Perceived collective efficacy and women's victimization in public housing
| Author | Walter S. Dekeseredy,E. Andreas Tomaszewski,Shahid Alvi |
| Date | 01 February 2003 |
| Published date | 01 February 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1466802503003001453 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Perceived collective efficacy
and women’s victimization in
public housing
WALTER S. DEKESEREDY, MARTIN D.
SCHWARTZ, SHAHID ALVI AND
E. ANDREAS TOMASZEWSKI
Ohio University, Ohio University, University of
St. Thomas and Eastern Michigan University
Abstract
Although it has not yet been applied to domestic violence and
other types of crime in Canadian public housing, the social
disorganization/collective efficacy model described in this article
may help explain why people who live in such areas characterized
by poverty and joblessness report higher rates of intimate partner
violence and several other offenses than those living in more
affluent communities. Using data generated by the Quality of
Neighborhood Life Survey, a main objective of the Canadian study
described here was to test this model. One of the most important
findings is that community concerns about street crimes and
informal means of social control designed to prevent such harms
are not effective forms of alleviating intimate partner violence in
public housing.
Key Words
Canada • community • housing • victimization • women
It is not unusual even for those close to the scene to presume that domestic
violence rates are low in public housing complexes, because, as Raphael
quotes one social worker, ‘the women in public housing projects actually
live alone with their children and men aren’t allowed to be there’ (2001:
ARTICLES
Criminal Justice
© 2003 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks
and New Delhi.
1466–8025(200302) 3:1;
Vol. 3(1): 5–27; 030453
5
699). However, although the bulk of public housing units are rented to
females,1they are frequently home to long- or short-term ‘male guests’
(Holzman and Piper, 1998). These men too often victimize women phys-
ically and sexually, which these women must bear on top of a variety of
harassments on the streets, bars and in other public places.
In fact, women who live in neighborhoods characterized by poverty and
joblessness report higher rates of such victimization than those in more
affluent communities (Miles-Doan, 1998; Benson et al., 2000). This article
is an attempt to begin to conceptualize why this might be the case.
Although it has not yet been applied to intimate partner violence or public
harassment in the Canadian context, the social disorganization/collective
efficacy model presented in this article may help answer this question.
Guided by this model, which itself is informed by the theoretical and
empirical work of Sampson et al. (1997) and Taylor (2001), we contend
that the high rate of concentrated disadvantage in the public housing
community weakens social ties with neighbors, fosters an absence of social
cohesion and trust, precludes participation in local social clubs or neigh-
borhood organizations and in general reduces what Sampson et al. (1997)
define as collective efficacy. We hypothesize that this diminished collective
efficacy increases the risk of four types of victimization that women face in
public housing complexes: intimate partner violence; stranger violence;
property crime; and public harassment.
Social disorganization and collective efficacy
Social disorganization models presume that ecological variables such as
neighborhood structural density influence crime and delinquency through
their impact on formal and informal processes of social control. Although
this relationship will be shown with more complexity later, Taylor has
developed (2001: 133) a parsimonious human ecology process model
(Figure 1), which takes both social disorganization and collective efficacy
into account.
In the center of Figure 1 is what Taylor refers to as a ‘constellation of
processes’ (2001: 128): social disorganization and its antithesis—collective
efficacy. Although there are many definitions of social disorganization, a
useful one is Sampson and Grove’s description of ‘the inability of a
community structure to realize the common values of its residents and
Community
Characteristics
Processes:
Offending/Victimization
Processes: Social
Disorganization vs
Collective Efficacy
Figure 1 Human ecology process model
Criminal Justice 3(1)6
To continue reading
Request your trial