Diversity and Burglary: Does Community Differences Matter?
In Britain and America economic inequality and heterogenous communities are both linked to a lack of social cohesion and levels of crime.’Diversity’ places obstacles in the way of networking and cooperation within local areas, and has a negative impact on social interactions.
The Dutch also found that heterogeneity at a community level leads to low levels of trust and undermines social cohesion within the community.
The Met Police in London say that ethnically diverse communities are characterised by distrust, a lack of social cohesion and high levels of disputes.
Research in Japan confirms this and goes on to confirm that economic inequalities within a community leader to higher crime levels.
Other UK research talks of burglary levels being linked to increased ethnic diversity.
American evidence points to higher levels of car crime and robbery when the immigrant population rises
Spreading the Wealth: The Effect of the Distribution of Income and Race/Ethnicity across Households and Neighborhoods on City Crime Trajectories
An American study over a 30 year period looked at 352 cities which experienced high levels of population growth. It found that economic inequality increased crime in cities, but mostly when there was economic segregation as well. This was especially so when there was local heterogeneity as well. In areas where there was low heterogeneity, greater mixing of groups in neighbourhoods actually increased the crime rate.
Measuring perceived racial heterogeneity and its impact on crime: An ambient population-based approach
An American 1942 study linked crime rates to neighbourhood characteristics, including the ethnic mix. It said that ‘diverse’ communities had “ limited capacity for communication, collective action, problem-solving, and common value achieving.”
This and many other studies led to the creation of the “social disorganization theory”. Many empirical studies have found a crime-producing effect of racial/ethnic heterogeneity and examined the relationship between racial/ethnic heterogeneity and community crime. Dozens of studies over the next 50 years confirmed this theory. It should be pointed out that the studies did not take immigration into account as such. It is however known that first generation immigrants, whilst tending not to integrate, also tend to be law abiding.
In Detail
Diversity and Burglary: Does Community Differences Matter?
In the context of the UK and US, socio-economic and demographic diversity has been linked to decreased social cohesion and the variation of crime in neighbourhoods (Bursik Jr & Grasmick, 1993; Sampson & Groves, 1989). Diversity may hinder informal communication within neighbourhoods and tends to negatively affect the establishment of social interactions across groups (Browning, Burrington, Leventhal, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Laurence, 2011; Letki, 2008). In the Netherlands for example, Meer and Tolsma (2014) have found that heterogeneity in a community leads to low levels of trust and meaningful interactions and tends to undermine intra-neighbourhood social cohesion.
The Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey (METPAS) of London, studies have found that ethnically diverse communities especially with large transient populations are often characterised by distrust, low levels of social cohesion and high levels of disputes (Sturgis, Brunton-Smith, Kuha, & Jackson, 2014) with potential negative consequences for the individual as well as community at large (Mellgren, 2011). Recent research in Japan, consistently shows that areas characterised by ethnic diversity, wealth diversity and age diversity (calculated at individual level with surveys) have high rates of crime (Takagi & Kawachi, 2014).
Migrants especially from the black and minority ethnic populations (BME) often lack the wealth, social integration, or formal crime prevention connections to protect themselves (Sharp & Atherton, 2007). Because of these factors, the size of an immigrant population in an area positively correlates with the incidence of property crime (Bell & Machin, 2011). Empirical evidence from the US also demonstrates links between size of an immigrant population and occurrence of motor vehicle theft and robbery (Bholowalia & Kumar, 2014)
We also found strong support for a positive relationship between ethnic diversity and rates of burglary crime. This finding contradicts Papadopoulos (2014) who found no significant relationship
between an increase in the size of the immigrant population and property crime. The finding of this study, however, is consistent with the findings of previous study that found a positive relationship between the size of the immigrants population in an area and the incidence of property crime (e.g. Bell & Machin, 2011). Previous research has shown that ethnically heterogeneous communities are often characterised by distrust, low levels of social cohesion and disputes (Sturgis et al., 2014) which negatively affect individual behaviours (Mellgren, 2011). Recent studies into the spatial distribution of neighbourhood crime consistently show that areas which are characterised by ethnic diversity have high rates of crime (Gartner, 2013; Takagi & Kawachi, 2014).
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/138095/1/Gulma_etal.pdf
Spreading the Wealth: The Effect of the Distribution of Income and Race/Ethnicity across Households and Neighborhoods on City Crime Trajectories
This study focuses on the effect of economic resources and racial/ethnic composition on the change in crime rates over a 30-year period in 352 cities in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II. The key findings are that whereas inequality increases the amount of crime in cities, the distribution of this inequality across the census tracts of the city has important interaction effects. Thus, in cities with high levels of inequality, higher levels of economic segregation actually lead to much higher levels of the types of crime studied here (aggravated assaults, robberies, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts). In contrast, in cities with low levels of inequality, it is mixing of households in neighborhoods with varying levels of income that leads to higher levels of crime. Likewise, we found an important interaction between the racial/ethnic composition of the city and how these groups are distributed across the neighborhoods of the city. In cities with high levels of racial/ethnic heterogeneity, higher levels of segregation of these groups leads to particularly high overall levels of crime in these cities. In cities with low levels of racial/ethnic heterogeneity, greater mixing of groups in neighborhoods actually increases the crime rate. These are important, novel findings.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf
Measuring perceived racial heterogeneity and its impact on crime: An ambient population-based approach
Shaw and McKay (1942) directly linked crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics, including ethnic/racial heterogeneity (Shaw & McKay, 1942). In their social disorganization theory, racial heterogeneity of people’s residential location is a substantial factor shaping the differential neighborhood characteristics and thus influencing the likelihood of people’s illegal activity involvement, including street crimes. They argue that communities with diverse race/ethnicity have limited capacity for communication, collective action, problem-solving, and common value achieving (Kornhauser, 1978; Bursik Jr., 1988, Sampson et al., 1997; Bursik Jr. & Grasmick, 1993).
Many empirical studies have found a crime-producing effect of racial/ethnic heterogeneity and examined the relationship between racial/ethnic heterogeneity and community crime (Hipp, 2007, Hipp, 2010; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Smith & Jarjoura, 1988; Warner & Pierce, 1993; Warner & Rountree, 1997. They posit that individuals from ethnically diverse backgrounds follow differential and unique normative systems that often produce conflict owing to disagreement over these norms (Kubrin, 2000). These conflicts, displayed in both direct and indirect ways, impede community integration, and weaken the formal and informal social control of the local community’s salience and thus affect crime rates (Sampson, 2012; Sampson & Wilson, 1995). In support of social disorganization theory, research has long found that racial/ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher levels of crime.
For instance, Sampson and Groves (1989) found the neighborhoods with more racial/ethnic heterogeneity were likely to occur more violent crimes, such as robbery and assault. A recent study conducted by Wenger (2019) also uncovered that the racial heterogeneity at the neighborhood level had a positive relationship with robbery. Smith and Jarjoura (1988) used victimization data from 57 neighborhoods in Rochester, NY, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida, and St. Louis, Missouri, to explore the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and rates of violent crime and burglary. They found that the racial heterogeneity of Shaw and McKay’s theory played an essential role in explaining the neighborhood victimization rates. Warner and Pierce (1993) analyzed the calls to police data during 1980 in 60 Boston neighborhoods. They concluded that the degree of racial heterogeneity positively affected the burglary rate.
Even after controlling family and structural density measurements, the effect remained significant even after controlling family and structural density measurements, though its effects were conditional on the poverty level. Warner and Rountree (1997) showed that ethnic/racial heterogeneity reduced local social ties and influenced crime rates in a study in Seattle, Washington. Kubrin (2000) conducted another study in the same city and found a strong association between racial heterogeneity and violent crime rates. Besides, Blau and Blau (1982) found that the inequality between White people and Black people increased criminal violence rates when ignoring economic inequalities.
Nevertheless, even controlling for the effects of income inequality, Hipp (2007) claimed that the factor of racial/ethnic heterogeneity accounted for all types of crime generally committed by strangers (Hipp, 2007). Indeed, at least from the short-term perspective, racial heterogeneity disrupts the solidarity of communities and leads to lower levels of trust and cohesion (Putnam, 2007). Furthermore, Hipp (2011) found that an increase in racial heterogeneity over time was associated with the increase of street crimes, including aggravated assault and robbery. The aforementioned literature based on the residential characteristics of race composition has theoretically and empirically illustrated that the racial/ethnic heterogeneity positively relates to crime.
In addition, immigration is typically part of the social disorganization discussion (Kim et al., 2019). However, there are not many immigrants in the study area. The U.S. Census Bureau (2021) showed that the Hispanic/Latino and Asian account for 4.2 % and 2.2 % in Cincinnati, which were much lower than the national averages of 18.9 %, and 6.1 %, respectively. Therefore, immigration is not considered in this study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275122006278
Advances in Spatial Criminology: The Spatial Scale of Crime
Another study takes a different approach, exploring whether the spatial distribution of racial groups and inequality in neighborhoods within cities impact the level of crime at the city level (Hipp 2011). Using a sample of 352 cities from 1970 to 2000 in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II, the study hypothesized that the effect of racial/ethnic or economic segregation on crime is stronger in cities in which these concepts are more salient (because of greater levels of heterogeneity or inequality in the city itself). The study noted that theoretical expectations differ depending on the spatial scale. At the neighborhood level, social disorganization theory implies that racial heterogeneity or inequality reduces social interaction and potential informal social control, resulting in heightened levels of crime. Also at the neighborhood level, routine activities theory and general strain theory posit that inequality allows for the convergence of motivated offenders (the poor) and suitable targets (the wealthy) in space and creates a sense of injustice among the disadvantaged which may lead to violence. City-level racial heterogeneity and inequality may also interrupt political cooperation in addressing problems, resulting in more crime overall. The results indeed indicate that higher levels of segregation in cities with high levels of racial–ethnic heterogeneity resulted in higher overall levels of crime. Furthermore, greater economic segregation resulted in more crime in cities with greater overall inequality. In other words, it is the amount of variation in racial heterogeneity or inequality across neighborhoods that explains city levels of crime.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041423
