CONTEXTUALIZING COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL: RACE, GEOGRAPHY, AND CONFIGURATIONS OF CONTROL IN FOUR COMMUNITIES*

• Published date: 01 February 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12127
• Date: 01 February 2017

CONTEXTUALIZING COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL:

RACE, GEOGRAPHY, AND CONFIGURATIONS

OF CONTROL IN FOUR COMMUNITIES∗

ANDREA LEVERENTZ1and MONICA WILLIAMS2

1Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston

2Department of Criminal Justice, Weber State University

KEYWORDS: community, informal social control, new parochialism, systemic theories

Criminology and urban sociology have long-standing interests in how neighbor-

hoods and communities respond to and control crime. We build on the literature on

social disorganization, collective efficacy, and new parochialism to develop a frame-

work that explains how and why communities respond differently to crime. We draw

on more than 2 years of comparative ethnographic data and 56 resident and stake-

holder interviews on responses to crime in four communities in two states. We find that

the intersections of racial composition, geography, and crime narratives in each place

contributed to distinct community responses to crime. By analyzing these dynamics

across the four sites, we propose three types of public–parochial partnerships that com-

munities use to respond to crime: public alliances that rely primarily on public forms of

control, tentative public–parochial partnerships that rely on tenuous connections with

public institutions, and grassroots engagement with public institutions. We explain the

emergence of these three approaches as patterned responses rooted in characteristics

of local contexts, including racial composition and geographic isolation.

A vast body of research has sought to understand the role of formal and informal

social controls in neighborhood life and local crime-control efforts. According to pre-

vious research, internal dynamics captured by concepts such as systemic social control,

collective efficacy, new parochialism, and legal cynicism all impact how people control

crime in their neighborhoods (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Carr, 2003; Hunter, 1985; Kirk

and Papachristos, 2011; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997). Connections between

neighborhoods and external institutions also affect communities’ abilities to control crime

(Logan and Molotch, 1987; Vargas, 2014). Yet, not all communities have equal access

to external institutions: Differences in racial composition, legal cynicism, levels of geo-

graphic isolation, and political dynamics all shape community context and access to ex-

ternal resources and controls. As a result, some communities may be more or less able to

engage effectively in different forms of social control.

In this article, we analyze factors that contribute to variation in communities’ abili-

ties and willingness to mobilize different types of relationships, networks, and institutions

∗We thank the editor, D. Wayne Osgood, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback. Ear-

lier versions of this article were presented at the 2013 American Society of Criminology and 2015

American Sociological Association annual meetings.

Direct correspondence to Andrea Leverentz, Department of Sociology, University of Mas-

sachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125–3393 (e-mail: andrea.leverentz@

umb.edu).

C2016 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12127

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 55 Number 1 112–136 2017 112

CONTEXTUALIZING COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL 113

for crime control. We draw on comparative ethnographic and interview data from four

communities to identify structural dimensions through which communities mobilize pub-

lic and parochial relationships to respond to crime or the threat of crime. Our analysis

is based on data collected for two studies on social control and community responses

to crime. The first study focused on how urban communities defined crime and crimi-

nals, broadly speaking, and how this was shaped by community context (Leverentz, 2011,

2012); the second examined how and why urban and rural communities responded to sex-

ually violent predator (SVP) placements in their towns (Williams, 2013, 2016). Together,

these data allow us to expand existing theories about the processes through which commu-

nities and political and legal institutions shape crime-control efforts across demographi-

cally and geopolitically different communities. In particular, we identify three types of

responses to crime—public alliances, tentative public–parochial partnerships, and grass-

roots public engagement—that involve an array of formal and informal social control

strategies combined with varying levels of trust in the criminal justice system. Our find-

ings show how interactions among race (e.g., neighborhood racial composition and legal

cynicism), urban and rural geography, and political and legal institutions shape crime-

control efforts across a variety of communities. In doing so, the current study enhances

criminological understandings of the factors that contribute to variation in crime-control

strategies across communities.

COMMUNITY CAPACITY FOR ADDRESSING CRIME

Criminologists have long recognized the importance of analyzing places, in addition

to people, as a way of understanding variation in crime. One group of theories and con-

cepts examines how internal community dynamics affect crime and crime control in part

by affecting their capacity for mobilizing external controls such as law enforcement and

political support. Systemic models focus on social network ties to examine the “ecologi-

cal, institutional, and normative dimensions” of community organization (Kasarda and

Janowitz, 1974). Hunter (1985) distinguished among three levels of community social

control—private, parochial, and public orders—all of which must work together for a

community to maintain control (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Hunter, 1985). The parochial

order, comprising local interpersonal networks that meet the daily needs of the commu-

nity, provides mutual aid and community status, and it involves relationships of “limited

liability” (Hunter, 1985). These networks are rooted in the unique features of spaces,

and they are mutually interdependent with the intimate ties of family and close friends

(private orders) and the formal bureaucratic relationships of the state (public orders).

According to systemic approaches, socially disorganized neighborhoods lack strong and

effective network ties and, as a consequence, lack the capacity to realize common val-

ues and maintain effective control (Bursik, 1988; Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974; Sampson,

2012). This may reflect a breakdown in the interdependence of different levels of net-

works, such as in the inability of close-knit communities to connect with broader public

forces to prevent urban renewal efforts (Gans, 1982; Granovetter, 1973).

At the same time, strong personal network ties need not be present for effective

crime control within communities. Collective efficacy, or the willingness of neighbors

to intervene for the common good of the neighborhood based on a sense of mutual

trust and cohesion, can be rooted in weak ties and purposeful interactions (Sampson,

2012; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997). In fact, neighborhood-level social control