Revisiting the Crime Control Benefits of Voluntary Organizations: Organizational Presence,Organizational Capacity,and Crime Rates in Los Angeles Neighborhoods

Abstract

This study examines the independent effects that the number of voluntary organizations and the total amount of income they possess have on neighborhood crime, over time. Drawing upon a sample of Los Angeles census blocks from 2000 to 2010, I utilize fixed-effects negative binomial regression to estimate crime models. The number of voluntary organizations and the total amount of income they possess in the focal block, respectively, are not related to most crime types the following year. Yet, both aspects of voluntary organizations exhibit crime-reducing influences when accounting for their broader spatial impact, and controlling for numerous factors that have been shown to be associated with crime rates. The implications for communities and crime research are discussed.

Keywords

neighborhood crime community organizations organizational opportunity structure organizational capacity spatial effects

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison

P. D.

(2009). Fixed effects regression models. In Liao

T. F.

(Ed.), Quantitative applications in the social sciences (Vol. 160, pp. 65-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baumer

E. P.

(2002). Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology, 40, 579-616.

Bernasco

Block

(2011). Robberies in Chicago: A block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 33-57.

Bursik

R. J.

Grasmick

H. G.

(1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Carr

P. J.

(2003). The new parochialism: The implications of the beltway case for arguments concerning informal social control. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 1249-1291.

Flowerdew

Green

Kehris

(1991). Using areal interpolation methods in geographic information systems. Papers in Regional Science, 70, 303-315.

Groff

E. R.

Lockwood

(2014). Criminogenic facilities and crime across street segments in Philadelphia: Uncovering evidence about the spatial extent of facility influence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 277-314.

Haberman

C. P.

Ratcliffe

J. H.

(2015). Testing for temporally differentiated relationships among potentially criminogenic places and census block street robbery counts. Criminology, 53, 457-483.

Hager

M. A.

Galaskiewicz

Larson

J. A.

(2004). Structural embeddedness and the liability of newness among nonprofit organizations. Public Management Review, 6, 159-188.

10.

Hipp

J. R.

(2007). Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review, 72, 659-680.

11.

Hipp

J. R.

Petersilia

Turner

(2010). Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology, 48, 947-979.

12.

Hunter

(1985). Private, parochial and public social orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In Suttles

G. D.

Zald

M. N.

(Eds.), The challenge of social control: Citizenship and institution building in modern society (pp. 230-242). Norwood, NJ: Aldex.

13.

Jacoby

(2018). Social service organizations, discretionary funding, and neighborhood crime rates. Crime & Delinquency, 64, 1193-1214.

14.

Kim

Y.-A.

(2018). Examining the relationship between the structural characteristics of place and crime by imputing census block data in street segments: Is the pain worth the gain? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34, 67-110.

15.

Kubrin

C. E.

Hipp

J. R.

(2016). Do fringe banks create fringe neighborhoods? Examining the spatial relationship between fringe banking and neighborhood crime rates. Justice Quarterly, 33, 755-784.

16.

Kubrin

C. E.

Weitzer

(2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 374-402.

17.

Kubrin

C. E.

J. C.

(2015). Social disorganization theory’s greatest challenge: Linking structural characteristics to crime in socially disorganized communities. In Piquero

A. R.

(Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 121-136). Malden, MA: John Wiley.

18.

Morenoff

J. D.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-559.

19.

Mosher

C. J.

Miethe

T. D.

Phillips

D. M.

(2002). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Osgood

D. W.

(2000). Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 21-43.

21.

Paxton

(1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88-127.

22.

Peck

L. R.

(2008). Do antipoverty nonprofits locate where people need them? Evidence from a spatial analysis of Phoenix. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 138-151.

23.

Peterson

R. D.

Krivo

L. J.

Harris

M. A.

(2000). Disadvantage and neighborhood violent crime: Do local institutions matter? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 31-63.

24.

Powell

W. W.

Steinberg

(2006). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

25.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

26.

Ramey

D. M.

Shrider

E. A.

(2014). New parochialism, sources of community investment, and the control of street crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 13, 193-216.

27.

Salamon

L. M.

(1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

28.

Sampson

R. J.

(2012). Great American City: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

29.

Sampson

R. J.

Groves

W. B.

(1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.

30.

Sampson

R. J.

McAdam

MacIndoe

Weffer-Elizondo

(2005). Civil society reconsidered: The durable nature and community structure of collective civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 673-714.

31.

Sampson

R. J.

Morenoff

J. D.

Earls

(1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633-660.

32.

Sharkey

Torrats-Espinosa

Takyar

(2017). Community and the crime decline: The causal effect of local nonprofits on violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82, 1214-1240.

33.

Shaw

C. R.

McKay

H. D.

(1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

34.

Skogan

W. G.

(1988). Community organizations and crime. Crime and Justice, 10, 39-78.

35.

Slocum

L. A.

Rengifo

A. F.

Choi

Herrmann

C. R.

(2013). The elusive relationship between community organizations and crime: An assessment across disadvantaged areas of the South Bronx. Criminology, 51, 167-216.

36.

Small

M. L.

McDermott

(2006). The presence of organizational resources in poor urban neighborhoods: An analysis of average and contextual effects. Social Forces, 84, 1697-1724.

37.

Smith

S. R.

Lipsky

(1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

38.

Steenbeek

Hipp

J. R.

(2011). A longitudinal test of social disorganization theory: Feedback effects among cohesion, social control, and disorder. Criminology, 49, 833-871.

39.

Triplett

R. A.

Gainey

R. R.

Sun

I. Y.

(2003). Institutional strength, social control and neighborhood crime rates. Theoretical Criminology, 7, 439-467.

40.

Vélez

M. B.

(2001). The role of public social control in urban neighborhoods: A multilevel analysis of victimization risk. Criminology, 39, 837-864.

41.

Vélez

M. B.

Lyons

C. J.

(2014). Making or breaking neighborhoods: Public social control and the political economy of urban crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 13, 225-235.

42.

Vélez

M. B.

Lyons

C. J.

Boursaw

(2012). Neighborhood housing investments and violent crime in Seattle, 1981-2007. Criminology, 50, 1025-1056.

43.

Wallace

Papachristos

A. V.

(2014). Recidivism and the availability of health care organizations. Justice Quarterly, 31, 588-608.

44.

Wilson

W. J.

(1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

45.

J. C.

(2016). Community context of crime: A longitudinal examination of the effects of local institutions on neighborhood crime. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1286-1312.

46.

J. C.

(2018). Understanding the density of nonprofit organizations across Los Angeles neighborhoods: Does concentrated disadvantage and violent crime matter? Social Science Research, 71, 56-71.

47.

J. C.

Hipp

J. C.

Boessen

(2016). Voluntary organizations and neighborhood crime: A dynamic perspective. Criminology, 54, 212-241.

48.

Young

D. R.

Wilsker

A. L.

Grinsfelder

M. C.

(2010). Understanding the determinants of nonprofit income portfolios. Voluntary Sector Review, 1, 161-173.

49.

Zimmerman

G. M.

Welsh

B. C.

Posick

(2015). Investigating the role of neighborhood youth organizations in preventing adolescent violent offending: Evidence from Chicago. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 565-593.