TY - JOUR
T1 - Formal controls, neighborhood disadvantage, and violent crime in U.S. cities
T2 - Examining (un)intended consequences
AU - Martin, Allison
AU - Wright, Emily M.
AU - Steiner, Benjamin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Purpose This study examines the intended and unintended effects of formal social controls on violent crime within and across U.S. cities. Methods Using data from the National Neighborhood Crime Study, we assess whether greater police arrest activity and jail incarceration risk are associated with lower violent crime rates across cities. We also investigate whether greater use of these formal social controls exacerbates the relationship between extreme neighborhood disadvantage and violent crime. Results Results from multilevel analyses show that some formal controls (jail incarceration risk) reduce violent crime across cities, but other formal controls (police arrest activity) amplify the relationship between extreme neighborhood disadvantage and violent crime within cities. Conclusions Two main conclusions can be drawn from our analyses. First, we found evidence that some formal controls do reduce violent crime, while others do not. Second, our results support scholars’ arguments that formal controls have unintended consequences (e.g., Clear, 2007, 2008; Rose & Clear, 1998), specifically, by amplifying the effect of extreme neighborhood disadvantage on violent crime.
AB - Purpose This study examines the intended and unintended effects of formal social controls on violent crime within and across U.S. cities. Methods Using data from the National Neighborhood Crime Study, we assess whether greater police arrest activity and jail incarceration risk are associated with lower violent crime rates across cities. We also investigate whether greater use of these formal social controls exacerbates the relationship between extreme neighborhood disadvantage and violent crime. Results Results from multilevel analyses show that some formal controls (jail incarceration risk) reduce violent crime across cities, but other formal controls (police arrest activity) amplify the relationship between extreme neighborhood disadvantage and violent crime within cities. Conclusions Two main conclusions can be drawn from our analyses. First, we found evidence that some formal controls do reduce violent crime, while others do not. Second, our results support scholars’ arguments that formal controls have unintended consequences (e.g., Clear, 2007, 2008; Rose & Clear, 1998), specifically, by amplifying the effect of extreme neighborhood disadvantage on violent crime.
KW - Community crime
KW - Formal social controls
KW - Neighborhood disadvantage
KW - Violent crime
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989333147&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84989333147&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.12.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.12.005
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84989333147
SN - 0047-2352
VL - 44
SP - 58
EP - 65
JO - Journal of Criminal Justice
JF - Journal of Criminal Justice
ER -