Predicting perceptions of crime: Community residents’ recognition and classification of local crime problems
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865817721590 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Predicting perceptions of
crime: Community residents’
recognition and classification
of local crime problems
Lacey Schaefer
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Criminology
Institute, Griffith University, Australia
Lorraine Mazerolle
School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Australia
Abstract
In the scholarship of crime prevention, little is understood regarding the prompts for indi-
vidual observation and classification of local crime problems. Moreover, studies that evaluate
individuals’ perceptions of crime tend to emphasise the risk of victimisation rather than the
probability of crime controller behaviour. In order to predict whether and how a community
resident combats neighbourhood crime and disorder, wefirst require a greater understanding
of how individuals recognise and categorise those same neighbourhood phenomena. To
explore these processes, the current project uses large-scale multilevel survey data from
the Australian Community Capacity Study to test the predictive influence of individual char-
acteristics, local social processes, and suburb features on a resident’s identification and cat-
egorisation of minor, moderate, and major neighbourhood crime problems. Results indicate
that lived experiences with prior victimisation and interactions with the police, greater
frequencies of neighbouring behaviours but lower levels of collective efficacy, socioeconomic
disadvantage, and ethnic homogeneity are all associated with a greater likelihood of reporting
serious local crime problems.
Keywords
Community crime prevention, crime control, crime problems, disorder, perceptions
Date received: 22 December 2016; accepted: 26 June 2017
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 51(2) 183–203
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865817721590
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Corresponding author:
Lacey Schaefer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Social Sciences Building (M.10), 176
Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia.
Email: l.schaefer@griffith.edu.au
Community safety and crime prevention initiatives have proliferated since the 1990s
(Ballintyne, Pease, & McLaren, 2000), premised on the notion that local residents pre-
sent a line of defence as important as formal criminal justice agents and interventions
(Crawford, 1997). Beyond serving as gatekeepers to the police (i.e. reporting observed or
experienced crimes), communities themselves are structured in ways that facilitate or
hinder crime, and residents take both diffuse and specific actions that have preventative
effects (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Ramey & Shrider, 2014; Reynald, 2011; Sampson,
2012). Communities may understand their local problems better than professional ser-
vice organisations or formal agencies (Ballintyne & Fraser, 2000), and are often more
familiar with the processes and resources common to that area (Crawford, 1998;
Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Neighbourhood-derived
values and norms create expectations among residents about (in)tolerable behaviours
that take place there and how to address them (Bursik, 1999; Sampson & Wilson, 1995;
Warner & Burchfield, 2011). Those standards for behaviour guide residents’ recognition
and classification of disorder and crime in their local area, which in turn influence the
subsequent decisions of whether to intervene and which route of action to pursue
(Anderson, 1999; Bursik, 2000; Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Miller, 2008;
Sampson & Wilson, 1995; Warner, 2007; Wilkinson, 2007).
Yet for residents to combat disorder and crime in their home neighbourhood, they
must first identify their observations as such; an important precursor to crime combative
action is for a person to categorise what they see as a crime problem. Within the com-
munities and crime literature, little is understood regarding how neighbourhood resi-
dents come to categorise crime as being problematic and thus in need of resolution, with
some studies demonstrating that individual assessments of local crime and disorder vary
wildly (Perkins, Meeks, & Taylor, 1992). To address this research gap, the current study
uses large-scale multilevel survey data from the Australian Community Capacity Study
(ACCS) to test the predictive influence of individual characteristics, local social pro-
cesses, and suburb features on a resident’s identification and categorisation of minor,
moderate, and major neighbourhood crime problems.
Literature review
The body of scholarship relevant to community crime prevention comes from disparate
camps. First, there is the general communities and crime literature, concerned with the
social-structural conditions of neighbourhoods that influence crime rates (Bursik &
Webb, 1982; Kornhauser, 1978; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942).
Second, there are a host of studies relevant to informal social control and collective
efficacy, examining the group processes related to the impediment of local disorder
(Browning, 2009; Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001; Sampson, 2006;
Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Third, many projects examine crime prevention
from an environmental criminology perspective, outlining the ways in which
communities and the individuals housed there engage in opportunity reduction and
guardianship (Clarke, 1992; Cornish & Clarke, 2003; Jeffery, 1971; Newman, 1972;
Reynald, 2011; Wortley 2001). Fourth, several criminological theories detail the role
of community conditions and resident relationships on offender propensity (Brown &
Altman, 1983; Crawford, 1998; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994; Tremblay & Craig, 1995).
184 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial