Australian & New Zealand Journal of

Criminology
http://anj.sagepub.com/

Generating Action and Responding to Local Issues: Collective Efficacy in

Context
Rebecca L. Wickes
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 2010 43: 423
DOI: 10.1375/acri.43.3.423
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://anj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/423

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology

Additional services and information for Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://anj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://anj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

Generating Action and Responding to

Local Issues: Collective Efficacy in Context
Rebecca L. Wickes
The University of Queensland, Australia

ecent research suggests that communities can be collectively efficacious without dense networks and kith and kinship relations. Yet few
studies examine how collective efficacy is generated and sustained in the
absence of close social ties. Using in-depth interviews with local residents
and key stakeholders in two collectively efficacious suburbs in Brisbane,
Australia, this study explores the role of social ties and networks in
shaping residents sense of active engagement and perceptions of community capacity. Results suggest that strong social bonds among residents are
not necessary for the development of social cohesion and informal social
control. Instead, collective representations or symbols of community
provide residents with a sense of social cohesion, trust and a perceived
willingness of others to respond to problems of crime and disorder. Yet
there is limited evidence that these collectively efficacious communities
comprise actively engaged residents. In both communities, participants
report a strong reliance on key institutions and organisations to manage
and respond to a variety of problems, from neighbourhood nuisances to
crime and disorder. These findings suggest a more a nuanced understanding of collective efficacy theory is needed.

Keywords: collective efficacy, social networks, community, crime prevention, crime

Systemic models of community regulation position social ties as necessary for

achieving common goals and solving collective problems (Bursik & Grasmick,
1993; Hunter, 1985; Kornhauser, 1979; Sampson & Groves, 1989). Yet some scholars view this model of community as outdated. Robert Sampson suggests that
attachment to the contemporary community is voluntary, instrumental and tied to
rational investments (1999, p. 245) and social organisation is independent of
strong social ties (Sampson, 1999, 2002, 2006). Instead, communities with weak
personal and social ties can be effective units of social organisation if a working trust
and shared expectations for local social control are present. Sampson claims it is
this collectively efficacious nature of a community, rather than dense ties or social
networks that constitutes the more proximate social mechanism for understanding
between-neighbourhood variations in social disorder and crime.

Address for correspondence: Rebecca L. Wickes, School of Social Science, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072. E-mail: r.wickes@uq.edu.au
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
VOLUME 43 NUMBER 3 2010 PP. 423443
Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

423

REBECCA L. WICKES

Although much support for collective efficacy theory exists, there is limited
research that qualitatively explores the tenets of this theory in context. Studies that
use large-scale surveys to examine the relationship between collective efficacy and
crime do not illustrate how residents develop and sustain a working trust and expectations for social control when relationships are diffuse. With the exception of
Carrs (2003) ethnographic study on informal social control in Beltway, Chicago,
there is little to suggest how residents garner a sense of collective efficacy in
contemporary urban communities.
The goal of this article is to examine how residents accounts of their community
resonate with the broader theoretical tenets of collective efficacy. It does not attempt
to provide an ethnographic account of community life akin to studies inspired by
Herbert Gans (1967). Rather, the focus is to assess whether the current criminological
interpretation of collective efficacy reflects the accounts of residents. This article
therefore focuses on how residents define community and assesses the form and
function of intracommunity relationships in two collectively efficacious communities.
From the accounts of residents and key informants, an investigation is undertaken
into the mechanisms that promote collective efficacy. Finally, the situated processes
relative to specific tasks such as maintaining public order (Morenoff et al., 2001, p.
521) and the extent to which these processes represent the active sense of engagement on the part of residents (Sampson, 2006, p.155) are examined.

Community Regulation and the Role of Social Relationships

The existence of stable, social networks is a central tenet of systemic models of
community regulation, like social disorganisation. Until the mid 1990s, research
was therefore primarily concerned with the mediating effects of social networks on
crime and several studies convincingly demonstrated the salience of social relationships in regulating group behaviour (Bursik, 1988; Hunter, 1985; Sampson, 1988;
Sampson & Groves, 1989; Skogan, 1986). Hunter (1985) and Bursik and Grasmick
(1993) pointed to the importance of private, parochial and public social control in
reducing crime and achieving social order. At each level of social control, different
relational networks were needed. For private control, the role of intimate kith and
kin groups deterred unwanted behaviour and lessened the effects of ostracism and
deprivation. Parochial control, which played a significant role in the control of
crime, relied on relationships among neighbors who do not have the same sentimental attachment (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993, p. 17). Finally, public social control,
or the ability to obtain essential services from external sources, centred on loose
connections both exogenous and endogenous to the community. The relationship
between these levels of social control and delinquency was illustrated in Sampson
and Groves (1989) research in the United Kingdom. In this study they identified
the most salient community characteristics that mediated the effects of disadvantage on crime and victimisation. These included the number of social ties, connections to organisations and the willingness of residents to deter unwanted behaviour.
Additionally, Wesley Skogans (1986, 1989, 1990) research supported the systemic
tenets of community regulation. Skogan found that fear had direct and negative
consequences for community regulation as it weakened the development of key
social ties necessary for generating collective action.

424

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

While much research supports the prosocial benefits associated with social
relationships and/or networks (Coleman, 1988; Drukker, Kaplan, Feron, & van Os,
2003; Gibson, Zhao, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2002; Hendryx & Ahern, 2001; Israel,
Beaulieu, & Hartless, 2001; Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997;
Kennedy, Kawachi, Prothrow-Stith, Lochner, & Gupta, 1998; Noguera, 2001),
many note that both the role and the function of the urban community have
changed dramatically and strong ties are no longer the norm in many urban
communities (Morenoff et al., 2001, p. 520; see also Bauman, 2001; Day, 2006;
Giddens, 1991). Moreover, for some communities characterised by high levels of
crime, strong friendship and family ties may impede the ability to stem disorder
(Pattillio, 1998) or result in a parochial culture where collective responses to
problems are not possible (Wilson, 1987). Thus some view the urban village
concept, which underpins systemic models of community regulation, as outdated
and instead call for a more contemporary understanding of the differential ability of
neighbourhoods to prevent crime and social disorder (Sampson, 2002, 2006).
Critiquing the disproportionate focus on social ties, Sampson and his colleagues
suggest a closer examination is needed of the process of activating or converting
social ties into the desired outcomes for the collective (Sampson et al., 1999). They
argue that the collective capacity for social action, even if rooted in weak personal
ties, may constitute the more proximate social mechanism for understanding
between neighborhood variation in crime rates (Morenoff et al., 2001, p. 521).
The collective capacity of communities or, collective efficacy is defined as an
activated process that seeks to achieve an intended effect (Sampson et al., 1997, p.
919), as it differentiates the process of activating/converting social ties to achieve
the desired outcomes from the ties themselves (Sampson et al., 1999, p. 635). By
stating that social ties may foster the conditions under which collective efficacy may flourish but are insufficient for the exercise of control (Sampson, 2002, p. 220, emphasis in
original), Sampson makes the theoretical and empirical distinction between ones
potential stocks of social capital accumulated through social ties and a collective
belief in the capacity of residents to achieve an intended, specific outcome (i.e.,
collective efficacy).
Collective efficacy was originally coined by Albert Bandura (1995, 1997, 2001)
as a component of his social cognitive theory. It is an extension of self-efficacy,
which can best be understood in terms of peoples capacity to act based upon their
perceptions of individual control. Collective efficacy is based upon this same
perspective but is defined as a groups shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize
and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments
(Bandura, 1997, p. 477, emphasis in original). Collective efficacy is positioned as
separate to the sum of individual attributes and focuses on the emergent properties
of a group that are central to group level performance. Bandura (1995, 1997, 2001)
argues that modern societys requirement for the interdependence of human
functioning places a premium on the exercise of collective agency through shared
beliefs in the collective power to produce effects. In social psychology, collective
efficacy theory therefore provides a way to explore the relationship between collective perceptions and outcomes.
In criminology, collective efficacy has been adapted and extended from social
psychology to examine the differential ability of communities to prevent crime

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

425

REBECCA L. WICKES

and/or disorder. It is seen as a more useful and contemporary theoretical framework

of community organisation for two reasons: First, collective efficacy theory can be
effectively operationalised to examine the extent to which neighbourhoods (as
opposed to individuals) can mobilise resources effectively to remedy problems.
Indicators of collective efficacy are based on ecometic items which, according to
Raudenbush and Sampson (1999), differ from psychometric measures in that they
measure perceptions of a collective rather than an individual attribute (see Table 1
for a list of the items that measure the two constructs that comprise the collective
efficacy scale). Second, unlike systemic models of community regulation, collective
efficacy does not depend on the presence of strong interpersonal ties thus allowing
research to move beyond the dense ties dilemma that has beleaguered urban criminology (Sampson, 2002).
There is much support for collective efficacy theory in the criminological literature. Results from large-scale surveys in the United States, Australia, the United
Kingdom and Sweden demonstrate that collectively efficacious communities have
lower crime (Mazerolle, Wickes, & McBroom, in press; Oberwittler & Wikstrm,
2006; Sampson et al., 1997; Sampson & Wikstrm, 2004, Wikstrm, 2006). Yet, no
study has qualitatively examined collective efficacy in situ and only limited research
exists that specifically explores how informal social control is achieved in communities characterised by weak ties. An exception is Patrick Carrs research in Beltway,
Chicago. Departing from Bursik and Grasmicks (1993) systemic model of community regulation, Carr (2003) demonstrates that the regulatory ability of communities
is not dependent on private levels of social control. Drawing on his experiences and
interviews with community activists, he suggests that informal social control
works without dense network ties because the strategies employed do not owe their
existence or efficacy to social ties (2003, p. 1250). Carrs study focuses primarily on
the connections between community activists and extralocal organisations and the
processes associated with harnessing the skills and the resources of institutions (like
the police department) to enhance informal social control. The interdependence of
community groups and key institutions in Beltway, or what Carr calls the new
parochialism, increases levels of informal social control. This interdependence can
result in reduced levels of crime and disorder in communities where relationships are
largely instrumental. However, in Carrs research this only became possible because
residents could procure the support and services of public institutions.

The Present Research

Limited research exists that provides an illustration of how expectations for social
action emerge or are understood in collectively efficacious communities and how
this relates to residents actions. Although Carrs (2003) Beltway study provides rich
insight into the ways in which activists and organisations can work in tandem to
reduce crime, it does not illustrate how informal social control is engendered in
communities without strong and active links to formal institutions, nor does it
examine the key tenets of collective efficacy theory. The goal of the present
research, therefore, is to examine three key claims from the extant collective
efficacy research in two collectively efficacious residential communities. First,
research indicates that contemporary urban communities are not organised in a

426

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

TABLE 1
Collective Efficacy Items in the PHDCN
Informal social control/willingness to intervene

Social cohesion/trust

1. If a group of neighborhood children were

skipping school and hanging out on a street
corner, how likely is it that your neighbors
would do something about it?

1. People around here are willing to help their

neighbors? Would you say you strongly
agree, agree disagree or strongly disagree?

2. If some children were spray-painting graffiti

on a local building, how likely is it that your
neighbors would do something about it?

2. This is a close-knit neighborhood? Would

you say you strongly agree, agree disagree
or strongly disagree?

3. If there was a fight in front of your house and

someone was being beaten or threatened,
how likely is it that your neighbors would
break it up?

3. People in this neighborhood can be trusted.

Would you say you strongly agree, agree
disagree or strongly disagree?

4. If a child was showing disrespect to an adult,

how likely is it that people in your neighborhood would scold that child?

4. People in this neighborhood generally dont

get along with each other. Would you say
you strongly agree, agree disagree or
strongly disagree?

5. Suppose that because of budget cuts the fire

station closest to your home was going to be
closed down by the city. How likely is it that
neighborhood residents would organize to try
to do something to keep the fire station open?

5. People in this neighborhood do not share

the same values. Would you say you strongly
agree, agree disagree or strongly disagree?

Source: Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, 1995

parochial, local fashion (Morenoff et al., 2001, p. 520) and that the urban village
does not exist in practice (see Wellman, 1999). But have residents moved beyond
this imagery of community? If, as Day (2006, p. 246) states, community is understood best as an imaginative tool used by people as they go about their business of
constructing an idea of a better society, how is community imagined and does this
imagery facilitate or hinder residents as they go about their business of preventing or
controlling crime?
The second claim is that communities with weak ties can be effective units of
social control (Morenoff et al., 2001; Sampson, 2002, 2006; Sampson et al., 1997,
1999). As strong relationships no longer characterise contemporary urban communities, this article examines how a strong, conjoint belief in the capacity of the collective is engendered in communities with weak ties. It addresses how residents learn
the norms surrounding action, if not via social relationships, and illustrates the
collective representations that are likely to lead to the development of this belief.
The third claim is that collective efficacy depicts a task-specific process representing the active engagement of local residents. That is, in collectively efficacious
communities, people with loose affiliations will work together to achieve a desired
goal. The qualitative analysis that follows investigates whether residents collaborate
on crime prevention and considers the role key institutions play in generating or
promoting collective efficacy among residents.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

427

REBECCA L. WICKES

Methodology
The present study draws on the Collective Capacity Study (CCS), which examines
the spatial distribution of collective efficacy, crime and disorder across 82 Statistical
Local Areas (SLAs)1 in the Brisbane Statistical Division (BSD) in Queensland,
Australia. The CCS included the full complement of items used in the Project on
Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) research to measure
collective efficacy (see Table 1). From the CCS, two collectively efficacious areas
were selected: Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate. These communities fell into the
20th percentile of the 82 SLAs on the collective efficacy scale with Hidden Valley
the second highest scoring SLA in the sample. Both sites also fell into the top
quartile of socioeconomically advantaged SLAs as determined by their position on
the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) SEIFA Index of Relative Disadvantage
(ABS, 2001). From the Queensland Police Service crime incident data, Hidden
Valley had extremely low crime rates (with the second lowest crime incident rate).
However, despite Redwood Estates high collective efficacy score, it fell into the top
20th percentile in the sample for total crime incidents.
I purposively selected efficacious communities to examine the central tenets of
collective efficacy theory. Choosing an SLA with a classic disadvantage profile
would only confirm what other scholars have articulated (see Anderson, 1990, 1999;
Shaw & McKay, 1931/1999; Wilson, 1987, 1996). Specifically that unemployment,
the deskilling of the labour force, population instability, the lack of public assistance,
poor access to education, poor health, inadequate housing and marital breakdown all
impede the formation of the social organisation necessary to collectively respond to
crime and disorder. In this regard, exploring the factors associated with high crime
rates in a disadvantaged setting would not make a material contribution to the
ecology of crime literature, or the development of collective efficacy theory.
The selection of two reasonably affluent, highly efficacious communities materially contributes to the literature in three ways. First, while much research exists on
disadvantaged communities, there are no studies that examine collective efficacy in
affluent settings. The results from the PHDCN shows that concentrated disadvantage and concentrated affluence are strong predictors of collective efficacy and
crime (Morenoff et al., 2001). But, as Sampson has stated, research is overly
concerned with the poverty paradigm with its attendant focus on the outdated
concept of the inner city (2002, p. 216). Girling, Loader and Sparks also comment
on the paucity of research on affluent communities and note the absence within
criminology of any established tradition of writing about relatively prosperous
communities (2000, p. 84). Thus, research has focused almost exclusively on why
poverty matters in understanding high crime rates, without a concomitant approach
to explore how and if wealth matters in controlling crime. Second, my selection of
these two study sites supports Sampsons suggestion to move away from a focus on
inner city suburbs, which in Australia tend to have a higher socioeconomic standing (for example consider Paddington in Sydney or New Farm in Brisbane). The
sites in the present study are located some distance from the city centre and provide
a contrast to the more densely populated city suburbs found in so much of the
ecological research. Third, the selection of a deviant case (e.g., a suburb with high
crime incident rates and high levels of collective efficacy), provides an opportunity
to assess how collective efficacy is maintained in a high crime environment.

428

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

The Contours of Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate

The first of the study sites is Hidden Valley2, which is located west of Brisbanes
central business district (CBD). Over the past 20 years, this area has changed
dramatically with the development of several subdivisions and a significant increase
in professional residents. At the time this research was conducted, the population of
Hidden Valley was 2,263, representing a 36% increase since 1996 (ABS, 2001). The
median age in this area was 39 years and the majority of residents were married and
Australian-born. Approximately one third of population had university qualifications and the median weekly individual income was $500 to $599 per week.
Apart from a public primary school, an environmental education centre and a
small local hall, there are no services available in Hidden Valley and residents travel
to neighbouring areas to access shopping centres, doctors offices, service stations
and restaurants. The majority of residents in Hidden Valley live on life-style
acreage ranging in size from 1 to 10 acres of land. Although the area has a rural
feeling, the population of Hidden Valley has full access to town water, electricity
and waste management services.
The second site is Redwood Estate, a master planned residential estate located
north of the CBD in the SLA of Abbotsford. Redwood Estate is a holistically
planned suburban residential development with a population expected to grow to
25,000 over the next decade. It differs from a gated community in that entry to the
estate and all services within the estate are open to the public. Redwood Estate
encompasses the majority of residential properties for the SLA. At the 2001 census,
the population of Abbotsford had increased by 126% from the previous census
(ABS, 2001). The demographics of this SLA point to a young, predominantly
Australian-born population with a median age of 30 years. Just over 8% of the
population had university degrees or postgraduate qualifications and the median
individual weekly income was $400 to $499 (ABS, 2001).
Redwood Estate provides many services and facilities for its residents and those
in neighbouring communities. There is a large shopping complex with dining facilities and future plans include more retail outlets and a cinema complex. There is a
large multipurpose facility comprising a public library, an indoor swimming
complex, three local schools and two childcare centres. Redwood Estate is aesthetically pleasing with artificial lakes and wetlands, walking trails and bike tracks and
parks and playgrounds. The residential areas are located in separate developercreated villages, with names such as Blue Water, Crestmeade and Edenvale. The
majority of residences in this area have immaculately groomed lawns and garden
areas with few cars parked on the street.

Selecting the Sample

Qualitative research rarely employs probability sampling to generate a representative subset of the studied population (Neuman, 2006). Rather, the goal is to ensure
that the chosen participants are theoretically and empirically relevant to the topic
being investigated (Flick 1998; Mason, 1996). Often in qualitative studies, purposive, snowball or quota techniques are used and include as many respondents as
needed to reach saturation of the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). For the present
study, I chose participants for the in-depth interviews from a subset of respondents

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

429

REBECCA L. WICKES

who had participated in the CCS. The CCS sample was derived from a random
probability sampling frame using random digit dialling and was largely representative of the Greater Brisbane Statistical Division (see Mazerolle et al., in press). In
the survey, a question asked participants if they would participate in future research,
with approximately 67% agreeing to a follow-up interview. At the time of the
survey, 62% of Hidden Valley residents (N = 13) and 58% of Redwood Estate (N =
15) agreed to participate in the follow-up interview. These residents provided their
telephone numbers and their contact names to the CCS research team.
To ensure the profile of those willing to proceed did not significantly differ from
those unwilling to continue with the research, I compared their relevant demographics and responses on the collective efficacy scale for each group. As the sample
size was too small to conduct any statistical tests, I examined the means and
medians for variables with ordinal response categories (including age, number of
dependent children, length at current address and annual income) and percentages
for the categorical demographic variables (gender, marital status, country of birth
and level of education). As indicated in Tables 2 and 3 there were some differences
worth noting. In Hidden Valley, younger people and Australian-born residents were
more likely to refuse to participate in an interview. In Redwood Estate, those
unwilling to continue were more likely to be unmarried, overseas-born and, interestingly, reported slightly higher levels of collective efficacy. In both areas, men were
more likely to continue with future research than women.
Approximately six months passed between the residents participation in the
CCS and the subsequent interview. In Hidden Valley, I interviewed 10 of the 13
residents who had originally agreed to a follow-up meeting (77%). The final sample
comprised seven men and three women. The response rate was lower in Redwood
Estate with 10 out of the 15 (67%) residents agreeing to be interviewed. A total of
five women and five men were interviewed.
The separate sample of key informants was selected on the basis of their role
within the community (Houston & Sudman, 1975; Krannich & Humphrey, 1986;
Kreps, Donnermeyer, Hurst, Blair, & Kreps, 1997; Nuehring & Raybin, 1986). For
each area, I contacted the local council member and the principal of the local
public school. I also met with the developer of the Redwood Estate. Additionally, I
used my interviews with local residents to source additional community leaders. In
Redwood Estate I was referred to a local police officer, a senior member of the
Neighbourhood Watch Group, an editor of one of the local newspapers and the
President of the Local Progress Association. Hidden Valley residents were not aware
of any community leaders; however, the local council member and school principal
referred me to two voluntary associations a land care group and a local community group. The total number of key informants numbered four and six for Hidden
Valley and Redwood Estate respectively.

Analysing the Interviews

Pawson (1996) suggests that a theory-driven model places the theory as the
subject matter of the interview, and views the respondent or the participants role
as confirming, falsifying or refining the elements of the theory under investigation. For this research, the participants views and attitudes were central to

430

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics for Interview Participants (N = 13) and Non-Participants (N = 8) for Hidden
Valley
Yes Follow-Up Interview

No Follow-Up Interview

Age

5054 years

4044 years

Number of dependent children

Length at current address

5 years to less than 10 years

5 years to less than 10 years

Approximate annual income

$80,000 or more

$80,000 or more

Gender
Male
Female

69%
31%

12%
88%

Marital status
Married
Not married

92%
8%

88%
12%

Country of birth
Australia
Other

54%
56%

75%
25%

Level of education
Primary/secondary only
Trade
University qualifications

15%
15%
70%

12%
12%
76%

Collective efficacy

8.54

9.75

TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics for Interview Participants (N = 15) and Non-Participants (N = 12) for Redwood
Estate
Yes Follow-Up Interview

No Follow-Up Interview

Age

4044 years

4044 years

Number of dependent children

Length at current address

12 months to less than 2 years

12 months to less than 2 years

Approximate annual income

$40,000 to $59,999

$40,000 to $59,999

Gender
Male
Female

29%
71%

100%

Marital status
Married
Not married

88%
12%

67%
33%

Country of birth
Australia
Other

77%
23%

50%
50%

Level of education
Primary/secondary only
Trade
University qualifications

47%
18%
35%

30%
50%
20%

Collective efficacy

8.82

9.67

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

431

REBECCA L. WICKES

examining the tenets of collective efficacy theory and the interview schedule was
conceptually focused around these. The key theoretical activity in developing the
interview themes was to create questions that would uncover the mechanisms
that relate to collective efficacy in each area. Therefore, I relied on the central
claims from the PHDCN and the theoretical and empirical gaps in the collective
efficacy literature to guide the development of the interview schedule for informants and residents.
Interviews lasted between 45 to 90 minutes. They were recorded and later
transcribed by a professional transcription company. Analysis occurred throughout
the data collection period and as new themes emerged, they were incorporated into
the interview schedule. Data were analysed by creating thematic tables and then
assessing the correspondence of the coded data to the developed categories. These
tables ensured that (1) the coded data fit the subcategory within the context of
other data comprising this field and (2) the data comprising these subcategories
resonated with the higher categorical structure.

Results
Community Imagined
The first aim of this article was to explore how residents in two collectively efficacious communities defined and experienced community and intracommunity
relationships. In Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate, traditional conceptualisations
of community featured strongly in the minds of residents. In both sites, community
was defined in terms of interpersonal connections and relationships with other
people, and as a place where people share common interests and values. For Ian, a
resident of Redwood Estate, community meant Social networks the support
networks to sustain the area that you live in community needs to be somewhere
to be able to support your family needs, your personal needs, support with your dayto-day living.
Collective interests were viewed as more important than individual pursuits
when describing community. Using an analogy of weaving, Ryan, a Hidden Valley
resident, believed common values were an essential element of the community
concept:
My main understanding of community describes the weave or texture that makes the
cloth, by which most members of this or that society function. Not unlike the weave
of a tartan or the spin of a Thai Silk. Its by the reconciliation of a common pattern
by which we function best. To go against that pattern, would bring up a flaw within
the cloth. Thats what I understand of community.

All interviewees characterised community by strong ties and face-to-face interactions. Over a century ago, Tonnies stated that the force of Gemeinschaft persists
although with diminishing strength, even in the period of Gesellscaft, and remains
the reality of social life (1955, p. 272). Despite limited social ties and networks in
their communities (described below), the way people imagined community in
Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate provided a mental map of how things ought to be
(Day, 2006). The urban village concept was, at least in theory, alive and well among
the residents in the present research. However, there was significant disparity

432

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

between how community and community relationships were imagined and how
they functioned.
In Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate, people perceived themselves as living in
close-knit communities where people relied on each other for social and instrumental support. But this view did not align with their accounts of day-to-day relationships and interactions. Many participants lived in the community, but were not
necessarily of the community. Intracommunity friendships were few in number and
only a small minority of interviewees participated in either formal or informal
community organisations. In both areas, intracommunity relationships primarily
existed among immediate neighbours and even these relationships were limited. In
contrast to what would be expected from the systemic model of community regulation proposed by Bursik and Grasmick (1993), few reported affective relationships
with fellow residents. Social interactions, for the most part, were not structured
around common leisure interests or pursuits but were more instrumental, concerned
with general community interests. In Hidden Valley, even if residents considered
their neighbours as friends, no one would ask others for money, even in the case of
an emergency, nor would they discuss problems of a personal nature. When I asked
Gus from Hidden Valley what he could ask of his friends in the community, he
replied, time and sweat, that is about it. This view was shared by Redwood Estate
residents. Although most people interviewed knew their immediate neighbours, few
reported that they mixed with their neighbours socially. They were happy to say
hello when out gardening or to spend five minutes over the fence talking about
plants or building materials, but again the boundaries of friendships were clear.
Neighbours were helpful when assistance with small tasks was needed, but were not
seen as being appropriate for emotional support or affective relationships.

Symbolising Social Cohesion in the Absence of Strong Ties

The second goal of this article was to explore what influences residents in communities with weak ties to perceive high levels of social cohesion and a shared identity.
In Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate, relationships were limited in form and
number, yet participants believed they lived in cohesive communities and reported
sharing similar values with their fellow residents. This sense of community was an
important driver in the high levels of collective efficacy reported in each locale in
the CCS and, drawing on the accounts of residents, was generated through collective representations, both assumed and observed, of community life.
In Redwood Estate common values were assumed through two primary mechanisms: local newsletters and the aesthetic presentation of private dwellings and
public spaces. With the rapidly growing population in Redwood Estate, the dissemination of information through newsletters promoted a sense of community. They
also provided clear community norms and expectations and were viewed as a vital
source of community information. There were three newsletters circulated throughout the area: The Redwood Messenger, The Gum Nut News (the editor a Redwood
resident) and the Gum Nut Progress Association Newsletter. In every house I visited,
the latest copy of The Redwood Messenger, a glossy free weekly newsletter, adorned
the kitchen bench, the coffee table or the front hall. For the residents of Redwood
Estate, the newsletters projected common values and a sense of community and

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

433

REBECCA L. WICKES

alerted them to the types of problems in their area and the communitys capacity to
respond to such issues. Charlottes account provides support for this. Although she
was one of the few participants who reported spending time with fellow residents,
when asked what guided her perceptions of community cohesion, she did not draw
on her day-to-day relationships with others, but referred to the newsletters: I see it
reflected in our local paper just people are interested in people trying to solve
problems and there just seems to be a real interest in other people.
In addition to providing a symbol of community, The Redwood Messenger acted
as a mechanism of informal social control, providing residents with information on
what was considered appropriate behaviour or conduct within the community. For
example, the Raves and Rants column detailed concern about local issues. All
residents interviewed were avid readers of this column and viewed it as a forum to
out local residents or organisations for doing the wrong thing. They read this
column to obtain information on who or what to avoid. Ian was a regular reader of
the newsletter and knew that if someone stepped out of line in Redwood, it would
be there for all to see:
They have the Redwood News or whatever and they have Raves and Rants so
people dob in other people they just say so-and-so was doing such-and-such so the
whole community kind of knows that there are people that arent doing the right
thing And then it goes on for about six weeks to and fro.

Benedict Anderson (1983) argued that the most powerful mechanism in promoting
nationalist ideology across diverse groups was the rise of print media, the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language
created the possibility of a new form of imagined community (1983, p. 49). Such
dissemination of information made it possible for rapidly growing numbers of
people to think about themselves and relate themselves to others, in profoundly new
ways (Anderson, 1983, p. 40). This appears to be the case for Redwood Estate. With
the constant influx of residents, the newsletters were an important mechanism in
symbolising social cohesion, projecting social norms and reinforcing community
values. In the absence of affective relationships and strong social networks among
the participants in Redwood Estate, the newsletters maintained an imagery of
community life that resonated strongly with the urban village model.
The presentation of place in Redwood Estate was also important in generating
shared values. However, through the interviews with residents and key informants,
maintaining community presentation was not instigated at the grass roots level, but
was generated and maintained by the developers through building covenants, limiting the number of rental properties and providing cash incentives to residents to
enable the landscaping of mature flora. When talking about the annual Spring Fair
at Redwood Estate, Ross (who worked for the developer) pointed to the effect
landscaping would have on developing cohesion, pride and even crime prevention:
We do the Spring Fair each year, where we try to have a garden competition and
hand out the prizes of the garden competition. Now, theres two things in that. We do
it to make our gardens look great and it gives people a sense of pride and to get
everyone aware that Springs in the air, make it look good, give them a sense of
ownership and pride of their area and so they take the positive, proactive steps in
looking after their environment rather than letting the crime slip in and then theyve
got to be reactive.

434

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

While residents were aware of the developers role in creating and maintaining
an image of community, the participants in this study did not consciously connect
the actions of the developer with their perceptions of community cohesion.
Attributions of pride and a shared desire to create a beautiful community were
largely ascribed to the residents. From the visual presentation of the community,
people sensed a commonality. The mature trees, the manicured lawns, the limited
number of renters were visible representations of shared values. From these representations, the participants in this study perceived others as having a strong sense of
pride and viewed the community having similar values and aspirations, as
evidenced in the following passages by Redwood residents:
Linda: I suppose if youre thinking of Redwood specifically, it looks alike, its well
landscaped so I guess theres that kind of feeling of connection or some sort of similarity between the people who live there.
David: Its that sort of environment Its got pride in the community, its well
landscaped, its a nice place to live, its nice people, its just probably everything that
most people are looking for in the place that they call home. Everybody has a sense of
pride everybodys trying to make that place much better.

In contrast to Redwood Estate, there were no community newsletters in Hidden

Valley to provide residents with information on local issues, nor was there an
abundance of community events or community groups. Instead, cohesion was
assumed from the demographic profile of the area. Nearly all residents interviewed
in Hidden Valley were aware of the affluent status of their community and believed
people living in the area were powerful people. As Gus commented: I think a lot of
that has to do with reasonable affluence. And the reasonably high standard of
education that most of the people here have.
Ryan was also well aware of the affluence, describing his fellow residents as welloiled. He noted the levels of education and professionalism present in the community, quoting the latest census statistics:
The highest percentages of personal computers for the whole of Australia is in
Hidden Valley and I thought, hmmm, if thats the case that means that theyre
predominantly professional people but what it also means is professional people
are going to have professional children.

The participants in Hidden Valley attributed the shared values of fellow residents to
the financial health of the community. Despite the lack of intracommunity relationships, people felt that they could trust fellow residents to act in their best interests,
as they saw their interests closely aligned.
For many of the residents, affluence and education symbolised work ethic,
honesty, competency and power. Collective affluence rather than the presence of
strong social relationships therefore symbolised collective identity and collective
efficacy. In the collective efficacy literature, affluence is theoretically relevant to
understanding the activation of social control, regardless of dense social ties
(Morenoff et al., 2001, p. 528). From the accounts of the residents, commonality
was assumed through the socioeconomic standing of the community. Morality, tolerance, shared interests and common pursuits were largely assumed and attributable to
the levels of education and wealth in Hidden Valley.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

435

REBECCA L. WICKES

Maintaining Order: Problems and Processes

The third aim of this article was to explore the agency of residents in collectively
efficacious community, especially as it related to crime prevention and maintaining
order. Collective efficacy, as it is defined in the literature exists relative to specific
tasks such as maintaining public order (Morenoff et al., 2001, p. 521) and represents the active sense of engagement on the part of residents (Sampson, 2006, p.
155). For Sampson and his colleagues (Morenoff et al., 2001; Sampson, 1999, 2002,
2006; Sampson et al., 1999) this is the key difference separating collective efficacy
theory from other systemic approaches. In the present research, residents had an
active sense of engagement, but their actual engagement was limited.
In both communities residents were asked to specify the most salient problems
facing the collective and to indicate their level of concern associated with these
problems. In Hidden Valley, residents commented on the increased traffic, the
continuing urbanisation of semirural areas and threats to local wildlife as key
problems facing the collective, but none were overly concerned with these issues.
When asked to report on the prevalence of crime, all interviewees believed crime
was very rare in their community.
The problems in Redwood Estate differed from Hidden Valley. Interestingly,
despite the high crime incident rate, residents in Redwood Estate did not mention
crime as a pressing problem. The problems mentioned by residents were the lack of
infrastructure for young people and their lack of parental supervision. The behaviour of young people was not framed in terms of deviance per se, but was discussed
primarily in terms of parents failure to supervise their children and the lack of the
developers foresight in providing sufficient and appropriate recreational outlets for
teenagers. Although most residents mentioned the problem with young people, only
two people recounted an actual experience or incident that directly influenced this
perception. The awareness of the problem with young people was primarily derived
from reports or accounts of these issues in The Redwood Messenger.

Hidden Valley: A Case of Cumulative Efficacy?

Hidden Valley had the second highest collective efficacy score in the CCS sample.
It also had very low crime. Yet there was no Neighbourhood Watch or any other
community group concerned with crime prevention. None of the residents were
able to provide concrete examples of community-oriented crime prevention efforts.
There was also limited evidence of informal surveillance among neighbours. I
inquired if immediate neighbours watched over each others homes or if they kept a
look-out for strangers or people who might not have a legitimate purpose in the
community. Many of the residents believed that immediate neighbours would
certainly take on this role if they were asked. However, only one participant had
previously asked neighbours to watch over their home when they were away.
From the interviews, the shared belief in a neighbourhoods conjoint capability
for action to achieve an intended effect (Sampson, 2001, p. 95) was primarily based
upon residents own skills, resources and extralocal connections. A belief in the
communitys capacity to deal with crime and disorder was not derived from previous
experience of collective responses to task-specific problems. The reported collective
efficacy in Hidden Valley did not depict an activated process associated with crime

436

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

prevention or informal surveillance. Roslyn, the local councillor, regarded people in

Hidden Valley as highly skilled and well resourced, and capable of responding to a
local problem if it were in their interest, yet she could not think of any example of
previous collaboration. When a problem arose in Hidden Valley, Roslyn was the
first person to know about it. She advised that Hidden Valley residents believed she
was there to do their work for them theyre busy and its up to me or somebody
else to look after all the little problems for them. The demands on her time to
attend to seemingly insignificant problems prevented Roslyn from dealing with the
bigger political problems she was elected to address. She believed this overreliance
on political structures is particularly prevalent in affluent areas, stemming from a
mentality that, you know, somebody else should do everything for them. In
contrast to the new parochialism found in the Beltway case (Carr, 2003) there was
no evidence of residents and organisations collaboratively responding to local issues
in Hidden Valley. Baumgartners (1988) research sheds some light on why this
might be as she suggests that residents hesitancy to exercise social control when
faced with a problem is not driven by their desire to outsource such duties.
Suburban residents do not want to jeopardise the image of civility and harmony
that defines the middle-class/affluent suburb by direct confrontation. When viewed
this way, it is possible that residents relied strongly on the local councillor to attend
to local problems to safeguard the sense of community felt in this area.
In Hidden Valley, repeated interactions with fellow community residents did not
generate or sustain collective efficacy, nor was it established from past experiences
where the community came together to solve a collective problem. Hidden Valley
was not a collectively efficacious community in the true sense, but could be better
described as cumulatively efficacious. When problems did arise, residents, as a rule,
did not work together to find a solution but relied on political connections and
processes to get the job done. The stocks of resources and connections with exogenous institutions accounted for the high levels of collective efficacy. In the context
of Hidden Valley, community regulation was dependent on the level of public,
rather than private or parochial control in the area.

Collective Efficacy in Redwood: A Conjoint Belief in the Developer

The developers of Redwood Estate wanted to create a sense of psychological belonging and wellbeing for both present and future residents. One way of achieving that
was through the layout of the estate. The artificial lakes, the walking trails and the
planting of mature trees encouraged the use of public spaces and created a feeling of
community. For Ross, who worked for the developer, our brand, what we are selling,
it is everything to us. The developers considered it important to maintain an image
promoting a safe and secure residential estate. Security and safety were prominent
messages in Redwood Estates promotional material, and to acknowledge crime
problems would pose a threat to the success of further developments in the estate.
In my meeting with Ross, I specifically asked him to comment on the crime in
Redwood. Despite his close connections with the security company and the local
police constable, his response was, There are definitely no crime problems. There
are no security issues and we have a less-than-normal issue for teenagers. From the
rate of crime incidents reported to the police, this was not the case.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

437

REBECCA L. WICKES

The developers, through their connections with the police and the security
company, made sure that signs of physical disorder, such as vandalism and graffiti
were removed immediately. As Ross advised,
if there is any vandalism or any graffiti on walls, we pay to get rid of that within 24
hours so it doesnt get seen to be a problem we jump on it, it is like quick, quick,
get the guys out there today.

Ross informed me that they provide 24-hour security for residents in Redwood
Estate, fund the position of the local constable (including his residence located in
the heart of the estate) and the Neighbourhood Watch program. When residents
move into the estate, they are provided with the contact names and numbers of all
the key players in Redwood, and are encouraged to contact the relevant institution
in the first instance should a problem of any kind arise.
With the resources provided by the developer, it was no surprise to find that
residents in Redwood Estate had no direct experience in working collaboratively
with other residents to deal with local problems. The developers in Redwood Estate
generated the belief in the communitys capacity to respond to local problems. No
one in Redwood Estate provided an example of the active sense of engagement on
the part of residents (Sampson, 2006, p. 155) without referring to the engagement
of the developer, the security company and the local police constable. Tom, a local
resident, believed that the police constable and the security company could handle
any problem. Although he had never had to call upon their services, he was certain
he could rely on them in a time of need because there is a lot of police patrol, as I
said, there is a police beat two streets away from here. If theyre ever called, they
would respond quickly. In our 48-minute interview, Richard, another Redwood
resident, referred to the capacity of the local police constable 14 times.
Not only did residents know that they could rely on formal structures to address
local problems, many saw the responsibility for civic or criminal matters as belonging to the developers and the police. This was especially true for crime. David
believed the community had a responsibility to deal with issues, only up to a
point. Ian took a similar position and advised that he would be reluctant to get
directly involved in a criminal matter, and believed other people in the estate felt
the same way.
However, one could make the argument that the residents in Redwood Estate
did intervene on particular problems. When a local problem arose, they contacted
the relevant institution and demanded action. Their belief that they lived in a
collectively efficacious community was largely the result of organisation practice.
There was little evidence of agency among residents as problems were not resolved
through active collaboration. Rather, local problems were referred to the appropriate organisation with an expectation that they would be dealt with swiftly and
competently. The reliance on mechanisms of formal social control was very strong
and the action of key institutions provided residents with a belief in the conjoint
capability of organisations like the developers and police to address threats to the
community. Community self-regulation was not achieved through the efforts of
residents, but through the actions of formal organisations. Thus the level of public
control in this community was central to perceptions of collective efficacy.

438

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

Summary
The goal of this article was to qualitatively explore aspects of community that
promote collective efficacy and the following claims stemming from the collective
efficacy literature were examined in two collectively efficacious communities: (1)
that the urban village model no longer characterised contemporary communities,
(2) that communities with weak ties can be effective units of social control and (3)
that collective efficacy represents task-specific processes that speak to the agency
of local residents. Drawing on the interview accounts of residents and key informants in two collectively efficacious communities, there was mixed support for
these claims.
Regarding the importance of community, residents in both research sites defined
community in terms of relationships, shared values and common interests and in
both locales, the community concept was very strong. The rhetoric often associated
with an urban village model of community guided the way community was imaged
by residents. However, in line with Sampson and his colleagues research and
contrary to the systemic model of community organisation, strong intracommunity
networks did not form the basis for residents understanding of community life. In
Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate, social relationships were limited in both
density and form, characterised by instrumentality and, in and of themselves, did
not drive perceptions of community cohesion or capacity. How the community was
imagined shaped and structured the expectations and attitudes among residents.
While traditional conceptualisations of community may be outdated, in the imagination of community residents, they remain a powerful normative force. The
attachment to the notion of an urban village was what mattered most for perceptions of cohesion and capacity in this study. This is something not previously
considered in the extant collective efficacy research.
One of the limitations of collective efficacy theory, as it is conceptualised in
criminology, is its inability to explain how a collective identity is maintained in the
absence of strong ties and social relationships. The interview accounts of residents
and key informants in Hidden Valley and Redwood Estate go some way in addressing this. In both communities, a collective identity was largely assumed through the
collective and symbolic representations of community life. A sense of cohesion and
perceptions associated with shared values was symbolised through newsletters, the
presentation of physical space and the presumed socioeconomic standing of fellow
residents. For example, in Redwood Estate, a shared identity was manufactured
through the local newsletters, the Redwood branding and aesthetics created and
maintained by the developer. Many of the residents believed they lived among
like-minded people, however, their shared values and commonality were assumed
and derived from manufactured symbols and representations of community life. This
was also the case in Hidden Valley. In the absence of developers, newsletters and
community functions, a collective identity was garnered through symbols of success.
Morality, family values and responsibility for collective action were assumed characteristics of people who lived in this area, with affluence and education playing a
large role in the participants accounts of community cohesion and commonality.
Durkheim (1915[1912]) suggested that collective representations provide a way
in which one can study how culture or society (or, in Durkheims case, religion)

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

439

REBECCA L. WICKES

becomes established in the minds of the collective. Understanding the collective

representations associated with perceptions of community organisation is a crucial
component in explaining the variation of crime across loosely connected communities. Examining the salient symbols associated with generating a culture of trust and
shared values can enhance our understanding of collective efficacy in contemporary urban settings where strong ties are few, collective membership is voluntary
and interests are diffuse and often conflicting. In the case of Redwood Estate,
perceptions of collective efficacy were high in spite of the high crime rates
reported in this area. This was largely due to the invisibility of the incivilities and
visibility of symbols of cohesion and social order, all of which were largely maintained by the developer.
The final goal of this article was to examine the agentic claims present in collective efficacy theory. Despite the high levels of reported collective efficacy in
Redwood Estate and Hidden Valley, the active engagement of residents was absent.
The majority of interviewees had no knowledge of past or present collaboration on
an identifiable task associated with crime control or crime prevention. In contrast,
local organisations and institutions were very active in both areas. In Redwood
Estate, in particular, they were crucial in maintaining community regulation and
social control. The appropriate organisations in Redwood Estate handled problems
for residents. The developer dealt with civic matters, and the local police constable
or the security company handled problems with crime or disorder. In Hidden Valley,
civic issues and even low-level neighbourly annoyances were commonly directed to
the local councillor. Residents did not take a direct and proactive approach to
community regulation. In the present research, the agency or the collective-action
orientation of residents (Sampson, 2006, p. 154) was dependent upon the actions
or the orientations of key institutions. Like Bursik and Grasmick (1993) and Carr
(2003), the present research points to the need for future research to consider the
behaviour of institutions or at a minimum, the perceptions of institutional capacity
as opposed to concentrating on the presence of organisations or community groups.
Sampson and his colleagues are certainly correct in their call to move beyond a
focus on social ties and networks when explaining the variation of crime and disorder across the urban landscape. However, the results of this study suggest the key
tenets of collective efficacy require further consideration. While community regulation may not require dense, interlocking networks, a strong belief in the community
concept could be the main driver of resident perceptions of collective efficacy.
Moreover, from the accounts of residents and key informants in the present
research, stocks of networks and resources are important in the development and
maintenance of collective efficacy. In the two communities studied herewith, they
were strongly linked to perceptions of trust, cohesion, shared values and a perceived
capacity to respond to crime, regardless of the absolute level of crime in the area. To
date, connections to institutions and the availability of public social control are
not fully considered in the extant collective efficacy research. As these findings
highlight and as others have previously argued (see Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Carr,
2003), the ability to leverage local and extra local resources and the behaviour of
community institutions are key features of community regulation. In sum, although
collective efficacy might be the most proximate mechanism in preventing crime

440

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

and while it can exist without dense, intracommunity networks, the mechanisms
that generate and sustain collective efficacy require further exploration.

Endnotes
1

An SLA is a general purpose spatial unit that is used to collect and disseminate statistics. In
some instances the SLA is a geographic representation of one suburb, but can also comprise
two or more suburbs (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001) as was the case in the CCS sample.
The population of the SLAs in the BSD range from 263 to 65,694 residents
Pseudonyms are used in this article to preserve the anonymity of the respondents and key
informants

References
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.
London: Verso.
Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class and change in an urban community. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence and the moral life of the inner city. New
York, W.W. Norton.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Community profiles for Brisbane Statistical Division. Retrieved
November 20, 2005, from www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf//web+pages/Census+Data
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing communities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
52(1), 126.
Bauman, Z. (2001). Community. Cambridge: Polity.
Baumgartner, M.P. (1988). The moral order of a suburb. New York: Oxford.
Bursik, R.J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and
prospects. Criminology, 26, 519552.
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, 1491291.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Day, G. (2006). Community and everyday life. London: Routledge.
Drukker, M., Kaplan, C., Feron, F., & van Os, J. (2003). Childrens health-related quality of life,
neighborhood deprivation and social capital: A contextual analysis. Social Science and
Medicine, 57, 825841.
Durkheim, E. (1912). The elementary forms of the religious life. London: Allen & Unwin.
Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research: Theory, method and applications. London:
Sage.
Gans, H.J. (1967). The Levittowners. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press
Gibson, C.L, Zhao, J., Lovrich, N.P. ,& Gaffney, M.J. (2002). Social integration, individual
perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice Quarterly, 19(3),
537564.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Girling, E., Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2000). Crime and social change in middle England: Questions of
order in an English town. London: Routledge.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

441

REBECCA L. WICKES

Hendryx, M., & Ahern, M. (2001). Access to mental health services and health sector social
capital. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 28(3), 205218.
Houston, M.J., & Sudman, S. (1975). A methodological assessment of the use of key informants.
Social Science Research, 4(2), 151164.
Hunter, A.J. (1985). Private, parochial and public school orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In G.D.Suttles & N.Z. Mayer (Eds.), The challenge of social control:
Citizenship and institution building in modern society (pp. 230242). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Israel, G.D., Beaulieu, L.J., & Hartless, G. (2001). The influence of family and community social
capital on educational achievement. Rural Sociology, 66(1), 4368.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B.P., Lochner, I., & Prothrow Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income
inequality and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 14911498.
Kennedy, B.P., Kawachi, I., Prothrow-Stith, D., Lochner, K., & Gupta, V. (1998). Social capital,
income inequality and firearm violent crime. Social Science & Medicine, 47, 117.
Kornhauser, R. (1979). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Krannich, R.S., & Humphrey, C.R. (1986). Using key informant data in comparative community
research: An empirical assessment. Sociological Methods and Research 14(4), 473493.
Kreps, G.M, Donnermeyer, J.F., Hurst, C., Blair, R., & Kreps, M. (1997). The impact of tourism on
the Amish subculture: A case study. Community Development Journal 32(4), 354367.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications.
Mazerolle, L., Wickes, R.L., & McBroom, J. (in press). Community variations in violence: The
role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context. Journal for Research in Crime
and Delinquency.
Morenoff, J., Sampson, R.J., & Raudenbush, S. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective
efficacy and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517560.
Noguera, P.A. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investments in the social capital of
parents. In Saegert, S., Thompson, J.P. & Warren M.R. (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp.189212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Nuehring, E.M., & Raybin, L. (1986). Mentally ill offenders in community based programs:
Attitudes of service providers. Journal of Offender Counselling, Services and Rehabilitation, 11(1),
1937.
Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Oberwittler, D., & Wikstrom, P.O. (2006, November). Behavior contexts and victimisation. Paper
presented to the American Society of Criminology 58th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.
Pattillio, M.E. (1998). Sweet mothers and gangbangers: Managing crime in a black middle-class
neighborhood. Social Forces, 76, 747774.
Pawson, R. (1996). Theorizing the interview. The British Journal of Sociology, 47(2), 295314.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Sampson, R.J. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological
settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological
Methodology, 29, 141.
Sampson, R.J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766779.
Sampson, R.J. (1999). What community supplies. In R.F. Ferguson & W.T. Dickens (Eds.),
Urban problems and community development (pp. 241292). Washington: The Brookings
Institution.
Sampson, R.J. (2001). Crime and public safety: Insights from community-level perspectives on
social capital. In S. Saegert, J.P. Thompson, & M.R. Warren (Eds.), Social capital and poor
communities (pp.189212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

442

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN CONTEXT

Sampson, R.J. (2002). Transcending tradition: New directions in community research, Chicago
style. Criminology, 40(2), 213230.
Sampson, R.J. (2006). Collective efficacy theory: Lessons learned and directions for future inquiry.
In F.T. Cullen, J.P. Wright, & K. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory
(Advances in Criminological Theory), Vol. 15, 149167.
Sampson, R.J., & Groves, B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory, American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774802.
Sampson R.J., Morenoff, J., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633660.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918924.
Sampson, R.J., & Wikstrom, P.O. (2004, Wikstrm, P.O. (2006, ). The social order of violence. In
Chicago and Stockholm neighborhoods: A comparative inquiry. Paper presented at the conference
on Order, Conflict, and Violence, Yale University.
Shaw, C.R., & McKay, H.D. (1931/1999). Selection from National Commission on Law
Observance and Enforcement Vol.II. In F.R. Scarpitti & A.L. Neilsen (Eds.), Crime and criminals: Contemporary and classic readings (pp. 284297). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing
Company.
Skogan, W. (1986). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In A.J. Reiss, & M. Tonry, (Eds.),
Communities and crime (pp. 203230). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Skogan, W. (1989). Communities, crime and neighborhood organisation. Crime & Delinquency, 35
(3), 437457.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods.
New York: The Free Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tonnies, F. (1955). Community and association. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work
published 1887).
Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in a global village. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wikstrm, P.O. (2006, November). Activity fields and setting. Theorizing and studying the role of
behavior. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology 58th Annual Meeting, Los
Angeles, CA.
Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and public policy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W.J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Vintage
Books.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

443