short-term increases in crime because gentrifiers are attractive targets for crime and the changes associated with gentrification disrupt guardianship patterns. In comparison, the defended community thesis argues that resentment toward gentrifiers may encourage criminal activity that targets them. Overall, criminological theories predict crime should be highest in the early stages of gentrification, but then decline as gentrification continues and neighborhoods stabilize. While most of the assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship have not adequately investigated the importance of time, research by Kreager et al. (2011) indicated neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime until a tipping point of gentrification was reached, at which point crime declined. The trigger for this tipping point is currently unknown. Future research on gentrification and crime should therefore focus on the causal mechanisms to determine what triggers the change in the relationship between gentrification and crime. The ensuing section identifies and elaborates on three pathways through which gentrification may affect crime, highlighting the mechanisms that should be tested on each pathway.

Deviant Behavior

Toward a fuller understanding of the gentrification–crime relationship Urban scholars and criminologists have each discussed the gentrification–crime relationship, but most empirical assessments were unable to account for the complexity of gentrification. Strict application of any one criminological theory is problematic because it will not account for the other ways in which gentrification affects crime. Further, the inability to fully capture the complexity of the gentrification process has resulted in limited and inconsistent strategies for the measurement of gentrification, which hampered the understanding of underlying mechanisms of the gentrification–crime relationship. Drawing on a combination of the literatures on gentrification and neighborhood correlates of crime we suggest that there are three pathways through which gentrification influences neighborhood crime (Figure 1). The ideal study would incorporate all three pathways as each incorporates different aspects of the gentrification process, all of which are necessary to develop the fullest possible understanding for why gentrification is important for understanding changes in neighborhood crime.

Figure 1. Pathways for the association of gentrification and crime.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

11

Deviant Behavior

Pathway 1: changing demographic and cultural representation One explanation for why gentrification influences crime is that it changes the demographic composition and cultural identity of neighborhoods, aspects of the gentrification process first emphasized by Glass (1964). The importance of these changes for crime are highlighted by the social disorganization, civic communities, routine activities and defended community theories, which all suggest that the population changes associated with gentrification would result in short term increases in crime. For example, crime may increase during the initial stages of the gentrification process because the increased prevalence of middle- and upper-class residents in disadvantage neighborhoods increases the probability that high value targets will interact with motivated offenders. Crime may also increase because incumbent residents fail to provide guardianship either because they have not yet built relationships with the new residents or as an expression of resentment toward changes to the local neighborhood culture. As gentrification progresses and gentrifiers become the majority in the neighborhood, crime should decline because gentrifiers are less likely to engage in street crime and because new residents will develop the social bonds that facilitate guardianship practices as the local community reforms. The demographic component of this explanation was thoroughly assessed in previous research due to the dominance of the social disorganization framework in research on neighborhood correlates of crime and the wide availability of census data. While grounded in contemporary research on social disorganization, most of the assessed models were unable to address Kornhauser’s (1978) criticism of classical disorganization research in that these studies could not differentiate the influence of structural and subcultural causes of variation in crime. The inability to differentiate between structural and subcultural causes is a likely culprit for the contradictory findings of previous research on gentrification and crime. Papachristos et al. (2011) and C. M. Smith (2014) began to explore the importance of cultural changes through the inclusion of a measure of the number of high-end coffeeshops. Papachristos et al. (2011) and C. M. Smith (2014) found that the number of coffeeshops were negatively associated with homicide and gang-related homicide, respectively. Results by Papachristos et al. (2011), however, also indicate that the association between the number of coffeeshops and robbery was influenced by the dominant racial group in a neighborhood, as this relationship was negative in predominantly white and Latino neighborhoods and positive in predominantly black neighborhoods. Given the limited incorporation of cultural change in assessments of the gentrification and crime relationship, it remains unclear whether the contradictions were the result of how cultural variation was measured or if demographic and cultural changes interacted. Therefore, assessments of this explanation should incorporate additional measures of cultural change such as changes in other local businesses or residents’ perceptions of the neighborhood. The literature on the civic communities is a fruitful avenue for this type of research, as assessments of this framework incorporated measures such as the number of self-employed residents of an area (M. Lee 2008; M. Lee and Thomas 2010). Alternatively, a measure of the number of locally owned and operated businesses within a neighborhood could be used, as research on the civic communities perspective (M. Lee 2008; Tolbert et al. 2002) and gentrification (Nyden, et al., 2006; Sullivan and Shaw, 2011; Zukin 2010) independently described the importance of local-owned businesses for neighborhood social order.

Pathway 2: resentment and pro-crime organization A second explanation for how gentrification influences crime further addresses Kornhauser’s (1978) suggestion that structural and subcultural influences be differentiated. Specifically, this explanation emphasizes how changes in the local social order may result in increases in crime. Whereas much of the research on communities and crime has taken a normative stance and argued that neighborhoods characterized by high crime featured little or no social order, this

Deviant Behavior

12

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

explanation incorporates the concept of differential social organization. Differential social organization recognizes that neighborhood groups may organize for the purpose of anti- or procrime activity (Matsueda 1997; Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill 1992). Gentrification may encourage the development of collective efficacy, but much of the qualitative research on gentrification suggests the development of collective efficacy in gentrifying neighborhoods may be hampered by concerns of displacement among incumbent residents. Drawing on the civic communities perspective, the new residents may be viewed suspiciously and not welcomed into local civic and social organizations until they have proved their commitment to the existing social order (Brown et al. 2014). For example, one of the individuals interviewed by Freeman (2006: 68) indicated that not everyone in her neighborhood liked the changes that occurred due to gentrification “because we have other people living here” (emphasis added). Similarly, interviewees of a gentrified neighborhood in Portland Oregon identified by Sullivan and Shaw (2011:422) expressed resentment toward gentrifiers by referring to gentrifiers as “not longtime residents” or not belonging to “this community.” Statements such as these suggest that gentrifiers are recognized as being distinct from incumbent residents. Drawing on the defended communities perspective and the concept of differential social organization, concerns about displacement may encourage incumbent residents to organize against gentrifiers and engage in criminal activity to make the neighborhood less appealing to gentrifiers. Thus, while the elements of social cohesion highlighted by the social disorganization and civic communities frameworks would be present, the differential social organization of the incumbents may encourage informal social control activities that are criminal in nature. Previous research documented examples of anti-gentrification efforts including organized protests in Thompkins Square Park in the Lower East Side neighborhood of Manhattan (N. Smith 1996) and the Mission AntiDisplacement Coalition in San Francisco (Lees et al. 2008). The devolution of the Thompkins Square Park protest into riots described by N. Smith (1996) and the “Mug-a-Yuppie” campaign described by Atkinson (2000) and Mele (2000) indicate that this type of resistance can result in crime and violence against those imposing the gentrification. Such community resistance would likely fade with time as the “voice of the area increasingly becomes that of middle-class and professional households” through either social or physical displacement (Atkinson 2004:116). Empirical research on the gentrification and crime relationship has yet to explore this pathway due to data limitations. Testing this pathway would require measuring the attitudes and organization of incumbent residents. More difficult, it would require distinguishing victimizations of incumbent residents from the incoming gentrifiers. Accurate measurement of these differences would be complicated given that victimization would likely encourage new residents to move away from the neighborhood. Pathway 3: anti-crime organization A third pathway emphasizes the ability of local communities to organize against crime. Gentrification introduces residents who are better able to establish long-term residence and who are better able to draw on outside resources to address local social problems. Longer-term residence allows for repeated interactions among neighborhood residents, a requisite for the development of social cohesion and shared expectations of appropriate behavior. This process is gradual and would therefore only manifest in the later stages of gentrification. The development of social cohesion and shared expectations should facilitate community organization efforts among neighborhood residents to combat crime. Further, the greater ability of gentrifiers to draw on outside resources such as city officials should facilitate reductions in crime as formal social control may make residents feel more supported when engaging in informal social control (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003:383). The gentrification process also shapes the physical appearance of neighborhoods. By improving the appearance of the neighborhood, gentrification reduces signs of disorder and thus increases the willingness of residents to organize together and engage in informal social control. This is

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

13

consistent with the findings of Sampson and Raudenbush (2001), who found that disorder was positively associated with crime, but also that the association between disorder and crime was mediated by collective efficacy. Therefore, assessments of this explanation should recognize that gentrification shapes the physical appearance of neighborhoods, but that such changes may not be associated with changes in crime after controlling for collective efficacy. Even though research recognizes that neighborhoods change over time, much of the empirical research on neighborhoods and crime has utilized cross-sectional research designs due to the limited availability of longitudinal data sources (Hipp 2010; Kirk and Laub 2010). To test the third pathway, measures of neighborhood disorder and collective efficacy would need to be present for several time points that are at least several years apart given the gradual nature of neighborhood change. This would allow for the assessment of whether changes in crime resulted from changes in the demographic and cultural characteristics or changes to the social order and physical appearance of neighborhoods, which occur more gradually.

Deviant Behavior

Discussion This article reviewed and expanded on research on the gentrification–crime relationship by connecting the broader literature on gentrification with research on neighborhoods and crime to fully explore the ways that gentrification may influence neighborhood crime. Much of the empirical research on gentrification and crime was grounded in the social disorganization and routine activities frameworks. The current discussion draws on the broader gentrification literature and argues that empirical assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship could benefit from the inclusion of other criminological theories, specifically the civic communities perspective, defended community thesis, and broken windows thesis. Incorporating pieces of additional criminological theories with a more thorough understanding of how gentrification shapes neighborhoods will help to ensure that gentrification is measured and assessed in a way that captures the full extent of the process. Further, a more comprehensive measurement of gentrification and an expanded analytic strategy may highlight underexplored aspects of the gentrification–crime relationship that can resolve the inconsistent findings of previous research. Drawing on the urban sociological and criminological literatures, this article proposed three pathways through which gentrification influences crime. The first pathway suggested that sociodemographic changes associated with gentrification result in changes in neighborhood crime because gentrification disrupts the conventional social order and the opportunities for criminal acts. The second pathway suggested that gentrification results in increased crime because incumbent residents do not welcome gentrifiers into the existing community and may organize against gentrifiers. The third pathway argued that the influence of demographic changes on neighborhood crime is mediated by the ability of residents to organize against crime. Empirical research has only partially tested these pathways due to the limited availability of data sources that include measures of changes to local communities and the physical appearance of neighborhoods. Measurement of the first pathway has been the easiest to achieve due to the availability of tract level census statistics providing sociodemographic information. More commonly used measures included increases in income, the white population, rate of homeownership, percent college educated, and percent employed in professional occupations (Bostic and Martin 2003; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Sullivan 2007). In addition to the sociodemographic information available at the tract level, measurement of the second and third pathways requires detailed measurements of a kind found mainly in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The PHDCN itself, however, is not ideal for assessing the proposed pathways because community measurements were only captured at two time points and with different samples (Sampson 2012). Given that gentrification is a gradual process, it is important for research on the association of gentrification and crime to analyze variation in multiple time points across multiple decades so that the full effect of gentrification on

Deviant Behavior

14

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

changes to local communities can be assessed. Specifically, changes to the sociodemographic characteristics of neighborhood populations, neighborhood culture, the physical appearance of neighborhoods, and the social organization and interactions of neighborhoods should be measured as changes to each of these aspects likely mediate the relationship between gentrification and crime. While there is no substitute for surveys when assessing collective efficacy and social organization, the use of Google Street View by Hwang and Sampson (2014) offers a promising avenue for measuring disorder. In addition, measurement of the second pathway would require victimization data indicating the tenure and socioeconomic status of the victim. Combining victimization data such as that used by Van Wilsem et al. (2006) with information about the organization among incumbent residents holds promise. A less conclusive test of this pathway could assess the difference in changes to instrumental and expressive crime rates in gentrifying neighborhoods. The first and third pathways suggest increases in overall crime and in instrumental (money-oriented) crime. In contrast, the resentment and hostility posited by the defended communities and routine activities theories suggest that there might be an increase in expressive crimes such as vandalism, assault, rape, and homicide in order to drive out the gentrifiers. Research on the gentrification–crime relationship has suffered from limited generalizability as much of this research has been case studies of single cities. McDonald’s (1986) descriptive analyses of the gentrification–crime relationship in five American cities and Van Wilsem et al.’s (2006) multivariate analyses of zip code areas in the Netherlands were the exceptions to this. The rest were case studies of American cities including Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Portland Oregon, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. While it would be ideal to assess the proposed pathways in all of these cities for the same years, this relationship should at minimum be assessed with data from Chicago and New York City as these cities have been more thoroughly studied in the gentrification literature. Ideally, more cities would be included so that sufficient sample sizes would be available for statistical analyses and to ensure the generalizability of the results. Perhaps the greatest drawback of existing research was that they mostly focused on highprofile cities. The politics and cultures of cities like New York and Chicago are different from those of lower-profile mid-sized cities, and thus the effects of gentrification on crime in these cities may differ from the effects in other cities. Determining the spacing and number of data collection points is difficult, and as a matter of practicality is largely a matter of data availability. Previous research has assessed the relationship between gentrification and crime with intervals of 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, with the most common being 10. Given that we have argued that gentrification holds a nonlinear relationship with crime over time, ten years may be too large an interval to capture this nonlinearity. The smaller the interval, the more accurately the transition from gentrification’s positive association with crime to a negative association can be measured. Of course, it is also possible that ten years may not be enough as neighborhood changes such as gentrification were often found to be gradual (Kirk and Laub 2010). In either case, this nonlinear relationship should be explained once the mediating variables described in the pathways are included. Five-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates are probably the only source available for information at the tract level for many sociodemographic variables, so testing these pathways with five year intervals provides an ideal starting point for future analyses.

Conclusion Gentrification has been a hotly debated topic since Glass’ (1964) conception, a debate that has become more important in the United States as city officials increasingly look to gentrification and other neighborhood revitalization strategies as a means of reducing social problems such as crime in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Therefore, it is important to have a more comprehensive understanding of how gentrification influences crime. By assessing the proposed pathways, research can contribute to the policy discussion. For example, distinguishing between the pathways will determine

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

15

how gentrification results in changes to neighborhood crime. In doing so, research can demonstrate how much time is required before gentrification or gentrification-related processes begin to result in changes to neighborhood crime. By taking a more nuanced approach to the topic, assessment of these pathways will determine whether the crime decline in the latter stages of the gentrification process results in lower crime than the neighborhood would have had if gentrification had not occurred.

Acknowledgments Authors listed alphabetically, but share authorship equally. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers at Deviant Behavior for their insightful feedback.

Deviant Behavior

References Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Atkinson, Rowland. 2000. “Measuring Gentrification and Displacement in Greater London.” Urban Studies 37:149– 165. ———. 2003. “Introduction: Misunderstood Saviour or Vengeful Wrecker? The Many Meanings and Problems of Gentrification.” Urban Studies 40:2343–2350. ———. 2004. “The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance?” European Journal of Housing Policy 4:107–131. Beckett, Katherine and Steve Herbert. 2008. “Dealing with Disorder: Social Control in the Post-Industrial City.” Theoretical Criminology 12:5–30. Bostic, Raphael W. and Richard W. Martin. 2003. “Black Home-Owners as a Gentrifying Force? Neighborhood Dynamics in the Context of Minority Home-Ownership.” Urban Studies 40:2427–2449. Brown, Timothy C., Craig J. Forsyth, and Emily R. Berthelot. 2014. “The Mediating Effect of Civic Community on Social Growth: The Importance of Reciprocity.” The Social Science Journal 51:219–230. Bursik, Robert J. 1988. “Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency.” Criminology 26: 519–551. Bursik, Robert J. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 44:588–608. Connolly, Kate. 2010. “Anarchists in Berlin Turn Anger on New ‘Bourgeoisie’: Arsonists Torch Luxury Cars as Way of Fighting the Growing Gentrification of Many Areas of the City.” The Observer, January 10, p. 37. Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor. 1989. “Gentrification and Crime: Robbery and Larceny Changes in Appreciating Baltimore Neighborhoods During the 1970s.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 25:142–172. Curran, Winifred. 2007. “‘From the Frying Pan to the Oven’: Gentrification and the Experience of Industrial Displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.” Urban Studies 44:1427–1440. Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Freeman, Lance and Frank Braconi. 2004. “Gentrification and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70:39–52. Gault, Martha and Eric Silver. 2008. “Spuriousness or Mediation? Broken Windows According to Sampson and Raudenbush (1999).” Journal of Criminal Justice 36:240–243. Glass, Ruth. 1964. “Introduction: Aspects of Change.” Pp. xiii–xlii in London: Aspects of Change, Center for Urban Studies Report, edited by Ruth Glass, E. J. Hobsbawm, Harold Pollins, W. Ashworth, J. H. Westergaard, William Holford, Margot Jefferys, John A. Jackson, and Sheila Patterson. London, UK: Macgibbon and Kee. Green, Donald P., Dara Z. Strolovitch, and Janelle S. Wong. 1998. “Defended Neighborhoods, Integration, and Racially Motivated Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 104:372–403. Hammel, Daniel J. and Elvin K. Wyly. 1996. “A Model for Identifying Gentrified Areas with Census Data.” Urban Geography 17:248–268. Hamnett, Chris and Drew Whitelegg. 2006. “Loft Conversion and Gentrification in London, UK: From Industrial to Postindustrial Land Use.” Environment and Planning 39:106–124. Hipp, John R. 2007. “Income Inequality, Race, and Place: Does the Distribution of Race and Class within Neighborhoods Affect Crime Rates?” Criminology 45:665–697. ———. 2010. “A Dynamic View of Neighborhoods: The Reciprocal Relationship between Crime and Neighborhood Structural Characteristics.” Social Problems 57:205–230.

Deviant Behavior

16

M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

Hunter, Albert. 1985. “Private, Parochial, and Public Schools Orders: The Problem of Crime and Incivility in Urban Communities.” Pp 230–242 in The Challenges of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building in Modern Society: Essays in Honor of Morris Janowitz, edited by Gerald D. Suttles and Mayer N. Zald. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Hwang, Jackelyn and Robert J. Sampson. 2014. “Divergent Pathways of Gentrification: Racial Inequality and the Social Order of Renewal in Chicago Neighborhoods.” American Sociological Review Online First. doi: 10.1177/ 0003122414535774 Kasarda, John D. and Morris Janowitz. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society.” American Sociological Review 39:328–339. Kelling, George L. and Catherine M. Coles. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York, NY: Touchstone. Kennedy, Maureen and Paul Leonard. 2001. “Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Changes.” Discussion Paper Prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Kirk, David S. and John H. Laub. 2010. “Neighborhood Change and Crime in the Modern Metropolis.” Crime and Justice 39:441–502. Kornhauser, Ruth. 1978. Social Source of Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kreager, Derek A., Christopher J. Lyons, and Zachary R. Hays. 2011. “Urban Revitalization and Seattle Crime, 1982–2000.” Social Problems 58:615–639. Kubrin, Charis E. and Ronald Weitzer. 2003. “New Directions in Social Disorganization Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:374–402. Lee, Matthew R. 2008. “Civic Community in the Hinterland: Toward a Theory of Rural Social Structure and Violence.” Criminology 46:447–478. Lee, Matthew R. and Shaun A. Thomas. 2010. “Civic Community, Population Change, and Violent Crime in Rural Communities.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47:118–147. Lee, Yan Y. 2010. “Gentrification and Crime: Identification Using the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles.” Journal of Urban Affairs 32:549–577. Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. 2008. Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge. Ley, David. 1996. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lyons, Christopher J. 2007. “Community (Dis)Organization and Racially Motivated Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 113:815–863. ———. 2008. “Defending Turf: Racial Demographics and Hate Crimes Against Blacks and Whites.” Social Forces 87:358–385. Matsueda, Ross L. 1997. “‘Cultural Deviance Theory’: The Remarkable Persistence of a Flawed Term.” Theoretical Criminology 1:429–452. McDonald, Scott C. 1986. “Does Gentrification Affect Crime Rates?” Pp. 163–203 in Communities and Crime, Vol. 8, edited by Albert J. Reiss Jr. and Michael Tonry. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Mele, Christopher. 2000. Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real Estate, and Resistance in New York City. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Newman, Kathe and Elvin K. Wyly. 2006. “The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City.” Urban Studies 43:23–57. Nyden, Philip, Emily Edlynn, and Julie Davis. 2006. The Differential Impact of Gentrification on Communities in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Loyola University Chicago Center for Urban Research and Learning. O’Sullivan, Arthur. 2005. “Gentrification and Crime.” Journal of Urban Economics 57:3–85. Papachristos, Andrew V., Chris M. Smith, Mary L. Scherer, and Melissa A. Fugiero. 2011. “More Coffee, Less Crime: The Relationship between Gentrification and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005.” City & Community 10:215–240. Rountree, Pamela Wilcox, Kenneth C. Land, and Terance D. Miethe. 1994. “Macro-Micro Integration in the Study of Victimization: A Hierarchical Logistic Model Analysis across Seattle Neighborhoods.” Criminology 32:387–413. Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Sampson, Robert and W. Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” The American Journal of Sociology 94:774–802. Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” The American Journal of Sociology 105:603–651. ———. 2001. “Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods—Does It Lead to Crime?” Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277:918–924.

Deviant Behavior

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

17

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1969 [1942]. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Skogan, Wesley G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York, NY: The Free Press. Smith, Chris M. 2014. “The Influence of Gentrification on Gang Homicides in Chicago Neighborhoods, 1994–2005.” Crime & Delinquency 60:569–591. Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York, NY: Routledge. Stoecker, Randy. 1994. Defending Community. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Sullivan, Daniel Monroe. 2007. “Reassessing Gentrification: Measuring Residents’ Opinions Using Survey Data.” Urban Affairs Review 42:583–592. Sullivan, Daniel Monroe and Samuel C. Shaw. 2011. “Retail Gentrification and Race: The Case of Alberta Street in Portland, Oregon.” Urban Affairs Review 47:413–432. Sutherland, Edwin, Donald R. Cressey, and David F. Luckenbill. 1992. Principles of Criminology. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall. Suttles, Gerald D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, Ralph B. 2001. Breaking Away from Broken Windows: Baltimore Neighborhoods and the Nationwide Fight against Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Taylor, Ralph B. and Jeanette Covington. 1988. “Neighborhood Changes in Ecology and Violence.” Criminology 26:553–589. Tolbert II, Charles M., Michael D. Irwin, Thomas A. Lyson and Alfred R. Nucci. 2002. “Civic Community in SmallTown America: How Civic Welfare Is Influenced by Local Capitalism and Civic Engagement.” Rural Sociology 67:90–113. Triplett, Ruth A., Randy R. Gainey, and Ivan Y. Sun. 2003. “Institutional Strength, Social Control, and Neighborhood Crime Rates.” Theoretical Criminology 7:439–467. Van Wilsem, Johan, Karin Wittebrood, and Nan Dirk De Graaf. 2006. “Socioeconomic Dynamics of Neighborhoods and the Risk of Crime Victimization: A Multilevel Study of Improving, Declining, and Stable Areas in the Netherlands.” Social Problems 53:226–247. Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. 1982. “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.” The Atlantic Monthly M ( arch):29–37. Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Hammel. 1998. “Modeling the Context and Contingency of Gentrification.” Journal of Urban Affairs 20:303–326. Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Hammel. 1999. “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification.” Housing Policy Debate 10:711–771. Zukin, Sharon. 1982. Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. ———. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Notes on contributors MICHAEL S. BARTON is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Louisiana State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University at Albany. His research interests join the criminological and urban sociological literatures to explore the geographic contexts in which crime occur. His recent research has appeared in Urban Studies and Crime and Delinquency. COLIN P. GRUNER is an instructor in the Department of Sociology at the University at Albany. He received his Ph.D from the University at Albany. His research interests focus on crime and neighborhood effects and their interactions with poverty and welfare policy.