Collective Efficacy and Crime Essay ⋆ Criminal Justice Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Collective efficacy is broadly defined as the extent to which community members believe they are able to intervene in community issues to maintain social control and solve community problems. The thinking behind the concept was born out of a discussion of the social disorganization theory. The actual concept was first introduced by Robert J. Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls 1997) in a 1997 Science article titled “Neighborhood and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Since that time, there has been a plethora of analytical tests that consistently support the argument for lower levels of violent crime in neighborhoods with higher levels of collective efficacy.

In criminology, collective efficacy has been adapted and extended from social psychology to examine the differential ability of communities to prevent crime and/or disorder. The concept is seen as a more useful and contemporary framework of community organization. Collective efficacy theory is beneficial in two ways. First, it can be applied in a manner that evaluates the degree of a neighborhood’s ability (as opposed to the efforts of an individual within the community) to effectively organize resources to resolve issues. Second, the concept of collective efficacy does not rely on the existence of strong bonds between individuals within the community, which allows research to transcend the absence of interpersonal bonds, a phenomenon that has plagued urban criminological studies. By the same token, within the communities in which residents exhibited higher levels of collective efficacy, there appears to be a corresponding feeling of obligation to intervene in situations to prevent violence.

Collective efficacy at the neighborhood level necessitates mutual trust and cohesion among residents. Increasing perceptions of collective efficacy lead to reductions in fear of crime so much so that the concept is thought to be critical in explaining differences in levels of crime between neighborhoods. Levels of collective efficacy can, therefore, be increased, and levels of crime decreased, by bringing neighbors together to define common problems and to work collectively toward solutions. On the other hand, communities are not characterized by intimate ties but are, instead, defined by a working relationship of trust, shared goals, and cohesion, all of which contribute to collective efficacy.

It is important to note that the concept in its original form is goal-specific. Therefore, a community’s level of collective efficacy, with respect to its impact on neighborhood crime, is not equal to its ability to achieve other outcomes. Low levels of collective efficacy are more likely to be found in disadvantaged neighborhoods where inequality of resources poses serious challenges. On the other hand, levels of collective efficacy are related to levels of positive actions in poor, disadvantaged communities as evidenced by decreasing crime, delinquency, and the establishment of positive peer networks for youths.

Groups have an internal control capacity that allows them to uphold specific values, norms, and goals. Not surprisingly, therefore, collective sanctions establish a system of compliance norms that can be enjoyed by all members. As such, reward and punishment for members who violate these values, norms, and goals are also characteristic. Such social sanctions serve as deterrents for those who might otherwise violate group expectations. Therefore, a behavioral model based on persuasion, selective incentives, and control of opportunity structures as an effective mechanism to ensure and maintain acceptable levels of collective group behavior may be best. Additionally, agents such as the judicial system employ sanctions through bureaucratic structures that operate very slowly, often with years elapsing between breaches and punishments. In contrast, collective sanctions within group settings tend to be quicker and more effective. Although the original presentations of collective efficacy did not address the concept from the community context, later approaches explore and explain the intricacies of social control upon which the concept is closely tied. This is especially important since exogenous agencies have weaker control capabilities than internal measures.

In the final analysis, levels of crime are negatively associated with collective efficacy, that is, the higher a community’s level of collective efficacy, the lower the community’s level of crime. The concept therefore has implications for both theoretical and policy-relevant decision making as it relates to crime. This is particularly true when one evaluates the relative value of informal and formal mechanisms of social control.

Bibliography:

Bandura, A. “Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, v.9/3 (2000).
Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman, 1997.
Bandura, A. “Self-Efficacy: Towards a Unifying Theory in Behavior Change.” Psychological Review, v.84 (1977).
Browning, Christopher R. and Kathleen A. Cagney. “Neighborhood Structural Disadvantage, Collective Efficacy, and Self-Rated Physical Health in an Urban Setting.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, v.43/4 (2002).
Bursik, Robert J., Jr. “Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Problems and Prospects.” Criminology, v.26 (1988).
Chamard, Sharon. “Collective Efficacy and Fear of Crime in the Mat-Su Borough.” Alaska Justice Forum, v.25/4 (Winter 2009).
Cohen, D. A., B. K. Finch, A. Bower, and N. Sastry. “Collective Efficacy and Obesity: The Potential Influence of Social Factors on Health.” Social Science and Medicine, v.62/3 (2005).
Courneya, K. S. and E. McAuley. “Efficacy, Attributional and Affective Responses in Older Adults Following an Acute Bout of Exercise.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, v.9 (1993).
Duncan, Terry E., Susan C. Duncan, Hayrettin Okut, Lisa A. Strycker, and Hollie Hix-Small. “A Multi-Level Contextual Model of Neighborhood Collective Efficacy.” American Journal of Community Policing, v.32/3–4 (2003).
Frankenberg, E. Sometimes It Takes a Village: Collective Efficacy and Children’s Use of Preventive Health Care. California Center for Population Research, University of California, Los Angeles (2004). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.2279&rep=re p1&type=pdf (Accessed August 2013).
Gibson, Chris L., Jihong Zhao, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael J. Gaffney. “Social Integration, Individual Perceptions of Collective Efficacy, and Fear of Crime in Three Cities.” Justice Quarterly, v.19/3 (2002).
Goddard, Roger D., Wayne K. Hoy, and Anita Hoy. “Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical Developments, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions.” Educational Researcher, v.33/3 (2004).
Heckathorn, Douglas D. “Collective Sanctions and Compliance Norms: A Formal Theory of GroupMediated Social Control.” American Sociological Review, v.55/3 (1990).
Huang, I. C. “Self-Esteem, Reaction, to Uncertainity, and Physician Practice Variation: A Study of Resident Physicians.” Social Behavior and Personality, v.26 (1998).
Maimon, David and Christopher R. Browning. “Unstructured Socializing, Collective Efficacy, and Violent Behavior Among Urban Youth.” Criminology, v.48/2 (2010).
Maxwell, Christopher, D., Joel H. Garner, Wesley G. Skogan. Collective Efficacy and Criminal Behavior in Chicago, 1995–2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011.
Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen Raudenbush. “Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence.” Criminology, v.39/3 (2001).
Ng, J. Y. Y., S. F. Tam, W. W. Yew, and W. K. Lam. “Effects of Video Modeling on Self-Efficacy and Exercise Performance of COPD Patients.” Social Behavior and Personality, v.27 (1999).
Ohmer, Mary L. “How Theory and Research Inform Citizen Participation in Poor Communities: The Ecological Perspective and Theories on Selfand Collective Efficacy and Sense of Community.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, v.20 (2010).
Raudenbush, S. W., and R. J. Sampson. “Ecometrics: Toward a Science of Assessing Ecological Settings, with Application to the Systematic Social Observation of Neighborhoods.” Sociological Methodology, v.29 (1999).
Sampson, Robert. “Neighborhood and Community: Collective Efficacy and Community Safety.” New Economy (2004).
Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology, v.94/4 (1989).
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Felton Earls. “Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children.” American Sociological Review, v.64/5 (1999).
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science, v.277/5328 (1997).
Sanna, L. J., and P. A. Pusecker. “Self-Efficacy, Valence of Self-Evaluation and Performance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, v.20 (1994).
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study of Rates of Delinquents in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
Toby, Jackson. “Social Disorganization and Stakes in Conformity: Complementary Factors in the Predatory Behavior of Hoodlums.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, v.48/1 (1957).
Wickes, Rebecca. “Generating Action and Responding to Local Issues: Collective Efficacy in Context.” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, v.43/3 (2010).

This example Collective Efficacy and Crime Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.