Social Studies Collection No. 37

Neighbourhood Crime 37Perceptions and Reactions

Alfonso Echazarra

A WELFARE PROJECTS. THE SPIRIT OF ”LA CAIXA”. Social Studies Collection No. 37

Neighbourhood Crime Perceptions and Reactions

Alfonso Echazarra PUBLICATION: ”la Caixa” Welfare Projects

AUTHOR: Alfonso Echazarra

DESIGN AND LAYOUT: CEGE

Coordination of publication: Fellowship Programs and Social Studies

© The author © ”la Caixa” Welfare Projects, 2014 Av. Diagonal, 621 - 08028 Barcelona ALFONSO ECHAZARRA holds a BA in Political Science from of Manchester. Author of various studies on deviant Complutense University of Madrid, a MSc in International behaviour, residential segregation, social capital, electoral Migration from Ortega y Gasset Institute, Spain, an MA participation and educational inequalities, he is currently in Social Sciences from Carlos III - Juan March Institute, an analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation Spain, and a DPhil in Social Statistics from the University and Development (OECD). CONTENTS

Introduction Presentation  II. I.

Social disorganisation theory, the incivility thesis thesis incivility theory, the disorganisation Social 2.10. 2.9. 2.8. 2.7. 2.6. 2.5. 2.4. 2.3. 2.2. 2.1. 1.3. 1.2. 1.1. Structure of the book Goals and social relevance of the study socialThe organisation of local communities Objective and subjective measures of crime neighbourhood crime Conceptualising, measuringandexplainingperceived 1.5. 1.4. crime neighbourhood perceived and

Conclusions aa sources Data Summary of main findingss and perceivedSocio-demographics neighbourhood crime: What we know about victims What we know about offenders Informational cues about neighbourhood crime: Perceptions of neighbourhood crime in local Spain in comparative perspective Evolution of public concern about crime Introduction Incorporating the resource of socio-political model Social disorganisation from urban determinism theory: Introduction isolating individual and community effects empirical evidence communities in Spain nature of perceived neighbourhood crime hypothesis and the incivility thesis: understanding the dual participation to collective efficacy The socialThe disorganisation the model, “broken windows”

64 46 20 20 20 65 49 62 43 43 43 39 37 47 47 16 18 61 41 12 11 6 8

List abbreviations of List figures of List tables of sources Data Conclusions References Appendix IV.  III.

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration and crime Perceived neighbourhood 3.4. 3.3. 3.2. 3.1. Local social conditions, disorganisation and perceived Ethnic diversity, immigration and perceived neighbourhood crime Applying the social disorganisation to perspective the Spanish context communitarianThe nature of perceived neighbourhood crime Perceived neighbourhood crime: an independent 4.8. 4.7. 4.6. 4.5. 4.4. 4.3. 4.2. 4.1. 3.7. 3.6. 3.5. neighbourhood crime in Spain in crime neighbourhood and relevant variable analysis aspatial Madrid: in

Introduction Extending socialExtending disorganisation to rural theory areas Original exogenous sources of social disorganisation Some considerations on the social disorganisation model: Introduction Concluding remarks Discussion: immigrant qualifying concentration effects Findings Data, specification model statisticaland modelling immigrantThe population in Madrid Evidence on the crime-immigration nexus in Spain and elsewhere soaring ofThe the saliency crime-immigration nexus Results Data and methodology Conclusions incorporating the resource participation of socio-political model

100 105 134 130 107 128 133 131 110 115 113 112 117 111 84 68 68 96 86 86 89 72 72 69 87 70 92 76

PRESENTATION at night. night. at the same study, 33% state that they do not feel safe on the street residents of Spain feel relatively unsafe; according to data from as the safest country among the participants. thirty Despite this, study up to the present on crime and citizen safety –rates Spain Victims of Crime – the most exhaustive and rigorous international 100,000 inhabitants below one, and the International Survey on low. Spain is one of the few countries with ahomicide rate per indicators in international studies – crime rates are exceptionally of homicides or the rates of victimisation –widely accepted The case of Spain is paradigmatic. Whether looking at the number today. problem social crime and that the perceptions that feed this fear have become a not surprising that fear of crime people more affects than actual the broken window of acar can generate concern. It is, therefore, in the media, the traumatic experiences of family members or even having been avictim of acriminal Criminal act. violence reported It is well understood that concern about crime not only arises from 6 cohesion, as fear causes mistrust. causes fear as cohesion, positions. Even more important, it can lead to aweakening of social of the immigrant as criminal, support for xenophobic political demands to toughen the penal code and, given the stereoptype to an increase of time and money dedicated to personal safety, fear is frequently unfounded, the obsession about crime can lead situations of real risk. But in acontext such as that of Spain, where example, it leads to the adoption of preventative measures in In reality, fear of crime can have positive consequences; for the measures needed to reduce citizen insecurity and fear. perceptions of crime so that that public authorities can adopt strategy is clear: to understand the causes behind these series of individual and environmental characteristics. The crime in Spanish neighbourhoods and the impact this has on a ”la Caixa” Prize in Social Sciences 2012– examines perceptions of With this background, the present study – the award-winning

Presentation We hope that this in depth analysis of perceived crime in Spain’s Barcelona, April 2014 April Barcelona, Executive of the Officer ”la Caixa” Foundation Chief and Projects Welfare Executive Director of ”la Caixa” Gatnau Lanaspa Jaime advance in new directions. reactions in the face of crime, but also help Spanish criminology authorities, increasingly concerned about the population’s towns and large cities will not only guide the actions of public 34,251 census tracts, and the comparison made between villages, 7

Presentation INTRODUCTION I ntroduction

In 2009, Madrid’s City Council proposed introducing closed-circuit the resources should be earmarked for more effective and television (CCTV) in Lavapiés, a multi-ethnic neighbourhood with constructive ways of controlling crime, such as promoting social a shady reputation. Browsing a popular travel website, one can participation. Even a pub owner who is in favour of CCTVs read comments about Lavapiés such as “too dangerous for tourists”, unconsciously stood for alternative strategies to control crime. As “great if you live here, dangerous to visit” or “the multi-ethnic she put it: “It would not make too much of a difference to me as it quarter of Madrid...but be careful”.1 The 2001 Population and has been a long time since I was last robbed. They (the delinquents) Housing Census also shows a high proportion of residents stating now know me”. For or against, all residents agreed that CCTVs that crime and vandalism were a problem in Lavapiés. However, would be, at best, a partial solution to stop criminal activity and the neighbourhood also enjoys a reputation as bohemian and that effective solutions were to be found in the internal dynamics authentically Castilian —“a cool little neighbourhood” as described of the community and its cooperation with external agencies, such by one tourist website—one reason why it attracts both young as the police and social services. It is the specific goal of this book professionals and tourists. Reactions to the introduction of CCTVs to understand such internal dynamics: To identify the characteristics among local residents have been anything but uniform. On the of neighbourhoods where residents perceive less crime and feel one hand, small-business owners, shop-keepers and older residents safer; to find out why the perceived levels of crime are so different praised the decision to increase surveillance. Other residents were in Lavapiés and in the prosperous district of Salamanca, also in less enthusiastic. Opponents primarily argued that CCTVs violate Madrid, and why these, in turn, differ so much from, for example individual privacy in a “Big Brother” fashion. More importantly, those found in rural Extremadura; to investigate the role played by some opponents contended that the decision would hamper friendships, local associations and the broader context in shaping neighbourhood cooperation in fighting against crime and that perceived neighbourhood crime, and finally; to examine if real and perceived crime rates differ and, if they do so, why. 1 http://www.tripadvisor.fr/Attraction_Review-g187514-d313717-Reviews-Plaza_Lavapies-Madrid.html (last accessed on the 7 January 2014).

8 Mutatis mutandis itself. This studyborrows thisterm from theliterature orsuitability. withoutquestioning itssemanticaccuracy conditions canbe, bothconceptually andempirically, ofsocialdisorganisation distinguishedfrom theconstruct exist inthesocialsciences. likely, More theuseofthisconcept isexplainedby theeaseby whichtheselocal imply thatreverse causality, bias and feedback selection loopsare discarded, aspure exogenous effectsrarely 3 That theliterature refers to localconditions asexogenous sources ofsocial disorganisation doesnot necessarily referunless neighbourhoods specificallyto anadministrative division. 2 Residentialareas, localcommunities, are andneighbourhoods usedinterchangeably throughout thebook, in controlling deviant behaviour, resources external attracting successful areasin turn,helpsexplainwhy are particularly certain degree to whichlocalcommunities are sociallyorganised, which, exogenous sources ofsocialdisorganisation that a series of local conditions—also referred to as correlates or effective social controls (Kornhauser, advocates 1978). Its state residents, solve commonly experienced problems and maintain of localcommunities to realise thecommon values oftheir lens ofthesocialdisorganisation construct,definedastheinability their localcommunities. presence of immigrants, when evaluating the level of crime in toresidents to aseriesoflocalconditions, react the inparticular the maingoalofthisbookisto assesshow urbanandrural (1969[1942])initiated, (1927)and Shaw andMcKay and Znaniecki onlyslightlyfrom theecological tradition thatThomas Departing for being excessively Chicago-centric (Small and Feldman, 2012). blessing, even more soinviewofthecriticismstheyhave received same theoriesinSpaintoday would come as aremarkable regularities across time and space, of these the performance the urbanlandscape. thesocialsciences are If aboutidentifying explaining why urbanproblems were unevenly distributed across sociologists developed a series of ecological theories aimed at disorganised neighbourhood.ago, Almost a century these (1969[1942]),described asasocially such asShaw andMcKay equivalent ofwhatearlysociologistsfrom theChicago School, , Lavapiés canbeconsidered theSpanish 2 Suchpurposeproceeds through the 3 —determine the 9 because most residents have experiences sporadic of crime direct multiple influences level beyond ofcrime, theactual ifonly However, perceptions of crimeare ofneighbourhood areflection crime.neighbourhood One suchthreat iscrime, anunequivocal determinant ofperceived Logan and Molotch, 2007[1987]; Sampson and Groves, 1989). and warding offpotential threats (BursikandGrasmick, 1993; reasons. These communities are more successful incontrollingThese reasons. communities to are perceive likely lesscrimefor atleast three Grasmick, 1993).Inturn, residents insocially organised agencies) levels with external (Hunter,(linkages 1985; Bursik and acquaintances), parochial (local associations) and public to create efficacioussocialnetworks attheprivate (familyand interests—that localcommunities have attheirdisposalinorder income, time, andcommon trust, organisational efficacy orsocioeconomic status,stability determine theresources— out asfollows. Aseriesoflocalconditions, suchasresidential mind, themaintheoretical framework inthestudycanbespelt Keeping thedualnature ofperceived crimein neighbourhood rather thanobserved, crime. need to bereassessed andadjusted whenstudyingperceived, that were crimepatterns explicitlydesignedto understandactual thesis(Taylor,incivility 2001).For thisreason, ecological theories by asthe theincivilitieshappeninginarea isgenerally known determined that perceptions crimeare ofneighbourhood partially 1975;WilsonandKelling,(Conklin, 1982).The empiricalfinding crime deterioration, neighbourhood as much as with actual fear ofcrimeare associated withsocialincivilitiesandphysical (Quillian andPager, 2001).As amatter perceptions offact, and

Introduction deviant behaviour— including formally-enacted rules, aswell asinformal andGerber, violationsofsocialnorms (Macionis 2010). behaviour4 Deviant orbehaviours ishere defined asactions thatfailto conform to socialorshared norms, cannot bemeticulously assessed. curb deviantbehaviour—their effects andrelative importance communities, inturn,helpmaintaineffective socialcontrols and social networks to are flourish,whiledenselyconnected expected are proposed—for instance, inresidentially stableneighbourhoods interpretations of the findings. Although specific mechanisms causal inferences, generally limitingitselfto descriptive crime rates. As aresult, thisbooktreads carefully whendrawing achieve theirdesired outcomes and, measures objective oflocal mechanisms through whichsociallyorganised communities oflocalsocialnetworks); thespecific andefficacy density measure ofsocialorganisationa direct (i.e. ameasure ofthe elements arethe findings. visibly absent: Namely, Three important unopened and seriously limiting the scope“black box” of the levels ofcrimeresidents ultimately perceive, leaving the various specificlocalconditions to causalpathsthatconnect Unfortunately, dueto lackofdatathisstudycannotfully test the of thelevels ofcrime, crimerates regardless inthearea. ofactual coordinating to improve neighboursislikely residents’ perceptions and trust generated in the process of bringing together and (Skogan, 1990). Finally,outsiders alike the sense of community transmit neighbourhoods tounease that ill-kept residents and facilities ingoodcondition, limitingasaresult thefeeling ofurban also more effective the housingstock andpublic inkeeping perceived crime(McPherson,1978).They neighbourhood are of factor crime—which isawell-documented explanatory 4 includingrowdiness, and street dirtiness

10 advanced throughout thebook.As acaseinpoint, the 2001 leverage tonecessary evaluate ofthetheories thegeneralisability importantly, thedatasetsemployed inthisbookprovide the including noise, cleanliness, vandalism andcrime. But, more environment andresidents’ perceptions ofsocialincivilities, characteristics, andresources, householdstructure thebuilt complex setofrelationships thatexistbetween neighbourhood However, dataavailable itpossibleto analysethe inSpainmake psychological or as reasonable proxies crime rates, of actual subjective, and otherofficialstatisticsare accepted inthefieldofcriminology surveys, police recordedvictimisation crime, judicial statistics rather thanthelevel ofcriminalbehaviour. However, whereas theeffectiveness reflect ofthe lawoften enforcement agencies as police recorded crime, are not necessarily reliable for they of crimeareMeasures generally flawed. Even CRIME OF AND MEASURES SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE mechanisms that mediate these effects are not clearly identified. may beeffectivelyand delinquency reduced, even ifthespecific parameters, uponcertain by publicconcern acting aboutcrime analystscanbeconfidentand othercharacteristics, that, policy municipalities ofdifferent sizes, withdifferent levels ofprosperity perceivedsuccessful inpredicting crimein neighbourhood Thus, if the ecological analyses discussedin this book are outreliable comparisons between differentcarry “geographies”. (i.e.Spanish census tracts 34,000+units),enablingresearchers to Population and Housing Census includes information for all objective and subjective measures andsubjective objective of crime, in their reflected formsindirect between ofcrime—are not. The distinction soft measures of crime—also referred to as hard measures, such

Introduction different conceptual and empirical nature, is therefore crucial to equal statusto domination, recognition (1927). andnew experiences inThomas andZnaniecki 5 Feeling safe isabasichuman need, onlybehindphysiological ranked needsinMaslow’s (1943)pyramid, andof (Bannister andFyfe, 2001).Theyitself” have indeedemerged as are “now recognised asamore widespread problem that crime 1975; measuresWarr, (Conklin, variety ofprecautionary 2000), can alonebeadebilitatingforce drivingresidents a to take feelings Thus, forms ofdiscomfort. orsoft ofcrime, indirect which minor butvisibleepisodesofdeviantbehaviour thatgive riseto confronted withphysically deteriorated and neighbourhoods main reason for isthatresidents are often thisdiscrepancy cangenerate considerablevictimisation dosesoffear. even low ofdelinquentacts; risksof fearful are extremely thatindividualsThis explainedby paradox thefact ispartially 2008; SkoganandMaxfield, 1981;Warr, 1994). Spanje, 2011;Lizotte, Bordua andWhite’s, etal., 1981;McGinn extent, influenced by citizens’certain fear of crime (Dinas and activities, gunownership, buyingahouseandvoting are all,to a decisionsabout whatto wear,cash, making physical andleisure 1975). Moving around the city, childrearing,(Wilson, withdrawing preferences and behaviour are shaped by crime-related issues by violentandlethalcrimes, itissurprisinghowparticularly much Given how infrequently thegeneral publicisvictimised, problem crime: theemergence forms ofindirect ofcrimeasasocial Differences between andperceived objective measures of study. and empirical findings presented in this understand the theory 5 Yet, the 11 fear (Warr, 2000). toplans directed control crimeare ineffectstrategies to control question the“commonsensical butquestionablenotion” that and implications(Perkins andTaylor, 1996).This should callinto temporal patterns1975),anddifferent (Conklin, determinants crimeitself—asrevealedactual by spatialand distinctive social problems intheirown from right—related butdistinct 1984). perceive comparatively highlevels 2000;Warr, ofcrime(Mesch, as women andtheelderly, lessfrequently but are victimised violent injuries. Consider, finally, groups, that certain such the fact erroneously believed to occurtogether, and suchasburglary contemporaneous offences” (Warr, 1984), thatis, crimesthat are ( but perceptions ofcrimewere not, oratleastnotthesamerate during theTony Blairgovernment, whencrimewas fallingsharply alsotheso-called“reassuranceSee gap” intheUnited Kingdom individuals to venture into areas thatwere previously avoided. contributes to reduce residents’ fear ofcrimeandencourage Welsh andFarrington, 2004),itshouldbevalued asamethodthat as acrime-control instrumentisdebatable (GillandSpriggs, 2005; argue proponents often thatevenvein, ifitseffectiveness CCTV unchanged.though crimerates hadremained Inasimilar virtually residents’ perceptions ofcrimeandfeelings ofsecurity, even seminal work, theauthorsdescribehow foot-patrolling affected Forconsidered apart. instance, inWilsonandKelling’s (1982) of crime can follow different patterns and should therefore be There isampleevidence measures andsubjective thatobjective The Economist , 02-06-2012). Or take thecaseof“perceptually, 02-06-2012).Ortake

Introduction Among the various residents forms victimisation, of indirect with friends (Conklin, 1975), as wellwith friends (Conklin, asotherindividual and experiences withcrime(QuillianandPager, 2001),conversations and Baccaglini,1990), individualtraits2000),personal (Mesch, Kelling, 1975; Heath,1984;Liska 1982), the massmedia(Conklin, 1999; Skogan, 1990; Wilson and Sampson and Raudenbush, (LaGrange, Ferraro andSupancic, 1992;Lewis andMaxfield, 1980; suchascommunities’factors physical andsocial disorder accurate,of localcrimeare only partly alsobeinginfluenced by exception. isnow widelyaccepted It thatresidents’ assessments crimebeingno thefieldofneighbourhood imperfect, frequently The correspondence between perceptions is andreality The multidimensionalnature ofperceived crime neighbourhood to whatdetermines perceptions ofcrimeinthefirstplace? measures. Theadoption ofprecautionary questionthenarisesas effect on fear,has a direct which, in turn, shapes residents’ 1981) andclosingastore 1975).Thus, (Conklin, perceived crime the acquisitionofprotective firearms (Lizotte, Bordua andWhite, etal.,2008), physical (McGinn activities 2000)andcertain (Mesch, the avoidance 1975),nighttimeactivities ofparks (Conklin, Bordua andWhite, 1981;Rountree andLand, 1996).These include avoidance behaviours (Ferraro andLaGrange, 1992;Lizotte, cognitive basedmeasure—on theadoptionofdefensive and based measure—mediates theeffectofperceived crime—a and Stafford, 1983).Therefore, fear ofcrime—anemotionally perceived seriousnessandperceived riskoftheoffences” (Warr Skogan, 1990).Yet fear ofcrimeisa“multiplicative ofthe function outoffearultimately react ofcrime(Lewis andSalem,1986; 12 handlers, hassles and physical decay in their environment, such as pan- criminal events mainlybecausetheyare confronted withdaily behaviour. As Wilson(1975)suggests, of citizens are sofearful comparatively irrelevant—but visible and frequent—deviant crime intheirneighbourhood, influenced theyare often by when residents factors.contextual In fact, evaluate the levels of could bedrivingtheresults. There are situationswhere level community interpretations are advanced individuallevel when,infact, factors isavoidedfallacy level doesnotimplythatindividualandcommunity effectsare effectively isolated and identified. from theregression analysesofcensus tracts, ormunicipalities. neighbourhoods However, that theecological are related exclusively to localcommunities. Noinferences aboutindividual preferences andbehaviour are drawn 6 Inthisregard, is avoided the ecological fallacy inthis booksince thetheory, analyses, findingsandimplications members. ofcommunity adecent proportion knowing members shouldhave areasonable chance ofdirectly, orindirectly, (Logan 2007[1987]).As andMolotch, opposedto citiesandregions, of needs”, helpingresidents inthemanagement oftheirdailylives opposed to householdsandbuildings, they “satisfy acomplex set satisfytwo conditions. conflicting As thatpartially collectivities study, localcommunities are definedasgeographically based (Anderson,1983).For society “imagined” thepurposes ofthis territorial thehouseholdwithwiderand groups thatconnect Local communities are here conceptualised as the various the primary, albeitnot theonly, unitofanalysisintheresearch. and notindividuals, households orthemacro-structure, constitute residents perceive theirenvironment. Therefore, localcommunities, andshape the manner in which their everyday functioning ofecological conditions thatdetermine communities andthesort This studyisabout“soft” measures isalsoaboutlocal ofcrime. It THE SOCIAL ORGANISATION LOCAL OF COMMUNITIES corner boys , run-down buildingsorgraffiti. 6

Introduction Setting asizeSetting threshold, intheway thatPlato (1992)didfor the conferring identity. on them a distinct Even without these “solid” existence ofarchitectural barriers(e.g. railways, major highways), their existence to previous self-governing entities orto the andotheradministrativeNeighbourhoods divisionsusually owe else theysoongenerate new identitiesandattachments. and architectural rationale behindadministrative divisions, or related thandistantthings”. Besides, there tends to beahistorical isrelated else,“Everything to everything butnearthingsare more foremost, because of Tobler’s (1970) first law of geography: But, why are territorial entitiesrelevant inthe firstplace? First and considered astheclosestrepresentation oflocalcommunities. general are andneighbourhoods here rulecensus tracts municipalities may beagood proxy for communities butas a 1986;Warner,Schwartz, 2003).Inthecaseof rural areas, andEarls,Sampson, Raudenbush 1997;Simcha-Fagan and Grasmick, 1993;Oberwittler, 2004;SampsonandGroves, 1989; asunitsofanalysis(Bursikand orneighbourhoods census tracts studies, withintheliterature onurbancrime, thatemploy either thousands. Evidence for thisstatement comes from theabundant neighbourhoods—where residents numberinthetens of residents numberinthethousands—andespecially with communities canbesafely equated withcensus tracts—where neighbourhoods. However, most scholars would agree that local application ofthisrulewould generate numberof anintractable rule, datawouldwalking collecting stillbeaHerculean taskasthe to define residents’ lived environment, suchasthe15minutes different ways. Even if a common rule of thumb could be applied experience, exploitanddefinetheirlived environment invery ideal city, would berather arbitrary, ifonlybecauseindividuals 13 it to oftraditional deny societies thatthe“mechanical solidarity” or hobby-related networks and Schnell, 2007). Nor is (Goldhaber social groups (e.g. migrants, childlessadults)andfor family, work neighbourhood, thecaseinlarge asisoften cities, amongcertain andegonetworks beyond extend the daily activities among their youngest members. This is not to deny that residents’ generate localsocialnetworks andcitizen attachments, especially foundations, newlycreated administrative divisionssoon 2008). Another indication of the importance ofgeography2008). Another indicationof theimportance for of familymembers anddivorce MulderandZorlu, (Michielin, of children, thedeath such asspellsofunemployment, thebirth stressful events, after frequently return insearch offamilysupport Even middle-aged adultswhohave their“original” left communities geographical reach of children andyoung adults’ social networks. generally influenced by families’ place ofresidence, limitingthe findings. For instance, ofschools are theassignment andselection which residents belongcanbeinferred from various empirical That geography andlocalcommunities shapethenetworks to 1962). are, to someextent,embeddedintheir“urban villages” (Gans, of residential segregation, may help explain why urban residents friends thatlive nearby, which,incombination withtheprevalence form strong tieswithrelatives, colleagues, schoolmates and interactions. Thus, only becausedistance increases thecost ofmaintainingsocial to playexpected arole inthelife outcomes oftheirmembers, if 2011).However,Vickstrom, even today, localcommunities are control over 1934[1893];Portes and theirmembers(Durkheim, therefore oflocalcommunities social to limitingtheability exert has been replaced by “organic thecontemporary solidarity”, ceteris paribus , individualsare to more likely

Introduction individual networks isthedegree to whichresidents are for an“effective (Bursik andGrasmick, 1993). capacity” regulatory thatarein order essential to secure thepublicgoods andservices neighbours establish withagenciesoutsidetheneighbourhood incorporates the various “weak ties” (Granovetter, 1973) that and the identification of local offenders. The public order informal and“soft” mechanisms, suchassurveillance, supervision organisations (e.g. schools, organisations) through voluntary ofacquaintances by andmeso-levelexerted theinterlocking at thislevel socialcontrol iscommunitarian local community. Incontrast withtheprivate andpublicorders, and friends(i.e. non-intimate networks) butremain within the order, the local interpersonal networks beyond extend family through feelings of attachment (Hirschi, 1969). In the parochial andotherinformal means,ostracism, socialsupport andindirectly which socialcontrol through criticism, directly isexerted 1973) thatresidents establishwithfamilyandfriends, andin private order corresponds to theseriesof“strong ties” (Granovetter, andtheirlinkswiththe “outsidelevel ofintimacy world”. The three levels, Following Hunter (1985),localsocialnetworks are classifiedinto that may contribute to thesocialorganisation ofneighbourhoods. Among these local networks, the focus in this study is on those to establish“traditionsandinstitutions” 1969). (Short, acquaintances, for andenoughresidential stability communities to buildadenselocalnetwork ofrelatives, friendsand 2632),enoughtime (CIS survey inthesamemunicipality quarters 2634)—defined by rule—and three- the 15 minutes walking had spent half of her life in the same residential area (CIS survey residentially stable. Inthis regard, Spanishcitizen in2006 atypical private , parochial and public , dependingontheir sensu stricto, andis 14 to whichtheyare ableto realise thecommon values oftheir communities are sociallyorganised or, inotherwords, theextent thatdeterminethe ecological thedegree factors to which offenders andward threats. offexternal Instead, thefocus ison communities have attheirdisposalto control theirprospective public orparochial—or ofthevarious mechanisms that measures oflocalsocialnetworks—whether theybeprivate, Unfortunately, in the Spanish therecontext are no widely available social disorganisation are used interchangeably throughout thebook. 7 Local/structural/ecological andexogenous of neighbourhoods conditions/factors/characteristics sources of life: in community i) communication socialisation and participation of resourcestypes are here identifiedascrucialfor residents’ and Nie, 1972; Brady,(Verba Verba and Schlozman, 1995). Five friendships andwhy theygetinvolved associations involuntary us backto more general explanations ofhow peopleform stable private, parochial in.This andpublic—shouldbefactored brings ofHunter’sdensity (1985)three levels of socialnetworks/order— Instead, any environmental variable to affectthe whichislikely however, shouldnotbeinformed exclusively by previous research. The into to numberofecological consideration, take factors socioeconomic status. isgenerallyof socialdisorganisation, relabelled as whilepoverty urbanisation (Sampson and Groves, 1989) as exogenous sources research alsoconsiders familydisruption(Sampson, 1987)and heterogeneity andresidential turnover (Kornhauser, 1978),recent Building on the initial set oflocal conditions of poverty, communities’ socialdisorganisation have evolved considerably. associated with factors (1969[1942])thestructural McKay 1978). Since this line of research was first advanced by Shaw and residents andmaintaineffective socialcontrols (Kornhauser, 7

Introduction and organisational ii) trust (in neighbours), iii) time spent in skills, only 30.7 percent closer to Switzerland of GDP in 2009, being in fact Accordingcontext. to theOECD, taxrevenues in Spainmadeup of social inequalities, should be of moderate size in the Spanish welfare state, whichcould potentially limitthenegative impact chapter 4).Inaddition,thebuffer effect associated withthe stratification happeninginSpanishmetropolitan areas (see as intheUnited States, there seems to be agreat dealofsocial distributed across theurbanlandscape. And, albeitnotasacute stratified citiessothatthesevital resources become unequally to work Allthatisneededforeverywhere. isspatially thetheory totime orcommunication are bebetter skills, expected organised residents have more resources attheirdisposal,suchasincome, of therole played by publicagencies, inwhich neighbourhoods to Spaintoday? The answer isclearlyyes. For onething, regardless But, canthiss 1961)andlittletimefor(Jacobs, activities? community-building and inspire feelings ofsafety ifthere are no“eyes onthestreets” offenders,fend offopportunistic control “menacing” localyouth spends itsdays offatholiday homes. How cansuchacommunity adult population works longhours, commutes long distances and residence. ofits where Justimagineacommunity themajority longhoursandhavingwork, working access to asecondary involvement life, incommunity includingcommuting timeto a new set of residents’ to that characteristics are hinder their likely In thelightofthistheoretical framework, thisstudyincorporates the trouble”. interests thatrender thedeployment oftheseresources “worth the community, iv) financial resources and, of v) acommonality ocial disorganisation theory be reasonably exported bereasonably exported 15 as low-crime societies(Oberwittler, 2004). etal.,2004;SampsonandGroves,countries (Jobes 1989), as well rural areas (Osgood and Chambers, 2000), other Anglo-Saxon exported, withcaveats, beyond USmetropolitan areas, including demonstrated thatthesocialdisorganisation framework canbe the EUaverage (37percent). Finally, previous research hasalready (30.3 percent), andeven theUnited States (24percent), thanto social organisation might be driven, not by thelevel ofethnic with aplain“ethnic effect”. That is, theerosion ofneighbourhoods’ interpreted asa“diversity beconfounded may actually effect” et al.,2007;Morales andEchazarra, 2013)and, frequently, whatis fiercely disputed (Aizlewood andPendakur, 2005;Habyarimana (Hardin, 1995). However,efficacy thesemechanismshave been of interests (AlesinaandLa Ferrara, 2005)andorganisational onneighbours’impact socialtrust(Putnam, 2007),commonality andEarls,(Sampson, Raudenbush 1997)through itsdebilitating organisation of collective anditsassociated efficacy construct In terms ofresources, ethnicdiversity perceptions ofcrime. ofimmigrants helpsexplainresidents’whether theproportion crimerates, ofactual predictors theaimhere isto examine have demonstrated thatethnicdiversity/immigration are good (Sampson andGroves, 1989)andSpain(Rodríguez-Andrés, 2003) andEarls, (Sampson, Raudenbush 1997),theUnited Kingdom mind thatprevious studiescarriedoutintheUnited States controversial ofall:ethnicdiversity andimmigration. Bearingin perceived crime, special attention is here devoted to the most to have on social disorganisation, urban unease and animpact ofcommunitiesAmong thecharacteristics thatare hypothesised per se may hindersocial

Introduction diversity, butinstead by thepresence ofspecificethnicgroups behaviour, thepresence ofimmigrants may alsohave adirect communities’ socialorganisation andtheprevalence ofdeviant addition to a hypothetical effect, indirect running through and immigrant concentration may role. play In animportant neighbourhoods, there are reasons to believe thatethnicdiversity In thespecificcaseofperceived crimeinSpanish neighbourhood Index,are mostcommonly employed.most notablytheHerfindahl and Earls, 1997;Shaw andMckay, 1969[1942])however, indices, usedasaproxy foroften ethnic diversity (Sampson,Raudenbush specific formula employed. ofspecificgroups Proportions are ethnicity. ofethnic diversity Measures are alsodetermined by the excluding informationbirth, oncultural traits, race orself-reported of andcountry dataonnationality (INE)collects Statistical Office bycollected statisticalagencies. For instance, theSpanish Ultimately, ofdata theoperationalisation depends on thetype was bornorsocialised, orsimplyonself-ascribed ethnicity. where anindividual trait, onthecountry onalegaldistinction, characteristic,observable such as race and language, on a cultural designation ofanethnicgroup canbebasedonareadily which diversity is effectively calculated. For instance, the the controversial and the way operationalisation of ethnicity in terms, however, themeasurement ofethnicdiversity hingesupon groups inagiven geographical area orsocialunit. In practical seems quite straightforward: thepresence ofdifferent ethnic But, whatisethnicdiversity anyway? Theoretically, theanswer degree of residential turnover andinadequate financial resources. as a lack of communication and organisation a significant skills, with anumberofpotentially “detrimental” characteristics, such 16 especially conducive to natives perceiving a greater threat (Citrin different peoplethatbeganinthelate 1990smay have been sudden andmassive arrival ofculturally, religiously andracially concentration crime rates. has no effect on actual In addition, the spur an increase in the levels of perceived crime, even when such Social Survey, 2002),theirgeographical concentration to islikely associated decay withneighbourhood andcrime(European onresidents’impact perceptions. Since immigrants are commonly have additional disruptive 2010), but also effects (Hopkins, sudden socialchange isinteresting inthatrapid changes may less than2percent in1998to more than12percent in2009.This have settled in Spain, raising the stock of foreign-nationals from diverse society. Since 1998,asmany as sixmillionnewimmigrants crime. Secondly, Spainhasonlyrecently become anextremely and socialdisorder onresidents’ perceptions ofneighbourhood ofcommunities’in whichto examinetheimpact physical decay (Dijk, Kesteren andSmit, 2007)may turnoutto beanidealcontext ofSouthernEuropean crimethatistypical subjective societies relatively low crime rates with moderate to high levels of unfortunate, for atleastthree reasons. First, thecombination of thesishavethe incivility beenexceptionally rare. This is field where applicationsofthesocialdisorganisation modeland inSouthern Europe,Crime inSpain,andfact isanunderstudied communities be relevant other than to Spanish criminologists? Why shouldperceived crimeinSpanish neighbourhood GOALS AND SOCIAL RELEVANCE THE STUDY OF relatively homogeneous. hasbeenhitherto society Age, duringtheEarlyModern of theJewsandMoors Spanish and Sides, 2008),especially ifwe consider that, since theexpulsion

Introduction because Spanishurbansociologistsare facingasituationthat, •  •  goals andissuesaddressed: objectives. Nonetheless, letme enumerate the mostimportant therefore difficult to offer a parsimonious and precise list of several hypotheses anddebates thatare addressed anditis There isnosinglegoalpursuedby thisbook.Instead, there are varies across neighbourhoods, rural areas andcities. analyse how much,andwhy, perceived crime neighbourhood the 2001Population andHousingCensus allows researchers to throughcollected standard Amongotheradvantages, surveys. in theirresidential areas. Instead, thisinformation istypically censuses rarely askrespondents aboutcrime, noiseorcleanliness data were from collected allresidents. To theauthor’s knowledge, ever andopinion inSpain,andwhichboth objective conducted comprehensive anddetailed populationandhousingcensus sudden changeshave coincided fortunately withthemost 1927;Shaw andMcKay,Znaniecki, 1969[1942]).Finally, these and social disorganisation framework developed (Thomas sociologists of the Chicago School encountered and in which the mutatis mutandis measures ofcrime. Clarify therelationship between andsubjective objective model ofsocio-politicalparticipation. disorganisation theory, thesisandtheresource theincivility outacleartheoretical framework,Set bringingtogether social , isreminiscent thatearly ofthecontext 17 •  •  •  • • • • – Perceived crime. neighbourhood (asopposedto observed) – Rural areas andtowns. – The Spanishcontext.     hierarchical linearmodels. regression models, including spatialerror, spatiallagand Understand the implications of estimating various spatial crime atthelocallevel. Examine therelationship between immigration andperceived crime.neighbourhood commuting timeto work work, orovertime onperceived Evaluate factors, theeffectsofunexplored structural suchas Test ifthesocialdisorganisation to: modelcanbeextended Separate effects. andidentifyindividualneighbourhood accessible datasetsinSpain. public opinion on safety issues, criminological research and Place the research in bycontext describing crime patterns, crime. neighbourhoods’ physical deterioration inexplainingperceived Understand therole played by socialincivilitiesand

Introduction STRUCTURE OFTHEBOOK and those that are based on the incivility thesis.and those thatare based ontheincivility crime asaproxy for andEarls, crime(Sampson,Raudenbush 1997) crime,neighbourhood including thosethatuseperceptions of social disorganisation modelto theexplanationof perceived referenceconcludes making to thefew studiesthatapplythe Kornhauser, 1978;SampsonandGroves, 1989).The chapter accordance withshared values (BursikandGrasmick, 1993; shape residents’ to solve ability collective problems and live in social disorganisation, plusotherlocalconditions thatmay also thathaveneighbourhoods beentraditionally associated with time. The focus of characteristics isonthosestructural (1969[1942]) to study crime patterns in the largest US cities of the (1927), and later appliedby ShawZnaniecki andMcKay main tenets of the theory, first introduced by Thomas and the work ofearly urbansociologists, thechapter introduces the residents’ with perceptions crime. ofneighbourhood Starting model anditsspecificapplicationsto theunderstandingof foundations ofthebook,asitdescribessocialdisorganisation perceived neighbourhoodcrime, Chapter 1, chapters. literature, letmefirstbrieflydescribethecontent ofthebook introducing thetheoretical framework andreviewing therelevant analyses carriedoutinthestudy. Before turningto thechapter immigration nexus, theconsideration ofwhichisessentialto the crime,neighbourhood socialdisorganisation, andthecrime- contentious issuesconcerning thestudyofperceived The somerelevant discussionupto thispointhassetforth and Social Disorganisation Theory, Thesisand Social theIncivility sets outthetheoretical 18 in Spanish neighbourhoods andtheirrelationshipin Spanishneighbourhoods withother issues, provides basicdescriptive statisticsofcrimeperceptions trends incitizens’ concerns for publicsafety andcrime-related chapter examines available crimestatisticsinSpain,presents forthe context therest ofthestudy. Amongotherthings, the outcome variable—perceived crime—and sets neighbourhood neighbourhood crime, Chapter 2, second home. The empirical models are tested using all Spanish commuting timeto work, work overtime andtheavailability ofa previously unexplored characteristics, community including the prevalence offamilydisruption,andurbanisation, aswell as residential stability, diversity, residents’ socioeconomic status, perceived crime. These includeclassicallocalconditions, suchas cha­ structural neighbour Chapter 3, effects inmultilevel regression models. crime byneighbourhood separating individual and contextual dynamics inexplaining perceptions ofcommunity of importance crime levels. Andsecondly, itprovides empiricalevidence for the sociodemographicneighbourhood composition) and actual available to residents (i.e. socialincivilities, physical decay and the dependentvariable asacombination ofvisualandothercues results. First, itoffers anempiricaltest oftheconceptualisation of information for choosingempiricalmodelsandinterpreting their importantly, (2008).More survey thischapter offers valuable Victimisation (2005)andMadrid Survey International CrimeVictims sociodemographics ofoffendersbasedon the andvictims characteristics,neighbourhood andprovides information onthe ­hood crime in Spain, Local conditions, socialdisorganisation andperceived Conceptualising, measuringandexplainingperceived racteristics of neighbourhoods onresidents’ of neighbourhoods racteristics provides usefulinformation vis-à-visthe examines theeffectofanumber

Introduction census tracts, infour subsetsofmunicipalities(villages, towns, spatial regression modelsare estimated—including spatialerror, residents’ perceptions ofthelevels crime. To doso, aseriesof and specific immigrant groups, ofbirth, basedoncountry The chapter of analysestherelationship between theproportion Madrid: aspatialanalysis, Chapter 4, in Spain. medium-sized citiesandlarge cities)andfor the10largest cities Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in focuses exclusively of Madrid. on the city 19 perceived crime, social disorganisation, local communities and discusses themainimplicationsofbookfor theliterature on The final chapter, (i.e. turnout). electoral thesis, andincorporating aproxy for socialdisorganisation itself consideration the social disorganisation model and the incivility spatial lagandmultilevel into linearregression models—taking the crime-immigration nexus. Conclusions, summarises the findings and

Introduction I. SOCIAL DISORGANISATION THEORY, THE INCIVILITY THESIS AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME

1.1. INTRODUCTION here will serve as a tool for generating testable hypotheses theory S ocial disorganisation and expectations, and will assist the reader in interpreting and This study is fully embedded in the social disorganisation digesting the empirical findings of the subsequent chapters. In framework that emerged within the Chicago School in the 1920s, short, this chapter addresses two major issues: what is the social and which has recently developed into the systemic model and disorganisation model and how can it help us in understanding the social capital/collective efficacy approach of what Bursik residents’ perceived crime. (2006) denotes as the “New” Chicago School. As a matter of fact, several other debates/literatures—such as the role of the media in generating stereotypes or the importance of inequality in breeding criminal behaviour—are relevant to the empirical questions that 1.2. SOCIAL DISORGANISATION THEORY: FROM URBAN this book addresses. Nevertheless, it is the recent reformulations DETERMINISM TO COLLECTIVE EFFICACY of the social disorganisation model, and its connection with the incivility thesis, that permeate most of this study. Strongly linked to its psychological counterpart, or social control theory, the social disorganisation theory has been the dominant This chapter provides a detailed description of the social sociological explanation of crime at different times: leading the disorganisation model and a discussion of its most recent scene prior to World War II (Park, Burgess and McKenzie, 1925; developments, particularly those that are directly or indirectly Shaw and McKay, 1969[1942]; Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927), related to perceived neighbourhood crime (Quillian and Pager, fading with the emergence of serious criticisms based on the 2001; Taylor, 2001). The theoretical framework introduced study of subcultures (Cohen, 1955; Sutherland, 1945; Whyte,

20 1943) and the advancement of socio-psychological models of “New” Chicago School often adopt a community interpretation adoptacommunity ChicagoSchooloften “New” that proves more contentious since andthe both the“Old” level ofaggregation (i.e. isthe latter ecological assumption). It factors,with individual,familyandmacro-structural isarelevant (Gusfield,community 1975),eitherby itselforininteraction assumption, according to which the territorial orspatial (i.e. sociological assumption),andamore controversial developed within social relationships, affect human behaviour thatsocialvariables,assumption thatasserts originatingand therefore, assumptions. Aweak isbasedon two important threats (Hunter,external 1985;Kornhauser, 1978).The theory, social controls, contribute to solve problems andward off common values andgoals themaintenance ofeffective networks that, in the community through theemergence of 2006). These relationships are private, parochial and public institutions(Bursik,well withexternal astheneighbourhood residents inmorethat connect orlessformal relationships as networksmodel isbasedoninteractional withincommunities variations in(urban)crimerates. Initsmore elaborate form, the environmental/structural characteristics, accounts for spatial disorganisation within a community, itself affected by a set of states thatthe socialIn its simplest formulation, the theory and Earls, 1997). and Grasmick, 1993;Sampson, 1987; Sampson, Raudenbush development models(Bursik ofsystemic andcollective efficacy reformulation ofShaw andMcKay’s work (1969[1942])andthe 1957), and revivingMatza, again with Kornhauser’s (1978) 1938;Sykesanddeviant behaviour (Hirschi,1969;Merton, 21 In whatfollows, achronological account ofthemodelispresented, the ecological assumption. variance (Oberwittler, 2004), ofcrimefor astatisticallysignificantbutmodestproportion isolated and measured—neighbourhoods are shown to account exists—that is, where have effects contextual beenproperly without sufficientempiricalsupport. US (Simcha-Fagan 2000). 1986;CheongandRaudenbush, andSchwartz, violence in61rural andurban neighbourhoods. Suchresults are consistent inthe withsimilarstudiesconducted explain three thatneighbourhoods to four (2004)reports percent oftotal variation2 Oberwittler injuvenile despite composition successive ofthepopulation’’. andnationality changesinthenativity many years have remained relatively constant intheareas adjacent to centers ofcommerce andheavy industry, forceschiefly of community and conditions’’, that “in Chicago the rates by the fact of delinquents for is supported (1969[1942]), theecological1 InShaw assumption,ortheconclusion andMcKay that“delinquency isaproduct rural to an urban setting implied a move from “steady, uniform, in smallerhumanagglomerations. Socialtransformations from a attachmentsprevalent and community contacts order ofprimary restraints—where from thesocial theycould nolonger“benefit” and capitalistenvironment—freed from moral andsocial residentsNeighbourhood were forced to live inanindividualistic process associated with urbanisation and industrialisation. believed thatthedisruptionofsocialfabricwas aninevitable nineteenth andearlytwentieth century, someearlysociologists Influenced by themassive rural-urban migrations ofthelate 1.2.1. The origins and theexogenous sources ofsocialdisorganisation. and guardianship, the notion of collective efficacy, place attachment the levels ofsocialorder, organisational membership, supervision localsocialnetworks and mechanisms associated withthetheory: followed by adescriptionofthemainconstructs, dimensionsand 2 providing a reasonable support to providing a reasonable support 1 Where reliable evidence

Social disorganisation theory harmonious and consistent” socialinfluences,harmonious andconsistent” to otherswhich previously observed that evenpreviously though maintaining observed rural customs by nationalities, butby villages”. Actually, sociologists had (1925) note “America hasbeencolonised notby actually races or to the urban neighbourhood, for asPark, Burgess and McKenzie immigrant groups whotriedto transplant theirvillageway oflife Collectively, the 1927). andZnaniecki, to theiroldcustoms (Thomas sticking of life, whiletheworse offwere to yearn for thegoodold times new urbanconditions, rapidly adoptingamore progressive way and industrious individuals were advantageable to take of the urbanisation were conditional onsocioeconomic success. Skilful Individually, to thecultural reactions posedby strain andconflict however, was neithera linear norasociallyaccepted process. fromThe rural shift individual membersofthegroup (Bursik,2006). formally definedasthefadingofinfluence ofsocialruleson suffered intheirnewurbanenvironments, andwhichthey refer to the “passive demoralisation” that rural immigrants (1927) developed the termZnaniecki social disorganisation to thatThomas isinthiscontext and normlessness (1951[1897]).It 1938), and in Durkheim’s(Wirth, concept of anomie and Wirth’s contacts for contacts secondary substitution of primary (from attachments to community an associational basis), in Tönnies’ (2002[1887])transition from transformation aboundinthesocialsciences andcanbefound in antisocial behaviour andanomie. Accounts of this rural-urban cosmopolitanism grew accordingly, butsodidhumanavarice, 1924). Inthisunsettledurbancontext, creativity, and productivity were “unsettled, disorganized (Sutherland, andinconsistent” unfriendly organisation urbanorder was fiercely by rejected to urban Gemeinschaft disorganisation to to Gesellschaft Gesellschaft , 22 life’’. This was especially true for Asian communities who presented provides effective resistance to the disintegrating forces of urban says, “(…)theconservative pressure oftheimmigrant ghetto still withstand theshockofnewenvironment”, orasLind(1930) withtheirtraditions thathavekeeping beenmostableto thoseimmigrant groupswas whowere actually successful in be collectively beneficial. As the authors of could be individuallydetrimentalinthelong-term, itcould also systemic model responsible for decreasing levels ofplace attachment, whilethe (1938)—hypothesises are thatpopulationsize anddensity development model disorganisation but ofurbanisation,thoughtheirfocuseffects was notsocial andJanowitz (1974)revisitedKasarda thecontroversy over the andJanowitz,metropolis 1974). (Kasarda were emerging inthe“urban villages” (Gans, 1962)ofthe linear orinexorable. newsocialworlds Infact, andsocialsolidarities and McKay, 1969[1942])—theydidnotclaimthisprocess was by itshighcrimerates andotherurbanmalaises(Lind, 1930;Shaw was undergoingcity aprocess ofcultural decadence—as shown and McKenzie, 1925).Thus, althoughscholarsbelieved thatthe themselves andwiththelarger outside” community (Park, Burgess control organisations to dealatonce withdisputes arisingamong the lowest crimerates asthey“have organized whatwe may call the community. The opposite is truefor lengthofresidence, of community, to leave interest andbeingsorry inthecommunity comprehensive concept ofplace attachment, whichincludesasense norpopulation size havepopulation density astrong ona effect on lengthofresidence. Their results (figure 1.1)show thatneither —embodied by Park, Burgess andMcKenzie—focuses —found in Tönnies (2002[1887]) and Wirth —found inTönnies(2002[1887])andWirth place attachment . What they call the The City remarked “it remarked linear

Social disorganisation theory validating asaresult theconcept ofurbanvillagesdeveloped in Source: Own elaboration from Kasarda andJanowitz elaborationSource: from (1974). Kasarda Own lack ofattention to non-urbancommunities isaglaringomission”. “considering the origins of the concept ofsocial disorganisation, the disorganisation ledOsgoodandChambers(2000)to argue that accordingly. ofsocial This ofthetheory declineinto obscurity faded away andinterest inrural-urban transformations decreased relative andabsolute terms, publiclongingfor therural way oflife increasingly urbaninnature andimmigration to theUSdropped in turnedspecific attention. Inaddition, asAmericansociety urbanareas thatdeserved ofcertain but stablecharacteristics and social atomisation were not indissoluble elements of the city and othersfailedto doso—socialdisorganisation, cultural decadence thrivedsome neighbourhoods andstabiliseddemographically— 1961).Academics (Jacobs, and neighbourhoods realised that as 1943),ethniccommunities (Gans, 1962) studies ofgangs(Whyte, FIGURE 1.1: ATTACHMENT PLACE Kasarda andJanowitz’s Kasarda (1974)empiricalfindings COMMUNITY SENSE OF IN COMMUNITY INTEREST + NETWORKS: RELATIVES & FRIENDS SOCIAL + + + + + & MEMBERSHIP PARTICIPATION + RESIDENCE LENGTH OF 23 “problems ofcommon interest”, to agree onhow “a problem organisation, definedinterms ofresidents’ to define ability distribution ofcrimewas associated with neighbourhoods’ social and mentalillness. According to theirperspective, theurban urban problems suchastruancy, infantmortality, tuberculosis (1927) was appliedspecificallyto crime, andnotjustto aseriesof disorganisation modeldeveloped by Thomas andZnaniecki was not until Shaw and McKay’sIt (1969[1942]) work that the social national, or nativity group”national, or nativity exhibited auniform rate ofdelinquency vanishes inthe better residential districts”. Inaddition, “no racial, and declinedwithdistance centre from thecity “until italmost high intransitional areas adjacent to the Central BusinessDistrict regardless oftheirethniccomposition, crimewas persistently Urban Areas As for thecrime-immigration nexus, in problems andtautology ofcircularity (Kornhauser, 1978). a manifestation of social disorganisation, a debate that isbeset by emerged asto whethercrimewas acause, aconsequence, orjust (Shaw andMcKay, 1969[1942]).As expected, thequestionsoon a low percentage offoreign-born and“Negro” headsoffamilies) prevalence ofhomeownership) andlow ethnicheterogeneity (i.e. residential turnover (i.e. low levels ofpopulationincrease andhigh percentage offamiliesonrelief andmedianlevel ofincome), low in urbanareas withalow prevalence (i.e. ofpoverty alow organisation. They just indicated thatitwas to more emerge likely hence were unableto rank interms neighbourhoods oftheirsocial didnotcome upwithanyMcKay measurement whatsoever and intherealneighbourhoods world? Unfortunately, Shaw and “harmonious cooperation”. Buthow didtheyrecognize these should bedealtwith” andto implementsolutionsthrough , Shaw and McKay (1969[1942])showed, Shaw andMcKay that, Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Delinquency

Social disorganisation theory across Chicago. Hence, crime was nottheresult ofspecific genetic successive generations ofboys, inmuchthesame way that canbe andare transmitteddelinquency down through dependence approach, according to traditions which“the of They a culturalist/path even went as far as supporting divergent value systems competing for residents’ allegiance. socially disorganised was theappearance neighbourhoods of arguedShaw consequence thatanunfortunate andMcKay of (Kornhauser,inconsistencies intheircrimetheory 1978). Indeed, studies, suchasSutherland’s (1924),leadingto internal didnotabandonthecultural elementsofpreviousMcKay asthecommunity-level systemicknown perspective, Shaw and 1976). Moreover, even though theirwork gave to whatis birth and processes withinthesociallydisorganised areas (Snodgrass, were todelinquency befound basicallyininternal conditions 1938), and argued that the causes of urban life” (Wirth, ofthecity,parts except to recognise theentire “complex of thedisorganisedfailed to connect areas withtheprivileged and McKay, 1969[1942]).For thesame“natural” reason, they which, as yet, man has been able to exercise little control” (Shaw were an “end-product of processes life in American city over stratification was, all,“natural”; after rates highdelinquency to identifyanddevelop relevant causalmechanisms. Urban begin with,embeddedintheChicagoSchool’s vibes, theyfailed intheirworkSeveral needto shortcomings bediscussed. To anddisorganisation. instability andcommerce signsofsocial andportraying heavy industry but ofindividuals’ incorporation into areas with,oradjacent to, peasants moving andaggressive to anunknown urbanculture, configurations, of immigrants’ taste for delinquency, or of 24 Kornhauser’s (1978)meticulousanalysisofprevious analytical 1.2.2. The revival process thatpersistsover time(Kornhauser, 1978). delinquent subculture istransformed into a semi-autonomous McKay, 1969[1942]).Thus, originallyadependentvariable, the language andothersocialforms are transmitted” (Shaw and This networks isnot to are say considered thatprimary ineffective, of bondsthatproducetypes andhelp control deviantbehaviour. institutions, such as political institutions and the media, as the networks, networks,of secondary such asvoluntary and macro of themodel(Carr, 2003),Kornhauserhighlightstheimportance and Chambers, 2000).Note that, in linewithrecent developments theirchildren (Osgood together insocialisingandsupervising rates, members’ astheyhindercommunity to work ability social of characteristics individuals, lead to higher delinquency communities, andresidential turnover, suchaspoverty and Alternatively, in factors isthatstructural her perspective rates.associated withhigherdelinquency andachievement between was expectations not discrepancy the strain elementofsocialdisorganisation theory, asthe “dissolves existingcultural solutions”. Shediscarded empirically modernsocietiesconstantly andcommunity”—in of kinship ties—or“structuresculture andbecausetheerosion ofprimary from to on thegrounds distinguishsocialstructure ofitsinability McKay’s (1969[1942])work. cultural Sherejected deviance theory its cultural andstrain elementsthatwere present inShaw and neutralisation, etc.) cleared the social disorganisation model from models (e.g. socialdisorganisation, cultural deviance, strain,

Social disorganisation theory they just play a secondary role inaculturethey justplay organised asecondary around on diverse dimensions, suchasthe prevalence ofsocial andtype aiming to grasp the social disorganisation have construct focused ofthesocialdisorganisation concept,in itsunpacking for scholars isatthispointwhere theliteratureIt becomes more complex definable and, more importantly, measurable. from its determinants and consequences—it needed to be social disorganisation concept—independent to beadistinct andmeasure socialorganisation. scholarswantedto If observe were numerous. Nonetheless, itwas stillunclearhow onewas 1927), butempiricaltests ofitsdeterminants andimplications 1978; Shaw andMcKay, 1969[1942];Thomas andZnaniecki, only were there clear and consistent definitions of it (Kornhauser, become awidespread andaccepted sociologicalconcept. Not By the end of theseventies the term social disorganisation had controls).external controls), and rewards stemming from role networks (indirect of attachmentto rewarding internal socialrelationships (indirect controls), external sentiments (direct and surveillance supervision internal controlsshame andguilt(direct orsocialisation), 1978). These mechanismsofsocialcontrol includefeelings of accrue from conformity to or deviation from norms” (Kornhauser, described as“actual orpotential rewards andpunishmentsthat maintain effective socialcontrols”, whilesocial control, inturn,is tocommunity realise thecommon values ofitsresidents and In thiscontext, socialorganisation isdefinedasthe“ability ofa well-being (Kornhauser, 1978). technological progress, rationalisation, science and material

25 and attenuated culture (Kornhauser, 1978;Warner, 2003). and Earls, (Sampson, Raudenbush 1997), 1991), collective efficacy (Sampson, with theneighbourhood (Sampson, 1991),satisfaction andJanowitz, 1974),socialcohesionattachment (Kasarda control (Kornhauser, 1978; Sampson and Groves, 1989), place 1986),guardianship,Schwartz, andinformal surveillance social andJanowitz, 1974;Simcha-Faganmembership (Kasarda and networks (BursikandGrasmick, 1993;Warren, 1971), organisational capital often includestheconceptcapital often ofsocialorganisation itself. 1988; Putnam, 1993), to thepoint thatthedefinitionofsocial withthatofsocialcapital(Bourdieu, 1985;Coleman,particular noticeably overlap with other relevant sociological concepts, in communities’ day-to-day functioning. Furthermore, they they are elementsof alsotappingsubtleanddistinctive Obviously, thesedimensionsare robustly interconnected, but reciprocity andtrust in others, that facilitate cooperation between citizens for mutual benefit”. 3 Social capital is defined by Putnam features (1993) as “those of social organization, such as networks, norms of Kornhauser, 1978).However, inpractice, andwithfew exceptions psychological mechanisms ofcrimecontrol (Hirschi, 1969; played by place attachmentandtheextensive debate onthesocio- promising elementsof themodel,chiefamongwhichare therole andEarls,Raudenbush, 1997)approaches butonlyby ignoring capital(Sampson, Grasmick, 1993)andthecollective efficacy/social of thesocialdisorganisation modelto thesystemic (Bursikand complexity, Bursik (2006)reduces recent conceptual reformulations controversial to overcome task.Inaconstructive effort such box ofsocialdisorganisation becomes aproblematic and black mapping causalrelationships andsheddinglightupon the scholars to respondents. comprehend ,letalonesurvey As aresult, In this“conceptual mess” nuances inmeaningare difficultfor 3

Social disorganisation theory (e.g. reformulated in Bursik and Grasmick’s (1993) systemic model, Hunter’s (1985) classification of social control spheres, later parochial andpublicorders (Carr, 2003). ofthe agencies (BursikandGrasmick, 1993)andtheinterlocking communities and more on their “connections” with external developments have focused of lessontheinternal functioning and power struggles(Logan andMolotch,2007[1987]),recent networks inmodernsocieties, inequalities aswell ascity-wide socialisation processes”. Acknowledging thedissolutionofkin and informal associationaltiesrooted infamilylife andon-going networkscomplex andformal system offriendshipandkinship tiesintheir descriptionoflocalcommunities “assecondary a into andJanowitz consideration (1974)take 1938).Kasarda (Wirth, leaving competition andformal control asmechanismsofcontrol towns and rural communities (Shaw and McKay, 1969[1942]), and residents “from muchofthescrutiny andcontrol” thatexisted in ties,social disorganisation freeing with the weakening of primary concerned aboutrural-urban transformations, associated urban relevant for aneffectively organised community. Earlysociologists, agencies—aretype—primary, orlinkswithexternal secondary social networks Social disorganisation hasbeenprimarilyassociated withlocal 1.2.3. Local social networks: the three levels of social order are severely limited. thatavailablethe fact organisation dataoncrimeandcommunity decisions about which dimension to focus on are made easier by Problems inEcologicalSocial andJuvenile Delinquency Perspective Project on HumanDevelopment inChicago, , thoughdisagreement stillpersistsasto which a German study on studyon a German ), ), 26 extend beyondextend familyandfriendsto localinstitutions (parochial ostracism, (2) “Broader local interpersonal networks’’, which impose informalsuchascriticism,ridicule, sanctions and groups (private(1) strong tiesorinformal primary order), which role inthesocialcontrol process: andcomplementary distinct based onthree levels socialorder, ofneighbourhood eachwitha the model from a social networks perspective. This framework is remains thecentral, andmostcomprehensive, reformulation of 1978; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1978; Sampson, Raudenbush, 1997;Wilson, 1996). More means ofenhancing communities’ socialorganisation (Kornhauser, (Granovetter, 1973)tipped thescaletowards tiesasa secondary interest in theeffectiveness oflocalassociations andweak ties intimate groups (i.e. gangs)(Gans, 1962;Whyte, 1943)and the ofthecohesivenessthe acknowledgement withindelinquent (Lind, tiesasasource ofsocialcontrol, 1930),prioritisedprimary (1927),andotherearlysociologists Whereas Thomas andZnaniecki attached to thesethree levelsimportance ofsocialcontrol. Despite this agnostic view, the literature varies substantially in the variability, empiricalquestions”. are key control, aswell as thedistalandproximate sources ofthat the scope and effectiveness of these three dimensions of social these networks isanopenquestion” variability in andagain“the among them.As Bursik(2006)notes:relative “the effectiveness of relative effectiveness andtheinterconnections established networks, anagnosticstance abouttheir theirmodeltakes proposing aclear, usefulandcomplete classificationofcommunity merit for wide rules.implement society Although deserving (public order),and whichprovide publicgoodsandservices (3) linkswithinstitutionslocated outsideofthecommunity and,order) andplay andsupervision, arole insurveillance

Social disorganisation theory recently, thefocus to hasshifted distributive politicsatthecity- Skogan, 1986), theauthorsfocus mostly onguardianship and 1986; socialisation, criticism andostracism1975;Krohn, (Conklin, crime-control mechanisms usedby thesesocial networks include parochial order (i.e. associational membership).Althoughthe (i.e. networks oflocal friendships)andonacomponent ofthe In SampsonandGroves (1989), the focus isontheprivate order (Warner,presence withinthecommunity” 2003). values to belived outandreinforced through theirphysical conventional values, for those opportunities andincrease “the create culture, aneighbourhood andverbally reinforce articulate universalist—attenuation hypothesis, to localsocialtiesserve different ways. For instance, in Kornhauser’s (1978) cultural—and social disorganisation/deviant behaviour equationinvery Local socialnetworks, orsecondary, whetherprimary enter the the community. residents’ politicalmobilisation automatically yields benefits to of fullyresponsive bureaucrats andrepresentatives where politics,elites andcity unlessoneassumesanunrealistic scenario the focusto shift from communities and social organisation to because prioritisingaccess to tends publicresources andservices machine literature (Logan andMolotch,2007[1987]),partly relatedindirectly to socialdisorganisation, suchasthegrowth have beenhighlighted mainlyby thatare perspectives only The relationship agencies between andexternal neighbourhoods or less(Carr, 2003;ZatzandPortillos, 2000)politicisedcontexts. more (Bursik,1989;Gans, 1962;Logan andMolotch, 2007[1987]) “connections” resources to andfend-off extract threats in external wide level oflocal communities to and theability usetheirexternal 27 improvement. In the first place, itisstillunclearhow localties first the In improvement. and urbancrimeisextensive; however, there isroom for Existing research on the relationship between social networks robbery. andstreet the rates includingburglary oftotal victimisation, they found oflocalfriendshipsto significantlyreduce thedensity surveillance. In their analysis of 238 British local communities, need to focus lessonthegoalspursued by meansoflocal ties, In order to avoid tautological research arguments, will further networks canspread conventional anddeviantbehaviour alike. and Dietz,2004)anecdotal evidence suggestthatlocalsocial Suttles, 1968;Warner andRountree, 1997;Browning, Feinberg, agencies (Bursik, 2006). Finally,external 1943; empirical (Whyte, ties butfew with connections andsecondary had strong primary and Portillos (2000)show how a Phoenix Chicanocommunity has beenthetraditional view(Gans, 1962;Wilson,1996),butZatz ties?Thisappearance orexternal andmaintenance ofsecondary networks preventtheir interconnections. primary the Do effectiveness ofdifferent ofnetworks, types butnotsomuchon Secondly, thedebatecentred hasoften around therelative enthusiasm andcommon interests. requires clubs, daycare,sports activities and othercommunity parties, resources, even ifadensesocialnetwork exists. Organising butitmay proveskills infeasible withfewer inneighbourhoods when neighbourshave financialresources, timeandorganisational withmaterial resources.particular Socialorganisation iseasier in and withavailableinteract community, resources inthe hard resources, just as much as it does neighbours’

Social disorganisation theory and more onwhichsocialgroups are better organised, asinthe And this is an important distinction, for distinction, we allthink differentlyAnd thisis animportant of community”, theopposite being truefor localsocialnetworks. and hardly sowith“sense and“sorry to leave ofcommunity” the associations was highlycorrelated with“interest inthecommunity”, American Sociological Review induce apassive andnon-instrumentalplace attachment.Intheir instrumental affectionto places whereas theformer canalso precisely,More the latter generates atransferable, and active correlated—aspects of social organisation.distinct—though networks and organisational membership are indeed tapping and Janowitz (1974) provideKasarda evidence that social trust andsocialcapitalinthecommunity. goal-oriented. As aresult, theyincrease thelevels ofsocialcontrol, contrast, associationsare, almostby definition,“organised” and (Gans, 1962),nordotheyrequire awell-defined structure. In instrumental, even threat inthescenario ofacriticalexternal inherent inthelatter. Socialnetworks are notnecessarily organisational andthestructure membershipistheintentionality local socialnetworks, broadly conceived, from thedimensionof values andtheimprovement life. ofcommunity Whatdistinguishes goalsand,community implicitly, to thereinforcement ofcommon towards directed are typically activities theachievement of ofweak tiescreated throughbecause thesort associational substantialacademicattention,membership hasattracted ifonly to the parochialClosely linked level of socialcontrol, organisational 1.2.4. Organisational membership idea ofintergenerational closure (Coleman, 1988). article, participation in formal local participation article, 28 Kornhauser (1978),Carr suggeststhatatrade-off between social neighbourhoods Feinberg, butlow-crime andDietz, 2004)andpoorlyconnected (Browning, buthigh-crimeneighbourhoods densely connected indeed resulted in a productive debate around the existence of be locallyembeddedandsociallyactive. has This distinction networks thanofastreet corner boy, even thoughtheymay both to fullyconnected localandbroader a localpoliticalactivist social organisation. Organisational membership isbelieved to organisations is consideredvoluntary a central component of In Sampson and Groves in formal and (1989), local participation participation). contribute to thesamelatent variable ( why parental education andorganisational involvement should itselfisambiguousfor itistheoretically questionable participation school attachment. However, the effect of organisational rates,and official delinquency effect through and an indirect on self-reported parental impact level a direct of education, exerts level oforganisational involvement and intheneighbourhood whichisdefinedby the organisationalcommunity participation, Fagan andSchwartz’s (1986)studyofjuvenile delinquency, residents’ associationalmembershiponcrimeismixed. InSimcha- In spite oftheirpurposive nature, of evidence ontheimpact theirresidential areaskeeping undercontrol. organisationsneighbourhood asanalternative strategy for with few social ties to may the community get involved in controlling deviantbehaviour. civic-mindedresidents In fact, exist,may for actually bothare alternative andeffective ways of ties—or informal controls—and organisational memberships

(Carr, 2003).Inthis context, andinlinewith i.e. community organisational community

Social disorganisation theory enhance communities’ socialcontrol over localyouth andtheir particularly trust andhelpfulness. particularly be confounded withthatofother components ofsocialcapital, onthe prevalenceimpact of homicides, though this effect may voting turnout and organisational membership, a negative exerts civic engagementcomponent ofsocialcapital,asmeasured by rates across 99geographical areas intheUSisexamined. The Baumer (2001), where the effect of social capital on homicide on homiciderates. Opposite results are found inRosenfeld and involvement organisations hasnoeffect insecularandvoluntary comprehensive modellingstrategy, theyshow thatthe membership onrates outa ofviolentcrime. Inspite ofcarrying using the Loayza, (2002)assess, andMenéndez inacross-national study amid the social capital approach on crime. For instance, Lederman, ormediating variable hasbecomeexplanatory more widespread recently,More incorporating organisational membershipasan andEarls,(Sampson, Raudenbush, 1997). 1991) ortheall-encompassing concept ofcollective efficacy membership asacomponent ofeithersocialcohesion (Sampson, colleagues discarded, insubsequentwork, organisational For thisreason, itishardly surprising that Sampson andhis casts doubt on its validity as a component of social disorganisation. disorganisation—with theexception ofsocioeconomic status— correlated was weakly withdeterminants ofsocial participation negative,examined was that organisational certainly thefact they found thatitseffectonfive outofthesixoffences they produce ambiguousfindings.organisational Even participation if these theoretical claimsare, theirempiricalmodelsfor to defendability localinterests more generally. However credible World Values Survey , the impact ofassociational , theimpact 29 strong evidence ofanegative relationship, yet there are serious effect. OnlyinSimcha-Fagan (1986)dowe find andSchwartz effects—organisational membershipnotpresenting asignificant mildly correlated direct withthemediatingconstruct—or effects—organisationalon indirect membershipbeingonly criminal activities, andthisholdstruewhenthefocus hasbeen on therelationship between organisational membershipand To date, researchers have beenunableto offer clear-cutevidence opposed to local networks and organisational membership, offending and self-reported rates, victimisation as property Groves peergroups of increase alltypes (1989),unsupervised effect oncrimeis substantial. For instance, inSampsonand component ofsocialdisorganisation, itisnotsurprisingthat its process,Being anintervening rather thanadimensionor residentially stable and deep-rooted individualsare therule. local communities where associations are prevalent, and outcomeseen asthelikely ofsociallyorganised andcohesive of neighbourhoods. This mechanismofsocialcontrol shouldbe result—not adimension/component—of thesocialorganisation related to thepersistence ofdeviantbehaviour buttheyare the controls, including guardianship and surveillance, are certainly socialnetworks shapecrimelevels.secondary Informal social andbe conceptualised asamechanismthrough whichprimary in Shawconstruct and McKay’s disorganisation model”, it should intervening the“firstand surveillance and mostimportant Although SampsonandGroves (1989)consider guardianship 1.2.5. Guardianship, andparochial socialcontrols surveillance variable “community organisational participation”. orlabelling,problems withtheirconstruction, ofthelatent

Social disorganisation theory which had a significant impact only on certain types. Inasimilar types. onlyoncertain which hadasignificantimpact solving trainers, aldermen, the judiciary and city bureaucrats, andcity solving trainers, or aldermen,thejudiciary to institutionalcontrolsdirectly such aspolice officers, problem- willing to wipe outcrimefrom theirareas are to more turn likely rarely acollective enterprise” (Carr, 2003).Instead, individuals ofsupervision”majority but“day-to-day ofteens is supervision is “age graded: children upto theteenage years receive thevast and and unconsciousintervene. After supervision all,expected deviants This is especially the case with teenagers and young adult necessarily related andguardianship. to informal supervision alternative ways ofdealing with deviant behaviour that are not a result, civic-mindedresidents have beenspurred onto explore compared withthepredominantly malebreadwinner period. As the “double trouble” effect—istoday to more occur, unlikely as effective reinforcement by different of sanctions guardians—i.e. conventional forms ofinformal control are rare. For instance, the in individualistic, dual-earner andethnicallydiverse societies social controls mightprevent deviantbehaviour, butargues that reassessed. In thisregard, thatinformal Carr (2003)acknowledges in crime-preventionsurveillance needsto beprofoundly discipline have eroded, therelevance ofguardianship and communities and 1977),where tightlyknit (Inglehart, society However, given recent changestowards apost-materialist 2009). andLambert, (Jiang social controls, suchasthepolice, andtheprisons thecourts thanformal and peersareneighbourhood more important that informal socialcontrols, stemming from thefamily, the vein, express respondents theopinion from aChinesesurvey since residents are either afraid or sluggish to supervise 30 traditional and collectivistic values.traditional andcollectivistic Inthisregard, Jiangand where economic with development is closely intertwined parochialism orders ofsocialcontrol istermed by the authorasthe and localassociations—andpublic—essentiallythepolice— combining ties parochial—self-regulation through secondary dwellers andpublicagencies. This crime-prevention strategy, between use localassociationsasbrokers neighbourhood’ isolated individuals. deviant behaviour andtheever-growing numberofsocially as to how may guardianship andsurveillance influence adults’ group andteenager’s delinquentbehaviour butremain mute have posited thesemechanismsinterms oftheirinfluence on addition, advocates ofinformal socialcontrol mechanisms interconnectedness (Coleman, 1988;Oberwittler, 2004).In probably theintergenerational closure builtaround parents’ residentially stable neighbourhoods. The onlyexception is mechanisms are used extensively, even inaffluentand family structure, itishazardous to assumethatthese behaviour but, given recent trends invalues andthe social controls are effective mechanisms for preventing deviant In conclusion, guardianship, and other informal surveillance controls—including thepolice, andtheprisons. thecourts the vast ofWestern majority societies—prefer formal social educated andnotablyindividualisticinterviewees—representing respondents values, holdingtraditional orcollectivistic whereas andpeers—arethe neighbourhood related to less-educated case; namely, thatinformal socialcontrols—including thefamily, Carr’s (2009)seemto support Lambert hypothesis for theChinese . An ideal context to. Anidealcontext test thishypothesis isChina, new

Social disorganisation theory 1.2.6. Collective efficacy: social cohesion andinformal social 1.2.6. Collective efficacy: a task-specificconstruct”. Morenoff, andEarls, 1999),itis argued that“collective is efficacy mutual trustandcohesion”. Or againinalater work (Sampson, wouldof the neighbourhood be enhanced under conditions of Earls, willingnessandintention on behalf 1997):“the to intervene social trust.Or, and asthe authorsstate (Sampson,Raudenbush, and informal socialcontrols, are mingledwithhelpfulnessand since neutralinstrumental construct resources, suchassocialties down to theprivate into level, an turningcollective efficacy outwithlocalconditions andtrickling entire causalpath,starting behaviours ( mechanisms by which“cohesive” communities control deviant such associaltrust, localnetworks orhelpfulness—and residents’ perceptions level ofneighbourhood characteristics embracing concept ofsocialcohesion—which isdefinedby Theoretically, includestheall- theconcept ofcollective efficacy disorganisation (Kornhauser, 1978). connotations ofchaosassociated withthenotionofsocial sense, even moreperfect sosince itavoided theunfortunate appeared to theconstruct andpractice make control, intheory socialtrust—andinformal social social cohesion—in particular concept. Althoughthisissimplythecombination ofmeasures of andEarls(1997),ofthecollective efficacy Sampson, Raudenbush, ofsocialdisorganisation bythe construct was theintroduction, milestone intheprocess ofcoming toAn important terms with control i.e. informal socialcontrols). Thus, itencapsulates the 31 deprivation andethnicdiversity ( disorganisation determinants; namely, residential mobility, correlates were visiblyrelated to Shaw andMcKay’s social when priorcrimewas controlled for. Inaddition,collective efficacy andrecordedvictimisation violentcrimewas substantial,even onperceived construct the collective crime, efficacy personal robustyielded extraordinarily outcomes inwhichtheeffectof Empirically, themultilevel analysisof343Chicagoneighbourhoods recently replaced by dimensions. othermeaningful Nonetheless, andJanowitz, 1974)buthasbeen (Kasarda organisation theory hasbeen used asacomponent ofsocial Hernández, 2001). It or linkbetween people andspecificplaces (Hidalgoand Place attachment can be generally definedas an affected bond 1.2.7. Place ofattachmentand senseofcommunity istrulyneeded.construct development ofasimplified version ofthecollective efficacy measure. The a similarsummary studies willbeableto construct should be questioned, for that a great it number is of unlikely theoretical intrinsic value (Hayek, 1964).Even itsempirical value justified by itspredictive power butnotnecessarily by its thecreation oftheconceptIn fact, seemedto bean necessarily become more comprehensible, letaloneparsimonious. a catch-all concept, theprocess ofdeviantbehaviour doesnot into dimensions of socialdisorganisationmerging theory distinct to replicateability theiranalysisindifferent contexts. First, by raised inrelation bothto andto theirtheoretical the construct However convincing their results are, some concerns need to be i.e. immigrant concentration). ad hoc process

Social disorganisation theory few empirical findings support thisglaringomission.True,few empiricalfindingssupport place respondents’ ofcrime. importantly, More reports theirwork framework, ofhomeattachmentonpolice anegative and impact that Brown, Perkins, andBrown (2004)observed, inamultilevel Bearing inmindthese plausiblecausallinks, itisnotsurprising social ties(Gans, 1962;Skogan,1986). consequences, includingdisinvestment, demolitionandlossof changeanditsdeleteriouscan helpinhibitneighbourhood strengthen bondswith otherneighbours. Finally, place attachment successive and window incivilities(seethe“broken effect”) thebuiltenvironmentpreserve but, by doingso, theydiscourage Not onlyproud residents “mend” past incivilitiesandhelp residents to ingoodcondition. maintaintheirneighbourhood since canencourage identification withthecommunity indirectly 1985). Second, place attachmentmightdiscourage incivilities believed to bebetter territorial guardians (Bachrach andZautra, against crime;“rooted”directly andattachedresidents are fosters behaviours theneighbourhood andattitudesthatprotect ways (Brown, Perkins, andBrown, 2004).First, place attachment attachment may shapecrimerates inatleastthree important 2003). Ontheotherhand, variable, asanexplanatory place cohesionneighbourhood andcontrol (Brown, Perkins, andBrown, crimeratesneighbourhood (Taylor, 1996),andby asenseof block-level incivilities (Brown, Perkins, and Brown hand, place attachment isaffected by perceived andobserved phenomena (Brown, Perkins, andBrown, 2003,2004).Ontheone between place attachmentandcommunity-levellinkage theoretical claimsandempiricalevidence pointto astrong opposed to (orsociological)level, thecommunity butrecent attachment refers to theindividual(orpsychological) level, as , 2003), 32 attachment andsocialdisorganisation dimensions( shows statisticallysignificantcorrelations between place in theintricate schemaofthesocialdisorganisation theory. to adequately place2000), yet senseofcommunity itisimportant by positive experiences, (Fried, norisitnecessarily functional local socialnetworks orsocialcapital,itisnotalways explained exploration. The downside ofplace ofattachmentisthat, aswith efficacy, socialtiesandlengthofresidence) thatcallfor further social disorganisation dimensions andrelated mechanisms, the are characteristics the effectsofsuch community mediated by robust ofcrimedisparities across predictors counties. Even when residential stability, ethnic diversity and family disruption to be and Chambers(2000).Intheirstudyof US rural areas theyfound directly, assources ofsocialorganisation, acting asinOsgood andEarls, inSampson,Raudenbush, 1997)andalso efficacy ( through asetofmediating socialdisorganisation dimensions These have factors beenproven to affectcrimerates indirectly, most effective, andoppressive, source ofsocialcontrol. the social ties— been associated withtheweakeningofprimary (Sampson andGroves,development ofthetheory 1989)asithas 1927)and andZnaniecki, is inherent intheformation (Thomas disruption asasource ofsocialdisorganisation, andurbanisation Sampson’s (1987)account ofurban blackviolence addedfamily that included residential instability, poverty, and ethnic diversity. was associated characteristics with a series of neighbourhood In thework (1969[1942]),socialdisorganisation of Shaw andMcKay 1.2.8. Exogenous sources ofsocialdisorganisation e.g. regulatory capacity inBursikandGrasmick, 1993;collective capacity regulatory e.g. collective

Social disorganisation theory direct effect on the regulatory capacity of communities, capacity effect on the regulatory as direct be robust andindependentofindividual orhouseholddynamics to proven has onneighbourhoods’impact socialdisorganisation socioeconomic status), their disadvantage, concentrated poverty, variables were accounted for. As for (e.g. socioeconomic factors crime, once homeownership, populationgrowth andpoverty diversity to role intheexplanationofurban play onlyasecondary correlation analyses, (1969[1942])found Shaw andMcKay ethnic crime—is more contentious. For instance, intheirpartial social disorganisation—and asadeterminant ofneighbourhood of ethnic diversity as an exogenousthe importance source of clearly conceived asacommunity-level phenomenon. In contrast, ties(Sampson andGroves,primary 1989),andbecauseitismost associated withitsdifferent withlocal dimensions, inparticular disorganisation, bothbecauseithasproven to be robustly is generally considered asthecore determinant ofsocial Among thevarious factors, that structural itisresidential stability ofanarea.the residential stability shows can contribute how to action collective neighbourhood effect onso-calledexogenous factors. For instance, Skogan (1986) That is, thatthesocialorganisation ofcommunities bearsno and feedbackassume that endogeneity loops are not operating. disorganisation theorists. Inthisregard, itwould benaïve to are sociallyorganised, norare theyallequallyvaluable to social are notnecessarilyfactors exogenous to theway neighbourhoods Despite beingconsidered exogenous sources, thesestructural (Warner, 2003),usuallyremains significant. represented for instance by theprevalence ofcommon values 33 happening atthecity, oreven globallevels. country should pay more attention to inequalities macro-structural occur andcanbemeasured atthecommunity-level, yet academics ofameso-level explanationofcrime.part True, inequalitiesdo 1999),thoughitisdebatablewhethershouldbe and Wilkinson, (BlauandBlau,considering isinequality Kennedy 1982;Kawachi, (Kornhauser, 1978).Afinalexogenous source whichisworth highlighted. interpretations related variables to thesestructural are often study proceeds cautiously, even ifspecificcommunity-level Forinstability). this reason, theinterpretation ofresults inthis endogenous process asacauseofresidential (i.e. criminalactivity resources into the neighbourhood, oragainas a result ofan oforganised2004), through groups the ability to attract parents’ intergenerational closure (Coleman 1988, Oberwittler, communities to curbdeviantbehaviour canbeexplained via For instance,of residentially stable ability the purported specific exogenous impossible. source affects crime is virtually nature,indirect identifyingthecausalpathsthrough whicha 1.2). Inotherwords, oncrimeislargely since ofan theirimpact that render theidentificationofcausal paths difficult(figure andmechanismshinges onnumerous mediatingconstructs process, ofcommunities’ the impact conditions structural beginningoftheproblem lies elsewhere: beingat the very anddelinquency. characteristics structural However, thereal the nature—causal orcorrelational—of thelinkbetween areas’ disorganisation, theliterature hasremained ambivalent about 1997), andeven suggestingtheyare proxies ofsocial By labellingthemcorrelates and Earls, (Sampson,Raudenbush

Social disorganisation theory Raudenbush and Earls, of characteristics Raudenbush 1997), the structural correlates inSampson, (seethe concept ofcollective efficacy In terms ofcausation,anddespite being frequently referred to as featuresstructural variables. thanthey are withintervening multicollinearity, thoughfarfrom absent, are lesssevere with ambiguous and, for thisreason, and problems ofendogeneity social disorganisation itself. Their causalrelationships are less theoretically andempirically easyto discern from theconcept of dimensionsandsocialmechanisms,and unlike theyare of socialdisorganisation (SampsonandGroves, 1989).As such, ofcommunitiescharacteristics are sources thought to beexternal formulations ofthetheory. To with,thestructural start presents several advantages over more refined nonetheless, The study of community-level or ecological conditions, elaboration.Source: Own • Diversity • Urbanisation • Familydisruption • Residentialstability • Education&Skills • Economicstatus • SpatialInequality FIGURE 1.2: Community level Municipality level

The “black box’’ of Social Disorganisation Theory

disorganisation

black box Social CRIME 34 development (Sampson, 1992), legal cynicism (Sampson and (Sampsonand development (Sampson,1992),legalcynicism friendships (SampsonandGroves, 1989),aswell aschild social outcomes, includingorganisational membershipand local for factors a wide range and urbanisation) could of be explanatory poverty, residential turnover, ethnic diversity, family disruption regard, environmental determinants of social disorganisation (i.e., disorganisation, aswellcausesofdelinquency. asindirect Inthis causes of social and direct communities to are be primary likely problem has beenalackofrelevant data.” stem from alackoftheoretical insight.Onthecontrary, themajor tests thesisdoes not oftheShawthe lackofdirect and McKay on available data.As SampsonandGroves “(…) (1989)observe: decisions aboutwhichdimensionto focus oncommonly hinges irrelevant from atheoretical pointofview, thetruthisthat facilitating comparison andimproving reliability. Although thisis from nationalcensuses, municipalregisters andgeneral surveys, of communities, ontheotherhand, onaregular iscollected basis Informationuse of specific surveys. characteristics on the structural Finally, research variables on intervening generally requires the to transform sociologicalconditions into psychological traits”. gravenotes, oftheoriesonthe urbanslumhasbeen mistake “The prove unfeasible andethically problematic; for, asPortes (1972) conditions, shapingresidents’ behaviour andattitudescould ample scope for Without altering these intervention. structural with results to andprovide yieldunexpected likely policy-makers (Gerber, 2008)—simple tests determinants of structural are more on consistent trivial mechanisms theory—focusing but often compared1969[1942]). Infact, withfine-grained analysesofthe Kennedy,(Kawachi, 1999;Shaw andMcKay, andWilkinson, (Shaw and McKay, 1998), truancy Bartusch, 1969[1942])and health

Social disorganisation theory 1.2.9. Openingtheblackbox: hypotheses andsocial socioeconomic status, measured by their levels ofincome or Molotch, 2007[1987]). Thus, communities with higher levels of pick oftheprojects”threats andobtaining“their (Logan and to “work withinthesystem” themselves protecting from external agencies, facilitate residents and leaders in well-off communities associations,voluntary conveniently to connected external the neighbourhood. Insharp contrast, adensenetwork of organisations which,inturn, helpcontrol deviantbehaviour in resources are unableto create effective andinfluential Communities offinancial,educational andother withascarcity levelneighbourhood (Cohen andDawson, 1993;Wilson,1987). individual (Brady, Verba andSchlozman, 1995)and the associational membershipare strongly associated, bothatthe hinges onthedeep-rooted ideathatsocioeconomic statusand to behigherineconomically deprived areas. This relationship (1) InShaw andMcKay’s systemic model, crimewas hypothesised chapters 3and4. ofthe empiricalmodelsof nonetheless constitute thebackbone beyondbook extends theseclassicallocalconditions, they disruption, urbanisationandinequality. Whilethefocus ofthis socioeconomic status, residential stability, ethnicdiversity, family exogenous sources, isbaseduponexistingliterature: criminal outcomes. ofsixecological The factors, selection or organisation andwhy ofneighbourhoods theyultimately affect havefactors beenconsidered relevant determinants ofthesocial In whatfollows, thefocus structural isonexplainingwhy certain disorganisation mechanisms associated withtheexogenous sources ofsocial 35 groups to become involved from inregular criminalactivities andotherfinancialalternatives,opportunities, leadsteenage peer behaviour andsocialdisorder. The lackofemployment unemployment asasocioeconomic determinant ofdeviant From amicro several perspective authorshave focused instead on related measures ofsocialdisorder. education, are hypothesised to exhibitlower levels ofcrimeand undertake individual actions asamechanism ofcontrolling individualactions undertake same neighbourhoods” (Logan and Molotch, 2007[1987]) typically attached to the community, residents who have “bought into the and street disorder outof the community.activity Tied-down and encouraged to pursueany strategy in order criminal to keep such aninfluence onhomevalues, exert factors thatowners are rationale behind home ownership is analogous: environmental improvement. Asdeterminant of residentiala key turnover, the to come together for reasons, the“right” suchasneighbourhood attachment or“we-feelings” (McKenzie, 1922)and, consequently, established residents are to more share likely a strong place Kornhauser, 1978;Shaw andMcKay, 1969[1942]).Besides, long- networks andJanowitz, and organisational 1974; ties(Kasarda with enoughtimeandincentives to develop extensive friendship Length of residence provides in the neighbourhood residents disorganisation anddeviantbehaviour isresidential stability. feature(2) Anotherstructural commonly associated withsocial indispensable for acceding to sociallyrecognized existence”. haveprospects ofacquiringthemoneyandconsumer goods that youth ofproletarian background withnoemployment (2008) putsit:“(…)violence theonlymeans andcrimeare often which most, however, “mature (Sullivan, 1989).As out” Wacquant

Social disorganisation theory deviant behaviour (Carr, orpolice calls. 2003),suchassurveillance settings consensus is problematic (Miguel andGugerty,settings consensus isproblematic (Miguel 2005), existing) common socialnetworks. As aresult, inmore diverse al., 2007) andto share similar preferences, interests and (pre- draw of common cultural on a reservoir material (Habyarimana et relationship isthathomogenous communities are to more likely and McKay, 1969[1942]).The rationale behindthiscontroversial which issocialdisorganisation (SampsonandGroves, 1989;Shaw regularly associated withaseriesofurbanills, prominent among (4) Heterogeneity, ethnicdiversity, andinparticular have been higher incommunities withahighincidence offamilydisruption. community-building. Crimerates are therefore to be expected (Brady, Verba and Schlozman, 1995)thatiscrucialfor effective of collective action in the type households from participating streets 1961),butitalsoprevents (Jacobs, the off eyes takes disruption andthelackof“spare time” itbringsaboutnotonly (Cohen andFelson, 1979;SampsonandGroves, 1989).Family are significantly hindered activities incommunity participation and the children, themaintenance ofhouseholdproperty distributed abreakup, after andguardianship of thesupervision withinthefamilybecome (evenefforts more) unequally informal socialcontrols level. atthecommunity Since upbringing introduced by Sampson(1987)asaprobable causefor decreased (3) Related to timeinadifferent fashion,familydisruptionwas 1975). fashion (Conklin, violent attacks, (1934[1893]) vigilante justice) in a Durkheimian petitions) andoccasionallyendingwith“hawkish” strategies (e.g. (e.g. actions withsoft collective mechanisms,signing starting of to allsorts to theyare resort likely thosestrategiesIf fallshort 36 should be extended to othersocio-demographicshould beextended features. There has regularly captured scholars’ attention, thesamereasoning economic, linguistic, educationalorreligious heterogeneity— and Heath, 2008). While ethnic diversity—as opposed to and Earls,Sampson, Raudenbush, 1997;butseealsoLaurence trust andeffective socialcontrols deficient(Putnam, 2007; Smith-Lovin andCook, 2001;SampsonandGroves, 1989),and social networks andsocialorganisation weaker(McPherson, society (Wilson, 1987).InmostEuropean societies thenegative (Wilson, society from individualsandinstitutionsthat represent mainstream social isolation of deprived households (i.e. concentration) poverty and Özler, 2005).Inaddition,acute inequalities can leadto the affluent areas with attractive pay-offs for criminals (Demombynes neighbourhoods, where socialcontrol isusuallyhampered, and condition fora necessary theexistence ofdisadvantaged Messner, 1987; SampsonandWilson,1995).Socialstratification is commonplace in criminology (Blau and Blau, 1982; Logan and (5) The andcrime link betweenhas become (spatial) inequality and specificnationalitiesrather thanwithethno-racial diversity. withimmigration 2008)are thannotlinked more often (Wacquant, European publicmind“urban violence andcollective unrest” with, andeven suspicionof, ethniclabelling. inthe Infact, to ethnic, diversity istheresult of(continental) European unease Smith-Lovin andCook, 2001). Focusing onnational,asopposed the strongest dividesinourpersonalenvironments” (McPherson, single term” (Logan andMolotch,2007[1987])it“create[s] available, it“neatly demarcate[s] large numbersofpeoplewitha (Quillian andPager, 2001),demographic information isgenerally in thisstudy, identificationisreadily observable onnationality: are, however, compelling motives for focusing or, onethnicity as

Social disorganisation theory impact of this social stratification is bufferedimpact by a ubiquitous disorganisation (Wilson, 1987,1996). disorganisation (Wilson, ofmostexogenousand interaction determinants ofsocial anonymity in socialrelationships, butalsoontheconcentration the influence ofurbanisationnotonly hingesonthelevel of (BlauandBlau,ethnic diversity and inequality 1982).Inthisway, in urbanareas, includingresidential turnover, familydisruption, determinants ofsocialdisorganisation tend to bemore prevalent consideration that, withtheexception ofpoverty, mostexogenous 1927),yet into oneneedstoThomas take andZnaniecki, 1951[1897]; Sutherland, (Durkheim, 1924, as the usual suspect disorganised? Classicalliterature generally pointsto anonymity perceived, Jacobs (1961)notwithstanding, aschaoticand Whyactivities. docitieshave highercrimerates andwhy are they citiesdifferentmakes inregard to socialorganisation andcriminal factors. However,structural thequestionremains asto what rural-urban dividehasbeenmuchlessthanthatfocused onother (Sampson and Groves,and delinquency 1989), the interest in the 1927), andempiricalstudiescorroborating oncrime itsimpact and McKenzie, 1925;Sutherland, 1924;Thomas andZnaniecki, the Chicago School on rural-urban transformations (Park, Burgess, source of social disorganisation. Despite theoriginal interest of the most intriguing exogenous(6) Urbanisation is almost certainly significant role inexplainingcriminal behaviour. and Sarasa, to 2000),socialinequalitiesare retain expected a Anglo-Saxon liberal models (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Moreno welfare state liesinbetween thecorporatist-continental andthe However,transportation. of in the Spain, where the structure and affordableservices (i.e. heavily subsidised) public welfare 2008) that provides state generous (Wacquant, social 37 mechanisms that connect thethree levels/dimensionsmechanisms thatconnect ofsocial social order, and3)socialoutcomes, aswell asasetofsocial characteristics,structural 2)thethree levels/dimensions of composed ofthreetypically pillars(figure 1.3):1)neighbourhood The causal path suggested is by social disorganisation theory PARTICIPATIONOF SOCIO-POLITICAL 1.3. Brady, Verba andSchlozman, 1995) canindeedprovide sucha (Putnam, 1995;Verbapolitical participation andNie, 1972; book, itishypothesised thattheresource modelofsocio- dimensions andlevels ofsocialorganisation. Throughout this conditionstheoretical to suchstructural framework the linking organisation andcrime, there isnocoherent andcomprehensive why shouldmatter interms factors of social specificstructural happen to becorrelated. Althougharationale isprovided asto with thedimensionsorlevels ofsocialorganisation; theyjust conditions the structural ofcommunities mechanisms linking way.in at least oneimportant There are no well-defined However, scholars have failed to provide a full map of the process informal socialcontrol andorganisational membership. organisation (SampsonandGroves, 1989)—socialnetworks, parochial andpublic—orthethree dimensions ofsocial three levels ofsocialorder (Bursik andGrasmick, 1993)—private, played by thesecond pillar, ofthe highlighting theimportance developments ofthemodelhave instead focused ontherole American cities(Shaw andMcKay, 1969[1942]).Recent defined anddistinguishedhigh-from low-crime areas in concentrated onthefirstpillar, that characteristics structural organisation to specificsocialoutcomes. Earlystudiestypically INCORPORATING THERESOURCE MODEL

Social disorganisation theory link, even more soasgoal-oriented socialtiesare believed to be networks neednotbe. identified with conventional values and behaviour, whereas those pursued by local friendships and other primary ask thequestion:organized for what?Here we assumethatthegoalspursuedby formal organisations are regard, Sampson(1997) hasargued how that, socially organized instead iswe ofasking aneighbourhood should 4 Socialnetworks andorganisations canbeusedto strengthen conventional anddeviantvalues alike. In this ties, fordevelopment yet building ofprimary theyare important financial resources norsufficientfor are the neithernecessary varies for thedifferent ofsocialnetworks. types For instance, interests (figure 1.4).Visibly, therelevance oftheseresources community, financialresources andtheexistence ofcommon organisational trust (in neighbours), time spent in the skills, development of localsocial networks: communication and Five of resources types are considered essential to the elaboration.Source: Own agencies. effective organisations and maintain valuable links with external communities needinorder to develop localnetworks, generate a modelisbasedontheresources thatindividualsand effective problems. insolvingneighbourhood particularly DISTAL FACTORS STRUCTURAL / FIGURE 1.3:

Incorporating neighbours’ resources into the social RESOURCES INTERESTS COMMON disorganisation model ORGANISATION LEVELS OF SOCIAL MECHANISMS SOCIAL CRIME 4 Such 38 of events, these common interests incentives create powerful isthemainfocusneighbourhood ofattention orjustacontainer isthat, irrespective ofwhetherthejustice); whatisimportant green areas) orbeterritorially neutral (e.g., promoting social related specificallyto (e.g., theneighbourhood of preservation common interests (BursikandGrasmick, 1993).These canbe of resources,types of individuals also need to share some sort effective agencies. linkswith external In addition to these five model. of thesocialdisorganisationcommunities, shouldalsobepart variable capturingthetimethat neighboursspendintheir reason, commuting timeto work, work, overtime orany other andEarls,time (Sampson,Raudenbush, 1997). For thesame social organisation inasmuch asestablishingsocialtiestakes shouldbeconsideredresidential stability adeterminant of ormeso-levelcommunity explanationofcrime. For instance, to of a shape these five of resources types should be part agencies.external Therefore, any environmental variable likely maintain local networks, effective organisations and links with that neighbours and communities need to employ to form and the concept ofsocialdisorganisation itselfandtheresources determinants shouldbeinformed ofstructural bythe selection —though theseshouldnotbediscarded either—butrather, factors(1978) and Sampson (1987) defined as structural proposed, nor by (1969[1942]), Kornhauser what Shaw and McKay should notbeconstrained by whathasbeenpreviously collective consumption intheprocess. Thus, theliterature for residents to come together, enhancing socialcontrol and

Social disorganisation theory into theneighbourhood. Incontrast, itisinthecommunity’s interest threats from resourcestheir community andto external attract control andsocialise theirprospective (young) offenders, to protect non-criminal adults; itistheywhoneedto besociallyorganised to citizen. Secondly,ordinary thisframework appliesspecificallyto are notnecessarilyand organisational available skills—that to the requires specialresources—financial resources, communication to say, creating andmaintaining theseinfluentialconnections successful intheorganisation ofcommunities (Carr, 2003).Needless based institutionsandpublicagencies thatcanbeparticularly the neighbourhood, ofcommunity- rather thatitistheinterlocking areand thethird-sector more effective inorganising sociallife in Thisdealing with criminal activities. is not to say that bureaucracies agencies,those withexternal are generally more effective in (1973) andCarr (2003),non-intimate linksorweak ties, especially A few caveats are inorder. First, andinaccordance withGranovetter elaboration.Source: Own • Otherlocal • Urbanisation • • Diversity • • conditions disruption Family stability Residential status Socioeconomic STRUCTURAL FACTORS FIGURE 1.4: • • • • • RESOURCES resources Financial Trust skills & organisational Communication Time interests Common Adetailed causal path of the social disorganisation model • Public • Parochial • Private ORGANISATION DIMENSIONS/ LEVELS OF SOCIAL • • • Satisfaction • • offenders • MECHANISMS locating sanctions Ef Surveillance of needs Socialisation of crime De nition Identifying & OF SOCIAL CONTROL fective

OUTCOMES SOCIAL Crime 39 Molotch, 2007[1987]), such as schools and sports clubs, should Molotch, 2007[1987]), such asschools and sports meso-level, other“basesfor managingdailylife” (Logan and to thehypothesescomplementary developed here. Even atthe and macro—explanations ofcrimeare notdiscarded butconsidered specifically onmeso-level accounts ofcrime, alternative—micro parochial orpublicsocialcontrol. Finally, whilethefocus is by better organised adults,supervised beitby meansofprivate, that potential offenders organised are oreffectively weakly with social incivilities(e.g. noise, insults, filthy streets) andphysical advocates of thishypothesis claim that fear of crime is associated thesis(Taylor,with theincivility 2001).In different formulations, Some exceptions are to benoted, mostnotably studiesdealing turn, outcomes ofcommunities’ ormarkers socialdisorganisation. are,mainly signsofsocialdisorder andcriminalactivities—that in these perceptions associated are withurbanprocesses— typically perceived crimehasbeenrare, neighbourhood even though Employing surveys. themodelto accountvictimisation for essentially usingdatafrom law enforcement agenciesand focused ontheexplanationofspatialvariations crime, ofactual Proponents have ofthesocialdisorganisation theory mainly NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME THESIS: UNDERSTANDING THEDUAL NATURE OFPERCEIVED THE “BROKEN WINDOWS” HYPOTHESIS ANDTHEINCIVILITY 1.4. perceived crime. neighbourhood also beconsidered asrelevant settingsfor theexplanationof THE SOCIALDISORGANISATION MODEL,

Social disorganisation theory deterioration (e.g. vacant lots, abandoned housing, broken 2000, Wyant, 2008). largely theresult ofresidents’ perceived of crime(Warr, types risk andtheperceived seriousnessofparticular thesisgenerally5 The focuses incivility onfear ofcrime, asopposedto perceptions ofcrime, yet fear ofcrimeis elaboration.Source: Own andindependent effect onindividual-leveldirect fear ofcrime. have characteristics structural thatneighbourhood a report neighbourhood. Similarly, Brunton-Smith and Sturgis (2011) stability, generated aswell astheinequality beyond the their racial composition, socioeconomic statusandresidential consequencesare conditions, direct oftheirstructural including states thatthesocialandphysical deterioration ofcommunities crime, whichinturnexplainfear ofcrime. WhileSkogan(1990) and disorder causesbothsignsofincivility that neighbourhood disorganisation literature. precisely, More Hunter (1978)argues conditionsneighbourhood similarto thoseadvanced by thesocial are causedbythese signsofincivility socialdisorder and social disorganisation, yet someofitsproponents contend that general formulation doesnotrefer specificallyto communities’ and Laub, 1978;Hunter, 1978;Skogan,1990;Wilson,1975). (Biderman etal,1967;Brunton-Smith andSturgis, 2011;Garofalo windows) crime itself (figure as much as with neighbourhood 1.5) FIGURE 1.5: STRUCTURAL FACTORS of socio-political participation and the incivility thesis andtheincivility of socio-politicalparticipation Socialdisorganisation theory, theresource model RESOURCES INTERESTS COMMON ORGANISATION LEVELS OF SOCIAL MECHANISMS SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL DISORDER SOCIAL PERCEIVED CRIME CRIME 5 This

40 contrary (1934[1893]),theirwithdrawalcontrary from life community urban residents, causing, despite Durkheim’s claimsto the for potential offenders becausesuchsignsinspire fear among disorder (Keizer, Linderberg and Steg, 2008), may ease the way go “unrepaired” windows), (thebroken inadditionto spreading suggesting that, inthelongterm, physical that signsofincivility thesis—introduces ofincivility thetimecomponent bytype and Kelling,The windows” “broken 1982)—a hypothesis (Wilson cleanliness andbuildingdeterioration, onthe onehand, and rates. specifically, More therelationship between noise, pollution, physicaland neighbourhood decay asmuchto officialcrime crimeisbelievedneighbourhood to respond to socialincivilities This thesis inthatperceived studymirrors theincivility construct. effect ofthecollective efficacy the three measures ofviolence, withregard to the particularly residents’ perceptions ofthem,results are ofasimilar nature for “progressive unlinking” (Taylor, 2001)ofcrime, incivilitiesand and recorded homicides. Inspite ofmuchdiscussion aboutthe violence: perceived violence, neighbourhood violentvictimisation disorganisation construct, using three alternative measures of collective efficacy, whichisareformulation ofthesocial andEarls(1997)tested of Sampson, Raudenbush theconstruct crime into asocialdisorganisation framework. For instance, studieshave introducedOther directly perceived neighbourhood inthefirstplace.that determine thesignsofincivility models ofcrime, itsays conditions nothingaboutthestructural ofresidents’the importance fear to crimefor andreactions causal in the neighbourhood. thesis highlights Although this well-known inguardianship andsurveillance 1975)andareduction (Conklin,

Social disorganisation theory residents’ perceptions ofthelevel oflocalcrime, ontheother, is and complex crime isonlyoneofits process inwhichactual As apotential drawback, perceived crimeremains amultifaceted perceived crimeisrather large (Dijk, Kesteren andSmit, 2007). European countries, and where thegapbetween observed low-crime butapparently disorganised societies, Southern like of investigating perceptions in ofcrimeiseven more important 1981) and opening a new store 1975). The (Conklin, importance acquisition ofprotective firearms (Lizotte, Bordua andWhite, etal.,2008)andgoing to1975),the (McGinn parks (Conklin, avoidance 2000),physical (Mesch, activities ofnighttimeactivities social outcomes, such as residential turnover (Skogan, 1986), the of perceived crime, andthefear associated withit, withseveral hardly surprisingthatprevious research reveals theimportance be whatisperceived, rather inand ofitself. thanreality Thus, itis To to ismore likely with,theultimate causeofhumanaction start crime presents several advantages over focusing crime. on actual Within thefieldofurbancriminology, focusing onperceived crime. observed social disorder, physical deterioration, and perceived and disruption, are hypothesised to beattheoriginofneighbourhood residential stability,particularly socioeconomic statusandfamily conditions, thesisinthatneighbourhood collective efficacy This study also mirrors Hunter (1978), Skogan (1990) and the impossible. thesisintheSpanishcontext full test of theincivility and their“surprising” (Aebi inaccuracy andLinde, a 2010)make persistent absence of publicly available data on local crime rates tested repeatedly throughout thisbook.Unfortunately, the 41 the findingsmore complex. urban design),rendering theanalysesandinterpretation of the fieldofcriminology(e.g. mediaeffects, psychological traits, crime need, where possible, to incorporate variables beyond determinants. withperceptions Urbansociologistsworking of of neighbourhoods. were robustly conditions associated withaseriesofstructural rates,regarding delinquency anddemonstrated thattheserates substantially changedtheirrelative rank withinthecity showed rarely, thatcrime-riddenneighbourhoods ifever, by poverty, diversity andresidential instability. Their findings andindustrialzonescentral and characterised businessdistricts withurbanareas locatedassociated amidst criminalactivities crime is attributable to (1969[1942]), who Shaw and McKay social controls are severely weakened. specific applicationto Its andsocially disorganised where neighbourhoods solidarity (1927),states thaturban socialillsare theresult ofZnaniecki and rural-urban migrations andfirstproposed by Thomas and (1934[1893]) and Tönnies’ (2002[1887]) views on industrialisation disorganisation model,heavily influenced by Durkheim explaining residents’ fear andperceptions ofcrime. The social of socialincivilitiesandneighbourhoods’ physical decay in study. thesis (Taylor, The incivility 2001) stresses the importance different reasons, constitute thetheoretical foundations ofthe This chapter hasintroduced two strands ofliterature that, for 1.5. CONCLUSIONS

Social disorganisation theory Whereas these theories/theses serve forWhereas many thesetheories/thesesserve purposes, the • following: main pointsto beretained for theremainder ofthisbookare the  identifying/isolating independenteffects, mostlyrelated of thelevels crime. ofneighbourhood Problems related to outcomes,observed inturn,affectresidents’ perceptions social incivilities, physical crimerates. decay andactual These effectontheprevalence andanindirect of neighbourhoods of are believed to have effectonthesocialorganisation adirect existence ofcommon interests, factors aseries ofstructural organisation andcommunication socialtrustandthe skills, hog dfeet ye o rsucs mil icm, time, income, mainly resources, of types different Through

42 • •   environment. of crimerespond to socialincivilities and communities’ built for understandingperceived crime. neighbourhood and local crime rates, theoretical framework itis also a pertinent social incivilities, thephysical deterioration ofneighbourhoods In addition to actual crime rates, residents’ fear and perceptions Since social disorganisation is a useful construct for explainingfor construct useful a is disorganisation social Since chapters. when interpreting thefindingspresented inthefollowing independent variables, persist and should not be ignored to reverse and a complex map of causality relationships among

Social disorganisation theory II. CONCEPTUALISING, MEASURING AND EXPLAINING PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME

2.1. INTRODUCTION 2.2. DATA SOURCES

This chapter provides the necessary link between the theoretical Compared to other nations, particularly the United States and framework set out in the previous chapter and the analyses in the United Kingdom, quantitative crime studies in the Spanish subsequent chapters. The essential aim is to validate the context are scarce and of a descriptive nature (see table 2.1). This conceptualisation of the outcome variable advocated in the is largely the result of inadequate, or often a complete absence theoretical framework. That is, understanding perceived of, crime data at the individual, community and national levels neighbourhood crime as a combination of actual criminal activity (Aebi and Linde, 2010). Academics have been forced to relyalmost and informational cues available to residents, in particular signs exclusively on reported crime measures at the national or of social and physical disorder. A further goal is to contextualise provincial level (García et al., 2010), such as number of persons the object of study by reporting a series of descriptive statistics arrested or incarcerated, or the number of court appearances. related to Spanish crime perceptions. The chapter illustrates how However, some efforts have been made to gather data on measures of crime in Spain compare to other countries, presents victimisation rates (International Crime Victims Survey, Public trends in public opinion and looks into the distribution of Safety Survey of Catalonia), perceptions of neighbourhbood perceived neighbourhood crime across local communities and crime (2001 Population and Housing Census) and self-reported its correlation with a number of local conditions. An evaluation of deviant behaviour (Gómez-Fraguela et al., 2009). available crime statistics in Spain is also presented in order to , measuring and e x plaining perceived neighbourhood crime onceptualising inform the reader about the “statistical’’ limitations of the present C study, and more generally about the possibilities of doing criminological research in Spain.

43 ** Survey conducted by ODA (Observatorio de la Delincuencia deAndalucía)following by conducted delaDelincuencia ODA(Observatorio methodology.** Survey theICVS * Uponrequest: access notguaranteed. CIS surveys Survey Victimisation Madrid Population andHousingCensus Perceived crimeinneighbourhoodormunicipality CIS surveys study delinquency The International self-report offencesSelf-reported Yearbook Statistical crime:police recordsReported CIS surveys ofAndalusia Survey Victimisation City ofMalaga Survey Victimisation Region inMadrid Crime andVictimisation (MVS) Survey Victimisation Madrid Public ofCatalonia Safety Survey (ICVS) Survey International CrimeVictims surveysVictimisation of the Ministry oftheInterior oftheMinistry NAME TABLE 2.1: Alistofavailable crimestatisticsinSpain(1989-2010) 44 POPULATION Madrid City Madrid Catalonia Spain various cities Spain and City Madrid Spain Spain Spain Spain various cities Spain and Various cities Malaga region Madrid STUDY

LOWEST OF LEVEL AGGREGATION Census tract* District Census tract Census tract* National Province Census tract* Municipality Municipality Municipality District District National 1998/2000, 2003,2005, 1989, 2005,2009** 1998/2000, 2003, 1991/1992, 1995, 1990/1991, 1995, 2006/2007, 2011 Yearly since 1999 1992, 2005/2007 YEAR Yearly 2007 2001 2007 2003 2007 2004 2007 2008

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime The surveys conducted by conducted The theCentre surveys for SociologicalResearch administrative for identical purposes, divisions serve theterm ispreferred census tract to thatofcensus section. somewhat larger. However, isafamiliar term thatcensus amongurban sociologistsandthatboth tract thefact 4 The US 2510(2003). 3 CISsurvey 2200(1995),2284(1998),2315(1999), 2702 (2007). 2 CISsurveys 2634(2006)and2888(2011). 1 CISsurveys cannot beteased out.Secondly, andfrom apurely descriptive the “real’’ andthe“perceived’’ components oftheoutcome variable crime (Quillian and Pager,neighbourhood 2001), if only because affects residents’ structure which community perceptions of complicates theeffective identificationofthecausalpathsthrough local crimerates isproblematic inat leasttwo ways. First, it As regards thisstudy, thecomplete absence ofofficialstatisticson group quotas. randomlyand individualswithinhouseholdsare to selected fillage- population size, through householdsare random selected routes unit)are basedontheir randomly selected (secondary tracts unit)andcensus municipalities (primary where design survey access. useacomplex multi-stagestratified Ingeneral, CISsurveys exploited inthischapter, to whichtheauthorgainedunrestricted This 2634(2006),alarge isthecasefor nationalsurvey survey access may begranted conditions provided are satisfied. certain of confidentiality. However, underexceptional circumstances generally recorded—the geocodes are rarely accesible for reasons ( studies—the census tract are properly geocodedAlthough thesesurveys for community resources available to quantitative criminologists in Spain. deviant behaviour onperceivedsurveys crime, specialattention. Since 1976,theCIShasconducted (CIS) deserve census tract and theSpanish 3 that are, inall probability, themostvaluable sección censal sección censal 1 victimisation, do not coincide exactly interms ofsize, donotcoincide exactly theformer being ) 4 ofrespondents is 2 and self-reported andself-reported 45 and vandalism in their residential areas, respondents were theiropinionabout thelevel asked of crime To theauthor’s where census knowledge, Spainistheonlycountry However, advantage. Spanishcrimedataprovide oneimportant dependent variable. in away thatwould helpvalidate theconceptualisation ofthe perspective, andperceived itprecludes comparing observed crime 8 Institute (Instituto NacionaldeEstadística,INE).The 2001Census was from conducted November 2002. 2001to January 7 The Population andHousingCensus (Censo dePoblación iscoordinated yViviendas) by theSpanishNationalStatistics ( 6 In2001,Spainwas divided, indescending order ofsize, into 17regions ( 5 Housing Census isthemaindatasetemployed inthisstudy. as noise,andpollution. street dirtiness residents’ perceptions problems, of(other)neighbourhood such of buildings, average hours, working homeownership and includes dataoncommuting time, carownership, thedeterioration potentialand perceived influences on observed crime. This age, gender, landuses),butalsovaluable information regarding family disruption,andmeasures ofurbanisation)andcrime (e.g. residential stability, foreign-national andforeign-born groups, correlates ofsocialdisorganisation (e.g. socioeconomic status, comprehensive inthatitincludesnotonlycommon particularly studies. Inaddition, the2001Population andHousingCensus ofrespondents isrestricted,district precluding itsusefor ecological for reasons, confidentiality information and onthecensus tract anonymised sample of individualrecords is also available though, municipal,provincial,the district, regional andnationallevels. tract, and that thisinformation can beconveniently aggregated at reliable dataonperceived crimefor census neighbourhood every provincias Would you consider isaproblem inyour thatthelevel local ofnoise/streetdirtiness/pollution area? crimeandvandalism Are aproblem inyour local area? ), 8,108municipalities( municipios ), 10,529 districts ( ), 10,529districts distritos 8 ), and 34,251 census tracts ( ), and34,251census tracts The 2001Population and 5 meaning that there is Comunidades Autónomas secciones censales ), 50provinces 6 An An 7 is is ).

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime Although this study makes useprimarilyofthe2001Census,Although thisstudymakes at thetop ofnational problems, probably asaresult of theheroin Only in the late 1980s did Spaniards place public safety and drugs salient problems ofterrorism, unemployment andtheeconomy. domestic violence, atleastinrelation to themore pressing and troubled by publicsafety,are notparticularly drugproblems or Spain (figure 2.1). From these barometers we learn that Spaniards problems facing respondents about the three most important barometers in 1985,have that, on a regular basis and starting asked considerably to survey. from survey The only exception istheCIS community, residential area, neighbourhood, vary municipality) and thelevel questionsrefer ofaggregation to whichsurvey (e.g. about crimeover timesince questionnaires, thestudypopulation perceptions, there isnoconsistent measure ofpublicconcern thatdelve thenumerousDespite into Spanishsurveys crime 2.3. • • • • other datasetsare usedfor specificpurposes, suchas: estadístico deInterior delMinisterio Madrid ciudad ttsis erok f h Mnsr o te neir ( Interior the of Ministry the of yearbook Statistics 2634 CISsurvey Survey (MVS) Madrid ( Victimisation (ICVS) Survey The International CrimeVictims EVOLUTION OFPUBLICCONCERN ABOUT CRIME ) ) Encuesta de victimización de Encuesta devictimización Anuario 46 has, if anything, declined in recent decades, it bears mentioning Spain is“not obsessedwithcrime’’ (Adler, 1983)andthattheconcern Although thisclassicpollingquestionsuggeststhat, asanation, and economic problems more generally, were at historic lows. peak in theyear 2003, but mainly because unemployment rates, problems circa 2000,concerns aboutpublicsafety reached asecond 1997).After decouplingaround from 1986inSpain(Gamella, drug developed societies and that peaked epidemic that was shaking Source: Own elaborationSource: usingdatafrom CISsurveys. Own and even determining, theresults oflesssalientissues. mutually interdependent with the most cited problems driving, three by problems canbeselected eachrespondent, responses are ofquestionpresents seriouslimitations. that thistype Since only 100

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % respondents 100 WHAT 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 0 1993/

1993 ARETHETHREEMOSTIMPORT 1994/

1994 FIGURE 2.1: 1995/ Unemployment Public safety 1995 1996/

1996 1997/

1998/ 1997 Evolution ofpublicopiniononSpain’s most important problems most important

1999/ 1998 ANT PROBLEMSF

2000/ 1999 2001/ Drugs anddomesticviolence Economic issues 2000

2002/ 2001 2003/

2002 ACING SP

2004/ 2003 2005/ 2004 AIN? 2006/ 2005 2007/ 2006 2008/ 2007 2009/ Immigration T

err 2008 2010/ orism 2009

2011/ 2010

2011

Pu Drugs anddomesticviolenc Te Unemploymen Economic issues Immigration Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime rr blic saf orism et y t e Other thantheCISbarometers, Other theInternational CrimeVictims concepts (Warr, 2000). crimelevelsto andthe concept bothactual of“urban unease’’ 1968),theyshould betreated asdistinct (Wilson, 9 Althoughfear ofcrime, andperceived similarnotions, riskofvictimisation crimeare related certainly somewhat thesis (Taylor,the incivility noisy, 2001), one would expect densely European cities transmit to residents and visitors. According to result ofthe“urban unease’’ 1968)thatSouthern (Wilson, fordiscrepancies Greece canbe observed andItaly, possiblyas a low (Dijk,Kesteren extremely ICVS, and Smit, 2007).Similar rates inSpainare,unjustified asvictimisation according to the Yet suchfears andperceptions seem,by international standards, aloneat night) andofperceivedwalking risk(ofbeingburgled). countries, moderate to Spaniards highlevels report offear (of rates.victimisation Compared to citizens from otherdeveloped and riskofvictimisation, it ispossibleto compare associated concepts suchasfear ofcrime of crimeperceptions isadifficulttask.Using however, theICVS, comparable lackto drawing of a data, internationalDue comparisons 2.4. evolution thereafter.simply unknown, concern over crime during the1990s, andanambiguous, or theempiricalevidence pointsto adeclineinpublicIn short, calculated from thesamesurveys. victimisation rates ofburglary in the1989-2005 period, in line with a 50 per cent decline in the likely’’ “likely’’occurrence ofaburglary or“very intheirhouses points inthepercentage ofrespondents thatconsidered the of 13 percentage a significant reduction report (ICVS) Surveys SPAIN INCOMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE 9 and also their relationship with actual andalsotheirrelationship withactual 47 burgled. In their report on the International Crime Victims Survey,burgled. ontheInternational Crime Victims Intheirreport risk of being of the actual perceived falls short risk of burglary according to international comparisons the based ontheICVS, countries, asseemstonorthern bethecasefor where, Denmark crime. The opposite shouldbetrueof“neat’’ and well-organised of fear and perceptions of crime, regardless of the actual levels of Barcelona, Istanbul,Athens orRome, to produce highlevels populated and(apparently?) disorganised cities, suchasMadrid, 10 Basedonaone percent anonymised sampleofindividualrecords of the2001Population andHousingCensus. vandalism aproblem isjustoneper cent. In contrast, inthetypical/ ofresidents considering crimeand where theproportion insmallmunicipalities(i.e.tracts lessthan5,000 inhabitants) trueforpositively census skeweddistribution. This isparticularly residents consider theirareas unsafe, resulting inahighly in figure few 2.2, in most communitiescan be observed very residents consider incensus thisto tracts bethecase. neighbourhood. Onaverage, justtwenty-three percent of if theyconsidered crimeandvandalism aproblem intheir In the2001Population andHousingCensus residents were asked COMMUNITIES INSPAIN 2.5. high, yet overall levels are victimisation comparatively low. problems inSouthernEuropean countries are comparatively may exist. For example, the rates of exposure to drug-related related problems isonepossiblereason why suchdiscrepancy Dijk, Kesteren andSmit(2007)argue thatexposure to drug- PERCEPTIONS OFNEIGHBOURHOODCRIMEINLOCAL 10 In fact, as Infact,

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime 10 15 20 0 5 0/ 2/ 4/ average inlarge census tract cities(i.e. 225,000inhabitants)this Source: Own elaborationSource: from the2001Population Own andHousingcensus. unit ofanalysis. crime isgeographically represented usingmunicipalities as the can beclearlyseeninfigure 2.3where perceived neighbourhood also in other urban areas such as Madrid, Valencia or Barcelona, prevalence ofperceived crimeinurbanareas inthesouth,but neighbours considered theirresidential areas unsafe. The high cities (e.g. Seville, Malaga, Cordoba), percent more of thanninety hundred urbancensus tracts, mainlylocated inlarge southern exceeds percent. Moreover,proportion thirty-five inabouta 6/

8/ % of census tracts 10/ 12/ FIGURE 2.2: 10 12 14 16 18 20 14/ 0 2 4 6 8 16/ 02 18/ 20/ 22/ 24/ % RESIDENTSCONSIDERINGCRIMEANDVA 26/ 28/ 30/ Distribution ofperceived Distribution crimeand neighbourhood 32/ 34/ vandalism (N=34,251) incensus tracts 36/ 04 38/ 40/ 42/ 44/ 46/ 48/ 50/ 52/ 54/ 56/ 06 58/ 60/ 62/ 64/ 66/ 68/ NDALISM APROBLEMINTHEIRRESIDENTIALAREA 70/ 72/ 74/ 76/ 08 78/ 80/ 82/ 84/ 86/ 88/ 90/ 92/ 94/ 96/ 0 /98/ 100/ 100 Pe 48 rcentage ofcensustrac of familydisruption, theopposite being truefor theelderlywho residing inhighlyurbanisedcommunities witha highprevalence unsafe. This isprobably theresult ofwomen disproportionately are to more live likely perceived incensus tracts as relatively are aproblem. Particularly surprising is thefindingthat women percent ofresidents state thatcrimeandvandalism thirty-three population size isabove themedian(36,000inhabitants),almost strongest inmunicipalitieswhere association. Incensus the tracts analysed(table2.2),populationsizecharacteristics shows the crimeishigher?Amongtheeleven neighbourhood community What are oflocalcommunities thecharacteristics where perceived elaborationSource: usingcensus datafrom Own theSpanishNationalStatisticsInstitute (INE). Unit ofanalysis:municipality. FIGURE 2.3: 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 % RESIDENTSCONSIDERINGCRIMEANDVA 40 to100 Communities Autonomous 30 to40 20 to30 10 to20 5 to10 0 to5 Geographical distributionofperceived Geographical neighbourhood crime andvandalism (2001) by municipality ts NDALISM APROBLEMINTHEIRAREA

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime concentrate inrural andstablecommunities. Finally, itbears Source: Own elaboration using data from the 2001 Population and Housing Census. Housing and 2001 Population the from data using elaboration Own Source: area”. residential their in aproblem vandalism and crime considering residents of † “% crime. presented in coming chapters, is barely associated with perceived inthemultivariate predictor regression important models mentioning that the deterioration ofbuildings, despite being an Buildings´ condition Number retail shops/offices % Highereducation % 10-29years % Elderly Unemployment rate % Women Length ofresidence % Foreign nationals % Divorced/Separated Population ofmunicipality TABLE 2.2: Perceived crime neighbourhood by ofcensus characteristics tracts MEDIAN ABOVE 19.74 23.53 23.71 24.90 16.39 25.35 25.38 15.94 25.78 29.56 32.67 MEDIAN BELOW 21.64 17.77 17.68 16.49 25.00 16.03 16.03 25.44 15.61 11.87 † 8.70 andvandalism DIFFERENCE 10.17 17.68 23.97 1.90 5.76 6.03 8.41 8.61 9.32 9.34 9.50

49 and to personal,orsociallytransmitted, experiences ofcrime sociodemographic composition (QuillianandPager, 2001)— andKelling, 1982)andneighbourhood disorder (Wilson States, mainly to residents visualcues—suchassignsof react In assessing the level crime in theUnited of neighbourhood EVIDENCE CRIME: EMPIRICAL 2.6. associated withperceptions ofcivildisorder—mainly noiseand evidence thatperceptions crimeare robustly ofneighbourhood The 2001Population andHousing Census provides ample 2.6.1. Signsofsocialandphysical disorder the United States. the discussiondraws literature, uponextant mainlybasedon for instance, ontheinfluence ofsocialnetworks andthemedia— subsequent empiricalchapters and, where dataare lacking— elaborate More models arevictimisation. presented in sociodemographics, officialcrime rates andpersonalfamily for whichdataisavailable—signs ofsocialandphysical disorder, focus onthosecomponents ofperceived crime neighbourhood measures isexplored. andindividualcharacteristics The analyses are related to aseriesofinformational cues, crime-related illustrate how residents’ perceptions crime ofneighbourhood Madrid’s thefollowing (MVS), Survey sections Victimisation and (ICVS) Census, Survey theInternational Crime Victims Using official statistics from the 2001 Population and Housing careful consideration.is anempiricalissuethatdeserves (Graber, 1980; Tyler, 1984; Warr, the same is true of Spain 1990). If INFORMATIONAL CUESABOUTNEIGHBOURHOOD

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime street dirtiness—and signsofphysical decay,street dirtiness—and suchasbuildings’ housing/neighbourhood problemshousing/neighbourhood inthe2001Census. orasaresult ofhaving section identicalorsimilar wording,same survey asisthecasefor thecensus questionson 12 By whereas physical disorder refers to ongoing conditions involving decay. signsofnegligence and unchecked 11 According to Skogan(1992),socialdisorder isamatter ofbehaviour involving more orless episodicevents, are causallyrelated, assuggested by Wilson and Kellingintheir asimpliedby thesocialdisorganisationinequality), theory, or conditions (e.g.structural poverty, residential instability, inconclusive asto whetherbothare theresult ofanalogous perceived crime, neighbourhood thedebate remains With regard to therole played by socialincivilitiesinexplaining similar results. and insults—are employed by QuillianandPager (2001)with deterioration, aswell asteenagers hangingoutinthestreets measures ofsocial disorder—noise, neighbourhood rather Interestingly, thanintheopposite direction. similar social andphysical disorder to perceived crime, neighbourhood causal effects, ifany, are to more gofrom likely thelevels of bythey canbeassessedmore directly residents andsothe of special interest in that, incontrast to crime, neighbourhood questionnaire effects completing thecensus questionnaire (i.e. absence of residents are meticulousindefiningtheir residential areas and 1999;Skogan,1990),butalsothat (Sampson andRaudenbush, specific socialandphysical signsasinformational shortcuts ofnot onlythattheliterature isrightabouttheimportance predictors. areaccessibility relativelyThis suggests unimportant level ofpollution,lackgreen areas andtransportation problem:equally related neighbourhood theperceived to every conditions (table 2.3). questionnaire effects Irefer of theirplacement inthe to theinterdependence questionsby virtue ofsurvey ). 12 11 Further, thesemeasures ofdisorder are Reassuringly, perceived crime is not 50 2.6.2. Sociodemographics perceptions. and identifythevarious upthese components thatmake to properly account for residents’ perceptions oflocalcrime be, controlling orperceived for observed disorder isnecessary window’’“broken hypothesis (1982). which iscrime. an indicationto prospective offenders thatresidents are obliviousto problems, neighbourhood chiefamong the disruption of local communities and eventually to an increase in crime levels. Also, such incivilities may give 13 In their view, social and physical disorder spawns residents’ life, abandonment of neighbourhood leading to andÁlvarez-Miranda,2008; González 2005). availableintimidation anddelinquency to natives (Cachón, foreign signof background asthemostvisibleandpowerful areas (i.e. geographical discrimination),withyoung malesof extensively to generate andreinforce stereotypes ofresidential suggest that these cues areSpanish neighbourhoods used only onphysical appearance’’. in Qualitative work undertaken are more difficult topoverty gauge [thanrace, ageorsex]based However, asQuillianandPager (2001)note “economic classor 1997),aswell astheirsocioeconomic status. Hogan andGertz, the racial, ageandsexcomposition (Chiricos, ofneighbourhoods residents’ immediate environment. include These cuestypically perceived crimeisthesociodemographic composition of A different that may aspect have on the levels an impact of 13 Whatever thecasemay

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime Source: Own elaborationSource: usingdatafrom the2001Population Own andHousingCensus (SampleofAnonymised Records). variable:† Dependent “Are crimeandvandalism a problem inyour localarea?” 0=No;1Yes. Coefficiens are oddsratio. zvalues inparentheses. **p<0.01,*p<0.05. Provinces N (Respondents) Log-likelihood Green areas Transport accessibility Pollution Dirtiness Noise R declares problems of…intheresidential area Building condition Number offloors Building characteristics second residenceOwns Homeowner ofresidenceTime Unemployed University degree Foreign national Age Female TABLE 2.3: Logit regressions ofcensus respondents (>16years). Perceived crime, neighbourhood and signsofsocialphysical disorder 51 CHARACTERISTICS 1.123 0.997 1.000 1.033 0.880 0.996 1.152 0.872 0.823 I. INDIVIDUAL –16,669 ** ** ** ** ** * ** 31,870 – (26.87) (–3.40) (–3.60) (–3.42) (–2.57) (–3.96) (0.89) (2.76) (0.01) II. PERCEIVED SOCIAL II. PERCEIVEDSOCIAL 1.468 1.455 1.555 2.463 1.988 0.847 1.115 AND PHYSICAL AND PHYSICAL 1.050 0.888 0.998 1.122 0.876 1.011 0.998 0.996 DISORDER † –15,014 individualsociodemographics ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * ** * 31,870 – (12.80) (12.61) (29.70) (21.64) (23.08) (–5.04) (–2.98) (–2.07) (–3.11) (–2.13) (–0.13) (9.82) (1.29) (2.09) (0.14) III. FIXEDEFFECTS 1.443 1.500 1.537 2.304 1.906 0.847 1.113 BY PROVINCES 0.999 0.872 0.998 1.146 0.877 0.895 0.999 0.983 –12,722 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** 27,773 52 (11.05) (11.26) (25.20) (18.61) (19.68) (–4.59) (–0.01) (–3.06) (–1.70) (–2.74) (–0.83) (–1.44) (–0.53)

(9.52) (2.27)

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime That thepresence offoreign nationals, atleastthoseoriginating population using the observed proportions of specificnationalanddemographic groups. proportions population using theobserved 15 This finding is based on an OLS regression residents’ analysis predicting perceptions of the size of the foreign rule. Possible answers include:(1)Strongly disagree; (2)disagree; (3)agree; and(4)strongly agree. isalotofcrimeinthearea’’. wording14 The exact is:“There minutes Area, inturn,isdefinedusingthefifteen walking nationals intheircommunities. (e.g. offoreign EU-25, elderly),when assessing the proportion groups (e.g. Andean, Chinese, young males)andignoringothers that, atleastin2006,residents were “double-counting’’ certain employed isanotherthingentirely, withaccuracy for itseems informational cue used by is residents. Whether this shortcut (table2.5)—points towardproportion thisbeingakey number offoreigners (table2.4)—even more sothantheactual perceptions are sostrongly associated withtheperceived and vandalism (QuillianandPager, 2001),andthatcrime relatively visiblecharacteristic, atleastincomparison to crime the ethnic/national composition is a of a neighbourhood crime’’ increased over that time(figure 2.4).Inaddition,thefact agreed withthestatement that“economic migrants increase Toward Immigrants, in 1993( starting repeated surveys cross-sectional aboutthecrime-immigration nexusin directly When asked residential areas, respondents whostated thatthere was alotofcrimeintheir for Sociological Research in2006by conducted the Inasurvey in nationalsurveys. regions,from certain evoke feelings isalsofound ofinsecurity 14 also declared thatthere were many foreigners. ASEP), thepercentage ofrespondents who (CIS survey 2634),73percent of (CISsurvey 15 Attitudes Centre 52 neighbours’ earnings(table2.5). effect onresidents’ perceived crimethantheirviewon measures of the socioeconomic a strongerstatus of areas exert disorder (i.e. isarea well-cared for ornot).For another, objective their evaluation ofneighbours’ andlocalsocial trustworthiness crime(table 2.4),atleastin comparisonof neighbourhood to of theirneighbours’ income barely influence theirperceptions least asa conscious process. For onething, residents’ assessments Less discernible isthestereotyping ofpoorareas asunsafe, at elaborationSource: from ASEPdata. Own 100 % respondents 20 40 60 80 100 “ECONOMIC IMMIGRA 20 40 60 80 0 0 1993 FIGURE 2.4: 93/ 1994 94/ 1995 95/ Trends inthecrime-immigration nexusperceived NTS INCREASECRIME” 1996 96/ by residents, Spain1993-2007 1997 97/ 1998 98/ 99/ 1999 00/ YEAR 2000 01/ 2001 02/ 2002 03/ 2003 04/ 2004 05/ 2005 06/ 2006 07/

2007

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime support theinclusion of the sociodemographic characteristics of support crime, crime rates, as mediators of observed or act these findings whether thesecues have measures effect onsubjective of adirect (e.g. teenagers =vandalism =perceived crime).Irrespective of noise =perceived crime)or even by genuinedeviantbehaviours could bemediated by otherinformational cues(e.g. teenagers = residents as a sign of local delinquency. Instead, this relationship itdifficultto verifymakes ifsuchinformation iseffectively usedby of information levels regarding crime ofneighbourhood theactual of youngproportion males in the total population; though the lack Finally, perceived crime is also related neighbourhood to the 2634 (2006). survey CIS from data using elaboration Own Source: area.” the in crime of alot is “There variable: † Dependent parentheses. in p<0.01, *p<0.1. p<0.05, errors *** ** Standard CONSTANT Census tracts Respondents Neighbours are trustworthy Well-cared for eachother Neighbours know Well-equipped Neighbours are affluent A lotofforeigners Perceptions oflocalarea Level 1:survey respondents tracts (leveltracts 2).Perceived crime neighbourhood TABLE 2.4: sociodemographic composition ofcensus tracts Multilevel modelofindividuals(level 1)andcensus † andtheperceived –0.232 –0.072 –0.017 0.222 2.295 0.015 0.019 *** *** *** *** 7,373 945 (0.059) (0.013) (0.013) (0.011) (0.013) (0.011) (0.01) 53 only ascontrol variables (QuillianandPager, 2001). local areas whenexplainingperceived crime, neighbourhood if CONSTANT significantly distorted intherecordingsignificantly distorted anddiffusionprocess etal.,1988), information crimeis onneighbourhood (Kasperson media). Yet, thecasewithothersocialphenomena asisoften second-hand sources (e.g. official statistics, socialnetworks, the personalexperiencethat through (i.e. orvia direct victimisation) Perceptions of crimeare logicallyinfluenced by real crime, be 2.6.3. Actual crimerates 2634 (2006). survey CIS from data using elaboration Own Source: area.” the in crime of alot is “There variable: † Dependent parentheses. in p<0.01, *p<0.1. p<0.05, errors *** ** Standard Census tracts Respondents % Young men(15-29years) Socioeconomic status % Foreigners Level 2:census tracts Neighboursare affluent Alotofforeigners Perceptions oflocalarea Level 1:survey respondents TABLE 2.5: (level 2).Perceived crime neighbourhood perceived sociodemographic composition ofcensus tracts Multilevel modelofindividuals(level 1)andcensus tracts † and the objective and and andtheobjective –0.018 –0.018 –0.217 –0.217 0.025 0.002 0.242 1.400 *** ** * *** *** 7,726 931 (0.006) (0.096) (0.002) (0.011) (0.011) (0.131)

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime (Barnum andPerfetti, 2010;Biderman andReiss;1967;Goode ample space for complementary explanatory factors. ample space explanatory for complementary potential causes of perceived crime, neighbourhood yet leaving for treating classical determinants crime as of neighbourhood it (BursikandGrasmick, 1993),providing areasonable justification reality’’ (QuillianandPager, 2001)butrather anapproximation of isthatcrimeperceptions areexpectation nota“reflection of The surveys. crime withasetofofficialstatisticsand victimisation mind, thefollowing compare perceived sections neighbourhood (McPherson, 1978).Bearingtheseconsiderations in unnecessary studying perceived, crime would as opposed to be totally actual, ofresidents’predictors match perceptions, that andaperfect determinants crimeare ofneighbourhood reasonably good arobust correspondencethat theyneedto bestudiedapart, that appropriate empiricalmodels, asaclearmismatch would imply Determining how isvitalto muchperceptions reality build reflect social networks ontheother(Cachón, 2008;Warr, 2000). and Glick,1984),muchlessreliable information gathered in homicides the most reliable at one end (Sampson, 1987; Sherman that residents useto form anopinion on crimerates, withrecorded information of sources among the enormously varies Reliability mass media(e.g. socialamplificationeffects, moral panics). (e.g. and policingbias),viasocial networks andthe reporting decay effects),through lawand memory enforcement agencies information gathered experience through (e.g. direct telescoping and Ben-Yehuda, 1994;Tyler, 1984).This holdstruefor the 54 respondents’ perceptions oftheseriousnesscrimeproblem respondents’ levelneighbourhood between officialcrimerates and correspondence by McPherson(1978)atthe isreported relationship varies enormouslyfrom caseto case. Ageneral official crime statistics are correlated, yet the strength of this Prior research hasestablishedthatperceptions ofcrimeand O committed by strangers andare largely as unpredictable—such 1975),instrumental crimes—thatare typically crime (Conklin, perceived crime. Consistent withprevious research onfear of provinces showing thehighestlevels ofbothrecorded and (table 2.6), with economically disadvantaged and urbanised correlated withdifferent ofcrimesattheprovincial types level In theSpanishcontext, perceptions of crime are robustly P weakens astheunitofanalysisdecreases insize. robust andstatistically significant correlation that gradually the provincial level a pointinthesamedirection: anddistrict inadequate for studies, neighbourhood analysescarriedoutat that official crime statistics in Spain are scarcethe fact and largely arecharacteristics controlled for (Quillian andPager, 2001).Despite individualandneighbourhood-level 1986) thatpersistafter moderate levelsreport ofassociation (Garofalo, 1979;Skogan, dark.However, aloneafter and thefear ofwalking moststudies rovincial fficial

statistics

level : P olice

rec ords

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime robberies, property crimesandcarthefts, arerobberies, more closely property Not onlythesize ofprovinces guarantees theexistence ofsocial caution. contextshould bemadewithextreme neighbourhood 650,000 inhabitants—any generalisation of these findings to the In any case, given the size of provinces in Spain—median size of Census. Housing and 2001 Population the and Interior of Ministry the from data using elaboration Own Source: area”. residential their in aproblem vandalism and crime considering residents of † “% level. 0.05 the at Sig. 0.1 the at ** * Sig. level; RECORDED CRIMERATES harassment. others usually termed as expressive, such as rape and sexual disorder andsocialdisorganisation, suchasprostitution, and interpretation, for associated itincludescrimesoften withpublic (e.g. homicides).As for sexcrimes, there isnostraightforward andvandalism thanexpressivedelinquency andviolentcrimes associated withresidents’ assessmentofneighbourhood Sex crimes Sex crimes Property Car theft Robbery Homicide offenceMinor offenceSerious perceived crime(2001)inSpanishprovinces neighbourhood (N=50) TABLE 2.6:

Pearson correlations. Recorded crimerates (2002) and PERCEIVED CRIME CENSUS 2001 0.571** 0.749** 0.706** 0.826** 0.728** 0.541** 0.752** † 55 differences withinlarge cities(Choldin,1978). (Rodríguez-Andrés, 2003), yet plays role in explaining a secondary instance, ofprovincial isthemainpredictor differences andperceived onobserved of populationdensity crime, for relevance way. ofcrimedeterminants inanimportant The effect the move from provinces to may neighbourhoods alter the regularities inaway thatsmallergeographical unitsdonot, but limited (Warner andPierce,limited (Warner 1993). to screen thepossibility orfilter informationto report—and is costless—considerably reducing variation incitizens’ willingness the police, call centres emergency is relatively contacting and Reiss, 1967).As formal compared tocomplaints making to affected by the “dark figure’’ crime (Biderman of unreported for calls,also observable emergency acrimemeasure thatisless sources. Amoderate andstatisticallysignificantassociation is according respondentsMadrid andvarious to survey official Central ( District per cent on average—withten and fifty the exclusion of the However, thesecorrelations weaken substantially—between measures, including crime rates, arrests and police interventions. crime are moderately correlated with aseries of officialcrime astheunitofanalysis (table2.7).Perceptions21 districts of Additional evidence isprovided for ofMadrid, thecity usingits o D fficial istrict

data level : P : o lice Distrito Centro

rec o rds , M , adrid ) — the mostcrime-riddenarea in

V icti m isati o n

S urvey

and

o ther

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime inhabitants for census tracts. and 1,200 30,000 inhabitants in the case of neighbourhoods too large—median size of140,000inhabitants, ascompared to 34,000 census tracts. Madrid’s are, districts all,too after few and to or, its128neighbourhoods 21 districts even more so, to Spain’s caution isstillrequired thefindingsfor inextrapolating Madrid’s come closerto thecommunity-levelAlthough districts ofinterest, (2007). Ortega and Huesca and records police local 2001 Census, the from data using elaboration Own Source: area”. residential their in aproblem vandalism and crime considering residents of † “% level. 0.05 the at Sig. 0.1 the at ** * Sig. level; measures (2008) crime-related Other records (1999) Local police TABLE 2.7: SOURCE

neighbourhood crime(2001)inMadrid’sneighbourhood (N=21) districts Pearson correlations. Recorded crimerates andperceived

Emergency calls Emergency Police interventions arrested ofresidentsProportion seriousoffencesOther Car theft crime Property ofpersonalproperty Theft robberies Other Snatching Robbery: crime Sex Contact crime offenceMinor offenceSerious TYPE OFCRIME TYPE CENSUS 2001 PERCEIVED 0.453** 0.474** 0.460** 0.518** 0.473** 0.463** 0.461** 0.453** CRIME 0.406* 0.320 0.135 0.326 0.210 †

56 being victimised appears as a key predictor ofperceived predictor appearsasakey being victimised social networks) andthemassmedia.InQuillianPager (2001), source ofinformation oncrime, onlysecond to conversations (i.e. (1980) shows thatpersonalexperience constitutes animportant influence onresidents’ perceptions ofcrime. For instance, Graber The literature apowerful exerts hasshown thatbeingvictimised 2.6.4.  crime are influenced by crime stories, but only if they Baccaglini (1990) show that residents’ fears of neighbourhod elsewhere (Skogan and Maxfield, 1981). In this regard, and Liska rare events—like homicides—that almost always place take concentrate typically onthemostshocking,reports serious, and crimes occurringinspecificneighbourhoods. This issobecause 2000), yet it will only rarely provide useful information about amplifyingmechanismwhenitcomes to crime(Warr,powerful and unreliable sources (Cachón, 2008).The massmediaisa friends andrelatives orstories ofcrimeoriginatingfrom distant to informationalrespondents must resort cues, experiences of on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2010) most survey Nations Office are exceptionally low (Dijk,Kesteren andSmit, 2007;United necessarily of a limited nature. rates In Spain, where victimisation at leastinlow-crime (Skogan,1986),theoverall contexts effectis However, ofthepopulation is victimised, since onlyasmallportion probability’’. andspecificsubjective specific victimisation appearstothat “there beno systematic relationship between significantly related to crimelevels, thoughtheyalsoreported evaluationsthat subjective were of potential victimisation such asnoise, insultsorloitering. BlockandLong (1973)found crime,neighbourhood together withindicationsofsocialdisorder Personal andsociallytransmitted crimeexperiences

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime refer specificallyto crimestories theneighbourhood; happening or very safeor very (figure 2.5).As of shown intable2.8, victims felt ofnon-victims fairlywhereas roughly thesameproportion two ormorethose victimised timesfelt unsafe, abitorvery asmany 2005).Infact, dark intheirareas (ICVS, as70percent of inornearhomefeltvictimised significantly more unsafe after Not surprisingly, householdmembersinSpainwhohadbeen I Spanish context. carriedoutinthe demonstrated surveys through victimisation occurringatornearhomeis episodes ofvictimisation primarily by personal,serious, prevalent andinstrumental That residents’ perceptions crime are ofneighbourhood shaped Rountree, 2005; Warr Augustune and Bryan, and Stafford, 1983). ofspecificcrimes(robberies more thanhomicides; being avictim andBen-Yehuda,crimes; Goode 1994)andtheperceived riskof Warr, 2000), its randomness (instrumental more thanexpressive delinquency; seriousness ofcrime(violentmore thanpetty (first-degree networks more thanlocalrumours),aswell asthe events; ofsecond-hand Heath,1984)andreliability information geographical relevance (localcrimestories more thannational largely dependonvarious factors. These includeself-experience, influenced experiences by andcrimestories will victimisation How muchindividualperceptions crimeare ofneighbourhood safe by comparison’’.“feeling elsewhere may even reduce neighbours’ of fears inasort nternational C rime V ictims S urvey (2005):E vidence

for S p ain 57 effect on informal (Bellair, surveillance 2000). As expected, the effect onperceptions inversea direct ofrisk,andanindirect consistent withprevious research has that shows how robbery offences, usuallyconsidered asexpressive crimes, and is instrumentalcrime—withassaults andsexualarchetypal This seemsto bethecaseincomparing robberies—the night, presumably “street becausetheseare typically crimes’’. instrumental crimesare aloneat more frightened ofwalking Source: Own elaboration from the ICVS survey (2005). elaborationSource: survey from theICVS Own violent thefts). and theviolence involved (robberies matter more thannon- havethefts andmotorcycle thefts) thanbicycle alarger impact seriousness ofacrimealsomatters, bothinterms ofvalue (car

100 Percentage of rspondents 20 40 60 80 100 DO YOUFEELUNSAFEINYOURAREAAFTERDARK? 20 40 60 80 0 0 FIGURE 2.5: Ze Zer V ro ery safe o Fear (2005) intheICVS ofcrimeandvictimisation Victim of...typescrimeatornearhome (last5years) One One Fairly safe Tw Tw o o A bitunsafe Thre Thre e e F our ormor Four ormor V ery unsafe e e

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime victimised, perceive burglaries to be rather exceptional, given that to theUScontext, orthatSpanishrespondents, even thosealready burglaries inSpainare lower thanelsewhere, atleastincomparison Stafford, may bethecasethatcosts 1983).It associated with “it isviewed asbothrelatively seriousandrather and likely’’ (Warr othercrime interms offear, outranks every burglary largely because 1998),yetMcClorkle, research how inUnited States has reported burglaries rarely involve and injuries or violent attacks (Miethe for instance, ismore strongly associated withfear ofcrime. True, even more fear ofpersonalproperty, amongrespondents—theft However, itissurprisingthatburglaries inSpaindonotprovoke Source: Own elaboration using data from the International Crime Victims Survey (2005). Survey Victims Crime International the from data using elaboration Own Source: dark?”. after area your in unsafe feel you † “Do 0.01 level. the at Significant ** level; 0.05 the at * Significant Motorcycle theft Motorcycle offenceSexual theft Bicycle Assault Burglary Car theft attempt Burglary fromTheft car personalproperty Theft Robbery RESPONDENT HASBEENAVICTIMOF… BIVARIATE RELATIONSHIP WITHFEAROFCRIME TABLE 2.8: Fear ofcrime(N=1,975) by type ofcrimeandbeingvictimised CHI SQUARE 0.000007 0.000001 0.403796 0.259164 0.096579 0.010756 0.001505 0.001449 0.000755 0.000011 †

** ** * ** ** ** ** 58 take place within therespondents’take (figure 2.6b), own district are especiallyrelevantexperiences ofvictimisation whenthey totheir neighbourhoods be more unsafe (figure 2.6a). However, more alone atnight, concerned theyalsoperceive about walking are notonly show thatcrimevictims Analyses basedonthissurvey M 2005). ofcrime(ICVS, other nationsandtypes rates inSpainareburglary exceptionally low ascompared with adrid (% RESPONDENTS) VICTIMISATION V ictimisation RATE 0,3 0,3 0,7 1,6 0,8 1,0 0,4 2,7 2,1 1,3 S urvey ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (2008) OR NEARHOME VICTIMISED AT (% VICTIMS) 87,1 42,5 76,9 40,7 72,3 63,1 38,4 51,4 100 100 CONSEQUENCES: VERY SERIOUS (% VICTIMS) 47,7 70,7 22,1 33,9 40,1 39,0 26,3 16,0 26,1 37,2

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime 100 20 40 60 80 0 100 20 40 60 80 0 No vic No vic tim tim while theyare uncorrelated whentransmitted through the Source: Own elaboration from the Madrid Victimisation Survey. elaborationSource: Victimisation from theMadrid Own Note: Perceived crime(1=Nocrime;10Alotofcrime). neighbourhood street furniture inpoorcondition, abandonedcars, squatters). (e.g. insults, prostitution, noiseproblems) andphysical decay (e.g. vandalism, andonlysecondarily withperceptions ofcivildisorder correlated primarilywithperceived crimeand neighbourhood is given are intable2.10,where experiences ofvictimisation neighbourhood crime, and not for other neighbourhood problems, Evidence that being victimised is particularly relevant to perceived with perceptions crime. ofneighbourhood experienced crimesby residents show thestrongest association level (table2.9),where atthedistrict personally observable nuclear family(figure 2.6c).The samesetoffindingsare also

Percentage of respondents 100 a. 20 40 60 80 HAS RESPONDENTBEEN VICTIMISED ANYWHERE? 0 Vi c Vi tim c tim No FIGURE 2.6: Yes and victimisation intheMVS and victimisation 1 to 5 and6 7 to10 1 to 5 and6 7 to10 Perceived crime neighbourhood 4 1 to4

4 Percentage of respondents 100 b. 20 40 60 80 0 H VICTIMISED INHERDISTRICT? Percentage of respondents 100 a. AS RESPONDENTBEEN 20 40 60 80 VICTIMISED ANYWHERE RESPONDENT HASBEEN 0 No No victim 100 20 40 60 80 0 5 and6 Yes No vic Victim tim

Percentage of respondents c. 100 1 to4 20 40 60 80 HAVE RESPONDENT’SFAMILY ANYWHERE? MEMBERS BEENVICTIMISED 0

7 to10 Percentage of respondents 100 b. 20 40 60 80 0 VICTIMISED INHERDISTRICT RESPONDENT HASBEEN No No victim Vi c tim

5 and6 Yes Victim

Percentage of respondents c. 100 59 1 to 5 and6 7 to10 20 40 60 80 VICTIMISED ANYWHERE MEMBERS HA RESPONDENT’S F 0 7 to10 4 experienced, thathave on residents’ thegreatest impact serious and local those crimes, that are personally particularly Amongthese,experiences ofvictimisation. itisinstrumental, Spanish context, using bothofficialstatisticsandselfreported consistently crimeinthe associated withmeasures ofactual In conclusion, perceptions crime are of neighbourhood (2008). Survey (2001) Victimisation Census the Madrid from and data using elaboration Own Source: (0-10 scale). neighbourhood?” your in crime is widespread ‡ “How area”. residential their in a problem vandalism and crime considering residents of † “% level. 0.05 the at Sig. 0.1 the at ** * Sig. level; TABLE No victim % Stating district ismost % Statingdistrict Residents % Victimised indistrict % Victimised Respondents district Number ofcrimesexperienced in anywhere Number ofcrimesexperienced anywhere % Householdmembervictimised indistrict % Victimised anywhere % Victimised (0-10 scale) Perceived crime neighbourhood dangerous incity MADRID VICTIMISATION SURVEY VE BEEN 2.9: AMILY victimisation rates City’s inMadrid victimisation (N=21) districts Victim TYPE OFCRIME TYPE

Pearson correlations. Perceived crimeand neighbourhood

(2008) CRIME PERCEIVED 0.488** 0.483** 0.303 0.082 0.602** 0.422* 0.706** 0.869** (2001) † CENSUS –0.015 CRIME PERCEIVED 0.390* 0.656** 0.365 0.661** 0.401* 1.000** 0.530** (2008) ‡ MVS MVS

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime Source: Own elaboration using data from the Madrid Victimisation Survey (2008). Survey elaborationSource: Victimisation usingdatafrom theMadrid Own ofinhis/herown neighbourhood.† Numberofcrimesthatrespondent hasbeen avictim * Sig. atthe0.1level; **Sig. atthe0.05 level. perceptions. However, given thelevel of aggregation atwhichthe extending theseresults to orcensusextending theneighbourhood tract to proceedindividual level—it withcautionin isimportant relationship the provincial, was observed—at and district Pollution Fights andInsults Vandalism Crime (robberies, threats &assaults) Squatters Abandoned cars violenceDomestic Loose dogs Prostitution behaviourRacist hawkers Illegal Vagrancy Street drinking Drug dealing Street furniture inpoorcondition Badly litstreets Noise PERCEPTIONS OFNEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS (0-10SCALE) TABLE 2.10: Pearson correlations. Local andperceptions problems ofneighbourhood victimisation

60 perceptions with actual crime(BursikandGrasmick,perceptions 1993). withactual the relationship, oneshouldbecareful inequatingcrime throughout thisbook.Inany case, given themoderate nature of levels—which remain thegeographical areas ofinterest NUMBER OFCRIMES VICTIMISATION: 0.011 0.017 0.021 0.022* 0.025* 0.038** 0.040** 0.041** 0.048** 0.058** 0.064** 0.065** 0.065** 0.069** 0.088** 0.116** 0.145**

† NUMBER OFRESPONDENTS 7,963 8,072 7,713 8,216 8,084 8,006 8,183 8,234 8,194 7,754 8,278 8,277 8,288 8,280 8,251 8,262 8,240

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime This robust, yet modest, associationwithaseriesofinstrumental neighbourhoods whereneighbourhoods theyperpetrate criminalacts, butalso not onlybecause offenders live often in,orclose to, the interpret empiricalmodelsof perceived crime, neighbourhood Information onoffenders iscrucialto properly buildand 2.7. crime(QuillianandPager,neighbourhood 2001). onperceptions of hasasignificant impact being victimised victimised, inorneartheirresidential areas (Pyle, 1974),and offenders tend to commit crimes, tend to be andvictims offenders isespeciallyrelevant, andvictims ifonlybecause anticipation of the following sections, that the profile of torather “indoor crimes’’. thanreactions Finally, andin explaining “street crimes’’ andresidents’ to them, reactions rationale may different. be markedly Thus, this study aims at determinants, andleave asideexpressive crimes, for whichthe should focus mainlyoninstrumentalcrimesandtheir draw uponto evaluate localcrimerates. Moreover, thesemodels tocrime, measures of actual the conventional cues that residents determinants ofcrimeperceptions shouldinclude, inaddition perceived crime. neighbourhood Second, thatamodel ofthe measures,precautionary to account for a component of framework crimecanalsoserve, adoptingcertain ofactual to acknowledge. First andforemost, thatanexplanatory and “street’’ crimes hasa series ofimplicationsthatit is important WHAT WEKNOW ABOUTOFFENDERS 61 restricted forrestricted politicalandtechnical reasons (Aebi andLinde, with information ondetaineesseverely, andincreasingly, Unfortunately, accessible dataare limited to thesevariables, ofthoseconvictedand nationality orincarcerated ispresented. information onvisualcharacteristics, suchasthegender, age irrespective ofwhethertheyare real offenders. Inwhatfollows, considered ascrime-prone (e.g. young males, foreigners), because ofresidents’ withgroups interaction thatare popularly enforcement agencies, remains anopenquestion. other factors, including potential discriminationby law personal property. Whetherthesedifferences persistnetof noticeably over-represented indrugoffenses of andtheft crime, bribery, embezzlement),whereas foreign nationalswere represented inwhite-collar crimes(i.e. corruption, corporate municipal register, 12percent. As expected, natives were over- intheSpanishpopulationwas,proportion according to the of those convicted were foreign nationals, whereas their 2009, for instance, for ofcrimes, mosttypes around 30percent rate ofconvictions (figure 2.8),andintheprisonpopulation.In statistics, 2000),the includingthe numberofdetainees(García, 2008), foreign-nationals are clearlyover-represented incrime some countries, mostnotably the United States (Rumbaut, decrease monotonically withage(figure 2.7). In contrast to those convicted andincarcerated are menandconviction rates men and young.disproportionately Roughly90 per cent of Similar to otherdeveloped countries, offenders inSpainare 2010).

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime 100 120 140 160 180 20 40 60 80 0 Spain 100 120 140 160 20 40 60 80 0 O ther EU 18-20 O Source: Own elaborationSource: usingdata from the National StatisticsInstitute. Own elaborationSource: usingdatafrom theNationalStatisticsInstitute. Own ther Europeans 100 120 140 160 180 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 20 40 60 80 0 21-25 0 Spain per 10,000inhabitants To 18-20 tal convicted FIGURE 2.8: FIGURE 2.7: 26-30 Americ 21-25 Other EU a 31-40 Conviction rates (2009) by nationality Conviction rates by agegroup (2009) Afr Other Eur 26-30 Ra ica te per10,000inhabitants 41-50 per 100,000inhabitants (4 ormor Recedivists opeans 31-40 e convictions) Asia 51-60 America 41-50 60+ Africa 1,000,000 inhabitants on homicideper Convicted 51-60 To Recedivists (4ormo Co tal con nv Asia 60+ ic ted onhomicideper1,000,000inhabitants vic Ra ted per10,000inhabitants 62 te per10,000 inhabitants (i.e. sex,age, income, class, education,andimmigrant status). presented, concentrating on theusualsociodemographic factors crimerates.actual Inwhatfollows, is theprofile ofvictims the modelsin the empiricalchapters are unableto control for models ofperceptions crime, ofneighbourhood even more soas empirical Information isequallyvitalto construct onvictims 2.8. relatively unimportant. relatively unimportant. differencesas intheICVS, by are sociodemographic factors toare have lesslikely (table2.12).Nevertheless, beenvictimised and theupper-middleclassesthose withauniversity degree victimised, there isnosignificantdifference by ageornationality, Femalesat oddswiththeICVS. are to more have likely been are somewhat (MVS) Survey Victimisation Results from theMadrid (i.e. from car,stake theft pickpocketing). where lessvaluable areaffluent respondents at ofthefts objects potential reward and less is higher (i.e. and burglary) car theft off respondentsofcrimeswhere are the to more bevictims likely predictors, ontheoffenders’ side. The alsoshows ICVS thatwell- age andgenderdifferences are more acute, andhence are better themselves’’. people like victimise However, it must be noted that findings are consistent withthethesisthat“people tend to committed by young males—inSpainandelsewhere—these and beingfemale (table2.11).Since thelion’s share ofcrimesare correlates ofbeingvictimised negativelythe likelihood withage we (ICVS-2005), learnthat Survey the International CrimeVictims can bederivedThe profile from ofvictims various From surveys. re convic WHAT WEKNOW ABOUTVICTIMS tions) per100,000inhabitants

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime Source: Own elaboration using data from the Madrid Victimisation Survey (2008). Survey elaborationSource: Victimisation usingdatafrom theMadrid Own (2005). Survey elaborationSource: usingdatafrom theInternational Own CrimeVictims * Onlycarowners are included. N =No;YYes. Theft ofpersonalbelongings Theft Robbery Burglary fromTheft car* Car theft* Number Rs in district Victimised

TABLE 2.11: Yes No TABLE 2.12: N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y FEMALE 8,329 (IN %) 59.3 52.8 CASES Victims’ characteristics in the International Crime Victims Survey (2005) Survey intheInternational characteristics CrimeVictims Victims’ 1,610 1,648 1,979 2,003 2,015 Victims’ characteristics in the Madrid Victimisation Survey (2008) Survey Victimisation intheMadrid characteristics Victims’ 20 43 27 17 55 FEMALE (MEAN) 8,329 (IN %) AGE 50 37 50 63 52 47 52 44 52 49 47.5 46.1

63 UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY (MEAN) DEGREE AGE (IN %) 3,520 44.7 45.3 44.5 41.3 46.9 43.4 46.8 44.4 46.7 39.8 18.5 22.1

OF EDUCATION UPPER-MIDDLE SOCIAL CLASS: SUBJECTIVE (MEAN) YEARS YEARS 11.3 11.4 10.8 11.4 11.9 11.4 12.5 11.8 12.5 11.8 (IN %) 7,871 13.3 9.5 UPPER 50% NATIONAL INCOME: FOREIGN (IN %) (IN %) 46.3 63.2 63.8 62.8 86.7 62.6 67.3 69.3 76.3 69.2 8,329 14.7 15.1 BACKGROUND IMMIGRANT IMMIGRANT RESIDENCE: LENGTH OF > 5YEARS (IN %) (IN %) 8,329 2.0 3.9 5.1 3.9 0.0 3.9 5.6 3.9 1.1 3.9 8.0 8.1

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime An additional factor thatisofspecialinterestAn additionalfactor to urban For women, intheMVS natives and thosewithless itspart, also feel more insecure, yet theeffectismodest incomparison. 2.13). Older respondents and those with less formal education are experiencesintroduced of victimisation in the model (table unsafe andthisfinding isreinforcedparticularly when are fairlysimilar.surveys itiswomen IntheICVS, thatfeel experiences are heldconstant. Onthe whole, results from both and fear crime, ofneighbourhood whenvictimisation sex, age, income, classandimmigrant status, andperceptions between theusualsociodemographic characteristics, suchas that meritsOne last consideration factor is the relationship COMMUNITY EFFECTS NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME:ISOLATING INDIVIDUAL AND 2.9. particular. homes can tobe reasonably in extended Spain, and Madrid assumption thatcrimesusuallyoccuratornearthevictims’ were withintheirneighbourhood. victimised Thus, thewidespread Similarly,personal thefts. two intheMVS, thirds ofrespondents thefts, four ofbicycle outoften robberies,quarters andathird of from cars,of thefts eightoutoften motorcycle thefts, three own home. This was thecasefor seven outoften carthefts, half mostoffences1987). IntheICVS took place atornearthevictims’ victims, orbothlive closeto where offences occur(Sampson, the reason beingthataseriesofstudiesassumeoffenders, criminologists isthelocationwhere respondents were victimised, SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS ANDPERCEIVED SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS 64 (2005). ICVS the from data using elaboration Own Source: safe. 4=Very unsafe; † 1=Very <0.01. ** *<0.05; Significance: parentheses. in errors Standard the elderly are slightly more fearful (Ferrarothe elderlyare slightlymore fearful andLaGrange, 1992) perceive 1997), greater riskthanmen(Chiricos, HoganandGertz, are consistent withprevious studiesinthatmore women experiences intheneighbourhood.victimisation These findings isthenumberofmost significantcoefficient inbothsurveys from priorresearch (Rountree, 2005),the Augustine andBryan, age andsocialclassplay aminorrole (table2.14).As expected formal education perceive more crime, neighbourhood whereas CONSTANT asignificantimpact. education exert crime,higher neighbourhood butneitherage, income nor experiences,net ofvictimisation women perceive significantly congruent with the findings of Quillian and Pager (2001) where, 1977; Rountree and Land,Kleiman, 1996). They are also and social class or income produce mixed results (Clemente and TABLE 2.13: N R² experiences intheneighbourhood Number ofpersonalvictimisation Immigrant background Years offormal education Income group Female Age in theneighbourhood OLS regression analysis. Feeling aloneatnight safe walking † andbasicsociodemographic characteristics –0.004* –0.277** –0.271** 0.151 0.015* 0.023 3.347** 1,108 0,085 (0.002) (0.035) (0.139) (0.007) (0.062) (0.055) (0.193)

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime CONSTANT communities. characteristics, suchaslivinginrural andresidentially stable negative effect of age, are probably the result of meso-level and Pager’s (2001) findings. Even individual effects, suchasthe phenomenon, inaccordance withConklin’s (1975)andQuillian crimeisbetterneighbourhood conceived ofasacommunity that have thestrongest effects, whichsuggeststhatperceived problems, andotherneighbourhood building characteristics Instead, itisvariables related to meso-level factors, suchas that crimeandvandalism are aproblem intheirresidential area. have ofresidents considering asmalleffecton the likelihood Sociodemographic variables, sexandcitizenship, particularly sample of individual records from the 2001 Census (table 2.3). A different setofresults isproduced by theanonymised (2008). Survey Victimisation Madrid the from data using elaboration Own Source: (0-10 scale). neighbourhood?” your in crime is widespread † “How <0.01. ** *<0.05; Significance: parentheses. in errors Standard N R² experiences inneighbourhood Number ofpersonalvictimisation Foreign national Level ofeducation Social class Female Age TABLE 2.14: OLS regression analysis. Perceived crime neighbourhood and sociodemographic characteristics –0.124** –0.032** 0.000 0.385** 0.033 0.091* 1.607** 3,280 0.03 (0.001) (0.049) (0.041) (0.008) (0.037) (0.093) (0.02) †

65 chapters, variables isthatindividual and community are for theinterpretation oftheecological analysesinsubsequent However, findingintable2.15,whichhasvitalimplications thekey ofperceived predictors crime. neighbourhood important variablesmunicipalities—both individualandcommunity are logit regressions ofrespondents, and census tracts censuseffects are effectivelytract separated using multilevel 2634— In asimilaranalysisofCISsurvey multiple imputation techniques, butonlywhenexceeding ten per cent oftheoriginalsamplesize. weights provided by theCentre for data for Sociological Research. Missing specificvariables was dealtwithusing Both this regional over-representation and the non-response bias adjusted for using the design and population of February to of2006,in560different the26th of March municipalities, withabooster sample for Andalusia. 16 For were 2634,8,265face-to-face inrespondents’ conducted survey interviews households from the13th provided valuable information onavailable crimedatainSpain, and diffusionprocess ofcrime information. This chapter hasalso introducedcharacteristics, intherecording plusallthedistortion physical disorder, neighbours’ sociodemographic andindividual (Quillian andPager, includesignsofciviland 2001).These factors influenced crimerates by inadditionto actual multiplefactors chapter. That is, thatperceived crimeis neighbourhood to thetheoretical frameworksupport presented intheprevious The ofthischapter mainobjective hasbeento provide empirical 2.10. introduced into theregression models. leveltract barely changewhenindividualvariables are models IandII,asthecoefficients ofthevariables atthecensus the samephenomenon.This canbeseeninthecomparison of independent from eachother, even whentheyare measuring SUMMARY OFMAINFINDINGS 16 where individualand

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime described trends inpublicconcern over publicsafety, presented the geographical distribution of perceived neighbourhood crime Neighboursare affluent each other Neighboursknow Neighbourscanbetrusted Alotofforeigners Perceptions oflocalarea Watch/Listen newsinTV/Radio Readnewspapers Length ofresidence inarea Ideology(0-10scale) Education (years) Unemployment Householdincome Spanishcitizenship Age Female Level 1:Individual VARIABLES Length ofresidence (mean) %University degree 15-29 %Male Level 2:census section TABLE 2.15: Multilevel respondents, logitregressions ofsurvey andmunicipalities. census tracts Perceived crime, neighbourhood individual sociodemographic, andsignsofsocial physical factors structural disorder 66 in the ICVS. in theICVS. and compared victimisation rates across the participating countries 0.913 0.703 1.234 I (–5.6)** (–1.5) (3.7)** 0.957 0.996 1.054 1.093 0.854 1.043 0.890 1.121 0.859 1.021 0.902 0.761 1.230 II (–3.3)** (–2.7)** (–3.1)** (–1.2) (–0.1) (3.1)** (–4.2)** (2.5)* (1.2) (1.2) (0.6) (–1.7) (3.7)** 1.065 1.116 0.555 1.869 0.930 1.019 1.041 1.092 0.867 1.057 0.909 1.114 0.942 0.995 0.988 0.875 1.149 III (–15.2)** (13.6)** (–2.8)** † (–2.1)* (–1.8) (–1.2) (–0.2)

(2.9)** (–2.0)* (2.5)* (2.4)*

(–0.2) (1.5) (0.4) (0.9) (1.6) (2.5)*

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime crime and vandalism. Perceived crime isalso neighbourhood sociodemographic intheassessment oflocal characteristics physical disorder in the environment and to neighbours’ substantiated. to Residents in signs Spain of react social and the multidimensional nature of crime perceptions has been By meansofsimpleanalyses, mostly ofabivariate nature, unemployment. nationals andwithsignificantlevels offamilydisruptionand higher inlarger municipalities populated by women andforeign hasalsorevealed respondents.ICVS thatcrimeisperceived It to be other developed countries—concern withcrimeamongSpanish disruption—and themoderate yet overblown—as compared with towards smallmunicipalitieswithlow prevalence offamily distribution ofresidents’ perceptions crime— ofneighbourhood The chapter hasshown thesignificantandpositively skewed 2634 (2006). elaborationSource: usingdatafrom CISsurvey Own * sig. 0.05level; **sig. 0.01level. isalotofcrimeinthearea”† “There 0:Disagree; 1:Agree. z-values inbrackets. Constant term isomitted. Coefficients have beenstandardised. (Continue) %Divorced/Separated Intraclass corr. coefficient: municipality Intraclass corr. coefficient: census tract Log-likelihood (null=-7,337) N (municipallevel) level)N (census section N (individuallevel) Population size (millioninh.) Level 3-Municipality %Foreign population

67 practically independent from each other.practically importantly, level thattheindividualandcommunity effectsare when explainingperceived crimeand, neighbourhood more show are thatindividual characteristics relatively unimportant 2634, Analyses basedonthe2001Census andCISsurvey unsafe experiences are when held victimisation constant. women and, to alesserdegree, theelderlyare to more feel likely experienced by relatives. Finally, withregard to individual factors, experienced bydirectly respondents—as opposedto those the caseofinstrumental,seriousandlocal crimesthathave been perceived crime, visiblein thoughtheseeffectsare particularly aloneatnight.Theyfear alsoproduce ofwalking higherlevels of experiences induce,victimisation among local residents, greater established attheprovincial levels. anddistrict For theirpart, however, dueto insufficientdatathisrelationship could onlybe robustly associated with a series of official crime statistics; 1.622 1.225 1.229 –3,342 7,420 0.12 0.21 549 930 (3.0)** (3.4)** (3.1)** 1.666 1.239 1.246 –3,315 7,420 0.12 0.21 549 930 (3.5)** (3.3)** (3.2)* 1.367 0.968 1.215 –3,075 7,420 0.09 0.18 549 930 (–0.5) (3.0)** (2.2)*

Conceptualising, measuring and explaining perceived neighbourhood crime III. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN

3.1. INTRODUCTION In sharp contrast, the main goal of this chapter is to test the social disorganisation framework in a novel and understudied Empirical studies on communities and crime have generally social environment (i.e. Spain) paying special attention to restricted their attention to a limited number of cities or rural problems of generalisability. In addition to examining the social areas, mainly located in the US, the best example of which is the disorganisation model using all 34,000+ census tracts, the abundance of criminological research on the city of Chicago. As theory is also assessed in four subsets of municipalities—large a result, empirical findings are typically derived from samples of cities, medium size cities, towns and rural areas—and in the ten local areas which are modest in size, typically between 50 and largest cities in Spain, analysed separately. If social disorganisation 300 cases. For instance, Sampson and Groves’ (1989) study—“one theory is to attain universal validity, not only is it necessary to of the more important studies in the criminological literature identify and test the mechanisms that link the neighbourhoods’ over the last decade” (Veysey and Messner, 1999)—is based on structural factors to a number of criminal outcomes, it is also 238 local communities across the United Kingdom. Small sample necessary to demonstrate that these same structural factors are sizes are also present in studies by Bursik and Grasmick (1993), important predictors of social organisation and criminal Osgood and Chambers (2000), Oberwittler (2004), and Sampson, behaviour across a wide array of contexts. That is, whereas the Raudenbush, and Earls (1997). In the refinement-generalisability analyses in this chapter are of an ecological and descriptive trade-off, recent research on social disorganisation theory has nature—leaving social mechanisms and direct tests of the primarily favoured the former. That is, testing ever more refined theory unexplored—this will be the first study to assess the hypotheses in a limited number of units typically concerning a relationship between the exogenous sources of social single metropolitan area. disorganisation and perceived neighbourhood crime: LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

68  • Using all census tracts in a given country 3.2. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SOCIAL DISORGANISATION MODEL: INCORPORATING THE • For groups of municipalities based on their population size RESOURCE MODEL OF SOCIO-POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

• For the largest cities in a given country1 Recent criminological research has been preoccupied with the verification of sophisticated theoretical and empirical corollaries • In a Southern European country stemming from core statements of social disorganisation theory. This has taken three basic forms: the analysis of specific social As regards the theoretical framework, this chapter draws mechanisms (Miguel and Gugerty, 2005), the isolation of primarily on two complementary strands of literature—social neighbourhood effects on criminal behaviour (Oberwittler, 2004; disorganisation theory (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Sampson and Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997) and, more relevant for Groves, 1989; Shaw and McKay, 1969[1942]) and the resource our purposes, direct tests of the mediating effect of the different model of socio-political participation (Brady, Verba and dimensions of social disorganisation (Sampson and Groves, 1989; Schlozman, 1995; Verba and Nie, 1972;)—through which Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997). traditional and original structural factors are evaluated in the Spanish context. Besides socioeconomic status, residential While these efforts to unveil the “black box” (figure 1.2) of the stability, ethnic diversity, family disruption, urbanisation and social disorganisation model—through the incorporation of inequality, original household and neighbourhood characteristics the three levels of social order (i.e. private, parochial and public) are also incorporated, such as commuting time, overtime work and a range of social mechanisms—have certainly advanced and access to secondary residences. Further, the literature on our understanding of the influence of communities on crime, it informational cues—essentially those related to the incivility is probably too soon to dismiss the value of previous research thesis (Hunter, 1978; Skogan, 1986; Wilson and Kelling, 1982) and on exogenous and macro-structural factors of social sociodemographic characteristics (Chiricos, Hogan and Hertz, disorganisation. As stated in chapter 1, analysing the impact of 1997; Quillian and Pager, 2001)—is also incorporated in order to the structural characteristics of communities—such as level of properly account for the fact that perceived neighbourhood poverty, ethnic diversity and residential turnover—presents crime, and not actual crime rates, are studied. For this reason, several advantages over more refined formulations of the perceptions of street cleanliness, noise and buildings’ conditions theory. Among other things, these structural factors are, are included in the analyses. theoretically and empirically, easy to discern from the concept of social disorganisation itself.

1 Although Shaw and McKay (1969[1942]) carried out analyses examining the relationship between the exogenous sources of social disorganisation and measures of crime in different cities (Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Philadelphia), their analyses overlooked perceptions of crime and were not based on a unique data source. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

69  The aim of this chapter is not only to verify that exogenous sources The confluence of these two strands of literature—social of social disorganisation2 are relevant determinants of criminal disorganisation theory and the resource model of socio-political outcomes. The goal is also to extend analyses beyond the classical participation—plus the incivility thesis, leaves us with the exogenous sources to include original determinants derived following theoretical framework. A series of structural from the resource model of socio-political participation. Until characteristics, by influencing households’ resources, determine very recently, scholars focused exclusively on Shaw and McKay’s whether communities are socially disorganised—or organised (1969[1942]) original variables accounting for variations in the differently in Wacquant’s (2007) terms. In turn, in socially social organisation of communities: residential turnover, ethnic disorganised communities residents are less effective in the use diversity, and poverty. Sampson (1987) extended the model to of crime/social control mechanisms, which, together with the family disruption, and Sampson and Groves (1989) introduced unease spawned by the prevalence of social and physical disorder urbanisation, given that their analysis—unlike Shaw and (Wilson, 1975), intensifies the crime perceived by residents (figure McKay’s— included non-metropolitan areas. However, the 1.5). The key objective is thus to identify the structural conditions number of exogenous sources should be extended further: any that increase the organisational resources available to neighbours, environmental variable likely to affect the density and efficacy households and communities. of any of Bursik and Grasmick’s (1993) three levels of social order or social networks—private, parochial and public—should be part of community or meso-level explanations of crime. This brings us back to the resource model of socio-political participation 3.3. ORIGINAL EXOGENOUS SOURCES OF SOCIAL or to explanations of how people form stable friendships and DISORGANISATION why they get involved in voluntary associations. As illustrated in the theoretical framework, five types of resources are proposed In this section the focus is exclusively on those exogenous sources as contributing factors to the development of local networks: that have been overlooked by the literature as potential communication and organisational skills, trust (in neighbours), determinants of neighbourhoods’ social organisation and time spent in the community, financial resources, plus some sort criminal outcomes. These include home ownership, commuting of common interests. time to work/school, overtime work, the availability of a secondary residence and (non-economic) spatial inequalities.3

2 The term exogenous sources is a conventional term used by the literature (see Sampson and Groves, 1989) to refer to a number of structural characteristics of local communities that are frequently associated with residents’ deviant behaviour. The term exogenous is employed because these characteristics can be clearly distinguished from the concept of social disorganisation and also because, according to the theory’s theoretical framework, their influence is supposed to kick in earlier in the causal process. However, as mentioned previously (see footnote 2), the use of the term does not preclude the existence of reverse causality and endogenous effects. For instance, 3 For those structural factors already considered by the literature as exogenous sources (i.e. socioeconomic status, a lack of financial resources may cause social organisation to weaken, but disadvantaged families may also be residential stability, diversity, family disruption, urbanisation and inequality/concentration), a detailed review can attracted to previously disorganised areas due to their lower costs of living. be found in chapter 1. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

70  Closely related to residential stability and home ownership, the 1988) or, in terms of social mechanisms, on their ability to availability of a secondary residence limits the time that community supervise and intervene in leisure activities of local youth. members spend in their primary residence. Abandoning their Teenagers’ friendships have been largely ignored even though neighbourhoods on a regular basis, and especially at weekends members of troublemaking cliques more often than not live in when social networks related to leisure activities typically develop, the same areas. Locally embedded teenage peer groups— the involvement of these residents in community networks, their sharing the same neighbourhood and school— regularly gather knowledge of local affairs and their capacity to protect their (and on street-corners and local parks; a habit that can result in other) properties, are seriously hindered. However, reverse boredom and an inflated sense of power that, when conflated causality cannot be rule out, as residents living in violent, or simply with frustrations in conventional activities (Hirschi, 1969), can disorganised areas, could be “escaping’’, even if temporarily, to the eventually lead to deviant behaviour and a resulting sense of second homes. urban unease by the adult population (Wilson, 1968). Here it is hypothesised that commuting time to school decreases Following a similar line of reasoning, overtime work and adolescents’ time in the community—reducing the need for commuting time to work take time away from family responsibilities social control—and diversifies adolescents’ social networks. The and other activities in the community. In extreme cases, fact that teenagers are unable or unwilling to “take control of households where the breadwinner works long hours and the streets” is expected to bring about a reduction in the commutes long distances may even look similar to lone parent prevalence of crime, vandalism and other social incivilities. In households, at least in terms of the capacity to supervise children addition, since the presence of youth is an informational cue and participate in community-building activities. In addition, often used for the prediction of local crime rates, spending less individuals with a hectic work life may even find it difficult to time on the streets should, all else equal, improve residents’ manage their multiple family and community responsibilities on perceptions of crime. holidays and weekends, as their work obligations frequently take up their spare time. In chapter 1, the importance in previous studies of (spatial) inequality as an exogenous source of social organisation was Social control theories, and by extension social disorganisation mentioned. Nonetheless, these studies have focused largely on theory, are implicitly framed as a potential conflict between poverty concentration and ethnic residential segregation (Blau immoral teenagers and righteous adults: those who self- and Blau, 1982; Logan and Messner, 1987; Peterson and Krivo, organise successfully are likely to “reign’’ in the area. However, 1993), overlooking alternative and promising dimensions of in empirical models the focus has been exclusively on the social organisation, such as educational inequality (Kelly, 2000), intergenerational closure of (adult) communities (Coleman, family disruption and residential stability. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

71  3.4. EXTENDING SOCIAL DISORGANISATION THEORY TO are significant predictors of homicides in metropolitan areas, RURAL AREAS whereas only socioeconomic disadvantage is important in rural areas. In a similar vein, Wells and Weisheit (2004) report a better A different question is whether the model can be extended to performance of classical ecological and structural factors in rural communities, for scholars have “almost exclusively defined predicting crime rates in urban settings and stress that “the communities as neighbourhoods within large urban centres” constellation of variables that best predicted” crime rates was (Osgood and Chambers, 2000). Responding to this question, different in rural and urban areas. Osgood and Chambers argue that, considering that “rural communities and smaller towns will surely vary in their ability to realise values and solve problems”, there should be nothing specifically urban in the theory. Yet, following the distinctive 3.5. DATA AND METHODOLOGY urban processes already mentioned—anonymity, urban stratification and the concentration of detrimental effects— The data analysed in this chapter is drawn from the 2001 Spanish rural-urban differences in the performance of the model are to Population and Housing Census already described in the previous be expected. The absence of these processes in rural areas chapter. Although the information was collected by household, makes residents’ coordination easier and also limits the variance the full list of variables is only accessible in an aggregate form; by of the dependent and the explanatory variables. Therefore, census tracts, districts, municipalities, provinces and Autonomous even though the model may be applicable to rural communities, Communities.4 With an average population of 1,200 individuals, it is hypothesised that variations in perceived neighbourhood the 34,251 census tracts constitute the preferred unit of analysis. crime are better accounted for in more densely populated While it is evident that census tracts in urban areas do not match municipalities. fully with an individuals’ lived environment, in the sense of a space that can satisfy “a complex set of needs’’ (Logan and Although there are few empirical studies comparing rural and Molotch, 2007[1987]), they are, nonetheless, commonly used in metropolitan areas simultaneously, evidence on the performance this type of ecological analysis and are considerably more gap of the social disorganisation model in these types of areas meaningful than alternative administrative divisions for which is rather mixed. For instance, Lee and Bartkowski (2004) find information is available. that their measure of (religious) civic engagement, which presents many similarities with that of social organisation, 4 So, the reader may ask herself, why not use the sample of anonymised records used in the previous chapter exerts a stronger effect on juvenile homicides in rural than in to properly isolate community-level effects? For confidentiality reasons, when individual data is made available by the National Statistics Institute, only relatively large municipalities are identified. Geocodes for smaller urban areas. But Lee, Maume and Ousey (2003) observe that geographical units, such as districts or census tracts, are hidden. However, evidence is given in chapter 2 that, although individual-level effects are somewhat relevant in explaining perceived neighbourhood crime, individual both socioeconomic disadvantage and poverty concentration and community-level effects are virtually independent from each other. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

72  3.5.1. Definition and spatial distribution of the dependent Herfindahl index. The Herfindahl index is a general measure of variable heterogeneity or concentration widely employed in the social disorganisation literature with values that range from 0— As in other censuses, information collected in the 2001 Spanish maximum heterogeneity—to 1—maximum homogeneity.5 census was primarily concerned with objective measures such Here, it is calculated using the percentage of each of 15 different as house size, employment status or residents´ age. Fortunately, nationality groups,6 for which information is available in the in the 2001 Census the National Statistics Institute decided to 2001 Census, over the total population. Since the correlation introduce a set of subjective dichotomous questions on housing between the index and the percentage of foreign population is problems. These include the outcome variable employed in this almost perfect, the index can effectively be interpreted as the chapter: the percentage of residents in a given census tract latter (with an opposite sign). And since prior to the immigration stating that crime and vandalism are a problem in their residential waves that began in the 1980s, Spain was a very homogeneous areas, which will be denoted simply as perceived crime. As society in terms of its racial/ethnic composition, bar the Roma described in the previous chapter, its spatial distribution (figure minority, the index is an adequate approximation for the level 2.3) indicates that perceived crime is particularly high in urban, of ethnic heterogeneity in Spanish local communities. coastal and southern areas. Spatial inequality/concentration effects. These variables are 3.5.2. Main independent variables and control variables measured introducing the standard deviation—across census tracts within each municipality—for the four variables of The explanatory variables—aggregated by census tract and interest: the Herfindahl index, the percentage of residents with municipality—include the key exogenous sources of social higher education, the percentage of divorced and separated, disorganisation and multiple proxies for time spent in the and length of residence in the same dwelling. Mean values for community. Whereas a full description of the variables can be these variables are also introduced at the municipal level in the found in Appendix A, information on the non self-explanatory multilevel models to control for the “size dependency’’ of variables is presented next. The main descriptives of the variables measurements based on variance statistics. are provided in table 3.1.

N 5 H = Σ s2, where s is the proportion of ethnic/national group over the total population in the census tract, and N i =l i i is the number of census tracts. 6 Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Italy, Morocco, Peru, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and Venezuela. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

73  TABLE 3.1: Descriptive statistics of the variables employed in the regression models

MEAN VARIABLES MEAN SD MIN MAX RURAL AREAS LARGE CITIES Perceived crime (% residents) 20.69 20.03 0 98.76 3.77 38.54 % Higher education 14.12 8.23 0 86.67 12.68 14.62 Unemployment rate 12.80 10.67 0 65.33 7.42 19.78 Herfindahl index 0.94 0.08 0.29 1.00 0.96 0.91 % European Union (15) 0.71 2.36 0 71.56 0.60 0.61 % Morocco 0.54 1.51 0 45.76 0.34 0.40 % Ecuador 0.51 1.31 0 31.13 0.16 1.15 % Other foreign nationalities 1.70 2.30 0 44.30 0.81 2.77 Length of residence (years) 20.20 7.41 1.68 68.85 26.50 18.78 % Renters 10.74 10.79 0 98.45 5.07 17.04 % Secondary residence 16.69 11.68 0 100 14.52 23.59 % Divorced/Separated 2.71 1.53 0 14.29 1.50 3.80 % Overtime work 13.09 8.94 0.17 100 17.34 11.56 Commuting time to work (minutes) 20.47 7.07 5.00 87.50 17.50 25.43 Number children per family 1.78 0.19 1.00 4.00 1.77 1.75 Commuting time to school 24.77 8.14 5.00 100 26.46 25.83 Population size (100.000 inh.) 3.64 7.73 0 29.39 0.01 13.06 % 10 to 29 years 25.96 5.92 0 50.93 20.67 26.13 % Elderly 20.25 10.12 0 90.00 29.85 19.20 % Women 50.77 2.96 18.18 70.00 48.56 52.77 Number retail shops/offices 44.22 81.31 0 80.20 20.19 56.17 Perceived noise (% residents) 28.38 18.34 0 98.33 9.14 42.26 Perceived dirtiness (% residents) 30.66 19.25 0 100 16.38 40.52 Buildings' condition 95.50 5.19 28.57 100 95.36 94.94

Source: Own elaboration using data from the 2001 Population and Housing Census. N = 34,251 census tracts; N (Rural areas) = 8,559 census tracts; N (Large cities) = 8,683 census tracts. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

74  The first of the models tries to reproduce Shaw and McKay’s crime (Quillian and Pager, 2001). However, the moderate crime (1969[1942]) original study, in which poverty, ethnic heterogeneity rates of women and the elderly, their stereotypes as inoffensive and residential turnover were associated with social disorganisation groups and their important participation in community affairs may and crime. The second model adds original variables related be offset by the fact that both groups are more likely to perceive to social disorganisation and socio-political participation higher crime rates (Chiricos, Hogan and Gertz, 1997; Garofalo, 1979; determinants, along with a set of control variables. The effect of Warr, 1984). Measures of social disorder and physical decay, known national diversity is tested against the effect of the largest foreign to be explanatory factors of perceived neighbourhood crime nationality groups in terms of population size: European Union (Quillian and Pager, 2001; Skogan, 1990) and, according to the (EU-15), Morocco and Ecuador. The third model is designed to broken windows thesis, of actual crime rates (Wilson and Kelling, test the effect of spatial inequalities on crime perceptions. Controls 1982; but see Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999), are also introduced. related to signs of social disorder (i.e. noise and cleanliness) and Finally, and in line with criminal opportunity theories, business physical decay (i.e. condition of buildings) are incorporated into areas are expected to increase perceived crime (Park, Burgess and the fourth model, isolating the causal paths that depart from McKenzie, 1925) given that, as opposed to residential areas, they neighbourhoods’ social disorganisation. accommodate a large share of potentially disruptive activities (e.g. night life) that generate unease among their residents. A more parsimonious model, that avoids problems of multicollinearity, is then calculated for four subsets of census 3.5.3. Methodology and estimation techniques tracts based on the size of municipalities: up to 5,000 inhabitants, from 5,001 to 35,000, from 35,001 to 225,000, and more than The regression models are set in a multilevel framework where 225,000. The main criterion for the division in these categories is census tracts (level 1) are nested within municipalities (level 2).7 that the subsets should be of a similar size (approximately 8,500 Random coefficient models are estimated (i.e. random intercepts cases). These subsets correspond to the following labels: rural but not slopes at the higher level) using restricted maximum areas, towns, medium-size cities, and large cities. likelihood (REML) with an independent covariance structure. Accounting for the hierarchical structure of the dataset is vital, Also included are a set of control variables—age, gender, given the large value of the intra-cluster correlation. Using commercial activity and informational cues—which are likely to perceived crime as the dependent variable and municipalities as exert an effect on perceived levels of crime. These are particularly the cluster variable, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) is relevant to understand the spatial patterns of perceived 0.24 in a multilevel model with no covariates (i.e. null model). neighbourhood crime. Age and sex are well-known explanatory factors of crime and social disorder (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983), 7 Throughout the study, variables are not centred on the group mean, implying that the estimates of the level-1 (census tract) coefficients are a complex weighted average of the between and within effects, except for variables as well as important visual cues for the assessment of neighbourhood that are included at both level 1 and 2 (e.g. models III and IV in table 3.2). LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

75  Moreover, it bears mentioning that the statistical significance of and vandalism are a problem in their areas—even though low levels coefficients (i.e. stars) is not shown since the analyses are based on of perceived crime and education concur in rural areas. a population census and therefore no statistical inferences need to be made to the general population. This is not to say that The predictive power and specification improve considerably in measurement errors are absent in the 2001 Population and the second model, where the reformulation of the theory proposed Housing Census, they are simply not factored in by adding the in previous sections is assessed through traditional determinants statistical significance of the coefficients. Besides, the “stars’’ would of social disorganisation, including family disruption and provide little guidance to the reader since a large number of cases urbanisation, and original measures, such as commuting time and (i.e. census tracts) produce tiny standard errors and uninformative overtime work. As expected, neighbours’ level of education is statistical tests of significance: almost every coefficient is statistically negatively related to perceived crime while the association with significant at the 95 per cent confidence level. In any case, t values unemployment rates is positive. In fact, for every additional are shown as an indicative measure of the relative strength of the percentage point in the number of university graduates, perceived coefficients. A last caveat to bear in mind is that, in order to avoid levels of crime decrease by more than 0.3 percentage points. In a the ecological fallacy, the interpretation of the results avoids country where 20 per cent of its census tracts have less than five making inferences about relationships at the individual level. After per cent of university graduates, and 10 per cent more than a third, all, the empirical analyses, the rationale behind the regression the scope for variations in perceived crime due to educational models and the interpretation of the findings refer to the attainment is considerable. These results confirm the expectation community-level, or at least that is the author’s intention. that, all else being equal, in economically deprived communities with fewer university graduates, residents perceive significantly higher crime in their area. Although not empirically tested, it is hypothesised that such a finding is caused mainly by the inability 3.6. RESULTS of adult residents to exert social control over local youth and interact with external agencies to attract city-wide resources. One In line with Shaw and McKay’s original theory, the first model (table could argue that the reason behind this is that affluent and 3.2) confirms the positive and significant association of economic educated people are better able to evaluate local crime rates and status (% higher education), ethnic heterogeneity (Herfindahl index) discern the real risks of being victimized. However, when the and residential turnover (length of residence) with perceived crime, perceptions of residents living in the same census tract are presumably through their impact on the social disorganisation of compared, it appears that both those with and without higher local communities. Surprisingly, the proportion of residents holding degrees have a similar likelihood of considering crime and a bachelors’ degree shows the strongest effect—higher proportions vandalism a problem —at least in the case of Madrid (see table of university graduates implying less residents stating that crime 4.2). More importantly, from table 2.15 we have learned that LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

76  census tract coefficients barely change with the introduction of In the matter at hand, it seems that the observed community-level individual variables, and this is also true for the case of education. effects call for community-level mechanisms and interpretations.

TABLE 3.2: Multilevel linear regression models. Exogenous sources of social disorganisation, signs of social disorder and perceived neighbourhood crime*

VARIABLE I II III IV Intercept 52.22 (47.8) –43.45 (–4.6) –46.90 (–6.8) –9.41 (–1.5) Level 1: census tracts Socioeconomic status % Higher education –0.34 (–40.9) –0.35 (–32.4) –0.39 (–35.3) –0.31 (–30.2) Unemployment rate 0.13 (11.7) 0.14 (12.9) 0.08 (8.4) National diversity & nationalities Herfindahl index –32.73 (–28.2) 37.89 (5.9) 37.43 (5.5) 30.82 (5.0) Reference: % Spain % European Union (15) 0.18 (2.01) 0.11 (1.2) 0.27 (3.3) % Morocco 1.18 (10.0) 1.13 (9.5) 0.91 (8.5) % Ecuador 0.85 (6.6) 0.79 (6.0) 0.50 (4.1) % Other foreign nationalities 1.11 (9.4) 1.04 (8.6) 0.81 (7.4) Residential stability Length of residence –0.45 (–36.9) –0.28 (–17.7) –0.41 (–19.1) –0.35 (–18.1) % Renters 0.13 (14.6) 0.12 (14.1) 0.04 (4.9) % Secondary residence 0.03 (3.1) 0.03 (3.7) –0.01 (–1.8) Available time for social control % Divorced/Separated 2.23 (29.6) 2.45 (25.0) 1.61 (18.0) % Overtime work 0.03 (3.6) 0.03 (2.8) 0.00 (0.5) Commuting time to work 0.28 (15.5) 0.25 (13.8) 0.22 (13.7) Number children per family 7.29 (15.1) 7.61 (15.7) 6.68 (15.3) Commuting time to school –0.08 (–6.9) –0.06 (–5.5) –0.05 (–5.0) LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

77  (Continue) Controls % Elderly –0.06 (–5.1) 0.00 (–0.1) 0.10 (8.3) % Women –0.01 (–0.2) –0.05 (–1.5) –0.27 (–9.2) Number retail shops/offices 0.01 (7.1) 0.01 (7.3) 0.00 (0.9) Perceived noise 0.29 (52.5) Perceived dirtiness 0.21 (47.2) Buildings' condition –0.26 (–20.5) Level 2: municipality Urbanisation Population size 8.27 (29.2) 5.43 (16.7) 3.94 (14.1) Population * Population –0.26 (–22.5) –0.18 (–14.1) –0.13 (–11.6) Spatial heterogeneity† % Higher education (Sd) 0.56 (7.8) 0.23 (3.6) Herfindahl index (Sd) 30.15 (4.7) 17.86 (3.2) Length of residence (Sd) –0.23 (–3.6) –0.27 (–4.9) % Divorced/Separated (Sd) 3.29 (6.2) 0.83 (1.8) Census tracts 34,251 34,251 34,251 34,251 Municipalities 8,108 8,108 8,108 8,108 Log restricted – likelihood –137,399 –135,505 135,243 –131,732 Intraclass correlation coefficient 22% 13% 12% 11% Variance reduction: census tract 9% 15% 16% 32% Variance reduction: municipality 20% 59% 63% 73%

* Dependent variable: “% of residents considering crime and vandalism a problem in their residential area”. z values in parentheses. † The absolute values of these variables are also included as control variables. (Sd): Standard deviation.

Explanations of perceived crime extend beyond economic crime, which remains fairly constant across the models. status. Census tracts in which long-established residents own Interestingly, this effect is unlikely to be the result of respondents’ their properties show lower levels of perceived crime. Family stereotyping, or use of informational cues, since the prevalence disruption presents a remarkably strong impact on perceived of family disruption is relatively invisible to residents. More LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

78  likely, the relationship originates in the deviant behaviour that of Moroccans, and to a lesser degree Ecuadorians, exerts results from insufficient social controls at the household and substantial effects. Whether these effects are related to natives’ community levels. In fact, the regression models suggest that a prejudices, foreigners’ input on neighbourhood life or other conflict between law-abiding adults and problematic teenagers reasons remains an open question.8 As for diversity itself— might exist, in line with an implicit assumption of social control multicollinearity issues aside—the effect on perceived theories. In this regard, the more time adults spend in their neighbourhood crime is in fact positive, in sharp opposition to households and communities (as measured by commuting time the social disorganisation framework developed by Shaw and to work and overtime work), the larger the proportion of adults McKay (1969[1942]). These results are proof that the effects of in relation to teenagers, and the less time teenagers spend in the Herfindahl Index and of specific nationalities are often their communities (as measured by commuting time to school), confounded, often leading to interpretations related to diversity the lower the levels of perceived crime are. Although specific when it is specific nationalities that really matter. effects might also be related to individual or other alternative explanations, the results are fairly consistent with the theoretical To conclude, the coefficients of the control variables show the expectations. expected signs. Across the different models no robust finding is observed for the proportion of women and elderly in the As expected, urbanisation is also positively related to residents’ population, whereas commercial areas are associated with perceptions of neighbourhood crime. However, the effect is higher perceived neighbourhood crime. However, and curvilinear, reaching its maximum when the population anticipating the results from model IV, the latter effect is largely approaches 1.6 million. Although the curvilinear relationship the result of the mediating effects of social disorder perceptions, does not fit the observed data perfectly, it is consistent with the and more specifically due to perceptions of noise levels. Thus, two largest cities—Barcelona and Madrid—showing lower the comparison of models suggests that census tracts with levels of observed and perceived crime than medium to large abundant offices and retail shops are perceived as unsafe mainly cities, such as Seville, Malaga and Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. because they are also perceived as noisy.

Whereas in the initial model national diversity appeared to 3.6.1. Spatial inequalities and perceived neighbourhood crime increase the perceived levels of crime, in subsequent models we discover that the negative association is not related to Model III in Table 3.2 gives support to the well-established idea “diversity’’ in and of itself, but rather with the specific that spatial inequality, at the municipal level, has a positive effect nationalities that account for the diversity of communities. on perceived crime. The effect extends beyond socioeconomic Thus, while the presence of citizens from the European Union barely impacts on residents’ perceptions of crime, the presence 8 See chapter 4 for a discussion of the mechanisms associated with immigrant effects. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

79  inequality and national/ethnic residential segregation to family rate, and the prevalence of home ownership. In contrast, the disruption—but not to residential turnover. These findings give effect of children per family remains almost identical. support to the importance of urban stratification and segregation in understanding patterns of perceived crime and partially 3.6.3. Rural-urban comparisons validate the literature’s interest in socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities. As can be inferred from table 3.3, social disorganisation theory has application beyond large cities: the exogenous sources of 3.6.2. Controlling for social disorder and physical decay social disorganisation are reasonably good predictors of perceived crime in medium-size cities and towns, and less so in Perceptions of noise and cleanliness, as well as the state of rural settings. However, as population grows, the performance buildings, are important predictors of crime perceptions, in line of the regression models improves considerably. While the with findings of prior research (Quillian and Pager, 2001; Taylor, model explains two per cent of the intra-municipality variance 2001). In fact, the reduction of residuals variance and the log- in the rural subset—5,000 inhabitants or less—it accounts for a likelihood improve considerably with the introduction of these quarter of the variance in the largest cities. More importantly, informational cues. Interestingly, perceptions of other core exogenous sources of social disorganisation grow in neighbourhood problems—more precisely pollution, lack of importance with the size of municipalities. This is especially true green areas or inadequate transportation accessibility—bear no for unemployment and education; unimportant in rural independent impact on crime perceptions.9 settlements, they are major predictors of perceived crime in urban centres. In fact, only rural areas seem particularly successful Though specific variables may vary substantially with the in controlling their younger populations, given the insignificant introduction of social disorder measures, the overall model impact of the number of children per household. In a similar holds reasonably well. In fact, only the coefficient for the vein, length of residence and commuting time to work show proportion of elderly population changes direction, and radical gradual increases in relevance as the population of the changes are observed just for the number of retail shops and municipalities increases. offices, the effect of which is fully mediated by the proportion of residents considering street noise a problem. Other interesting changes, largely related to the introduction of noise perceptions, are found for the presence of Ecuadorians, the unemployment

9 Results are available upon request. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

80  TABLE 3.3: Multilevel linear regression models. Determinants of perceived neighbourhood crime* by size of municipality

VARIABLES RURAL AREAS TOWNS MEDIUM SIZE CITIES LARGE CITIES Intercept 10.75 (6.2) –17.32 (–4.3) –43.75 (–7.1) 57.91 (8.4) Level 1: census tracts Socioeconomic status % Higher Education 0.04 (2.1) –0.09 (–3.8) –0.23 (–0.3) –0.30 (–12.6) Unemployment rate –0.04 (–4.9) 0.11 (5.8) 0.57 (15.2) 0.82 (16.9) National diversity Herfindahl index –7.03 (–5.4) –1.81 (–0.9) 3.13 (1.1) –37.70 (–14.0) Residential stability Length of residence dwelling –0.15 (–15.0) –0.28 (–9.0) –0.54 (–9.7) –0.70 (–11.7) Available time for social control % Divorced/Separated 0.46 (7.5) 2.58 (19.5) 3.15 (17.2) 1.77 (9.1) % Overtime work 0.02 (3.0) 0.04 (2.6) 0.15 (4.3) –0.12 (–2.2) Commuting time to work 0.09 (8.4) 0.11 (3.7) 0.28 (4.4) 0.55 (7.6) Number children per family 0.08 (0.3) 11.11 (11.2) 21.42 (15.4) 18.98 (12.3) Controls % Elderly –0.02 (–1.8) –0.08 (–2.7) 0.06 (1.4) 0.37 (8.7) % Women 0.02 (0.9) 0.07 (1.0) 0.18 (1.8) –0.80 (–7.6) Number retail shops/offices 0.01 (2.8) 0.01 (6.5) 0.00 (1.6) 0.02 (8.6) Level 2: municipalities Urbanisation Population size 65.72 (8.7) 33.64 (11.0) 4.30 (3.2) 0.25 (0.9) Census tracts 8,559 8,374 8,635 8,683 Municipalities 6,948 994 148 18 Log restricted - likelihood –27,399 –30,755 –34,886 –36,298 Intraclass correlation coefficient 50% 33% 24% 18% Variance reduction: census tract 2% 12% 15% 23% Variance reduction: municipality 23% 40% 37% 51%

* Dependent variable: “% of residents considering crime and vandalism a problem in their residential area”. z values in parentheses.

Rural areas: < 5,000; towns: 5,000-35,000; medium size cities: 35,000-225,000; large cities: > 225,000. AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

81  Other exogenous sources portray more irregular patterns. This 3.6.4. Comparisons of Spain’s largest cities is the case for national diversity, the impact of which varies dramatically depending on the size of municipality. In rural Since the social disorganisation model performs better in large settlements and large cities, national diversity is associated cities, the next step to test its generalisability and robustness is to with higher levels of perceived crime but the opposite is true carry out a set of “parsimonious’’ analyses for the 10 largest cities for medium-size cities. While the result for large cities is in Spain: Barcelona, Bilbao, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Madrid, expected—spatial stratification (and self-selection) is sizeable Malaga, Murcia, Palma de Mallorca, Seville, Valencia and Zaragoza. and economic migrants outnumber European Union citizens These cities present sharp differences in terms of population size by seven to one—the outcome in rural settlements—where and prevalence of perceived neighbourhood crime (table 3.4). the ratio is only two to one—is unanticipated. It might be the Interestingly, whereas in Seville almost 60 percent of census case that the low spatial stratification of rural areas forces respondents state that there is crime and vandalism in their migrants and natives to interact regularly, negatively affecting residential areas, in Bilbao barely 20 percent of respondents do so. natives’ perceived crime—in line with conflict theory (Blalock, 1967)—or, alternatively, that the low pay and poor working In line with the findings for the rural/urban subsets, and with those conditions of agricultural occupations, where migrants tend to of Shaw and McKay (1969[1942]), the relationship between concentrate, lead to workers’ frustration and, in turn, to rises in (national) diversity and perceived crime is anything but robust social disorganisation, social disorder, and eventually to crime (table 3.4 and figure 3.1). The beta coefficients vary dramatically and vandalism (Arjona and Checa, 2005). It could also be the across cities, even showing a positive sign in the case of Las Palmas, case that immigrants self-selected themselves into already Seville and Valencia. The opposite is true for the socioeconomic disorganised municipalities. However, a more accurate status of areas—here represented by the proportion of residents description based on the municipality of El Ejido and its holding a higher degree. Not only the coefficient remains negative agricultural business model (Checa, 2001), would be that the across the board, it also bears the strongest influence among the arrival of immigrants did increase the level of social four structural factors in 6 out of the 10 cities analysed. In a similar disorganisation but only because local communities decided vein, residential stability and family disruption show consistent to reap the benefits of cheap immigrant labour without coefficients across all cities, the former decreasing the levels of providing sufficient socioeconomic support, especially decent perceived crime and the latter increasing them. Thus, the message housing. from the various robustness tests is clear: bar the case of (national) diversity, the social disorganisation model is a useful framework to understand differences in perceived neighbourhood crime. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

82  TABLE 3.4: OLS linear regressions. Standardised coefficients of the main exogenous sources of social disorganisation for the 10 largest cities in Spain

BETA COEFFICIENTS* % PERCEIVED % HIGHER LENGTH OF DIVORCE / POPULATION (2001) HERFINDAHL INDEX CRIME EDUCATION RESIDENCE SEPARATED Barcelona 1,503,884 34.20 –0.51 –0.31 –0.01 0.07 Bilbao 349,972 20.34 –0.17 –0.41 –0.23 0.26 Las Palmas 354,863 46.36 –0.29 0.19 –0.17 0.46 Madrid 2,938,723 42.11 –0.53 –0.17 –0.23 0.11 Malaga 524,414 50.35 –0.28 –0.01 –0.22 0.23 Murcia 370,745 31.70 –0.23 –0.04 –0.20 0.13 Palma 333,801 35.15 –0.43 –0.17 –0.09 0.13 Seville 684,633 57.94 –0.16 0.03 –0.03 0.26 Valencia 738,441 46.41 –0.33 0.10 –0.07 0.25 Zaragoza 614,905 25.52 –0.08 –0.04 –0.23 0.41

* Based on OLS regression models, carried out separately for each city, that include the following controls: % elderly, % women, number of retail shops and offices and number of children per family.

Two conclusions can be drawn from the empirical findings in population size of their municipalities. Finally, that among the this chapter. First, that the social disorganisation framework can classical exogenous sources of social disorganisation, it is ethnic be extended not only from observed to perceived crime, but diversity—here national diversity—that presents the most also beyond large cities—especially to medium-size cities and erratic behaviour as an explanatory factor of perceived towns. Second, that residentially unstable communities, with neighbourhood crime. Not only is its effect unimportant in above-average levels of family disruption and commuting times, towns and medium-size cities, but in 3 out of the 10 largest cities are likely to carry negative crime reputations, irrespective of the in Spain it is actually negative. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

83  FIGURE 3.1: OLS linear regressions for the 10 largest cities in Spain. 3.7. CONCLUSIONS Standardised coefficients for the main exogenous sources of the social disorganisation theory Among developed countries, continental Europe and the United States are often regarded as being at opposite ends of a crime continuum. True, homicide prevalence and the size of the prison BARCELONA population are certainly divergent—homicide rates are typically three to five times higher in the US compared to any western EU BILBAO member state (UNODC, 2010) and the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world (World Prison Population LAS PALMAS List, 2009). Yet, explanations developed almost a century ago designed to account for neighbourhood crime in America’s MADRID largest cities perform extraordinarily well in the urban Spanish context. That is, social disorganisation—a successful construct MALAGA developed by urban sociologists at the University of Chicago— remains a meaningful approach for understanding variations in MURCIA perceived neighbourhood crime in Spain’s urban census tracts and municipalities. PALMA

In fact, classical exogenous sources of social disorganisation— SEVILLE socioeconomic status, residential stability, family disruption, and urbanisation—perform reasonably well in explaining the VALENCIA proportion of residents considering crime and vandalism a

ZARAGOZA problem in their residential areas. The only exception is (national) diversity as its effect is inconsistent; its association with perceived –0,6 –0,4 –0,2 0,00,2 0,40,6 crime hinges excessively upon the internal composition of the % Higher Herfindahl Length Divorced / education Index of residence Separated foreign population. Specifically, Moroccan citizens are consistently associated, in reality or in respondents’ minds, with criminal Source: Own elaboration using the 2001 Population and Housing Census. activities; the opposite being true for citizens of the EU-15. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

84 

Barcelona Divorced / Separated Bilbao Length of residence Las Palmas Madrid Her ndahl Index Malaga % Higher education Murcia Palma Seville Valencia Zaragoza -0,6 -0,4 -0,20,0 0,20,4 0,6 However, this analysis was not only aimed at testing the It is important to note that the simple, aggregate and indirect traditional exogenous sources of social disorganisation; assessment of social disorganisation theory undertaken here additional exogenous sources and measures were incorporated has its own shortcomings. For one thing, plausible stories linking into the analyses, significantly improving the performance of the the exogenous sources of social organisation with perceived empirical models. Thus, variables closely related to guardianship crime are manifold; whether they follow, in the Spanish case, and surveillance in the community, were also relevant predictors the community-level rationale hypothesised in this chapter is of crime. This is the case for commuting time to work, home an issue that deserves further investigation. In fact, the two ownership, number of children per family unit, and overtime main assumptions or hypotheses in social disorganisation work. Finally, municipalities with higher spatial inequalities or theory cannot be robustly sustained with the kind of data used residential segregation/ concentration reveal higher levels of in this chapter. First, that variations in perceived crime are perceived crime, a result which holds for three of the four explained primarily at the community-level; and second, that dimensions analysed: levels of education, national diversity and the effect of the characteristics of communities on perceived family disruption. crime is mediated by their level, or type, of social organisation, whether that refers to networks of local friendships and The empirical models also support the hypothesis that the social acquaintances, voluntary organisations or political bodies. disorganisation model can be extended beyond large cities and, Despite these limitations the chapter has extended the study of particularly, to medium-size cities and towns (with populations the social disorganisation model to an understudied social of 35,000 to 225,000 and 5,000 to 35,000, respectively). As regards environment and an understudied measure of social disorder, specific factors, urbanisation, residential stability and family such as perceived neighbourhood crime. Moreover, to the disruption showed a consistent effect across municipalities of author’s best knowledge, this is the first study to employ data different sizes, whereas the influence of national diversity, and for all households and for all census tracts in a given country, less so of economic status, exhibited a more erratic pattern. permitting valuable rural-urban comparisons and comparisons However, it is in the largest cities that the exogenous sources of an unlimited number of municipalities. have the largest and most consistent effects, barring again national diversity, which has a negative effect on perceived neighbourhood crime in 3 out of the 10 cities analysed. LOCAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION AND PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME IN SPAIN SOCIAL DISORGANISATION CONDITIONS, LOCAL

85  IV. PERCEIVED NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME AND IMMIGRATION IN MADRID: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION on crime determinants—among which is the pervasive belief in a crime-immigration nexus—that generally rely on blunt The public debate around crime and immigration is plagued with correlations. And whereas ideological citizens may be indifferent prejudices, beliefs and hidden agendas, rarely based on rigorous to refined and rigorous analyses (i.e. “they are set in their ways”), analyses. Objective debate in Spain, in particular, is hampered by widespread stereotypes are frequently adjusted, even if mildly, in the scarcity of rigorous studies on crime determinants, both at response to new evidence, for as Gans (1962) notes: “No group the individual and the community level. As a result, the debate is can long retain a conceptual system that does not stand up often reduced to anti-immigration campaigners trumpeting the against experience”. existence of a bivariate association at the individual level and supporters of immigrants qualifying these over simplistic Tackling anti-immigrant prejudice is vital, for the overstatement associations or avoiding the question altogether. of immigrants’ criminal involvement not only improves the electoral chances of extremist parties (Coffe, Heyndels and The truth is that the debate has been firmly won by the anti- Vermeir, 2007), and frees xenophobic politicians from immigration stance; the belief in a crime-immigration nexus has embarrassment and ostracism but, more importantly, it forces intensified in the last two decades (figure 2.4) and, even if the mainstream parties, regardless of their views on immigration, to current financial crisis has reduced the saliency of any non- satisfy citizens’ anti-immigrant attitudes through further economic issue (figure 2.1), it has acquired a prime importance in restrictions on immigration (Martínez, 2006; Mears, 2002) and the the public agenda (Pinyol, 2008). A restrictive and chaotic release toughening of criminal law (Stumpf, 2006). Neglecting the analysis in M adrid : a spatial P erceived neighbourhood crime and immigration of sensitive data in Spain not only has limited the accountability subject, as liberal social scientists often do (Sampson, 1987), is no of public officials, but has given free rein to “ideological” stories longer an option, for mainstream society is largely convinced,

86 albeit to different degrees, that although “not all immigrants are analyses notonlyadjust for area to thatare characteristics likely perceived level. crimeatthecensus tract To doso, thestatistical groups—based on their region oforigin—onthelevels of of six differentgauge the effect of the proportion immigrant applied in the social sciences. precisely,More this chapter will andimplicationsofarange ofspatialmodels commonly adequacy The secondary, andmore technical, purposeisto assessthe 3) spatialinterdependence into consideration. istaken figures are employed, 2)the usualcontrols are adjusted for, and level atthecommunity when1)truepopulation observable (Echazarra, 2012)insurveys, butthisassociationisbarely (figure 2.4)orindirectly directly of aggregation, whenasked associate crimeandimmigration,individuals typically atany level research. That is, that that merits further inconsistency the fact does,needed—and yet itcan,andinfact pointto aninteresting level—datathe community on“real” crimerates would be analysis says nothingaboutthetruecrime-immigration nexusat correlated across adjacent residential areas. of Note that this type of residents considering crime a problem proportion is highly interdependence oftheoutcome variable, meaningthatthe by in the severe factoring previous analysis a step spatial further the presence of immigrant takes of Madrid. groups in the city It relationship between perceptions crimeand ofneighbourhood 2005; Welch, 2003),thischapter rigorously examinesthe In lightoftheextensive criminalisationofimmigrants (Wacquant, delinquents, mostdelinquentsare immigrants’’ (Soléetal.,2000). 87 live? 2) To is this relationship what extent mediated by classical crime higher in areasneighbourhood where immigrant groups thechapter answers threeIn short, questions:1)Isperceived including spatiallag, spatialerror andhierarchical linearmodels. inherent inurbanresearch through asetof“spatial models”, disorganisation model—butaccount for thespatialdependency impinge oncrimeperceptions—following thesocial and forced provedinteractions on some occasions disastrous, as parochialism, immigrants’ conditions, poorlivingandworking ethnically mixed rural areas where a combination of contextual in generating distress amongthenative population,particularly The massive and sudden influx of migrants was certainly and politicaldiscourses atthetime. innativistattacks,as reflected publicopinionsurveys, themedia to crime—intoimplicit orexplicitconnection thepublicagenda, with thedecisive entrance oftheimmigrant “problem”—and its 21 From November 2002,Spain’s 2001to January firstcensus ofthe NEXUS 4.2. world regions shapethelevels ofperceived crime? and3)How doneighboursoriginatingfrom differenttheory? crime determinants, asdefinedby thesocialsisorganisation st century was in conducted Spanish households, century coinciding THE SOARING SALIENCY OF THE CRIME-IMMIGRATION

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis in thecasesofBanyoles (1999)andNíjar(1999).The ElEjidoriots was finallymodifiedby Organic thePeople’s Law ninemonthsafter 8/2000, enacted success. electoral Party Law (Ley Orgánica) 4/2000—thathadreplaced theoutdated andrestrictive law from 1985.The immigration law 3 The debate centred around the reform ofthe“permissive” 2000—Organic immigration law inJanuary enacted hadincreased toSpain, by 41percent (ASEPsurveys). 2000theproportion 2 From respondents 1997through considered 1999,27percent ofsurvey thatthere were too many foreigners in southeast ofSpain. populationandtheirbelongings, attheMaghreb attacks directed spreading to othermunicipalitiesinthe 1 InFebruary 2000,thedeathofayoung Spaniard by triggered amentallydisabledMoroccan arash ofviolent aboutimmigrationintensifying (figure publicanxiety 4.1) were upby immediately picked themedia,temporarily statements Maghrebis”. and unfortunate Moroccans to The housing] and religion orthat herhusbandwas ofgiving[public “tired that immigrants were “constantly to impose” trying their customs Ferrusola, thenwife ofCatalunya’s president Jordi Pujol, claimed but revived ayear later, amongotherreasons becauseMarta oftheimmigration theelections issuewanedThe after saliency crime-immigration nexus(figure 4.1). immigrants the publicwas increasingly concerned aboutthenumberof inElEjido was stillfreshconflict in voters’ minds, but also because becausethe 2000inanunprecedentedMarch fashion,partly The immigrant of phenomenonaffected thegeneral elections (2000). followed in other municipalities, by similar actions such as Lepe reverberated amonthlater, untilthegeneral elections andwere drew theattention ofEurocrats andtheinternational media, on theentire community. Maghreb Notsurprisingly, theevents motivated gangsbut, instead, itwas ageneralised native attack towards immigrant “representatives” andledby ideologically (2000) 1 marked aturningpointfor marked theattackwas notdirected 2 andthoroughly convinced oftheexistence ofa 3 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 0 5 Mar 99 Mar Sep 00 Sep Oct 00 Oct Nov 00 Dec 00 Dec Jan 01 88 Feb 01 the crime-immigration nexus],itwas undeniable that“45per although theyagreed withthePSOE [on thespuriousnessof (PP), through itsInterior Minister, Rajoy, Mariano replied that immigrantshard-working withcriminals. The People’s Party Government of anyfailing to and of associating take actions specifically.Madrid The (PSOE) accused the Socialist Party to anincrease inhomicides and crimerates more generally, in de los Diputados immigration link that arose in the NationalParliament ( relevantMore to thischapter was the debate around thecrime- elaborationSource: usingdatafrom CISbarometer Own surveys. Mar 01 Mar 30 20 10 15 25 35 OFTHETHREEMAINPROBLEMSINSPAIN % RESPONDENTSCONSIDERINGIMMIGRATION ANDPUBLICSAFETYONE 0 5 Apr 01

May 01 MAR 99 FIGURE 4.1:

Jun 01 SEP 00 OCT 00 Jul 01

Sep 01 Sep NOV 00

Oct 01 Oct DEC 00

Nov 01 JAN 01 ) amonthbefore the2001Census, inresponse Evolution ofpublicopiniononimmigration

Dec 01 Dec FEB 01 MAR 01 Jan 02 and publicsafety inSpain

Feb 02 APR 01

Mar 02 Mar MAY 01 Immigration

Apr 02 JUN 01

May 02 JUL 01

Jun 02 SEP 01 OCT 01 Jul 02

Sep 02 Sep NOV 01

Oct 02 Oct DEC 01 Public safety

Nov 02 JAN 02

Dec 02 Dec FEB 02 MAR 02 APR 02 MAY 02 JUN 02 JUL 02

Congreso SEP 02 OCT 02

Immigration Public safety Immigration Public safety NOV 02 DEC 02

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis cent thisyear ofthose underarrest inMadrid were foreigners” 4 SpanishCongress (Congreso delosDiputados),03/10/2001. and immigration were interrelated (figure 4.1),by 2000 the (CIS barometer indicators), androughly 50percent thatcrime respondents claimed thatimmigration was aproblem inSpain Moreover, whereas in1999onlytwo percent ofsurvey least 10were dedicated to thecrime-immigration nexus. merely 6in1997to 77four years later (Abellá,2006),ofwhichat referring specificallyto immigration, soared dramatically from coverage. For instance, op-edsinthethree mainnewspapers momentum in Spainis evident in public opinion polls andmedia That theperception ofanimmigrant “problem” gained concomitantly inresponse to thisdebate (figure 4.1). concern aboutbothpublicsafety andimmigration increased several times” ( foreignersand findways tothathave deport beencharged immigrant population,but(..)we mustaccelerate prosecutions to avoidtimes—stated that“isnecessary demonisingthe the caseofaMoldovian recidivist—allegedly detained107 constrained by politicalcorrectness, andheavily influenced by [sic]”( factors to ignore thatthere isaproven relationship between both situation [theincrease inhomicides],itwould alsobedemagogic argued that“ifitisfalseandunfairto blameimmigrants for this andanti-immigrationseemingly politicalcorrectness sentiment, 2006). The conservative least sixmonthsandwas echoedinnewspapereditorials (Abellá, orders”. and that“we shouldavoid delays indealingwithdeportation 4 The debate persisted intheNationalParliament for at ABC El Mundo , 10/12/2001). , 05/11/2001).Notsurprisingly, public ABC , inasimilarcombination of El Mundo , somewhatmore 89 thereafter. This isnotto say thatcrime andimmigration were and waned, ofpublicdebate itnever stopped beingapart issue onthepoliticalagenda,andeven ifitsrelevance waxed months of2001,thecrime-immigration nexuswas animportant As aresult, by thetimecensus was inthelast conducted only continued to risethereafter. hadrisento 7and64percent respectively,proportions and in theCISbarometers (seefigure 2.1). 5 Public safety andimmigration have invariably lagged behindunemployment andterrorism aspublic concerns et al.,2010)suchas number ofdetainees, incarcerated andcourt to rely almost exclusively measures ofcrime(García onreported and national levels.community Researchers have been forced complete absence of, measures ofcrimelevels attheindividual, mentioned, thisislargely theresult ofinadequate, a andoften general, islimited andmethodologicallywanting. As previously the crime-immigration nexus, andcrimedeterminants in Compared to othercountries, empiricalevidence inSpainon SPAIN ANDELSEWHERE 4.3. immigration. experiencing aconcomitant riseinbothcrimerates and crime,neighbourhood was apparently ifonlybecauseMadrid the influence ofimmigrant communities on perceived isanidealmomentto evaluateargue thattheturnofcentury became themostprominent issueinSpanishpolitics. not previously associated, or thatthenexusbetween them EVIDENCE ONTHECRIME-IMMIGRATION NEXUS IN 5 It isto It

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis appearances; have thoughsomeacademicandpublicefforts causal evidence. focus mainly on bivariate associations and fail to provide any (Gómez-Fraguela etal.,2009). These studies, however,analysed evidence when deviant behaviour among adolescents is measurement are adjusted for 2000)—andmixed (García, the “nativity gap” decreases substantiallywhenerrors of are over-represented in crime statistics (see chapter 2)—though At the individual level there is robust evidence that immigrants understand andexplain“real” crime. researchin Spain have efforts been devoted mainly to describe, assessments of crime rates crimelevels. thanto actual Hence, more are responsive often toand policy-makers citizens’ disregarded thissource ofinformation, even thoughpoliticians and HousingCensus 2001),however, scholarshave largely exist regarding andPopulation crimeperceptions (CISsurveys poorly recorded. Abundantandproperly geocoded datado studies,community orthegeographical references may be instead or censusunsuitable to of neighbourhoods tracts) they correspond to levels ofaggregation (i.e. districts city are geographically referenced, surveys and whenvictimisation is onlypubliclyavailable atthenationalandprovincial levels, crime ofdelinquentsarecharacteristics reported rarely known, crime determinants in Spain is lacking, for individual (Gómez-Fraguela etal.,2009).Despitetheseefforts, thestudyof Pública deCatalunya Survey,(International CrimeVictims been devoted rates to gatheringdataonvictimisation , etc.),

and self-reported deviantbehaviourand self-reported Enquesta deSeguretat 90 controls (e.g. residential turnover, commercial activity, etc.), the Spanishcontext, thesestudiesfailto incorporate vital in (Alonso-Borrego etal.,2008).Although thefirstoftheirkind crime growth negative was in the actually 2000-2006 period 2003)andhow the“Latino”Rodríguez-Andrés, contribution to serious andtotal offenses (Alonso-Borrego etal.,2008; immigrant concentration onminor, apositive exerts impact At theprovincial level, two longitudinalstudieshave shown how demographic factors suchasagediversity.demographic factors social organisation is mediated by, andfrequently multiplied by, Furthermore, how the effectofethnicdiversity oncommunities’ importantly, ofneighbourhoods. characteristics contextual are influenced by aseriesofresidents’ attributes and, more in a“Chinese whispers” fashion.Second, how theseperceptions beyond neighbourhoods, withconsiderable andoften distortion interest here. First, how perceptions of crime diffuse within and leaders and “brokers”,neighbourhood three findings are of interpret theempiricalresults. From their detailedstudyof development of this chapter, both to generate hypotheses and (Cachón, 2008)proveddistricts usefulinthe extremely andimmigration inthree dealing withconflict Madrid project for thatmatter, level. atthecommunity Nonetheless, aqualitative analysing immigrant concentration effects, orcrimedeterminants To theauthor’s knowledge, there isnoquantitative study havesurveys clearlyshown etal.,2010). (García prove highly unreliable as its comparison with victimisation and basetheirresults exclusively crime, onreported whichcan inconsequential to used in this perspective book, the community focus onaunitofanalysis—Spanishprovinces—that is

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis Evidence onimmigration and crime elsewhere, and particularly appears as a key context inshaping crimeinvolvement context appears as akey ofboth et al.,2006;Vazsonyi andKillias, 2001). Third, theneighbourhood Levi andDinovitzer, andAstor, 2008;Morenoff 2006;Rumbaut the first, one-and-a-half, second andthird generations (Hagan, in crimeinvolvement incomparisons whichisreflected between and acculturation bring aboutarapid into rise thehostsociety on officialstatistics(Rumbautetal.,2006). Second, assimilation and Dinovitzer, 2008; and Morenoff Astor, 2006) and those based data(Hagan,Levi1969[1942]), studiesusingindividual survey andRosenfeld,Martínez 2001;Reidetal.,2005,Shaw andMcKay, discernible inecological analyses(Butcher andPiehl, 1998;Lee, recent wave isalso 2002).It (HaganandPalloni, 1998;Martínez, United States (Stofflet, 1941;Vechten, 1941)andinthemore inthewave aboutimmigrant delinquency of“public anxiety” violence. intheresponse This to findingisobservable thefirst have eithernoeffectoranegative effectonlevels ofcrimeand First andforemost, previous studieshave found thatimmigrants and place, several common patterns are clearlyidentifiable. immigration nexusreveal considerable variation across time Although findingsstemming from theresearch onthecrime- Stinchcombe etal.,1980). andPeffley,1997; Hurwitz 1997;QuillianandPager, 2001; considerableattracted attention (Chiricos, Hogan and Gertz, immigration is non existent, yet its relationship with race has knowledge, research onperceived crimeand neighbourhood descriptive andmultivariate analyses. To thebestofauthor’s aggregation and immigrant groups, and are based on both have focused ondifferent geographical settings, levels of in theUnited States, ismore extensive andrigorous since studies 91 (Rumbaut etal., 2006). Inaddition,Asians, with their emphasis assimilation to thecriminalrates ofthenative population determines their segmentedeconomic opportunities—that that aboundintheirlocalcommunities—in essence, blocked withstand the“crime-facilitating 2002) conditions” (Martinez, of inability 2006; Shaw andMcKay, 1969[1942])anditisprecisely the andAstor, 2006;Morenoff natives andimmigrants (Martinez, In thischapter, ethnic groups categorised by broad regional or cultural experience amongLatinosresiding intheUnited States. socioeconomic andacommon conditions (poorbut working) several grounds, includingashared language, similar (2002)argues thattheuseof“Latino”Martinez isjustifiable on local communities (Bursik,2006).These criticsnotwithstanding, nationalities and ethnic groups to thehost society, andtheir and politicaldifferences” thataffecttheadaptation ofspecific Europeans orBlacks—since it“confounds thecultural, structural, categories” (Rumbautetal.,2006)—suchasAsians, Latinos, inidividuals into ahandfulofone-size-fits-all racialised However, somescholarshave criticisedthe“badhabitoflumping Whites. turnover, butstillhigherthanthatofaffluentnon-Hispanic housing discrimination,concentrated andresidential poverty Americans, withwhom theyshare similarlevels of segregation, involvement ofLatinos is significantly lower thanthatofAfrican heterogeneity remains substantial.For crime theirpart, and incarceration rates (Rumbautetal.,2006),althoughinternal (Hagan,Levi2006), youth andDinovitzer, delinquency 2008), obligations”, have thelowest homociderates (Lee andMartínez, on “harmony, interconnectedness, andfamily andcommunity some (Tonry, 1997)second generation immigrants to

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis national originsconstitute thecore oftheanalysis, thoughthe three previous years (see figure 4.2). only becausethelion’s share ofimmigrants hadarrived inthe were still unaccustomed to therecent demographic trends, if becoming amajorimmigration hub, Madrid’s native residents changesto itsneighbourhoods. Yet,important despite roughly eleven percent ofthepopulation—was bringing about less soinMadrid, where asizeable immigrant community— earlystageinSpain,butimmigrant phenomenonwas atavery the census was toward conducted theendof2001, Using data from the municipal register, it is obvious that when residential areas. of theforeign-born oftheir population,andthecharacteristics growth oftheimmigrant population),thenationalcomposition includes thestageofmigration process (i.e. size andrate of concentration effectsonperceived crime. neighbourhood This that are relevantaspects to the measurement of immigrant immigrant isprovided, populationinMadrid focusing onthose In whatfollows, information ofthe onthecharacteristics 4.4. stereotyping. “amalgamation”but rather ontheexternal produced by natives’ rationale isnotsomuchbasedontheirinternal homogeneity, THE IMMIGRANT POPULATIONTHE IMMIGRANT INMADRID 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25 0 5 0 5 92 that forty-five thousand,that forty-five or1.5percent ofthe total population,currently live inMadrid. 6 Althoughnoofficial figures existfor thesize oftheRomapopulation, theFundación Gitanostates Secretariado the firstgeneration ofimmigrants, andifanything to the 1.5 debate around thecrime-immigration nexusrelates primarilyto prior to thearrival of immigrant communities. population, Madrid’s population was ethnically homogeneous ethnic diversity since, withthesoleexception ofthe Roma To alesserdegree, to ethnicminoritiesand thislogicextends yielding similarresults whenperceptions ofcrimeare analysed. to-year changes, are similarly effective proxies of immigration, First, counts offoreign nationals, theforeign-born, andtheiryear- The implications of a fledgling immigration process are manifold. elaborationSource: usingdatafrom theNationalStatisticsInstitute. Own 10 15 20 25 0 5 FIGURE 4.2: 86 91 population inMadrid, 1986-2010 Evolution oftheforeign andforeign-born 96 % For 98 eign nationals 99 00 01 02 03 % For 04 eign-bor 05 n 06 6 Secondly, the 07 08 09

% Fo % Fo 10 reign nationals reign-bor n Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Spanish Fo reig n generation. 7 The 1.5generation refers to foreign-born youth whomigrated before their adolescence (Rumbaut andIma,1988). develop, as live-in andinaffluent areas working domesticworkers. centre,initially settledinthe city to where networks started As regards theirgeographical distribution(figure 4.4),immigrants role intheevaluation ofthecrime-immigration nexus. traditions, cultures to are andpractices play expected animportant reactions, ofbothnatives andimmigrants, towards unfamiliar transformation alsoimpliesthat ofaquasi-homogeneoussociety crime,rather than observed this exceptional and sudden community. Since we are interested inthelevels ofperceived becausetheyare consistently associated with theRoma partly more recently, Eastern Europeans, have “caught up”—the latter negative reputation (seefigure 4.3),andonlyMoroccans, and massive influxofimmigrants, theRomafirmlymaintainedtheir it was to more employ likely firearms. However, even the after was organised,changes, delinquency suchthatthe “new” orthat existing discourse around theRomapopulationwithsubtle early stages, thecrime-immigration nexusdrew heavily onthe and crimewould probably have been created mainstream around society—discourses ethnicity, immigration crimeanddrugdealingbymiddle-ages andassociated withpetty if itwerefact, not for the Roma population—established since the which immigrants transform aquasi-homogeneoussociety. In Finally, thisresearch dealswithauniquehistorical context, onein a difference thatgradually disappearsinsuccessive generations. first generations are lessinvolved thannatives, incriminalactivities Ewing, 2007)have American context, how shown, in theNorth and Dinovitzer, andAstor, 2008;Morenoff 2006;Rumbautand 7 This isrelevant, since numerous studies(Hagan,Levi ex novo . In these . In these 93 settlement, especiallyfor theAsian communities andthe maintaineditsrolethe central asanarea for district first and McKenzie, 1925),andinspite ofelevated housing prices, terms. Consistent (Park, withtheconcentric zone theory Burgess affordable housing, andwealthy foreigners dwindledinrelative immigrants moved outfrom live-in domesticwork andinto relative to deprivedbecame lessimportant areas across Madrid, as In later stages (i.e. inthelastdecade),affluentneighbourhoods Source: Own elaborationSource: from ASEPdata. Own Ecuadorians, Rumanians)drawn by more affordable housing. Dominicans, (e.g. andsomerecentMoroccans) migrants (e.g. longer-standing communitiesrings andthesuburbsattracted Chinese inparticular, whereas disadvantaged areas intheouter 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 FIGURE 4.3: 95 96 Evolution ofuneasiness(0-10scale)withthepossibility of having groups asneighbours selected 97 Roma origin Sub-sahara 98 99 00 Mor China 01 occo 02 03 South America Easter 04 n Eur 05 ope 06 07

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis

R M

East Sub China S R M East China S Sub outh A outh A oma or oma or or or

-sahar

-sahar occ occ er er n E n E mer mer ig ig ur ur a a in in ope ope ica ica To thatthisprocess theextent ofspatialspecialisationwas still particular group resides. particular canbeinterpreted census8 The tract typical astheresidential area inwhichtheaverage memberofa (ortypical) comparatively fewer women. Africans andEastern Europeans indeprived areas with natives, Asians incommercially urbansettings, active and deprived of elderly communities with a high proportion areas withabundantcommercial activity, LatinAmericansin 4.4): Western Europeans lived in relatively affluent residential noted since theysettledindifferent (figure areas ofthecity However, for differences specificgroups, important are to be economic status, residential turnover, familydisruption). born highly correlated with the usual correlates of crime (e.g. thannatives,census tracts offoreign- norwas theproportion this initial stage, into radically did not self-select different immigrants, in inparticular—as andmulticollinearity selection ecological analysesofthecrime-immigration nexus—self- similarities easesomeoftheproblems thatbeset most differences were notgreat. From astatisticalperspective, these offoreign-born—and,and theproportion even for these, the some variables—such ascommercial activity, numberofcars natives andforeign-born residents were only for observable significant differences census between tract thetypical were widening, butstillnotsignificant(table4.1).Interestingly, differences between native andimmigrant neighbourhoods under way by thetime2001Census was conducted, 8 of of 94 Source: Own elaborationSource: usingdatafrom the2001Population Own andHousingCensus. i, andYisthenumberofmemberscitywide. * X= % Unemployment % Higherdegree % Foreign-born Perceived crime(%residents) (No. shops andoffices) Commercial activity % Women % 15-24years Perceived pollution(%residents) Perceived (% residents) dirtiness Perceived noise(%residents) Buildings' condition (0-100) turnout(%) Electoral Population (1,000inh./km²) density % Children single-parent households ofresidenceTime (years) Home size (€m²) No. ofcarsperhousehold(mean) House prices (€) TABLE 4.1: ∑ i n =1 x i (y AREA CHARACTERISTICS i / Y), where x /Y), Characteristics of the typical census tract inwhichnatives census tract ofthetypical Characteristics i andy i are thevalue XandthenumberofYmembersincensus ofcharacteristic tract

and theforeign-born live* NATIVE 55.04 53.22 16.31 26.06 43.18 39.30 96.13 72.84 33.39 15.21 18.26 79.66 2.139 12.49 24.52 41.57 0.97 9.35 FOREIGN-BORN 71.32 53.62 15.64 26.55 44.36 39.78 95.19 72.16 36.68 15.23 18.54 76.22 2.185 12.63 24.14 13.07 43.96 0.88

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis Source: Own elaborationSource: usingdata from the National StatisticsInstitute Own (INE). FIGURE 4.4: G. OTHERASIAN C. POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE PERCENTAGE A. SPAIN E. OTHERAFRICANS groups inMadrid’s (2002) 128neighbourhoods Geographical distribution ofnativesGeographical andimmigrant

F. LATIN AMERICA D. ARABCOUNTRIES B. WESTEREUROPEANDRICHCOUNTRIES quartiles ascut-off points. of equalsizeusingthe divided intofourgroups The variableshavebeen Division byquartiles: 4th 3rd 2nd 1st

95 Latin American originated from countries with significantlylower GDP percapita any, referred largely to economic migrants, since nineoutoften what animmigrant effectthen entailed. Foreign-born effects, if length of residence provides usefulinformation to understand are shown. The analysisoftheforeign-born populationandtheir figure 4.5where thelargest immigrant groups inthe2001Census Rumanians duringthelastdecade. These waves are apparent in their respective financialcrises—andBolivians, Chineseand Ecuadorians andArgentinians atthe turnofcentury—following Filipinos inthe1980s, andPeruvians Dominicans inthe1990s, in successive waves: Simplifyingtheprocess, and Moroccans As inothercontexts, theimmigrant settled population inMadrid elaborationSource: usingdatafrom the2001Population Own andHousingCensus. 100 W. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 Europe+Rich 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 FIGURE 4.5: 0 Arab countries

P LATIN AMERICAN ost %

W. EUROPE * RICH and lengthofresidence inSpain,2001Census To -c O tal for ARAB COUNTRIES omm. Eur. ther Asian O Country oforigintheforeign-born Country population eign-bor

ther African POST-COMM. EUR.

OTHERASIAN n OTHERSAFRICANS Ecuador C olombia % Arrivedbefore ECUADOR Mo

Dominican Re COLOMBIA rocco MOROCCO P eru PERU 1996 Argentina

DOMINICAN REP.

Fr ARGENTINA anc FRNACE C p. % Arrivedbefore Rumania uba e CUBA German RUMANIA

China GERMANY Philipines 1991 CHINA y PHILIPINES

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis than Spain.They alsoreferred to firstgeneration LatinAmericans 13 Modifications of census tracts occurfrequently ofcensus (i.e.13 Modifications tracts once ayear), especiallywith increasing populationsize. 12 Datafrom idealista.com onhousingprices refer to December2001. controls inthemultilevel models. size size of140,000—areneighbourhoods—median onlyincludedas of30,000—andthe 21districts—median unitsofanalysisinthischapter.11 The size 2,358census tracts—median of1,200—are theprimary The 128 confidentiality). came from the2001Population andHousingCensus disaggregation was unfeasible (i.e. for further reasons of were obtained from the Municipal Register, of birth 10 Data on country whereas data on continent of birth 9 The term Latinoisrarely usedintheSpanishcontext. missing values. 2003 were combined, outimputation techniques for carrying of of2000andthemunicipalelections on thenationalelections for data. electoral similar period( are basedonidenticaladministrative divisions, these different datasources thatthey was madeeasierby thefact register, from the Council)City andhousingprices ( Except for turnout(provided thedataonelectoral by the Madrid MODELLING 4.5. mind, backin 2001. were by andlarge irrelevant bothinnumbersandthepublic currently associated withMadrid, suchasRumaniansorBolivians, Readers shouldalsobearinmindthatimmigrant groups thatare and, to alesserextent,firstand1.5generation Moroccans. DATA, MODELSPECIFICATION ANDSTATISTICAL 10

Population andHousingCensus 2001 provided by theNationalStatisticsInstitute. Merging 13 i.e. 12 from November 2002)—save 2001to January To solve this temporal discrepancy, information idealista.com andthemunicipal ), thedatacome 11 andrefer to a 9

96 Americans andAsians specifically. Since residents from different models examinetheperceptions ofEuropeans, Africans, levels ofcrimeperceived by allresidents, additionalregression residential area that consider As inchapter 3,theoutcome ofresidents variable istheproportion specification 4.5.1. Model community characteristics orexogenous characteristics community sources ofsocial which, inturn,are explained by(Bursik, 1988);factors asetof members share values andjointlysolve common problems patterns oflocalcrimeare heavily shapedby whethercommunity Groves (1989),andBursik andGrasmick (1993).Specifically, (1969),Kornhauser(1972),Sampson(1987), Sampsonand McKay model, as conceptualised and operationalised by Shaw and according to theexogenous sources ofthesocialdisorganisation variables,With regard to theexplanatory theyhave beenselected their age, genderorlevel ofeducation(table4.2). same censusevaluate tracts levels of crime similarly, regardless of gender orlevel ofeducationisunnecessary, asresidents inthe internally heterogeneous. Moreover, disaggregation by age, given thatimmigrant groups—based oncontinent ofbirth—are and missingdata,thoughitwould have beenhighlydesirable specific nationalitiesisinfeasible dueto issuesofconfidentiality benchmark for themainanalyses. Further disaggregation into additional modelswas deemed convenient, ifonlyto provide a immigration nexusrather differently, theestimation of these evaluatecontinents crimelevels ofbirth (table4.2)andthecrime- crime andvandalism tobeaproblem . Whereas thecentral analysesare basedonthe in their

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis disorganisation, including anarea’s socioeconomic status, appendix B for further details). details). appendix Bfor further 14 The socioeconomic statusofareas isproxied usingaprincipalcomponent analysisof5 different variables (see Census. Housing and 2001 Population the from data using elaboration Own Source: reasons. confidentiality for available publicly not birth of country by Data ** (N=2,358). tracts census of means non-weighted represent * Percentages BY... and populationdensity. (ethnic) diversity, residential turnover, level offamilydisruption Education Age of birth** Continent Gender

TABLE 4.2:

Perceived crime, neighbourhood withincensus tracts, > Higherdegree Higher degree 65 ormore 16orless America by groups selected 16 to 65 Female Europe Africa Male Asia All VANDALISM APROBLEMINTHEIR PERCENTAGE OFRESIDENTS CONSIDERING CRIMEAND RESIDENTIAL AREA* 41% 43% 41% 42% 41% 33% 29% 32% 43% 42% 42% 42%

14

97 Europe any ofthefollowing subcategories ofcountries: 1)Western effects are operationalised asthepercentage ofresidents bornin Ethnic diversity or, more accurately, immigrant concentration regardless of the world region, 18 Basedonmembership intheArab League. 17 IncludesCaucasian countries, but notKazakhstan. had sizeable communities inMadrid. AmericanandEuropean countries,and otherthanNorth onlyJapan (757 residents) andAustralia (467residents) (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?page=1); lastaccessed 30/03/2011).Withinthis group, 16 BasedonWorld Bankdata;SpanishGDPpercapitawas estimated at26,070$(PPP)in2002. 15 IncludesCyprus, Greece andIsrael. to noteon perceived that the effect of population density crime As for specificsocialdisorganisation correlates, it isimportant seem to beproblematic. unemployment, butonlyfor theeconomic variables does this logically ensues, most notablyinthecaseofrate of were represented by a unique measure. Some loss of information disorganisation (i.e. andfamily disruption) SES,residential stability whereby each of the remaining exogenous sources of social successfully avoids problems ofmulticollinearity, was pursued interest here, aparsimoniousmodellingstrategy, which Since onlyethnicdiversity/immigrant concentration are of and for western residential tourists (e.g. “ 2006; Rumbautetal.,2006),buttheyare consistent withnatives’ Asian. These world regions are visiblyheterogeneous (Bursik, Arab countries, “ labels for extended unfortunately economic migrants, suchas stereotypes of immigrant groups, and in derogatory as reflected sudaca 15 ” (LatinAmerican)and“ pluscountries withhigherGDPpercapitathanSpain, 18 4) Other African, 5) Latin American, and 6) Other African, 5)LatinAmerican,and6)Other 4)Other 16 moro 2) Post-communist Europe, ” (Maghreb) (Monnet,” (Maghreb) 2001), guiris ”). 17 3)

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis is and socialcapital(Putnam, 1993)inlocal communities, engagement (AlmondandVerba, 1963),public-mindedness Moreover, turnoutisincludedas a proxy electoral for civic perceptions crime. ofneighbourhood deviant behaviour or, atleast, beunrelated to residents’ was withincitiesshould helpcontrol right, populationdensity Mumford ifJacobs like (1961).Inshort, supporters City Garden a seriesofsmallermanageableunits” (Merrifield, 2000),notably into city beyond “the 2004), andthosewholooked by breaking and policy makers like Moses Robert (Helleman and Wassenberg, within large-scalelandscapes, park-like suchasLe Corbusier within the city, blocks of apartment through the construction this camp, solutionsdiffered between thosewholooked conducive to violence, andotherurbanills. Within delinquency insensate disorder, prevalent in densely populated areas, as of 19 1961). Critics, deeply influenced by the insalubrious conditions noted: “a well-used street is aptto (Jacobs, be asafe street” areas asaway ofgettingmore “eyes for, onthestreet” asshe (Merrifield, 2000)commonly associated withdensely populated “abundance oflife intheostensibly disordered street” literature onrural-urban transformations. Jacobs defended the debate that Jacobs’ work (1961)spurred, rather thaninto the single urbansettingisstudied, itisbetter to lookinto thefertile To effectwhena findarationale behindapopulationdensity rural-urban comparison inmind(SampsonandGroves, 1989). a priori th century industrialcentres, century thoughtofcongestion and uncertain since ithasusuallybeenincludedwiththe uncertain

98 As intheprevious chapter, andinaccordance withtheincivility agencies, suchasthe police and otherpublicofficials. associations andwith their externalinteraction neighbourhood through and effectivetheir active membership inparticularly of residents’ affairs, incommunity predisposition to participate ornationalpoliticsisanindication incity-wide that participation (Sampson andGroves, 1989).The underlyingassumptionbeing 19 See appendix C for further details. appendix Cfor19 See further residents prone to feelings ofurban unease. vulnerable to deviant behaviourareas particularly and their for delinquents, includingnight life andtourists, these making concentrate a large share of unsafe and target groups activities 1983).For(Hirschi andGottfredson, businessdistricts itspart, males responsible for the lion’s share of criminal offences delinquency, vandalism andothersocial incivilities, withyoung for factors levelsgender are explanatory of well-known of residential areas. As indicated inchapter 2,ageandespecially ofyouth andwomen,proportion andthecommercial activity Further controls includedintheregression modelsincludethe regression models. perceptions ofnoise, cleanlinessandpollution)isaddedto the of socialincivilities(thefirstprincipalcomponent ofresidents’ deterioration oflocalcommunities, andacomposite measure Building’ conditions are includedasameasure ofthephysical physical deterioration are incorporated into the analyses. Wilson andKelling, 1982),measures ofcivildisorder and 1975;QuillianandPager,thesis (Conklin, 2001;Skogan,1990; 19

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis 4.5.2. Modelling strategy: description and selection ofspatial descriptionandselection strategy: 4.5.2. Modelling effects subsequentlycompared. spatial modelsare estimated andimmigrant concentration modelling strategy was pursuedwhereby asetofalternative equivalentare observationally (Anselin, 2002), a pragmatic sources ofthisspatialinterdependence canbenumerous, and leveltract (figure levels. 4.6)andatneighbourhood Since the ecological studyofcrimepatterns inMadrid, bothatthecensus As expected, spatialinterdependence isamajorissueinthe and spatialregression models(i.e. spatiallaganderror). recognises suchashierarchical thisfact, linear models (HLM) variable requires theuseofamodellingstrategy thatexplicitly 2006). The presence ofspatialautocorrelation inthedependent regression parameters etal., are biasedandinconsistent (Voss are overestimated—and,independent observations atworst, standard errors are underestimated—the numberof Least (OLS)regression, Squares whichimpliesthat, atbest, violate the independence assumptioninthestandard Ordinary discontinuous landscape. Spatially interdependent residuals variable andtheconception ofurbanspace asacontinuous/ acute spatial interdependence encountered intheoutcome ofthemodellingstrategyThe was selection guidedby the models 99 or theideal statisticalmodel. The modeldiagnostics (i.e. Robust data generating process, thesources ofspatialinterdependence not implythatthe author remains entirely agnostic aboutthe benchmark. However, using all four modelling techniques does strategies, asa plusanadditionalOLSmodelthatserves Empirical modelsare fitted using thethree spatialmodelling Data source: NationalStatistics Institute (INE). * For presentation have purposes, fringesofMadrid five beenremoved. inthenorthern census tracts Moran’s Ispatialautocorrelation: 0.792. Division by quartiles FIGURE 4.6: 4.º: 55.6-100 3.º: 39.1-55.6 2.º: 27.5-39.1 1.º: 0-27.5 % RESIDENTSWHOCONSIDERCRIMEANDVANDALISM APROBLEM Perceived City’s crimeinMadrid neighbourhood IN THEIRRESIDENTIALAREA census tracts

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis Lagrange Multiplier and the Akaike Information Criterion)Lagrange MultiplierandtheAkaike 20 Further detailsaboutthespatialmodels andthecriteria foramongthem, canbefound selecting inAppendix D. Census levelMadrid). tract coefficients in theHLMmodelare a outcome variable across the entire area of study (i.e. of the city as themeaneffectthatindependent variables have onthe The OLSregression coefficients canbeeffectively interpreted coefficients inspatialmodels 4.5.3. Understandingthefindings:interpretation ofthe dependent variables. perceptions ofEuropeans, Africans, AmericansandAsians as same 3-level structure, are subsequently estimated usingthe and 4)aspatialerror model.Additional HLMmodels, withthe second andhighestlevels respectively, 3)aspatiallagmodel, are2) a3-level the anddistricts HLMwhere neighbourhoods been estimated: 1)astandard OLSwithrobust standard errors, unitof analysis, haveusing the censusas the primary tracts and additionalrobustness checks. That is, four regressions, different interpretations ofimmigrant concentration effects on allmodellingstrategies are presented, providing both different theoretical andempiricalimplications, findingsbased To thatOLS,HLMandspatialregression theextent modelshave strategy. Madrid, indicate thatmultilevel modellingisalsoasuitable demarcatesocial barriersthatoften administrative divisionsin clustering oftheoutcome variable, andthearchitectural and models, whereasanddistrict thesignificantneighbourhood suggest thatboththespatiallaganderror are adequate 20 100 lag modelscanbeinterpreted inthesameway asinthe effects model.For coefficients inthespatialerror and its part, iscontrolled for, anddistricts) neighbourhoods asinafixed (i.e. whenthevariance census tract) atupperlevels (i.e. between andtheoutcome apredictor variable atlevel-1 they arepractice here employed to estimate the relationship effects,between anddistricts) thoughin (neighbourhoods complex weighted average and ofthewithin(census tracts) family disruption andresidential turnover are robustly 4.3). That is, economically deprived areas with high levels of different modellingstrategies and levels ofaggregation (table disorganisation correlates show signacross the theexpected With theexception oftheforeign-born population, thesocial 4.6. parameter thatdecreases progressively withdistance. entire urbanlandscapebutweighted by aspatialautoregressive (i.e. simultaneouseffects).The effectsspread outacross the variable, allowing for to thecensus influence tracts eachother of theneighbouringareas asanadditionalindependent model. For thespatiallagmodelincorporates itspart, thevalues spatial interdependence), itisequivalent to astandard OLS a “pure” firstdifference; thevalue whenittakes of0 (i.e. no autoregressive parameter approaches 1,themodelresembles autoregressive parameter ( value weighted ofitsneighbouringcensus tracts by aspatial model, thedependentvariable istransformed the subtracting OLS framework. The difference beingthat, inthespatialerror FINDINGS y =–pWy) . As thespatial

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis associated withhigherlevels ofperceived crime. Consistent cent of the association between foreign-born and perceived population. Controlling for other area characteristics, 37 per levels of perceived crime and the presence of foreign-born areas, for thesignificantbivariate associationbetween the accounts, together withthesocioeconomic statusofresidential notonlyaffects crime levels,commercial activity italso whose presence rarely inspires fear amongneighbours. Finally, networks role andtheiractive insocialcontrol routines, and local communities through theirinvolvement insocial represented incrimestatistics, contribute substantiallyto offemales,true for theproportion whoare clearly under- of youth generates amongresidents. anxiety The opposite is crime,petty vandalism), itisnotsurprisingthatthepresence (e.g. thatresidents are to moredelinquent acts observe likely ofin the criminalpopulation,andespecially in thetype signs. Since adolescents andyoung adultsare over-represented crime that, inlinewithprevious studies, present theexpected The modelsalsoincludeclassiccontrols ofsocialdisorder and 1968). (Wilson, interpersonal trustanddecreasing residents’ urbanunease with otherneighboursare inevitable, potentially increasing where 1961),butalsoacontext (Jacobs, encounterssurveillance populated areas provide “eyes orinformal onthestreet” of social ills (Mumford, 1961). However, not only densely have traditionally beenassociated withchaosandanumber thatdenselypopulated areas,the fact andtenement housing, perceptions of local crime. This result is unanticipated, given helps,density albeitmoderately, to control residents’ with Jacobs’(1961) theoretical propositions, population 101 and socialcapital,even more sooflocalinvolvement, itis measure ofcivicengagement the HLMmodel.Beinganimperfect in crime,neighbourhood isonlyimportant thoughthiseffect As regards turnout,electoral it is negatively related to perceived residential turnover. of commercial activity, of and17percent withtheintroduction crime vanishes whenSESisincluded, 34percent inthecase for further details. for further 21 These results are basedon mediation techniques inanOLSframework. sgmediation command See inStata less “self-critical”. are analysed, though Europeans, Africans and Asians seem to be these findingsare consistent regardless ofwhoseperceptions and otherimmigrants withinsecure communities. Furthermore, natives andWestern Europeans are associated withsafe areas, in figure 4.7match closely withmainstream stereotypes. Namely, As regards theforeign-born population, the bivariate analyses twice aslargeeffect. asitsdirect incivilities andbuildingdeterioration, israther substantialand effect, mediatedits indirect through measures ofsocial effectisonlymoderate.understandable thatitsdirect However, 21

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis ** Spatial weight matrix is based on the queen contiguity rule. contiguity queen the on based is matrix weight Spatial ** estimated. errors standarad * Robust t time, noimmigrant concentration effect onperceived crime foreigners’ for responsibility Madrid’s soaringcrimerates atthe immigration by natives andforeigners alike, andthefocus on However, despite the consistent association ofcrimewith or or Akaike info criterion (AIC) ICC coefficient (Neighb'/Districts) Census /Neighb'Districts tracts Spatial dependence: perceived crime Commercial activity % Women % 15-24years Buildings´ condition Perceived socialincivilities(PCA) turnout(%) Electoral Population density single-parent households % Children ofresidenceTime condition (PCA) Socioeconomic % Foreign-born Level 1:census tracts Constant z -statistics in parentheses. -statistics

TABLE 4.3: Regression models. Explainingperceived crimeinMadrid neighbourhood –1.135 –0.158 –0.082 –0.047 –0.229 –4.020 118.6 0.251 0.569 0.267 5.369 0.279 OLS ROBUST* 18,627 2,358 – I (–18.54) (24.03) (–3.22) (–1.39) (–3.24) (–3.15) (12.5) (4.49) (1.57) (3.17) (3.65) (–8.3)

102 of nationalities to the pointthatthecoefficients changesignsfor 4.3). The effects alsochange dramatically for specificgroupings interdependence, are adjusted for, save for theOLS model(table once therelevantis observed factors, includingspatial 26.382 –0.010 –0.282 –0.057 –0.036 –0.019 –0.029 –0.949 0.783 0.206 0.255 2.431 0.199 SPATIAL LAG** 16,672 2,358 – II (62.77) (–3.35) (–2.11) (–1.18) (–2.08) (–0.72) (–7.08) (–0.33) (4.63) (0.96) (5.17) (17.4) (4.41) 56.114 –0.210 –0.041 –0.019 –0.010 –0.014 –1.277 –0.168 SPATIAL ERROR** 0.895 0.035 0.308 3.645 0.103 16,655 2,358 III – (86.16) (20.34) (–2.15) (–1.41) (–0.55) (–0.91) (–0.29) (–5.62) (–3.89) (8.46) (0.13) (2.34) (5.7)

78.724 –0.452 –0.105 –0.150 –0.011 –0.113 –1.317 –0.015 2,358 /12821 0.080 0.337 3.327 0.283 0.22 /0.43 17,382 HLM IV (10.02) (17.15) (–3.85) (–2.99) (–3.51) (–0.91) (–2.08) (–5.08) (–0.31) (0.26) (5.39) (5.07)

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis Western Europe (from negative to positive) andthegroup ofArab disadvantaged”. “are perceived asunsafe mainlybecausetheyare socioeconomically whereas thosepopulated bybecause theyare Arabs affluent” populated by Western Europeans “are perceived assafe mainly in the regression analyses, that residential is areasdue to the fact two groups, once thesocioeconomic statusofareas isincluded City.across Madrid That the coefficients change most for these the OLS regressions are based on global comparisons/effects (i.e.mainly withneighbouringcensus tracts localeffects),whereas hardly surprisingsince thespatialmodelscompare census tracts substantiallywhenspatialinterdependencevary isadjusted for is countries (from positive to negative) (figure 4.8).That theresults -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 –0,3 –0,2 –0,1 FIGURE 4.7: Pr 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 oportion ofr originating in selected countries/regionsoriginating inselected andperceived All r Spain esidents S P A W I N esidents bor neighbourhood crime by continent of birth crimebyneighbourhood continent ofbirth . E Correlations ofresidents between theproportion ur P ope +R W ostcommunist E . + E n in... URO R I C Natives H P E

P ich O S T EUROP COMMU E Ar Eur NIS T ab c opeans ARAB ur oun COUNTR ope R IES est ofA tr Africans ies R EST OF AFRI La fr C A N ican tin Amer L Americans A TIN A MER I C A R est ofA ica R EST OF Asians ASI A sia 103 overall istrivial,for effect few present census sizeable tracts Eastern regardless ofwhoseperceptions are analysed. Nevertheless, the being consistent across different modellingstrategies and of residents from post-communist Europe increases, thiseffect levels ofcrimeperceived by residents decrease astheproportion regards specificgroups, three results standout.First, thatthe groups, withtheonlyexception beingcommercial activity. As controlsAdding barely affectsthecoefficients ofimmigrant further in different host societies (Bueker, 2005;Lien,2004;). As aresult in the nativeproficiency language, has been widely documented and politics more generally, to their lack of owing partly sense. Asians’perfect low involvement affairs, incommunity disorganisation and other crime theories this result makes to recognise that in terms it is important of social selection), of theareas where Asians settled(i.e. unaccounted self- results for may Madrid berelated to pre-existing characteristics (Rumbautetal.,2006).Althoughtheregarding delinquency 2) andthattheircommunities have apositive reputation Asians are under-represented inofficialcrimestatistics(chapter are included. Interestingly, given thisresult isunexpected that of “saturation” of themodels, and even whenAsians’ perceptions regardless ofthespatialmodellingstrategy selected, thelevel higher perceptions crime, ofneighbourhood andthisistrue Second, that thepresence ofAsians is robustly associated with 2001-2002 iftheanalyseswere replicated today. composition, would for significantly alter thefindingsobserved and changesinitsdemographic, socioeconomic andethnic migration to Spain,mainlyrelated to itsenormousgrowth Furthermore, thatrecent itislikely developments inRomanian European populations, and the size of the effect is modest anyway. E All r Na A Amer A All r Natives Eur Africans Americans Asians ur fr sians opeans esidents tiv icans opeans esiden es icans ts

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis of low civic engagement, the parochial andpublic levels of 22 See Appendix Efor22 See theresults for specificnationalities. is difficultto thatimmigration know. isthefact Whatisstriking inmainstream socialnetworks to andactivities participate ability of Latin Americans owes in Spanish and their to their proficiency negative effectonperceivedpurportedly crime neighbourhood but notColombians orPeruvians, crime, residents feel safer where incensus LatinAmericans, tracts non-Europeans perceptions are analysed. Whenitcomes to when Sampson, 2006),thoughthiseffectis onlyobservable andAstor, 2002;Morenoff official crimerates (Martinez, 2006; similar to whatseveral studiesacross theUShave found for “Latino”contextual effect on perceived crime, neighbourhood Finally, anegative there isahintofevidence supporting target for delinquents. (Clarke, 1995), for attractivetheory Asians could be a particularly not bedisregarded, suchasthesituationalcrimeprevention alternative explanationsrelated to supplysidetheoriesshould native andethnicallymixed neighbourhoods. Nonetheless, in2001,forcenumbers, particularly themto live inpredominantly and McKenzie, 1925),are absentinMadrid. Their low absolute protective environments 2006;Park, (Lee Burgess andMartinez, neighbourhoods, whichhave traditionally beenidentifiedas assessments by othergroups lesslikely. Inaddition, Asian control ofreceiving andrendering thepossibility positive decreasing localcommunities’ for prospects informal social in native orethnicallymixed socialnetworks ishindered, weaken considerably. For thesamereason, theirparticipation social control (BursikandGrasmick, to 1993)are expected 22 reside. How muchof this 104 place in Latin American immigration to Spain or in the sort ofplace inLatinAmericanimmigration to Spainorinthesort process istaking explanations—or thatamajorself-selection behaviour anddismantlingcultural and“path dependence” in theircircumstances—favouring rational accounts ofdeviant alter theirbehaviour radically inresponse to changes individuals residents’ perceived level ofcrime. This suggeststhat rates (UNODC,2010),hasanegative effect—even ifminor—on violentsocieties,from extremely atleastinterms ofhomicide in Madrid withasizeablein Madrid 1.5generation. groupMoroccan was a relatively long-established community took place invisibleplaces (e.g. publicparks)andthatthe delinquents, regularlydealers andpetty thattheseactivities adolescentsMoroccan were atthetimeasdrug “imagined” of Arabs,negligible effect of the proportion that given the fact residents’ perceived crime. Particularly interesting isthe Europeanspresence increases ofAfricans andparticularly anything, If levels of aggregation—and unimportant. the normally changingacross different modellingstrategies and As for otherregions, theireffectsare generally ambiguous— other LatinAmericans. arriving before 2000,butnotnecessarily for Ecuadorians and definitely occurred withPeruviansselection andColombians inwhichtheysettle.neighbourhoods Some“positive” self-

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis W. those thatrefer specificallyto perceptions of crime, andthose ofimmigrant concentration impact for are theobserved discussed, crime.neighbourhood Inwhat follows, alternative explanations ofspecificforeign-born impact groups onperceivedobserved exists or, in other words, what social mechanisms explain the across groups. The questionremains asto why sucharelationship of crime, albeit the effectsare significantly modest in size and vary Immigrant concentration isrelated to residents’ perceived levels CONCENTRATION EFFECTS 4.7. crime and the proportion offoreign-born groups:crime andtheproportion across-evaluation Europe+Richcountries FIGURE 4.8: –1,5 –0,5 1,5 2,5 0,5 -3 -2 -1 –1 0 1 2 3 4 3 0 1 2 DISCUSSION: QUALIFYING IMMIGRANT (Model specificationisidenticaltomodelIVintable4.3) Crime perc -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 W. EUROPE+RICH P ost eived by: Hierarchical linearmodels. Perceived neighbourhood -c ommunist Europe POST -COMMUNIST EUROP Eur opeans Arab countries E ARAB COUNTRIES Africans Non-Arab Africa N ON-ARAB AFRICA Americans Latin America LA TIN AMERICA Non-Arab Asia Asians NON-ARAB ASIA 105 set of cultural practices and tastes “imported” from their country from their country set of cultural and tastespractices “imported” social outcomes as a resultassociated of a given with particular of immigrant concentration effectsinwhichthesegroups are Too thepublicistempted often, by straightforward interpretations the implicationsoffocusing ondifferent levels ofaggregation. followed by and adiscussionon the problems ofself-selection that are common to theimmigration literature (the blameonintegration) blame “on them”), to immigrants’ statusasuprooted citizens to enhanceor their (in)ability neighbourhoods’ social capital (the related to immigrants’ orcultural inclinationto “intrinsic” “deviate” qualified as they could be Both interpretations should be further higher levels of crime, social incivilities and physical deterioration. (Putnam, shapingcrimeperceptions 2007),indirectly through communities’ term socialorganisation, atleastintheshort perspective, immigrants may causethe breakdown of Survey,Victimisation 2008; Sampson, 1987). From an ecological areas (Morenoff, 2001;Madrid Sampson,andRaudenbusch, provided thatthecrimeoccursinorcloseto theirresidential with crimebecausethesegroups are to more bevictimised, likely populatedNeighbourhoods by immigrants may also be identified one ofalonglistplausiblesocialmechanisms. offending rates.observed However, this interpretation is only and/or their in socialcontrol activities participation distinctive of origin.Inourcase, theseidiosyncrasies would explaintheir second generation andacculturation studiesfor more details. 23 This istheimmigrant effect par excellence inthatthefocus isontheprocess ofimmigration inandofitself. See linguistic, religious, cultural—associated withthesettlementof 23 orto thediversity—socioeconomic, . This willbe

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis ethnically distinct groups in particular neighbourhoods (the neighbourhoods groups in particular ethnically distinct 24 See theories ondiscrimination,segmented ofreception.24 See assimilation andcontext ofthefindings, there are that guiding part reasons to suspect may be and self-selection as in Hipp (2011). Though endogeneity immigrants self-selected, or were forced into, crime-ridden areas, In thisstudy, if, would be observed self-selection deprived groups forced into, “structured”, withdominantgroups “deciding” where to live, and urban studiesfor thesimplereason thatsettlementpatterns are andreverse are apervasive concern causality Self-selection in consistent. perceptions are analysed, theempiricalfindingsare fairly crime andsocialdisorder (see table 4.2).Thus, nomatter whose relaxed viewsandhighertolerance towards neighbourhood for someimmigrantobserved groups isnottheresult oftheir different immigrant groups. This reveals thatthenegative impact account by crime perceived analysing the neighbourhood by gap” intheassessmentofcrimelevels have into beentaken Problems ofinterpretation related to theexistence ofa“nativity assessed. relevance of each of these alternative sources to be properly some instances, an inadequate unit of analysis does not allow the (the blameon“us”). incorporation ofimmigrant andethnicallydiverse populations neighbourhoods, are notallequallysuccessful inmanagingthe is incorporated asamediating factor, since societiesand of reception (Fennema andTillie, 1999;Portes andBöröcz,1989) blame ondiversity). Further complications arisewhenthecontext 24 Unfortunately, thelackofinformation or, in a priori a , less desirable neighbourhoods. ceteris paribus , 106 across levels ofaggregation—the presence ofimmigrants is residential areas—the effectsofwhich remain fairlyconstant of aggregation. Incontrast of characteristics to otherstructural concentration effects differ substantiallydepending onthelevel Although the full set of results are not shown, immigrant barely differstract between natives andimmigrants (table4.1). they are playing aminorrole. For onething, census thetypical condition becomes lessillusory. This helps, amongotherthings, “controlled” environment oronein whichthe study area shrinks, the researcher isincreasingly faced witha andelsewhere.within theirneighbourhoods Further, asthe “neighbourhood friends” explore distantresidential areas close to theirhomes. Onlyoccasionally, andatweekends, do random encounters—and gatherin or adolescents typically buildings—for instance viahomeowners’ associationsand distances, socialnetworks short develop often withinvery micro-level.the very For instance, “pub effects” may to extend with census tracts. However, somecrimedynamics dooccurat save for work, place butrarely inneighbourhoods take concur onadailybasis, thatresidents undertake that mostactivities patterns theyare thancensus self-contained tracts; inthesense seem amore adequate environment to understandcrime census tracts or across neighbourhoods? Is ittherefore more appropriate to focus ondifferences across fairly robust to thegeographical level ofaggregation. conditions, onlytheeffectsofracial/ethnic heterogeneity are of anon-rural sub-sample, theopposite istrue:amonglocal aggregation increases insize. Interestingly, inHipp’s (2007)study increasingly associated withcrimeperceptions asthelevel of A priori A , neighbourhoods neighbourhoods , ceteris paribus

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis to solve and neighbourhood problems of self-selection is eithera moderate immigrant concentration effect—positive onceis left, theseandotherarea are characteristics adjusted for, oftheareas inwhichnativesinstability andimmigrants live. What socioeconomic status, andresidential commercial activity crimeismainlyexplainedbyof neighbourhood differences inthe between thepresence ofimmigrants andresidents’ perceptions inMadrid,In theanalysisofcensus correlation tracts theobserved which theyare basedare probably flawed. truth” (Gans, 1962)to thesestereotypes, theassumptionsupon andelsewhere.in Madrid Althoughthere may of bea“kernel stereotypes about“immigrant neighbourhoods” have developed unsafe residential areas, itcomes as no surprisethatnegative the mostobvious example. Since immigrants live inrelatively relationships, thedebate onthecrime-immigration nexusbeing Public opinionisfrequently guidedby bivariate andvisible 4.8. findings. providing and, meaningful mostimportantly, statistically robust model) thatproperly controls for spatialinterdependence, censuslevel tract in HLM and, to a lesser degree, spatial lag (i.e. withinneighbourhoods of census tracts spatialerror model, environment intheSpanishcontext, itisthe “micro” comparison can besafelyneighbourhoods equated withresidents’ lived smallareas,within very Insum,although suchasthecensus tract. stereotyping—since theseprocesses to are occur lesslikely CONCLUDING REMARKS 107 typically advancedtypically by pro-immigrant suchasthe supporters, At level, the community other “arguments” for this correlation community-level perspective. offending rates; theyneedto beinterpreted exclusively from a Africans. Note thattheseanalysessay nothingaboutindividual ambiguous effect—for Latin Americans, Arabs and non-Arab for Asian residents and negative for Eastern Europeans—or an globalised economy have limited leverage, and for which they politicians in ais acomplex process inwhichshort-term crime,neighbourhood butbecauselimitingurbaninequalities onunequalsocieties,keen orindifferent about residents’ fear of fall ondeafears. Notneccesarily becausepublicofficialsare socioeconomic inequalitiesacross to theurbanspace islikely of and demand-sidemessagethatstresses theimportance However, indialoguingwithpublic officials, this“materialistic” crimestatistics.(1969[1942]) didseventy years agowithactual perceptions ofcrimepatterns, justasShaw andMcKay characteristics,other structural inexplainingcommunities’ and ofeconomic factors and highlightstheimportance this studyplays down ethnicaccounts ofcrimeperceptions, inourresults.crime-ridden areas, Inconclusion, findsupport responsible for as thestereotyping oftheseneighbourhoods households beingprevalent inimmigrant and neigbourhoods explanations proposed by “nativists”, such as single-parent with ahighshare ofelderlynatives. Nordosomeofthecausal especially LatinAmericans, tended to settle inneighbourhoods over-represented amongyoung adults)immigrants, and study. that (despite This being the fact presumably reflects of immigrant groups,age structure by this are notsupported

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis are rarely heldaccountable. Incontrast, publicofficialsare more (Gans, 1962)and trivial,albeitrobust, mechanisms (Gerber, thing, explanationsavoid structural circular interpretations factors, onvarious theoretical andempiricalgrounds. For one determinants, to the detrimentofcultural andpsychological Moreover, ofstructural this studyemphasisestheimportance 2002). but detrimentalfor localcrimerates (European SocialSurvey, decade: Namely, thatimmigration iseconomically beneficial, relatively welcoming attitudestowards immigrants inthelast to qualifythewidespread beliefthathasinspired Spain’s conditions suchasresidents’ socioeconomis status, could serve of crime, atleastifcompared withtheeffectofotherlocal presence ofimmigrants hardly explainsresidents’ perceptions criminal behaviour should beequally, ifnotmore,thandealingwith important perceptions crime ofneighbourhood and Smit, 2007),tackling In a relatively safe environment, (Dijk,Kesteren such as Madrid and dirtiness. residents—mainly becausetheygenerate high levels ofnoise levels by crime—which is rarely of neighbourhood observed seem to ofcommercial be relatedtypes activities to perceived should beaware thatpubs,policy-makers shopsandother (Becker, 1968;Clarke, 1995).However, asillustrated inchapter 3, supply-side orsituationalcrimeprevention determinants design andarchitecture, ofpolice size forces andtype andother the municipallicenses onwhichtheirexistence depends, urban changes, such as“pub policy to effects” short-term subject and to focuslikely ondeterminants ofcrimeperceptions thatare per se . Inthisregard, thatthe thefact 108 “bad” ultimately depends on the structural conditions ultimately that“bad” dependsonthestructural a minoraddition:Namely, of“good” thattheproportion and culture”to are which“there goodandbadpeople inevery with to thepopularlineofargument accordingecological support of crimeinMadrid’s census tracts. These results provide some percent ofthevariationfor ofperceived asmuchfifty levels empirical models, even ifthrough several causalpaths, account 2008). For another, the“structural” variables includedinthe their socioeconomic statusbutin their residential stability, integration of immigrant communities, not so much in reflected analysis draw attention to two factors. Ontheonehand, further (bivariate) relationship withimmigration, theresults ofthis As for theevolution ofcrime patterns inMadrid, andtheir into consideration.should alsobetaken ties andwiththeirlow levels ofsocio-politicalparticipation level explanation,related to theirlackofethnicallymixed social unsafe centre, inthecity census tracts analternative community- be theresult ofAsians’ orsettlinginto already self-selecting perceptions ofcrimeare analysed. Althoughthisfindingmay crime,neighbourhood andthisresult holdseven whentheir is positively androbustly associated withperceived nationals ofaffluentcountries. Incontrast, Asian concentration 2010). Noristhere aconsistent effectfor Arabs, Africans or here” (President oftheCatalan BusinessAsociation, PIMEC violent andisthoughtofasnothaving ethicsthatwe “the have “Latino” effectoncrime, even thoughtheir“culture” isallegedly As regards specificgroups, there are nosignsofapositive contexts. different communities face indifferent spatio-temporal

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis should strengthen their local social ties and the social years, as Latin gangs ( immigrant families. This isprecisely whatoccurred inrecent elderly populationintheircommunities were replaced by as thenumberofimmigrant adolescents increased andthe would beincreasingly associated withcrimeandsocialdisorder immigrants,short-term, andespeciallythosefrom LatinAmerica, other hand, in2002there were reasons to anticipate that, inthe help reduce thebeliefinacrime-immigration nexus. Onthe organisation oftheirneighbourhoods, which,inturn,would bandas latinas ) emerged in Madrid’s 109 of theirneighbourhoods, and(3)because, regardless ofactual middle-aged immigrant residents inthesocial organisation to deviate, (2)through theincreased involvement of ofcrimerates,(1) through areduction andtheproclivity disorganised andcrime-ridden,for atleastthree reasons: stereotyping of immigrant as socially neighbourhoods the ageingofimmigrant populationshouldreduce the neighbourhoods. working-class Latin Kings, Ñetas, Two, Forty Trinitarios, Public of theGeneral Prosecutor’s etc (Report Office, 2009). 25 Composed mainlyof Dominicans, Ecuadorians andColombians, Don’t thesegangs includeDominicans Play, as criminals. crimerates,neighbourhood olderpeopleare rarely imagined 25 However, inthelong-term

Perceived neighbourhood crime and immigration in Madrid: a spatial analysis CONCLUSIONS onclusions C

This study has adopted a quantitative approach to examine such as commuting time to work (+) and the number of working the explanatory factors behind residents’ assessments of hours (+). neighbourhood crime. In accordance with sociological explanations of crime and the concept of urban unease, the Among these, special attention has been devoted to measures focus has been on a series of structural characteristics of local of diversity and immigration demonstrating that their effect on communities that are believed to determine residents’ ability to residents’ perceptions of crime is not necessarily robust to “self-organise” and ward-off criminal activities, and that are different statistical methods, model specifications and, more frequently used as informational cues for the level of importantly, in different geographical contexts. For instance, neighbourhood crime. Using different statistical models, national diversity is positively related to perceived crime in including multilevel models and spatial regression analyses, villages and large cities, but barely so in towns and medium size and several data sources, in particular the 2001 Population and cities. Similarly, the standardised coefficients of the Herfindahl Housing Census, the research has confirmed the urban nature Index vary significantly across the 10 largest cities in Spain, of the social disorganisation theory and its potential for showing strong negative effects (i.e. higher heterogeneity/ understanding (perceived) crime variations in Southern immigration implying higher perceived crime) only in two large European countries. Several “classical” determinants have cities: Barcelona and Bilbao. For some unknown reason, residents shown a robust relationship with the levels of perceived crime, are influenced differently by the presence of immigrants when such as the socioeconomic status of communities (–), their evaluating levels of crime in their communities. These results residential stability (–) and the level of family disruption (+), and are largely unexpected given the prevalence of the belief in a the same is true for novel features related to the time, skills crime-immigration nexus in Spain. and resources deployed by neighbours in their residential areas,

110 PERCEIVED AN CRIME: NEIGHBOURHOOD INDEPENDENT 1 “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas andThomas, mendefinesituationsasreal, 1928). theyare1 “If real intheirconsequences” (Thomas and be accounted for by characteristics individual and community independentfrom thelevels ofcrimeinthecommunity partly into/out of aneighbourhood. importantly, More they needto be the adoptionofprotective measures ofmoving ortheprobability implications for relevant socialoutcomes, suchashousingprices, true, thelevels ofperceived crimeneednotonlyto bear specific attention from theacademic community. For thisto be that deserves crime asanindependentcriminological construct evidence oftheconsideration of perceivedfurther neighbourhood One ofthecontributions ofthecurrent work hasbeento provide life.community crime could, inand of themselves, be debilitating ingredients in would have to thatreactions beenbolderinacknowledging criminologists paidmore attention to theThomas theorem, to real crime.of riskwere proportional Hadearlier notdirectly the recognition among scholars that fear of crime and perceptions and Salem,1986;Skogan,1990;WilsonKelling, 1982),ledto (Hunter,signs ofincivilitiesintheneighbourhood 1978;Lewis that psychological measures ofcrimewere heavily influenced by andLaub, (Garofalo than victimisation 1978;Wilson,1975),and (Warr, 2000).The discovery thatfear ofcrimewas more widespread on theconsequences ofcrime, alike forandnon-victims victims 1971;1975),criminologistsincreasingly focused1960s (Conklin, ofthecrimeproblem thatcameaboutinthe to other aspects In thetransition from anexclusive crimerates emphasisonactual VARIABLE RELEVANT AND 1 they 111 deterioration andneighbours’ sociodemographics—and certain as perceived socialdisorder (e.g. streets), buildings’ noise, dirty also influenced by visualandothercuesinthecommunity—such personal andsociallytransmitted experiences ofcrime, theyare crime are shapedby anarray ofinformational cues. Inadditionto to theideathatresidents’the bookgive support perceptions of crime levels. Inthisregard, theanalysescarriedoutthroughout that are notnecessarily relevant for theexplanationofactual existence ofinaccurate racial/social stereotypes. of socialincivilities, streets, such asnoise, or the pollution or dirty that address thephysical decay ofcommunities, theprevalence crime control combined withpolicies strategies are opportunely that getting rid of residents’ fear of crime may only happen when McPherson (1978)andWarr implicationsare (1982). The policy bybetween measures andobjective subjective ofcrimereported moderate enough to discard the general correspondence relevant component of crimeperceptions. Yet thecorrelation is consider personal, or socially transmitted, experiences of crime a ofmeasures1982). These are types sufficientlycorrelated soasto McPherson, 1978;QuillianandPager, 2001;Skogan, 1986,Warr, widely documented inprevious studies(Garofalo, 1979; crime rates, experiences) thathasbeenso personalvictimisation measures crime)andobjective ofcrime(e.g.neighbourhood albeit moderate, associationbetween (i.e. subjective perceived However, existingdatainSpainhasconfirmed thesignificant, upperceivedcomponents thatmake crime. neighbourhood rendered infeasible afullycomprehensive assessmentofthe interpret reality. Unfortunately, thelackofcrimedatainSpainhas the way to inwhichresidents crimeexperiences react and (e.g.individual characteristics age, gender, citizenship) thataffect

Conclusions A different question refers of crime that toare more the types implying that a large proportion ofvarianceimplying thatalarge proportion usuallyremains unexplained. 2 Oneneedsto bearinmindthatthere isalways asubstantial idiosyncrasy (i.e. responses, randomness) insurvey municipal level. variance level happensatthe census tract and13percent atthe levels. 2634,asmuch25percent Using ofthe theCISsurvey can beassignedto andmunicipal theindividual,community determining how much of the variance of the outcome variable outcome conditions. ofcommunity Afirst problem liesin that perceived crimeis, extent, an neighbourhood to acertain However, there are more effective techniques to demonstrate local communities 1975;QuillianandPager, (Conklin, 2001). forfactors understandingvariations ofperceived crimeacross studies have ofenvironmental confirmed theimportance indirectly to residents’ fear ofviolence andperceptions ofcrime, previous crime. Byestablishingthataseriesoflocalconditions contribute in explaining perceiveddynamics are neighbourhood important from thetenets ofsocialdisorganisation theory, isthatcommunity One ofthecore assumptionsofthisbook,whichemanates directly CRIME NEIGHBOURHOOD THE COMMUNITARIAN NATURE PERCEIVED OF when comparing different ofcrimes. types and provincialat the district levels, no discernible patterns arose tovictims’ crime. reactions Incontrast, inmore aggregate analyses those thatare personallyexperienced, thatmostclearlyaffect instrumental, predictable, seriousand“street” crimes, particularly fear ofcrime. surveys, itwas Intheanalysesoftwo victimisation robustly associated withperceived crimeand neighbourhood 2 More importantly,More if additional levels of 112 which mostcloselycorresponds to thenotionoflocalcommunity clear at the level of aggregation is particularly and this consistency residents whenassessingcrimelevels intheirlocal communities, cent). (21percent) andmunicipalities(15per (25 percent), districts variancecontextual occurs (39 per cent), followed by provinces provinces, level itisatthecensus tract where mostofthe aggregation are added, suchasdistricts, municipalitiesand the 2001Census levels cannotinclude the individualandcommunity simultaneously. (22 percent).the neighbourhood However, thiscomparison may beincomplete given thatanalysesbasedon variancecontextual level (51percent), happensatthedistrict followed by (27percent) thecensus and tract 3 Incontrast, usingthe2001Population intheanalysisofMadrid andHousingCensus (chapter 4),mostofthe andinformational factors cuesareof thesestructural statistically that manyempirical analyses we know of the regression coefficients isolation oftheireffectsfrom individuallevel dynamics. From the residents, inexplainingperceived crimeandthe neighbourhood including thenumerous signsofsocialdisorder available to A second conditions, of community issuerelates to theimportance especially Americansto perceive crimeintheirresidential areas. with Europeans thanAfricans, beingmore likely Asians and significantvariation, doweOnly for observe continent ofbirth to considerlikely crimeasaproblem intheirneighbourhood. educational levels, livinginthesamecensus tract,are equally a descriptive nature, residents ofdifferent gender, ageor different sociodemographic groups. Although the findings are of and vandalism were aproblem intheirresidential areas” by ofcensus respondents whostated that“crimethe proportion among residents inthesamecensus tract,hasbeento compare A second strategy to evaluate the interpersonal consistency, (i.e. census tract). 3 That is, there seemsto among besignificantconsistency

Conclusions relevant. Yet, are we really sure that these are effects, community extended to Classicalexogenous theSpanish context. extended sources of States, thefindingsin thisstudysuggestthatthemodelcan be agoto understandurbancrimein theUnited almost acentury was developed thatsocial disorganisation theory Despite thefact perceived crimeacross localcommunities inSpain. ofthesocialdisorganisation modelinexplaining performance aim ofthisbookhasbeenprecisely to fillthisgapby testing the (Aebi andLinde,by experts 2010).Inthischallengingcontext, the alarming lackofcrimedatathathasbeen extensively criticised representation of and,the legal perspective more importantly, an literatures—is of criminologists, explained by an over- a shortage accentuated thaninothercriminologicalorsociological inSpain. This imbalance—one thatisevenas itislacking more and related is as extensive in the constructs Unitedefficacy States Criminological research on social disorganisation, collective SPANISHTHE CONTEXT APPLYING THE SOCIAL DISORGANISATION PERSPECTIVE TO respondents.of survey ecological effectsexistandare independent ofthecharacteristics the coefficientsaffects at the community level. In short, of residence, level of education or country of citizenship, barely levels,individual andcommunity asisthecasefor length ofsimilarvariablesgiven thattheintroduction by atthe thefact arecharacteristics includedintheanalyses. Further reassurance is conditions whenindividuallevel of thesecommunity hardly vary 2634illustratemultilevel thatthecoefficients analysesofCISsurvey and nottheaggregation ofindividuallevel effects?Again, the

113 setting andemploying different modelling strategies. The increase perceived crimeinalmostanythey neighbourhood inthat factors urbanisation are themostrobust explanatory Familyimportant. disruption,residential turnover and be made. To equally factorsare with, not allstructural start crime.neighbourhood However, there are afew to observations reasonably well inexplainingthepatternsperform ofperceived social disorganisation conditions) (i.e. factors/local structural 4 of perceived levels ofcrime, there is significantspatial hypothesised inthetheoretical framework social disorganisation are attheoriginoftwo causalpaths tracts. However, considering thattheexogenous sources of as much50percent ofthe variance across Spanishcensus considered thattheyaccount asoutstandinggiven for thefact In general, thegoodnessoffittheseempirical modelscanbe physical decay. effects are largely mediated by indicators ofsocial disorder and stability, thoughnotfor lengthofresidence—although these analysed—socioeconomic status, nationaldiversity andfamily perceived crimefor neighbourhood mostofthedimensions As regards spatialinequalities, theyare positively related to municipalities oflessthan5,000inhabitants—isrelatively poor. within large cities, inrural yet areas—defined as itsperformance accounting for differences between rural andurbanareas and component analysisapproach—is unique, in for factor itisakey through unemployment, level ofeducationorusingaprincipal socioeconomic status of communities—whether measured actual crime actual (1) exogenous sources → perceived crime. → socialdisorder → perceived crimeand(2)exogenous sources 4 andthat, interms → socialdisorder →

Conclusions interdependence between census tracts, this“excellent” residents need to andacquire spendtime inthecommunity the 1995; Verba andNie, 1972), insociallyorganised communities (Brady,political participation Verba andSchlozman, 1995;Putnam, causes ofsocialdisorder. Or, interms ofthe resource model ofsocio- (i.e. incontrolling quality) crime, shouldbeconsidered aspotential associations,local friendshipsandvoluntary and theireffectiveness environmental (i.e. to of affect thedensity likely quantity) factor tenet advancedAnother important inthebookisthatany cleanliness. viaitspositivecrime indirectly effectonthelevel ofnoiseand ofresidentsoffices perceiving seemsto increase theproportion measures ofsocialdisorder. That is, theabundance ofshopsand McKenzie, itseffectbeingfullymediated 1925),doweby observe butoftheconcentric zone model(Park,theory Burgess and commercial activity, ofsocialdisorganisation whichisnotpart effects isbeyond thescope oftheavailable data.Onlyfor activities, orothersocialprocesses for thatmatter, orare direct whether these“residual’ effectsare mediated criminal by actual onresidents’ asignificant impact exert perceptions. Determining for, ofthesocialdisorganisation factors modelstill thestructural but onlypartly. 1968)isadjusted Once the“urban unease” (Wilson, perceived mediated by crimeisinfact indicators ofsocialdisorder, path thatlinkstheexogenous sources of socialdisorganisation to deterioration. As suggested inthetheoretical model,thecausal measures, such as perceived noise and cleanliness and building assess how muchoftheireffect ismediated by social disorder astheseabsolute effectsare,to Important itisalsoimportant goodness offitshouldcome asnosurprise. 114 needed, these results shouldencourage researchers to avoid in theircommunities. research Even iscertainly thoughfurther hypothetically inthetimeadults/youth through areduction spent crime wereneighbourhood examinedandfound to besizeable, commuting timeto work/school work andovertime onperceived associations. Following thesetheoretical premises, theeffects of resources, to create effective, purposefulandwell-connected resources, necessary andfinancial includingorganisational skills analysed. perceived crime across neighbourhood andwithin citiesare However, population size hardly matters whendifferences in smaller, butstilllarge orValencia. cities, Seville Malaga, like Barcelona) isperceived in assafer neighbourhood thanatypical inSpain’sneighbourhood two largest cities(i.e. and Madrid population size, butatadecreasing rate. Inthisregard, thetypical perceptions ofthelevels crimeincrease ofneighbourhood with to 35,000inhabitants).The modelalsoillustrates how the (i.e. from 35,000to 225,000inhabitants)andtowns (i.e. from 5,000 toto medium-sized othermunicipalities, cities andparticularly confirming the urban nature of the theory, it can also be extended population size. Whilethemodelworks bestinlarge cities, disorganisation modelinfour subsets ofmunicipalitiesbasedon and Chambers, 2000),thisstudyhasalsoexaminedthesocial crime inrural communities (Lee, andOusey, Maume 2003;Osgood to theliterature directly onsocialdisorganisationSpeaking and life isconsidered. andactivities influencing non-delinquents’ effective engagementincommunity concentrate onamore general framework inwhichany factor focusing exclusively onclassicalexogenous sources andinstead

Conclusions The question of how important it is to unveil the “black box” 1969 [1942]). live intheworst slumareas and whoare leastableto organize againsttheeffectsofsuchliving” (Shaw andMcKay, necessities oflife andwhoare therefore leastprepared for thecompetitive struggle, itis theywhoare forced to 7 “(…)itistheNegroes andtheforeign born,atleastthenewest immigrants, who have leastaccess to the of families.” related to rates ofdelinquents in amore significantway than is thepercentage offoreign-born andNegro heads correlation] coefficients, isclearfrom these [partial therefore,6 “It that the percentage of families onrelief is nationalities, andolderimmigrants similarrate produce ofdelinquents.” very (ibid.) Chicago.” ofsocialarea, theforeign and“(…)withinthesame type bornandthenatives, recent immigrants group5 “Noracial, exhibitsauniform, of national,ornativity rates characteristic ofdelinquentsinallparts existence ofmulticollinearity. basic descriptives, attaching causalsignificance to theseassociationsbased on and Negro headsof familiesinUScities, theywere careful in was offoreign-born correlateddelinquency with theproportion thatjuvenile (1969[1942])reported Although Shaw andMcKay CRIME NEIGHBOURHOOD DIVERSITY,ETHNIC IMMIGRATION AND PERCEIVED which this policy has are an not effect properly identified. end, even if the specific causal paths and mechanisms through should not recommend policy-makers to take action towards this communities under study, there is no reason why urban sociologists levels of fear and perceived crime in, for instance, 99 percent of local all, if reducing residential turnover brings about areduction in the of this “black box”, at least from apurely practical perspective. After structural characteristics, it seems justifiable to overlook the content their them—are to reactions residents’ neighbourhoods—and in that what lies at the origin of social organisation and levels of crime throughout the Since book. previous research has demonstrated residents’ perceptions of crime has been discussed extensively connecting the exogenous sources of social disorganisation to 5 partial correlationanalyses, 7 In a similarvein, the bivariate 6 andthe 115 cities and in various large also proved cities. It trivial or even explanation ofperceived crimeintowns andmedium-sized index basedonnationalgroups proved to beirrelevant to the in different subsetsofmunicipalities. For instance, aHerfindahl model specificationsandestimationmethods, norisitobserved Spanish local communities, is not necessarily robust to different across perceived levels crimethatisobservable ofneighbourhood association between immigration-related diversity and the perceiving crime. neighbourhood This finding goes against opposed to the“diversity” thatincreases of theprobability part, seems reasonable to assumethatitisthe“ethnic” component, as national diversity and immigrant concentration measures, it models. While there are problems between of multicollinearity immigrant groups were includedinthemultilevel regression ofthelargestindex turnednegative once theproportion crime sinceneighbourhood thecoefficient for theHerfindahl Diversity, inandofitself, reduce may perceived actually ormunicipality.district meaning indifferent butinthesameneighbourhood, census tracts same census tract—may be better than living nearthem — findings suggestthatlivingwithimmigrants—meaning inthe of safety. perceptions crime, ofneighbourhood Vis-à-vis these turns negative,actually therefore increasing residents’ feelings influence immigration ofneighbourhood notonlydecreases, it (spatial error rule)—themodels using the queen contiguity (multilevel models) or censusthat are close tracts or adjacent withinneighbourhoods localised—such ascensus tracts error models. As comparisons become ofcensus more tracts was adjusted for by meansofmultilevel, spatiallagor negative whenspatialinterdependence intheanalysisofMadrid

Conclusions previous studiesthathave failedto separate thediversity from Asians’ perceptions were analysed. This isbecausetheingroup- regardless ofthe origin of census respondents, andeven when Asians, their presence was associated withunsafe neighbourhoods Asians City. inthestudyofMadrid Interestingly, inthecaseof crime. This isthecasefor atthenational level, Moroccans andfor ishighlyassociated withthelevels ofperceived ofbirth, country groups, thepresenceIn fact, ofcertain or definedby nationality the immigrant population. the ethniccomponent, overlooking theinternal composition of 116 areas. considering crimeandvandalism aproblem intheirresidential and inconsistent, independenteffectonthenumberofresidents presence offoreigners shows inneighbourhoods amoderate, of awidespread beliefinacrime-immigration nexus, theactual findingoftheresearch that, againstthebackgroundis astriking existence crime, ofneighbourhood ismoderate. Inconclusion, it 1969), whenevaluating the andHorwitz, outgroup bias(Rabbie

Conclusions REFERENCES R eferences

Abellá, C. (2006). Los discursos mediáticos acerca de la inmigración y el multiculturalismo Anselin, L. (2002). “Under the Hood. Issues in the Specification and Interpretation of en España: análisis de los editoriales de ABC, El Mundo y El País, 1994-2002. Doctoral Spatial Regression Models.” Agricultural Economics, 27(3): 247-67. Thesis presented at the University of La Coruña.

Arjona, A., and J. Checa. (2005). “Emprendedores étnicos en Almería. ¿Una alternativa Adler, F. (1983). Nations Not Obsessed With Crime. Littleton, CO: Fred B Rothman & Co. laboral a la segmentación del mercado de trabajo?” Sociologia del Trabajo, 54: 101-25.

Aebi, M., and A. Linde. (2010). “El misterioso caso de la desaparición de las estadísticas Bachrach, K., and A. Zautra. (1985). “Coping with a Community Stressor: The Threat policiales españolas.” Revista electrónica de ciencia penal y criminología, 12(7): 1-30. of a Hazardous Waste Facility.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26(2): 127-41.

Aizlewood, A., and R. Pendakur. (2005). “Ethnicity and Social Capital in Canada.” Bannister, J., and N. Fyfe. (2001). “Introduction: Fear and the City.” Urban Studies, Canadian Ethnic Studies, 37: 77-102. 38(5/6): 807-13.

Alesina, A., and E. La Ferrara. (2005). “Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Barnum, C., and R. Perfetti. (2010). “Race-Sensitive Choices by Police Officers in Traffic Opportunities.” Journal of Public Economics, 89(5/6): 897-931. Stop Encounters.” Police Quarterly, 13(2): 180-208.

Almond, G., and S. Verba. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy Becker, G. (1968). “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Political Economy, 167-217.

Alonso-Borrego, C., N. Garoupa, M. Perea, and P. Vázquez. (2008). “Inmigración y Bellair, P. (2000). “Informal surveillance and street crime: a complex relationship.” delincuencia en España, 1999-2007: explicando un comportamiento excepcional.” Criminology, 38(1): 137-169. In Efectos económicos de la inmigración en España, Madrid: Fundación de Estudios de Economía Aplicada. Biderman, A., L. Johnson, J. McIntyre, and A. Weir. (1967). Report on a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia on Victimization and Attitudes toward Law Enforcement. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nationalism. London: Verso.

117 The Annalsofthe American AcademyofPolitical and SocialScience B B Journal of Environmental Psychology — (2004).“Incivilities,PlaceAttachmentandCrime:BlockIndividualEffects.” Psychology Neighborhood: IndividualandBlockLevelsofAnalysis.” B Political Participation.” B the SociologyofEducation B Levels: AnEconometricApproach.’ B Violent Crime.” B Wiley. B 39(1): 103-140. Origin thePersistenceof SourceCountryEffects”. B An EmpiricalTestUsingtheBritishCrimeSurvey”. B Forces, Networks, CollectiveEfficacy,andViolentCrimein UrbanNeighbourhoods.” runton o r l lau ueker lal rady r ider o o o urdieu ck wning wn o , J.,andP. m ck , M., and G. , H., S. , C.(2005).“PoliticalIncorporation amongImmigrantsfromTenAreasof , B.,D. an 83(2): 503-34. , H.(1967). -S , P.(1985).“Theformsofcapital.”In , C.,S. , A.,andA. mith , 23:259–71. V , I.andP. P erba erkins B F American Sociological Review, einberg lau L , and K. o Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations . (1982).“TheCostofInequality:MetropolitanStructureand ng , andG. R . (1973). Subjective Probability ofVictimization and Crime S , andR. eiss American Political Science Review turgis , editedbyJohnRichardson.NewYork:Greenwood. . (1967).“OnExploringthe‘DarkFigure’ofCrime.” S chl . (2011).“DoNeighborhoodsGenerateFearofCrime? B r o D o z ietz wn m an . (2003).“PlaceAttachmentinaRevitalizing Criminology . (2004).“TheParadoxofSocialOrganisation: , 24:359–71. . (1995).

Handbook ofTheory and Research for 47(1): 114-29. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of , 11(1):87-94. Criminology International MigrationReview , 89(2):271-294. Journal ofEnvironmental , 49(2):331-369. . NewYork:John , 374(1):1-15. Social ,

118 C Crime: ProblemsandProspects Conflict andConsensus.”In — (1989).“PoliticalDecisionmakingandEcologicalModelsofDelinquency: Problems andProspects.” B 91-113. C and FearofCrime.” C Children’s ProblemBehaviors.” C 108(6): 1249-91. Arguments ConcerningInformalSocialControl.” C de Seguridad. desde lasvocesdeloslíderesopinión. C Immigration andCrime.” B Rates, 1960-1980).” B Ramiro MartinezandAbelValenzuela.NewYork,NY:YorkUniversityPress. Immigration.” In — (2006).“Rethinking the ChicagoSchool of Criminology: A New Era of Liska. Albany,NY:SUNYPress. ursik utcher ursik heca hiric h arr he achón o o ldin , P.(2003).“TheNewParochialism:TheImplicationsoftheBeltwayCasefor ng o , R.,andH. , F.(2001). , R.(1988).“SocialDisorganizationandTheoriesofCrimeDelinquency: s , Y.,andS. , K.,andA. , L.(2008). , H.(1978).“UrbanDensity andPathology.” , T.,M. H G o El Ejido:La ciudad-cortijo gan ra Immigration andCrime:Race,Ethnicity,Violence P R Convivencia, inmigraciónyconflictos:tresdistritosmadrileños Law & SocietyReview, m iehl Criminology audenbush , andM. sick . (1998).“Cross-CityEvidenceontheRelationshipbetween . (1993). “Economic Deprivation and Neighbourhood Crime . (1993).“EconomicDeprivationandNeighbourhoodCrime Journal of PolicyAnalysisand Management, Criminology G Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and . (2000).“MeasurementandStructuralModels for , editedbyStevenMessner,MarvinKrohn,andAllen ertz Psychological Methods , 35(1):107–31. . (1997).“RacialCompositionofNeighborhood , 26(4):519-551. Madrid: 27(2): 263-83. . Barcelona:IcariaEditorial.

Colección Estudios, Observatorio American JournalofSociology, Annual Review of Sociology , 5(4):477-95. 17: 457–93. , editedby , 4:

References and theUnitedStates.” C Onderzoeken Documentatiecentrum. Perspective: KeyFindings fromthe2004-2005ICVSandEUICS.”Wetenschappelijk D Journal of Development Economics, D — (1975). Social Problems C Journal of Sociology, C Activity Approach.” C Politics.” C Press. C 142-55. Parties: Explaining the Vlaams Blok’s Electoral Success.” C Analysis.” C of ChicagoPress. and Justice C ohen offe lemente itrin o larke o o o ijk e mom hen nklin le hen (van),J.,J.van m , H., B. , J.,andJ. , A. (1955). , L., and M. an , C.,M. , R.(1995).“SituationalCrimePrevention.” In bynes , J. (1971). “Dimensions of Community Response to the Crime Problem.” , F.,andM. , J.(1988). “Social Capital in the Creation ofHuman Capital.” American Political Science Review, Social Forces The Impact of Crime , editedbyMichaelTonryandDavidFarrington.Chicago,IL:University G., and B. H eyndels D S , 18:373–85. aws ides Delinquent Boys:TheCultureoftheGang F K els K esteren o . (2008).“ImmigrationandtheImaginedCommunityinEurope , and J. leiman American Sociological Review, 94(Supplement):S95-S120. n o . (1993).“NeighbourhoodPovertyandAfricanAmerican n Ö , 56(2):519-531. . (1979).“SocialChangeand Crime Rate Trends:ARoutine Political Studies zler , andP. . (1977).“FearofCrimeintheUnitedStates:AMultivariate V . (2005). “Crime and Local Inequality in South Africa.” ermeir . NewYork,NY:MacMillan. S . (2007). “Fertile Grounds for Extreme Right-Wing mit 76(2):265-92. . (2007).“CriminalVictimisation inInternational , 56(1):33-56. 87(2): 286-302. 44(4):588–608. Building aSaferSociety:Crime . Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Electoral Studies American , 26(1): 119 Criminológico G New York:FreePress. G y consumo G de InvestigaciónCriminológica en España:análisislongitudinal conencuestasdevictimización.” G Psychology F Social Sciences E — (1951[1897]. D in theAnti-ImmigrationVote.” D Reconsidering AgeDifferencesinFearofVictimization.” F Migration Studies Amsterdam: CivicCommunitiesandEthnicNetworks”, Spanish Neighbourhoods F Polity Press. E ried s chazarra errar enne arcía ans amella arcía urkhei inas p ing , M.(2000).“ContinuitiesandDiscontinuitiesofPlace.” , H.(1962). , E.,andJ.v m - , E.,J. , E.(2000).“Análisiscuantitativodeladelincuencia deinmigrantes.” o A m a , K.,andR. , J.(1997). ndersen , M.,andJ. , E.(1934[1893]). , A.(2012). . Madrid:DelegacióndeGobiernoparaelPlanNacional SobreDrogas. D , 20(3):193-205. íez , 49:1-4. , 47:S233–S244. , , F. G.(1990). The UrbanVillagers:GroupandClassintheLifeofItalian-Americans The Suicide an , 25(4):703-726. P Drogas desíntesisenEspaña:patronesytendencias deadquisición

érez S L panje T a Social Disorganisation,Immigration,andPerceivedCrimein illie G , M. range . Madrid:InstitutoJuanMarch. The Division of Labor in Society . (2011).“CrimeStory:TheRoleofCrimeandImmigration . (1999).“PoliticalParticipationandPoliticalTrustin B The ThreeWorldsofWelfareCapitalism . Glencoe,IL:TheFreePress. enítez . (1992).“AreOlderPeopleMostAfraidofCrime? , 8(2). Electoral Studies , andA. C erezo . (2010).“Evolucióndeladelincuencia , 30(4):658-71. . London:MacMillan. Journal ofEnvironmental Journal of Gerontology: Journal ofEthnicand . Cambridge,U.K.: Revista Española Boletín .

References Crime andDelinquency G 101 (4):709-25. Diversity UnderminePublic GoodsProvision?” H G 78(6): 1360-80. G G Construction.” G del ObservatorioPermanentedelaInmigración. G inmigrante delincuente.” G 98: 603-20. the ArabGhettoinTelAviv-Jaffa”. G Study 292,DevelopmentandStatisticsDirectorate. G G Victimology G usfield ranovetter raber ill erber ar o o ó abyari ar oo ldhaber nzález m o , M.,andA. o de ez fal fal , T.(2008).“Review:OnSociology.” - , E.,andN. , D.(1980). F m , J.(1975). o o raguela ana , C.,and B. , J.,andJ. , J.(1979).“VictimizationandtheFearofCrime.” , R.,andI. , M.(1973).“TheStrengthofWeakTies.” , 3:242-53. , J.,M. S , J.,J. Annual Review ofSociology priggs Crime Newsandthe Public Community: A Critical Response B H L en Á S u aub . (2005).“AssessingtheImpactofCCTV.”HomeOfficeResearch S mp chnell - lvarez o Y , 16(1):80-97. bral . (1978).“TheFearofCrime:BroadeningourPerspective.” ehuda hreys Boletín Criminológico , A. -M . (2007).“AModelofMultidimensionalSegregationin , D. . (1994).“MoralPanics:Culture,Politics,andSocial iranda L ueng P Tijdsschrift voorEconomischeenSocialeGeografie o sner . (2005). o , E. , andJ. R Contemporary Sociology , 20:149-71. om . NewYork:Praeger. Inmigrantes enelbarrio er W o , 112. . NewYork:Harper&Row. , andP. einstein American PoliticalScience Review American JournalofSociology, . (2007).“WhyDoesEthnic V illar Journal of Researchin . (2009).“Elmitodel , 37(1):71-3. . Documentos ,

120 680. and CrimeDisorder as aCaseinPoint.” H Journal of Sociology, H H H Policy Immigration Nexus:MigrantMythologiesintheAmericas.” H National AcademiesPress. of Immigration The ImmigrationDebate:StudiesontheEconomic,Demographic,andFiscalEffects H Questions.” H Idealistic City.Amsterdam’sBijlmermeerHigh-Rise.” H 47(2): 263-76. Multimethodological Investigation.” H Publishers. Science andPhilosophy, H University Press. irschi irschi idalgo agan i ardin ayek agan elle eath pp , J.(2007).“Block,Tract,andLevelsofAggregation: NeighborhoodStructure m , F.(1964).“TheTheoryofComplexPhenomena.”In , 7(1):95:112. , J.,andA. , L. (1984). “Impact of Newspaper Crime Reports on Fear of Crime: , J.,R. , T.,andM. , T. (1969). , R.(1995). an , C.,andB. , G.,andF. Journal of Environmental Psychology L evi , edited by JamesSmithandBarry Edmonston. Washington, D.C.: , andR. Causes ofDelinquency P G One forAll:TheLogicofGroupConflict all H ottfredsn ernández 89(3):552-84. W o ni assenberg . (1998).“ImmigrationandCrimeintheUnitedStates.”In edited byMarioBunge.NewBrunswick,NJ:Transaction D in o . (2001).“PlaceAttachment:ConceptualandEmpirical . (1983).“AgeandtheExplanationofCrime.” vitzer . (2004).“TheRenewalofWhatWasTomorrow’s . (2008).“TheSymbolicViolenceoftheCrime- Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. American SociologicalReview , 21:273-281. Cities . Princeton,NJ:Princeton , 21(1):3-17. Criminology and Public Critical Approachesto American , 72:659- ,

References Transition.” — (2011). “Violent Crime, Mobility Decisions, and Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic 8(2): 177-87. (1988). “TheSocialAmplification ofRisk:AConceptualFramework.” K Society. K New Zealand Journal of Criminology Social DisorganisationandCrimeinRuralCommunities inAustralia.” J their CorrelatesinChina.” J J Western Publics I of RacialStereotypes.” H Norwood, N.J.:AblexPublishing. Institution BuildinginModernSociety Incivility inUrbanCommunities.”In — (1985). “Private, Parochial and Public Social Orders: The Problem of Crime and the AmericanSocietyofCriminology.Dallas,Texas,November. H Provoke LocalOpposition.” H nglehart obes acobs iang as asarda unter urwitz op p kins ers , S., and E. , P.,E. , J.(1961). , A.(1978).“SymbolsofIncivility.”PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeeting o , J.,andM. , D. (2010). “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants , John,andMorris ” n , R. (1977).

, R.,O. American Sociological Review, B Social Problems arclay . Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. L R The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities a enn , H. m P The SilentRevolution:ChangingValuesandPoliticalStylesAmong bert effley , P. W . (2009). “Views of Formal and Informal Crime Control and American Journal of Political Science einand S . (1997).“PublicPerceptionsofRaceandCrime:TheRole l o International Criminal Justice Review vic , 58(3):410-432. American Political Science Review J , andJ.F. an , H. o witz B r o , 37:114-140. The ChallengeofSocialControl:Citizenshipand wn . (1974).“CommunityAttachmentinMass , edited by Gerald Suttles and Mayer Zald. D 39(3):328–39. , J. onnermeyer E m el , R. . (2004).“AStructuralAnalysisof G o ble , J. . NewYork:Vintage. , 41:374–401. K as , 104:40-60. p , 15(1):5-24. ers o n , andS. Risk Analysis Australian & R atick . , 121 K 82(4): 530-9. K 1681-1685. K Relative Deprivation.” K Press. edited byRamiroMartinez andAbelValenzuela.NewYork,NY:YorkUniversity and SuburbanSan Diego.” In L 1035. Engagement, and Juvenile Homicide in Rural Areas.” Role ofSocialandPhysicalIncivilities.” L Delinquent Behavior.” K Press. L Matter?” L and LocalGovernment. modelling ofthe2005CitizenshipSurvey”London:DepartmentforCommunities L 29: 311–34. ee ederman a aurence ee ornhauser eizer r awachi elly G o , M.,andR. , M.,andJ. hn range , M.(2000).“InequalityandCrime.” , K.,S. , M.(1986).“WebofConformity:ANetworkApproachtotheExplanation , I.,B. , J.,andA. , D.,N. , R.,K. Economic Developmentand Cultural Change , R.(1978). L indenberg K M B ennedy F L artk artinez errar oayza H o , andR. wski , andL. eath o Social SourcesofDelinquency , andA. . (2006).“ImmigrationandAsianHomicidePatterns inUrban , andM. Social Science and Medicine, Social Problems . (2004).“LoveThyNeighbor?MoralCommunities, Civic . (2008).“PredictorsofCommunityCohesion:Multilevel S W teg M Immigration andCrime:Race,EthnicityViolence ilkins S enéndez u . (2008).“TheSpreadingofDisorder.” p ancic o n . (1999).“Crime:SocialDisorganisationand , 33:S81-S83. Journal ofResearchinCrimeandDelinquency . (2002).“ViolentCrime:DoesSocialCapital . (1992).“PerceivedRiskandFearofCrime: The ReviewofEconomicsandStatistics, 48:719-31. . Chicago:UniversityofChicago , 50(3):509-39. Social Forces , 82(3): 1001- Science , 322: , ,

References York: Routledge. M M Violent Crime, L Place L 499-503. Protection: Two Not So Divergent Models.” L Newspapers.” Negative EvidencefromThreeBorderCities.” L L Honolulu.” L 493-517. Ethnic DifferencesinRecentU.S.Elections”, L Problem L the ImpactofCrime.” L Poverty ConcentrationonHomicide.” the Metro/NonmetroDivide:TheEffectsofSocioeconomicDisadvantageand L ee ewis ee ewis ien o o iz iska ind acionis artinez gan gan o , M.,M. , M.,R. , P.(2004).“AsianAmericansandVotingParticipation:ComparingRacial tte , A. (1930). “Some Ecological Patterns of Community Disorganization in , A.,and W. , D.,andG. , D.,andM. . BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCalifornia Press. , J., and H. , J.,andS. , A.,D. , J.,andL. . NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers. , R.(2002). M M American Journal of Sociology artinez aume B Social Problems Social Science Quarterly o S M , andG. rdua M M ale B , andR. G axfield accaglini o essner erber Latino Homicide: Immigration, Violence and Community m l o , andC. . (1986). Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency tch . (2010). . (1980).“FearintheNeighborhoods:AnInvestigationof O . (1987).RacialResidentialSegregationandSuburban . (2007[1987]). R usey . (1990). “Feeling SafebyComparison: Crime in the o senfeld , 37(3):360-74. Fear of Crime: Incivility and the Production of a Social W . (2003).“SocialIsolationandLethalViolenceacross hite Sociology . (2001).“DoesImmigrationIncreaseHomicide . (1981).“FirearmsOwnershipforSportand , 68(3):510-527. Rural Sociology , 36(2):206-20. Urban Fortunes:ThePoliticalEconomyof . Toronto,Ontario:Pearson Canada. International Migration Review American SociologicalReview Sociological Quarterly, , 68(1):107-31. , 17:160–189. 42:559–80. , 46(4): , 38(2): . New 122 sectional Analysis.” of Perceivedand Objectively Measured Crime with Physical Activity: a Cross- M M and AbelValenzuela.NewYork:YorkUniversityPress. Coming to America: Immigration Ethnicity, and Crime — (2006).“ComingtoAmerica:TheImpactoftheNewImmigrationonCrime.”In Social Networks.” M Level.” M Columbus, Ohio” M Deviant Behavior M 3(5): 672-82. M City.” M Sentencing Reporter M Places, and Situations M Mobility.” M asl c errifield iethe ichielin c c ert esch c ears G P P K hers hers enzie inn o o w International Journal of Urban and Regional Research n , D.(2002).“ImmigrationandCrime:What’stheConnection?”Federal , T.,andR. , G.(2000).“PerceptionsofRisk,LifestyleActivities, andFearofCrime.” , R.(1938).“SocialStructureandAnomie.” , A.(1943).“ATheoryofHumanMotivation.” , Victimology o , A., o , R.(1922).“TheNeighbourhood:AStudyofLocalLifeintheCity , A.(2000).“TheDialecticsofDystopia:DisorderandZeroToleranceinThe F., n n Population, Space, and Place , M., M., , , M. (1978). “Realities and Perceptions of Crime at the Neighborhood K. . M C. E venson L . . M ulder , 21(1):47-62. S American Journal of Sociology, Annual Review ofSociology, c m , 3:319–28. C , 14(5):284-8. Journal of Physical Activity and Health ith orkle , , . LosAngeles,CA:Roxbury PublishingCompany. A. - and A. L H o . (1998). vin erring , , and J. Z orlu , S. Crime Profiles:TheAnatomy ofDangerousPersons, H . (2008).“DistancetoParentsandGeographical C uston oo , 14(4):327-45. k . (2001).“BirdsofaFeather:Homophilyin , and D. 27:415–44. 27(6):780-99. R odriguez Psychological Review American Sociological Review , editedbyRamiro Martinez , 5(1):117-31. . (2008). “The Association , 24(2):473–89. , 50:370-96. ,

References Goods inKenya.” M Press. Disorganisation.” Effects on Serious Juvenile Offending: The Role of Subcultural Values and Social O New York,NY:MarinerBooks. M 39(3): 517-558. Collective Efficacy,andtheSpatialDynamicsofUrbanViolence.” M York UniversityPress. and Violence Differences inYouthViolenceChicago.”In M the WelfareState.”InstitutodeEstudiosSocialesAvanzados,WorkingPaper92-13. M Parties and Public Opinion Immigration andDiversityonLocalCommunitiesinSpain.” M Humana enBarcelona.” M P An AnalysisofRuralYouthViolence.” O ark sgood berwittler onnet umford orenff o iguel o o ren rales ren , R.,E. o o , E.,andM. , N.(2001).“Moros,SudacasyGuiris,unaFormadeContemplarlaDiversidad , W.,andJ. , L.,andS. ff , L.,andA. , L.(1961). , J.,andA. , J.,R. B , D. (2004). “A Multilevel Analysis of Neighbourhood Contextual urgess , editedbyRamiroMartinezandAbelValenzuela.NewYork,NY: S , andR. a Journal of PublicEconomics, European Journal of Criminology, C S G The CityinHistory:ItsOrigins,itsTransformations,andProspects mp A arasa hambers E ugerty stor chazarra s o n Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales . (2000).“TheSpanish‘ViaMedia’totheDevelopmentof . (2006).“ImmigrantAssimilationandCrime:Generational andS. M , 23(3):343-366. . (2005).“EthnicDiversity,SocialSanctions,andPublic . (2000).“SocialDisorganisationOutsidetheMetropolis: c K . (2013).“WillWeAllHunkerDown?TheImpactof enzie R . (1925). audenbush Criminology, The City . (2001).“NeighborhoodInequality, Immigration andCrime:Race,Ethnicity 89:2325-68. . Chicago:UniversityofChicago 38(1):81-116. 1(2):201-35. Journal ofElections, Criminology , 94(58). . , 123 Social Forces P of Community Psychology Their RelationshiptoFearofCrimeandTheoreticalImplications.” P Comparative studies in Society and History, P P Barcelona: FundaciónCIDOB. P Measurenaent.” and ResidentPerceptionsofCrimeDisorder:ImplicationsforTheory P Scandinavian Political Studies, — (2007).“EPluribusUnum: DiversityandCommunityintheTwenty-firstCentury.” America.” — (1995). “Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance ofSocial Capital in NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. P Review of Sociology P Migration review Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation.” P latón utnam ortes erkins erkins iny eters o o rtes rtes o l o , G.(2008).“LadimensiónexteriordelaspolíticasinmigraciónenlaUE.” , A.,andE. , A. (1972). “Rationality in the Slum: An Essay on Interpretive Sociology.” . (1992). , D., J. , D.,andR. , A., and J. , R.(1993). n , R., and L. Political Science and Politics, M , 71(4):1001-1026. eeks Dialógos. V Journal of Environmental Psychology , 23(3):606-30. Making DemocracyWork:CivicTraditionsinModern Italy ickstrom , and R. T ayl K , 37:461-79. B riv ö o r o r ö . (1996).“EcologicalAssessmentsofCommunityDisorder:

. (1993). “Racial Segregation and Black Urban Homicide.” La república cz . (2011).“Diversity,SocialCapital,andCohesion.” T , 24:63–107. aylor . (1989). “Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical 3(2):137-74. . (1992). “The Physical Environment of Street Blocks . Madrid:Gredos. 28(4):664-83. 14(3):268-86. , 12:21-34. American Journal International . Princeton, American

References Department ofGeography. P August. Balance between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties,” Washington D.C., Police Foundation National Conference on “The Role of Local Police: Striking a Imprisonment: Popular Myths andEmpiricalRealities.”Paperpresented tothe R 74: 1353-76. Empirical EvidenceofConceptuallyDistinctReaction inSurveyData.” R of School Violence Objective vs. Subjective Experiences among a Sample of Kentucky Youth.” R 80(1): 283-310. R España.” R Evidence acrossUSMetropolitanAreas.” R Educational and Behavioral Statistics and Cross-Classified Random Structures Using a Multilevel Model.” R Win orLoss.” R 107(3): 717-67. Stereotypes inEvaluationsofNeighborhoodCrime.” Q ountree eid yle abbie o o o asbash u uillian dríguez senfeld untree m , L., H. , G.(1974). baut , J.,andM. , L.,andD. , J.,andH. , P., M. P., , , R.(2008).“UndocumentedImmigration and RatesofCrime , P.,andKenneth Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica , R., and E. W - A eiss ndrés Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , R. A The SpatialDynamicsofCrime ugustine , H A A.(2003).“Losdeterminantessocio–económicosdeldelitoen , 4(2):3-28. P delman o ager rwitz G B o au ldstein . (2001).“BlackNeighbors,HigherCrime?TheRoleofRacial , m . (1969).“ArousalofIngroup-OutgroupBiasbyaChance , and C. and J. er . (2001). “Social Capital and Homicide.” L and . (1994).“EfficientAnalysisofMixedHierarchical B J ryan . (1996).“PerceivedRiskVersusFearofCrime: aret , 19(4):337-50. . (2005). “The Immigration–Crime Relationship: . (2005).“The‘Reality’ofMiddle-SchoolCrime Social ScienceResearch . Chicago,IL:Universityof American JournalofSociology , 1:1-31. , 13(3):269-77. , 34(4):757-80. Social Forces Social Forces, Journal of Journal , ,

124 of CollectiveEfficacyfor Children.” S Review, “Immigration and Incarceration: Patterns and Predictors of Imprisonment among DC: ImmigrationPolicy Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among Native and Foreign-Born Men R Resettlement. A ComparativeStudy.”FinalReport,Washington, D.C.,U.S.OfficeofRefugee R S Disorganisation Theory.” of Deviance: The Neighbourhood Context of Racial Differences.” S Drop inCrime?”TheNewYorkTimes,11 — (2006).“OpenDoorsDon’tInviteCriminals:IsIncreased ImmigrationBehindthe Joan McCord.NewBrunswick:TransactionBooks. First- andSecond-GenerationYoungAdults.”In R Disorganisation Theory.” In — (1992). “Family Management and Child Development: Insights from Social Organization.” — (1991).“LinkingtheMicro-andMacrolevelDimensionsofCommunitySocial Disruption.” S NY: NewYorkUniversityPress. Ethnicity andViolence ampson ampson ampson a umbaut u u mp m m baut baut s o n 32(4):777-804. , R.,andB. , R.,J. , R.(1987).“UrbanBlackViolence:TheEffectofMaleJoblessnessandFamily , R.,andW. , R.andK. , R.,andD. , R.,R. American Journal of Sociology, M orenff Social Forces G o I E G m nzales B wing roves a artusch . (1988).“TheAdaptationofSoutheastAsianRefugeeYouth: , edited by Ramiro Martinez and Abel Valenzuela. New York, , andF.

. (2007). Center, AmericanImmigrationLawFoundation. . (1989).“CommunityStructureandCrime:Testing Social , , American Journal of Sociology, G . (1998).“LegalCynicismand(Subcultural?)Tolerance , 70(1):43-64. Advances in Criminological Theory: Volume 3 . . E K arls om The MythofImmigrantCriminalityandtheParadox . (1999).“BeyondSocialCapital: SpatialDynamics aie American Sociological Review , , C M . th March. 93(2):348-82. o rgan , , and R. Immigration and Crime: Race, 95(4):774–802. T af o ya , 64(5):633-60. - E strada Law & Society . Washington, , edited by . (2006).

References Maclennan (eds.).Dordrecht: SpringerNetherlands. Research: New Perspectives Neighbourhood Effects After MovingtoOpportunity.”In S Spaces: ANewLookatDisorderinUrbanNeighborhoods.” S S Neighborhoods — (1990). 203-29. S Assessment ofContextualEffects.” S Press. Urban Areas S Police Foundation. S University ofChicagoPress. S Stanford UniversityPress. Inequality.” In S A MultilevelStudyofCollectiveEfficacy.” S Sociology kogan herman haw ampson k h a i a m m o mp o mp all cha gan rt s s , C.,andH. , J.(1969).“IntroductiontotheRevisedEdition.”In o , M.,andJ. o - , W.,andM. , W.(1986).“Fearofcrimeandneighborhoodchange.” n n F , L.,andB. , R.,S. , R., and W. , R.,andS. agan , 5(3):603-51. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American , by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. Chicago: University of Chicago , O.,andJ. R Crime andInequality audenbush . NewYork,NY:FreePress. M F G c M eld K lick R W ay axfield audenbush m ils . (1969[1942]). . (1984).“QualityofPoliceArrestStatistics.”WashingonD.C.: an o , andF. S n chwartz . (2012).“Ethnographic Evidence, Heterogeneity,and , byM.vanHam,D.Manley, N.Bailey,L.SimpsonandD. . (1995). “Towards a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban . (1981). . (1999).“SystematicSocialObservationofPublic E . (1986).“NeighbourhoodandDelinquency:An arls Coping withCrime , edited byJ. Hagan and R.Peterson, Stanford: Criminology, . (1997).“NeighbourhoodsandViolentCrime: Juvenile DelinquencyinUrbanAreas. Science, 24(4):667-703. 277:918–24. . BeverlyHills,CA:Sage. Juvenile Delinquencyand Neighbourhood Effects American Journalof Crime andjustice Chicago: , 8: 125 and Punishment: Changing Attitudes in America Programs T — (2001). Forum The SystemicModelofAttachment,andNeighborhood UseValue.” T Delinquency.” S Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicagoPress. S S S Sociológicas la inmigración en la sociedad receptora.” S British Journal of Sociology S — (1945).“Is‘WhiteCollarCrime’Crime?” S Cornell UniversityPress. S Power.” BepressLegalSeries,WorkingPaper1635. S American Academy ofPoliticaland Social Science uttles nodgrass utherland ullivan tinchc ayl tu t h o ykes o om lé mp fflet o , , as , G.,andD. r C f , R.(1996).“NeighborhoodResponsestoDisorder andLocalAttachments: , 11:41-74. , G.(1968). , J. (2006). “The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime, and Sovereign om , W.,andD. ., ., , M.(1989). , E. (1941). “The European Immigrant and His Children.” S be , J.(1976).“CliffordR.ShawandHenryD.McKay:ChicagoCriminologists.” . NewYork,NY: Knopf. , E.(1924). . P . Breaking Away from Broken Windows , A.,R. , 90:131-57. arella American Sociological Review The SocialOrderoftheSlum:EthnicityandTerritory in theInnerCity A M , , “Getting Paid:YouthCrimeandWorkintheInnerCity da T A atza Criminology h m . . om s A , C. larcón . (1957).“TechniquesofNeutralization:ATheory of as , 16(1):1-19. . (1928). H ei m , , er V . Philadelphia,Pa.:Lippincott. , , . . K B . . The ChildinAmerica:Behavior Problemsand ergalli S che pp American SociologicalReview ele

, 22(6):664-70. and F. , , Revista EspañoladeInvestigaciones T . SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass. . Boulder,Co.:WestviewPress. . . , 217:84-92. S m G ith ibert , andG. . (2000). “El impacto de T ayl o r . (1980). Annals ofthe , 10(2):132-9. Sociological ” . Ithaca,NY: Crime .

References York, NY:Knopf. T Cambridge, U.K.:PolityPress. — (2008). Thesis Eleven W US: aSpatialRegressionApproach.” V of ResearchinCrime and Delinquency, An ElaborationofSampsonandGroves’Community StructureandCrime.” V Equality V Law andCriminology V Switzerland” V of Social Issues Personal Victimization Experience and Socially Transmitted Information.” T T T Region.” T o önnies h o yler o eysey erba echten azs acquant nry om bler ss , P.,D. o as , T.(1984).“AssessingtheRiskofCrimeVictimization:TheIntegration , S.,andN. , M.(1997).“Ethnicity,Crime,andImmigration.‘‘ , B.,andS. nyi , W.(1970).“AComputerMovieSimulatingUrbanGrowthintheDetroit , F. (2002[1887]). , W., and F. (van),C.(1941).“TheCriminalityoftheForeignBorn.” . NewYork:HarperandRow. , A.,andM. Economic Geography , L.(2007).“TerritorialStigmatizationintheAgeof Advanced Marginality.” L o Urban Outcasts:AComparative SociologyofAdvancedMarginality ng , 91(1):66-77. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 40:27-38. , R. N M ie H essner Z . (1972). a naniecki mm , 32:139-47. K Community andSociety illias er . (1999).“FurtherTestingofSocialDisorganisation Theory: , andS. . (1927). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social . (2001).“ImmigrationandCrimeamongYouthin , 46:234-40. F ried The PolishPeasantinEuropeandAmerica Population ResearchPolicyReview m 36(2): 156-74. an . (2006). “County Child Poverty Rates in the . (2006).“CountyChildPovertyRatesinthe , 28(3):329-66. . London: Courier Dover Publications. Crime andJustice Journal of Criminal , 21:1-29. , 25:369-91. Journal Journal . New . 126 W Calls tothePoliceasaMeasureofCrime.” W Criminology, W — (1990).“DangerousSituations:SocialContextandFearofVictimization.” Criminology Gendered?” W W Criminal Justice — (2000).“FearofCrimeintheUnitedStates:AvenuesforResearchandPolicy.” Roth. Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress. Victimization.” In — (1994).“PublicPerceptionsandReactionstoViolentOffending Forces Social ScienceQuarterly — (1984).“Fear of Victimization: Why Are Women andtheElderlyMoreAfraid?” Comparison.” W Crime, Law and Social Change W W Causes.” arner arner elch arren arr arr ells arner , M.(1982).“TheAccuracyofPublicBeliefsaboutCrime:FurtherEvidence.” , M, and M. , E.,andR. , M.(2003).“IroniesofSocialControlandtheCriminalization ofImmigrants.” , 68:891–907. , B.,andG. , B.(2003).“TheRoleofAttenuatedCultureinSocialDisorganisationTheory.” , R.(1971). , B.,andP. Social Forces , 20:185–204. 41(1):73-98. Criminology Criminal Justice Review , 4:451-89. S W Consequences andControl The Community in America P taff ierce R eisheit o , 61:1033–43. untree o . (1993).“ReexaminingSocialDisorganizationTheoryUsing rd , 65(3):681-702. , 37(4):789-814. . (1983). “Fear of Victimization: A Look at the Proximate . “PatternsofRuraland UrbanCrime:ACounty-Level . (1997).“SocialTiesandCrime:IstheRelationship , 39(4):319-37. , 29(1):1-22. Criminology , editedbyAlbertReiss,Jr.,andJeffrey . Chicago,IL:RandMcNally. , 31(4):493-517. Social

References of CCTV.” W Public Policy W W — (1975). 25-39. W Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress. W ils ilson elsh ils hyte o o n n , B.,D. , W.(1943). , J.,andG. , William.(1987). , J.(1968).“TheUrbanUnease:Communityvs.City.” Crime PreventionandCommunitySafety:AnInternationalJournal Thinking about Crime F . Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. arrington K elling Street CornerSociety:TheSocialStructureofanItalianSlum . (2004).“Evidence-basedCrimePrevention:TheEffectiveness . (1982).“BrokenWindows.” The Truly Disadvantaged: The InnerCity,the Underclass, and . NewYork,NY:BasicBooks. Atlantic Monthly The PublicInterest , 211:29-38. , 6:21-33. , 12: . 127 Crime andDelinquency, Crime RiskonFearofIsolatingEndogenousImpacts. W 1-24. W Knopf. — (1996). Gangs, Families,andCommunities. Z atz irth yant , Marjorie, and Edward Portillos. (2000). “Voices from the Barrio: Chicano/a , L. (1938). “Urbanism asaWay of Life , B.(2008).“MultilevelImpactsofPerceivedIncivilitiesandPerceptions When WorkDisappears:TheWorldoftheNewUrbanPoor 45(1):39-64. ”

Criminology ”

American JournalofSociology , 38(2):369-402. ”

Journal ofResearchin . NewYork,NY: , 44 (1):

References DATA SOURCES sources D ata

ASEP-JDS: Attitudes towards immigrants (Actitud hacia los International Centre for Prison Studies: World prison population inmigrantes), 1991-2007. list, 8th edition, 2009.

CIS (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas): Barometer Madrid Local Police (Policía Municipal de Madrid): Madrid indicators (Barómetros indicadores), 1980-2010. Victimisation Survey (Encuesta de victimización), Observatorio de seguridad, 2008. CIS: Survey 2632, Citizenship and participation (Ciudadanía y participación), 2006. Ministry of the Interior (Ministerio de Interior): Statistics yearbook of the Ministry of the Interior (Anuario estadístico del Ministerio de CIS: Survey 2634, Social class and social structure (Clases sociales Interior), 1995-2010. y estructura social), 2006. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Idealista.com: House prices in Madrid by neighbourhood, (OECD): Total tax revenues by country (2009). December 2000. www.idealista.com Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística): Conviction statistics (ICPSR): Project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods (Estadísticas de condenados), 1998-2010. (PHDCN).

INE: Municipal Register (Padrón municipal), 1998-2010. Department of Criminology, Max Planck Institute of Foreign and International Criminal Law (Freiburg): Social problems and INE: Population and Housing Census (Censo de población y juvenile delinquency in ecological perspective. viviendas), 2001.

128 Electoral dataforthe2000nationaland2003regionalelections. Statistics Institute Madrid ( 2010. United NationsOfficeonDrugsandCrime:Homicidestatistics, Instituto deEstadísticaMadrid ): ): 129 World BankData:GDPstatistics,2002. International CrimeVictimsSurvey(ICVS),2004-5. Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekenDocumentatiecentrum:

Data sources LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ables and F igures

2.8 Fear of crime and being victimised by type of crime (N=1,975) 58

TABLES L ist of T 2.9 Pearson correlations. Perceived neighbourhood crime 2.1 A list of avalaible crime statistics in Spain (1989-2010) 44 and victimisation rates in Madrid City’s districts (N=21) 59

2.2 Perceived neighbourhood crime† and vandalism 2.10 Pearson correlations. Local victimisation and perceptions by characteristics of census tracts 49 of neighbourhood problems 60

2.3 Logit regressions of census respondents (>16 years). 2.11 Victims’ characteristics in the International Crime Victims Perceived neighbourhood crime†, individual sociodemographics Survey (2005) 63 and signs of social and physical disorder 51 2.12 Victims’ characteristics in the Madrid Victimisation Survey (2008) 63 2.4 Multilevel model of individuals (level 1) and census tracts (level 2). Perceived neighbourhood crime† and the perceived 2.13 OLS regression analysis. Feeling safe walking alone at night in sociodemographic composition of census tracts. 53 the neighbourhood† and basic sociodemographic characteristics 64

2.5 Multilevel model of individuals (level 1) and census tracts (level 2). 2.14 OLS regression analysis. Perceived neighbourhood crime† Perceived neighbourhood crime† and the objective and sociodemographic characteristics 65 and perceived sociodemographic composition of census tracts 53 2.15 Multilevel logit regressions of survey respondents, census tracts 2.6 Pearson correlations. Recorded crime rates (2002) and perceived and municipalities. Perceived neighbourhood crime†, individual neighbourhood crime (2001) in Spanish provinces (N=50) 55 sociodemographic, structural factors and signs of social and physical disorder 66 2.7 Pearson correlations. Recorded crime rates and perceived neighbourhood crime (2001) in Madrid’s districts (N=21) 56 3.1 Descriptive statistics of the variables employed in the regression models 74

130 3.2 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 FIGURES 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.4 3.3 by selectedgroups and theforeign-bornlive* cities inSpain exogenous sourcesofsocialdisorganisationforthe10largest neighbourhood crime*bysizeofmunicipality neighbourhood crime* disorganisation, signsofsocialdisorderandperceived of socio-politicalparticipation andtheincivilitythesis disorganisation model crime inMadrid Multilevel linearregressionmodels.Exogenoussourcesofsocial Social disorganisationtheory, theresourcemodel A detailedcausalpathof thesocialdisorganisationmodel Incorporating neighbours’resourcesintothesocial The “blackbox”ofSocialDisorganisationTheory Kasarda andJanowitz’s(1974)empiricalfindings Regression models.Explainingperceivedneighbourhood Perceived neighbourhoodcrime,withincensustracts, Characteristics ofthetypicalcensustractinwhichnatives OLS linearregressions.Standardisedcoefficientsofthemain Multilevel linearregressionmodels.Determinantsofperceived

102 97 94 83 81 77 40 38 39 34 23 131 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 in Madrid’s128neighbourhoods (2002) of havingselectedgroups asneighbours in Madrid,1986-2010 safety inSpain of thesocialdisorganisationtheory Standardised coefficientsforthemainexogenoussources in theMVS by residents,Spain1993-2007 crime andvandalismbymunicipality(2001) and vandalismincensustracts(N=34,251) important problems Trends inthecrime-immigrationnexusperceived Geographical distributionofperceivedneighbourhood Distribution ofperceivedneighbourhoodcrime Evolution ofpublicopiniononSpain’smost Geographical distribution ofnativesandimmigrantgroups Evolution oftheuneasiness(0-10scale)withpossibility Evolution oftheforeignandforeign-bornpopulation Evolution ofpublicopiniononimmigrationand OLS linearregressionsforthe10largestcitiesinSpain. Conviction ratesbynationality(2009) Conviction ratesbyagegroup(2009) Perceived neighbourhoodcrimeandvictimisation Fear ofcrimeandvictimisationintheICVS(2005)

95 93 92 88 84 59 52 48 48 46 62 62 57

List of Tables and Figures 4.5 4.6 census tracts of residenceinSpain,2001Census Country oforigintheforeign-bornpopulationandlength Perceived neighbourhoodcrimeinMadridCity’s

99 95 132 4.8 4.7 and proportionofforeign-borngroups:across-evaluation crime bycontinentofbirth in selectedcountries/regionsandperceivedneighbourhood Hierarchical linearmodels.Perceivedneighbourhoodcrime Correlations betweentheproportionofresidentsoriginating

105 103

List of Tables and Figures List of abbreviations L ist of abbreviations

ASEP: Análisis Sociológicos, Económicos y Políticos S.A. MVS: Encuesta de Victimización de Madrid (Madrid Victimisation (Sociological, Economic and Political Analysis Inc.) Survey).

AIC: Akaike Information Criterion. OLS: Ordinary Least Squares.

CIS: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (Centre for Sociological REML: Restricted Maximum Likelihood. Research). PP: Partido Popular (People’s Party). GDP: Gross Domestic Product. PSOE: Partido Socialista Obrero Español (Spanish Workers’ Socialist HLM: Hierarchical Linear Models. Party).

ICVS: International Crime Victims Survey. UNODC: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

INE: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National Statistics Institute).

133 Appendix A ppendi x

A. DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES interpreted as the probability that two individuals selected at random belong to the same group (i.e. nationality). Variables refer to census sections (S), municipalities (M) or both (S/M). % Nationality (S): Number of residents from a given nationality as a percentage of the total population. Perceived neighbourhood crime (S): Percentage of adult respondents—16 or over—answering “yes” to the following Length of residence (S/M): Average length of residence in question: “Are crime and vandalism a problem in your area?” current dwelling. Unit of measurement: years.

% Higher education (S/M): Number of university graduates as a % Renters (S): Number of renters as a percentage of the total percentage of the adult population. population.

Unemployment rate (S): Number of unemployed as a percentage % Secondary residence (S): Number of residents with access to of the active population. a secondary residence—used at least 15 days a year—as a percentage of the total population. Herfindahl index (S/M): Sum of the squared proportion of 15 different nationalities, or group of nationalities, over the total % Divorced/Separated (S/M): Number of divorced and separated population. Nationalities included are: Argentinian, Bulgarian, persons as a percentage of the total population. Cuban, the Dominican, Ecuadorean, French, German, Italian, Moroccan, Peruvian, Rumanian, Spanish, British, Venezuelan, and % Overtime work (S): Number of persons working over 45 hours “other nationalities”. Values range from 0 to 1 and can be a week as a percentage of the employed population.

134 Commuting time to work (S): (S): work to time Commuting Population (M): inhabitants. (M): Population indicates thatallbuildingsare inagoodcondition. area. The maximum valuebuildings in a particular (i.e. 100) conditions: Building noise/cleanliness aproblem inyour area?” —16 orover—answering “yes” to thefollowing question:“Is noise/cleanliness: Perceived (S): shops/offices offices. retail Number population. (S): Women % of thetotal population. (S): Elderly % (S): measurement: minutes. school to educational institutionsofthestudentpopulation.Unit time Commuting (S): family per per familyunitwithchildren. children Number of theemployed population. Unitofmeasurement: minutes. Numberofpeopleolderthan64asapercentage Number offemales asapercentage ofthetotal Total population. Unit of measurement: 100,000 A 0-100indexmeasuringthestate of Average commuting timeto work Percentage ofadultrespondents Average commuting time to Average numberofchildren Number ofretail shopsand 135 B.  C.  C. elaborationSource: usingdatafrom the2001Population Own andHousingCensus. * Variance explainedby firstcomponent: 65percent. Eigenvalue: 3.22. Source: Own elaborationSource: usingdatafrom the2001Population Own andHousingCensus. * Variance explainedby firstcomponent: 63percent. Eigenvalue: 1.88. House prices (€) % Unemployment % Higherdegree Home size (m²) No. ofcarsperhousehold(mean) Pollution Dirtiness Noise a problem intheirresidential area considering … % Census respondents SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS: PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS COMPONENT)* (FIRST SOCIAL PRINCIPAL DISORDER: COMPONENT ANALYSIS (FIRST COMPONENT)* (FIRST

EIGENVECTORS EIGENVECTORS –0.39 0.48 0.42 0.41 0.52 0.65 0.44 0.62 UNEXPLAINED UNEXPLAINED VARIANCE VARIANCE 0.24 0.42 0.47 0.51 0.13 0.20 0.64 0.28

Appendix D. ADESCRIPTIONOFTHESPATIAL MODELSINTHEBOOK could decrease proportionally withdistance.could decrease proportionally Although these the Nclosestunitscan beconsidered (i.e. weight >0)orweights been defined by the researcher. For instance, only adjacent or Weights are allocated following arule whichhaspreviously model orasanindependentvariable inthespatiallagmodel. regression modeleitherasanerror term inthespatialerror value oftheoutcome variable, whichisthenintroduced inthe spatial weight matrix. These weights are multiplied by the (geographical) unitsinorder what iscalleda to construct unit ofanalysis, different weights to theremaining spatial interdependence isadjusted for by giving, for every of analysisare notmembersofany aggregate unit.Instead, In the spatial models (i.e. spatial error and spatial lag), the units units canbelongto different groups. points and, asaresult, of“border effects” implyingthatadjacent unit. The problem inHLMmodelsistheexistence ofcut-off coefficient (onlyintherandom slopemodels)for eachlevel 2 and thencalculatingaspecificconstant term andslope is adjusted for by clustering level 1units withinlevel 2units spatial regression models, meaningthatspatialinterdependence membership iswhatdistinguishesHLMmodelsfrom so-called (level 3).Intermsdistricts ofspatialmodelling, theideaof municipalities (level (level 2)orwithinneighbourhoods 2)and specific research, (level census tracts 1) are nested within classrooms, schools, In this districts. censusor electoral tracts Typically, individuals are nested unitssuchas withincontextual of parameters atmore thanone(geographical) thatvary level. Hierarchical ormultilevel models(HLM)are statisticalmodels 136 Note thatneitherHLMnorspatialmodelsare by definition idiosyncrasies.a predetermined andrigidrulethatneglects The problem isthat“hinterlands” created are typically following “clique”, in spatial models each unit has its own “hinterland”. unitsare membersofthesameHLM modelsvarious primary fixed ruleandfollow whereas adistancein criterion. Inshort, infinitematrices forms, cantake theytend inpractice to use a flexibleinthatthespatialweightmodels are extremely regression analyses. outspatial step inorder to carry isanecessary neighbours. It definition, overvalues withfewer neighboursofcensus tracts spatial weight matrix was row-standardized, which,by centroid. Inaddition,andfor computational reasons, the approximately to 400metres ofdistance from thecensus tract the average numberofneighbours is6.5,whichcorresponds as opposedto justborders in therook case. contiguity Here, as neighbours those with common bordersselects and vertices, squared inverse distance criteria. The rule queencontiguity 1 to 500closestneighbours),theinverse distance andthe values inAIC,aheadoftherook contiguity, Kneighbours(from Criterion (AIC).The rule provides queencontiguity thelowest Information was empirically-drivenselection usingtheAkaike which will,to someextent,bearbitrary. Inthisbook,the to create thespatialweight matrix(i.e. neighbouringareas), or spatial error, is thata specific criterion needs to be selected A drawback ofspatialregression models, whetherspatial lag degrees insocialnetworks orany other attribute. “geographical”. Distance canberelated to culture, personality,

Appendix Two amongdifferent criteria usedto are select typically spatial units are clustered, HLM modelsare thebeststrategy. identifiable andindependentlarger unitsinwhichspatial the spatialinterdependenceIf emanates from theexistence of source isadiffusionprocess, thespatial lagistherightmodel. errors, thespatialerror modelisusuallyrecommended. the If geographical mismatch, ormore generally, to measurement to thesource residents). are If unknown tracts isrelated to a respondents, several census(i.e. tracts demarcations of census in theirresidential areas whenthese comprise, for most respondents were to evaluate asked crimeandvandalism interdependence inthewording ofthedependentvariable as (i.e. “real contagion”). There iseven animplicitspatial diffusion of crime-related activities, rumours and stereotypes variables thespatialautocorrelation orthe oftheexplanatory and therelevant environment vis-á-visperceived crime, sources includeamismatch between thespatialunitofanalysis statistical procedures. For instance, inthisresearch potential infeasible,studies thisidentificationisvirtually atleastusing the appropriate modelissimplified. Yet, incross-sectional of thespatialinterdependence isidentifiable, of theselection I. The source ofthespatial interdependence. Whenthesource modelling strategies:

137 patterns ofbothperceptions ofcrimeandits determinants. correspond to administrative divisions, inform thespatial social and even psychological “cut-off points”, which frequently spatial dynamic, space where andasastructured architectural, smooth geography, asthemain where sheerdistance acts canbeconceivedMadrid bothasaunified, continuous and administratively, andcontinuous landscapes. bothstructured II. Spatialdiscontinuities. Urbangeographies are, sociallyand membership, are deemedto bevaluable modellingstrategies. of geography, and multilevel models, basedontheideaof both spatial regression models, based on Tobler’s first law divisions are sensible criteria for capturing spatialeffects, citizen attachment.Since absolute distance andadministrative have anddistricts neighbourhoods trulymustered strong according to thesamespatialpattern, and certain organised are often andsocialservices political parties or citizens’ identificationwithsub-localentities, associations, and neighbourhoods—rarely produces policies distinctive ofthe space—intoif theadministrative districts partitioning (e.g.arteries A-3,N-402,Paseo deLaCastellana). Further, even railways, ringroads (e.g. M-30andM-40)othermain those related to publicparks(e.g. ElRetiro, Casa de Campo), barriereffectsexist, prominent amongwhich areimportant present asmoothspatialdistributionacross theurbanspace, and somewhataccurate for, even if mostcrime-related variables Here, bothinterpretations are believed to becomplementary

Appendix E. E. Model specificationsare identicaltoModel regressions intable6.3. N =2,358census tracts. -3 -2 -1 –3 –2 –1 Philipines 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 VANDALISM APROBLEM INTHEIRRESIDENTIALAREAS PROPORTION OFRESIDENTS CONSIDERING CRIMEAND OF RESIDENTS BORNINSELECTEDCOUNTRIES ANDTHE REGRESSION ANALYSES. EFFECTS OFTHEPERCENTAGE PHILIPINES China CHINA Fr

OLS FRANCE anc e C uba CUBA Argentina ARGENTINA Spatial lag Ecuador Dominican Re ECUADOR DOMINICAN REP. Mo Spatial error MOROCCO rocco C p. olombia COLOMBIA P eru PERU HLM: Censustract Rumania RUMANIA German GERMANY y 138 OLS Spatial lag Spatial erro HLM: C ensus trac r t

Appendix Social Studies Collection

Available on the internet: www.laCaixa.es/ObraSocial

1. FOREIGN IMMIGRATION 6. OLD AGE, DEPENDENCE AND 12. ACOUSTIC CONTAMINATION 18. EUROPEAN EDUCATIONAL IN SPAIN (Out of stock) LONG-TERM CARE (Out of stock) IN OUR CITIES SYSTEMS: CRISIS OR Eliseo Aja, Francesc Carbonell, David Casado Marín and Guillem Benjamín García Sanz and TRANSFORMATION? Colectivo Ioé (C. Pereda, W. Actis López and Casasnovas Francisco Javier Garrido Joaquim Prats and Francesc and M. A. de Prada), Jaume Funes 7. YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE 13. FOSTER FAMILIES Raventós (directors), Edgar and Ignasi Vila EUROPEAN CHALLENGE Pere Amorós, Jesús Palacios, Gasòliba (coordinator) 2. VALUES IN SPANISH SOCIETY AND Joaquim Prats Cuevas (director) Núria Fuentes, Esperanza León 19. PARENTS AND CHILDREN THEIR RELATION TO DRUG USE 8. SPAIN AND IMMIGRATION and Alicia Mesas IN TODAY’S SPAIN (Out of stock) Víctor Pérez-Díaz, Berta Álvarez- 14. PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND Gerardo Meil Landwerlin Eusebio Megías (director) Miranda and Carmen González- THE LABOUR MARKET 20. SINGLE PARENTING AND 3. FAMILY POLICIES FROM A Enríquez Colectivo Ioé (Carlos Pereda, CHILDHOOD COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE 9. HOUSING POLICY FROM A Miguel A. de Prada and Walter Lluís Flaquer, Elisabet Almeda (Out of stock) COMPARATIVE EUROPEAN Actis) and Lara Navarro Lluís Flaquer PERSPECTIVE 15. MOSLEM IMMIGRATION 21. THE IMMIGRANT BUSINESS 4. YOUNG WOMEN IN SPAIN Carme Trilla IN EUROPE COMMUNITY IN SPAIN (Out of stock) 10. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Víctor Pérez-Díaz, Berta Álvarez- Carlota Solé, Sònia Parella and Inés Alberdi, Pilar Escario (Out of stock) Miranda and Elisa Chuliá Leonardo Cavalcanti and Natalia Matas Inés Alberdi and Natalia Matas 16. POVERTY AND SOCIAL 22. ADOLESCENTS AND ALCOHOL. 5. THE SPANISH FAMILY AND 11. IMMIGRATION, SCHOOLING AND EXCLUSION THE PARENTAL VIEW ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION THE LABOUR MARKET Joan Subirats (director) Eusebio Megías Valenzuela (Out of stock) Colectivo Ioé (Walter Actis, Carlos 17. THE REGULATION OF (director) Víctor Pérez-Díaz, Juan Carlos Pereda and Miguel A. de Prada) IMMIGRATION IN EUROPE Rodríguez and Leonardo Sánchez Eliseo Aja, Laura Díez Ferrer (coordinators)

També disponibles en anglès a partir del núm. 23 23. INTERGENERATIONAL 31. IMMIGRATION AND THE WELFARE PROGRAMMES. TOWARDS STATE IN SPAIN A SOCIETY FOR ALL AGES Francisco Javier Moreno Fuentes Mariano Sánchez (director) María Bruquetas Callejo 24. FOOD, CONSUMPTION 32. INDIVIDUALIZATION AND HEALTH AND FAMILY SOLIDARITY Cecilia Díaz Méndez y Cristóbal Gerardo Meil Gómez Benito (coordinators) 33. DISABILITY AND SOCIAL 25. VOCATIONAL TRAINING IN SPAIN. INCLUSION TOWARD THE KNOWLEDGE Colectivo Ioé (Carlos Pereda, SOCIETY Miguel Ángel de Prada, Walter Oriol Homs Actis) 26. SPORT, HEALTH AND QUALITY 34. THE TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD OF LIFE IN SPAIN: ECONOMIC CRISIS AND David Moscoso Sánchez and LATE EMANCIPATION Eduardo Moyano Estrada Almudena Moreno Mínguez (coordinators) (coordinator) 27. THE RURAL POPULATION 35. CRISIS AND SOCIAL FRACTURE IN IN SPAIN. FROM DISEQUILIBRIUM EUROPE. CAUSES AND EFFECTS IN TO SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY SPAIN Luis Camarero (coordinator) Miguel Laparra and Begoña Pérez 28. CARING FOR OTHERS Eransus (coords.) A CHALLENGE FOR 36. THE FERTILITY GAP IN EUROPE: THE 21ST CENTURY SINGULARITIES Constanza Tobío, M.ª Silveria OF THE SPANISH CASE Agulló Tomás, M.ª Victoria Gómez Gøsta Esping-Andersen (Editor), and M.ª Teresa Martín Palomo Bruno Arpino, Pau Baizán, Daniela 29. SCHOOL FAILURE Bellani, Teresa Castro-Martín, AND DROPOUTS IN SPAIN Mathew J. Creighton, Maike Mariano Fernández Enguita Luis van Damme, Carlos Eric Delclòs, Mena Martínez and Marta Domínguez, María José Jaime Riviere Gómez González, Francesca Luppi, Teresa 30. CHILDHOOD AND Martín-García, Léa Pessin, Roberta THE FUTURE: NEW REALITIES, Rutigliano NEW CHALLENGES 37. NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME. Pau Marí-Klose, Marga Marí-Klose, PERCEPTIONS AND REACTIONS Elizabeth Vaquera and Solveig Alfonso Echazarra Argeseanu Cunningham

and newelementsprovided by thisstudy. comparison between towns, medium-sized andlarge citiesare important analysisofperceivedDetailed crimeinSpain’s 34,251census tracks anda and vandalism isgiven intheirneighbourhoods specialattention. residentsorigin ofneighbourhood andtheirperceptions ofcrime made between immigration andcrime, therelationship between national population density, onthoseperceptions. Given thelinkthatisoften such associoeconomic status, residential mobility, and familystructure ofaseriesindividual andenvironmentaland theimpact characteristics, In thisstudywe analyseperceptions ofcrimeinSpanishneighbourhoods of crimethatfeed thisfear have become asocialproblem. crimeandthatperceptionscrime affects peoplemore than actual of acarcangenerate is, concern. therefore, It notsurprisingthatfear of traumatic experiences offamilymembersoreven window thebroken inthemedia, Criminalviolence reported ofacriminalact. the victim iswell understood thatconcernIt aboutcrimenotonlyarisesfrom being 141

Appendix