Adolescent Offending and the Segregation of Poverty in Urban Neighbourhoods and Schools: An Assessment of Contextual Effects from the Standpoint of Situational Action Theory
Contextual research on adolescent offending is primarily based on the idea that residential areas provide a major ecological setting that (indirectly) shapes observed differences in adolescent offending. The social disorganisation/collective efficacy perspective has tried to explain why structural disadvantage of residential areas affects residents' involvement in offending. On the other hand, contextual research has also been conducted within the school setting. This separate contextual approach is problematic as it does not reflect the reality of adolescents' lives. Adolescents are exposed to different ecological settings. They are also exposed to many other settings that may provide opportunities to offend, as outlined in the situational action theory (SAT) of crime causation. This study contributes to the literature on the urban context of offending in three ways. First, the effects of adolescents' residential neighbourhood and school context on adolescent offending are assessed simultaneously. Second, this study elaborates on SAT from a cross-level point of view. Third, this contribution makes use of non-hierarchical multilevel modelling, which is a statistically correct method of testing hypotheses that involve multiple contexts. Our study revealed the existence of small contextual effects of school-level disadvantage, whereas the effect of neighbourhood-level disadvantage is entirely due to neighbourhood composition. 1. Introduction and Goal of the Present Study The idea that the characteristics of a context, that is, collective structures, influence the behaviour and attitudes of individuals through processes of socialisation is rooted deep in classical sociological writing [1]. Sufficient evidence exists for the fact that offending does not develop in a vacuum. It is commonly acknowledged that one must always take into account the impact of ecological settings (such as neighbourhoods and schools) when studying adolescent offending [2]. Out of all setting characteristics, the negative effects of neighbourhood- and city-level variation in ecological disadvantage (poverty or the concentration of poor people in urban areas) have been studied most intensively [3]. The attention that is given to the effects of ecological disadvantage is multidisciplinary and focuses on negative outcomes ranging from the low birth weight of newborn babies to problem behaviours such as bullying, adolescent offending [4, 5], and even the willingness to report offences in self-report studies [6]. In this study, we examine whether and how both neighbourhood-level and
References
[1]
T. Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, The Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 1937.
[2]
T. I. Herrenkohl, J. D. Hawkins, I. J. Chung, K. G. Hill, and S. Battin-Pearson, “School and community risk factors and interventions,” in Child Delinquents, R. Loeber and D. Farrington, Eds., pp. 211–246, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2000.
[3]
R. J. Sampson, “Transcending tradition: new directions in community research, Chicago style,” Criminology, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 213–230, 2002.
[4]
J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, and J. L. Aber, Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children, vol. 1, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, USA, 1997.
[5]
G. J. Duncan and S. W. Raudenbush, “Neighborhoods and adolescent development: how can we determine the links?” in Does It Take a Village? Community Effects on Children, Adolescents, and Families, A. Booth and A. C. Crouter, Eds., pp. 105–136, Pennsylvania State University Press, State College, Pa, USA, 2001.
[6]
L. Ann Slocum, T. J. Taylor, B. T. Brick, and F. A. Esbensen, “Neighborhood structural characteristics, individual-level attitudes, and youths' crime reporting intentions,” Criminology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1063–1100, 2010.
[7]
B. Rovers, De Buurt, een Broeinest? Een Onderzoek naar de Invloed van de Woonomgeving op Jeugdcriminaliteit, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 1997.
[8]
L. Pauwels, Buurtinvloeden en Jeugddelinquentie, Een Toets van de Sociale Desorganisatietheorie, Boom Juridische Uitgevers, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2007.
[9]
D. Gottfredson, Schools and Delinquency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.
[10]
P.-O. H. Wikstr？m, “Situational action theory,” Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Sage, London, UK, 2010.
[11]
P.-O. H. Wikstr？m, “Crime as alternative: towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation,” in Beyond Empiricism: Institutions and Intentions in the Study of Crime, J. McCoard, Ed., pp. 1–37, Transactions, New Brunswik, NJ, USA, 2004.
[12]
P.-O. H. Wikstr？m, “The social origins of pathways in crime: towards a developmental ecological action theory of crime involvement and its change,” in Testing Integrated Developmental/Life Course Theories of Offending. Advances in Theoretical Criminology, D. P. Farrington, Ed., pp. 211–245, Transactions, New Brunswik, NJ, USA, 2005.
[13]
N. Vettenburg and L. Walgrave, “Maatschappelijke kwetsbaarheid, school en verstedelijking,” in Jeugdcriminologie. Achtergronden van Jeugdcriminaliteit, I. Weijers and C. Eliaerts, Eds., pp. 183–205, Boom Juridische Uitgevers, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2008.
[14]
D. P. Farrington, R. J. Sampson, and P.-O. H. Wikstr？m, Integrating Individual and Ecological Aspects of Crime, National Council for Crime Prevention (Br？), Stockholm, Sweden, 1993.
[15]
F. Peeples and R. Loeber, “Do individual factors and neighborhood context explain ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency?” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 141–157, 1994.
[16]
P. H. Tolan, D. Gorman-Smith, and D. B. Henry, “The developmental ecology of urban males' youth violence,” Developmental Psychology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 274–291, 2003.
[17]
R. J. Sampson, “The embeddedness of child and adolescent development: a community-level perspective on urban violence,” in Violence and Childhood in the Inner City, J. McCord, Ed., pp. 31–77, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.
[18]
L. Br？nnstr？m, Making Their Mark. Disentangling the Effects of Neighbourhood and School Environments on Educational Achievement, Arbetsrapport, Institutet F？r Framtidsstudier, Stockholm, Sweden, 2007.
[19]
H. Goldstein, J. Rasbash, and M. Yang, “A multilevel analysis of school examination results,” Oxford Review of Education, vol. 19, pp. 425–433, 1993.
[20]
H. Goldstein and P. Sammons, “The influence of secondary and junior schools on sixteen year examination performance: a cross-classified multilevel analysis,” School Effectiveness and School Improvement, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 219–230, 1997.
[21]
M. Van Houtte, “Tracking effects on school achievement: a quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff,” American Journal of Education, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 354–388, 2004.
[22]
B. De Fraine, G. Van Landeghem, J. Van Damme, and P. Onghena, “An analysis of wellBeing in secondary school with multilevel growth curve models and multilevel multivariate models,” Quality and Quantity, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 297–316, 2005.
[23]
J. Fiqueira-McDonough, “School context, gender, and delinquency,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 79–98, 1986.
[24]
P. Lindstr？m, Context and Delinquency. Project Metropolitan. Research Report No. 41, Stockholm University, Department of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1995.
[25]
M. Sapouna, “Collective efficacy in the school context: does it help explain victimization and bullying among Greek primary and secondary school students?” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1912–1927, 2010.
[26]
T. L. Parcel, M. J. Dufur, and R. Cornell Zito, “Capital at home and at school: a review and synthesis,” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 828–846, 2010.
[27]
J. G. Bernburg and T. Thorlindsson, “Violent values, conduct norms, and youth aggression: a multilevel study in Iceland,” Sociological Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 457–478, 2005.
[28]
S. Boxford, Schools and the Problem of Crime, Willan Publishing, Devon, UK, 2006.
[29]
G. J. N. Bruinsma, “Differential association theory reconsidered: an extension and its empirical test,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 29–49, 1992.
[30]
U. Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1979.
[31]
T. Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency, University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1969.
[32]
P.-O. H. Wikstr？m and D. Butterworth, Adolescent Crime: Individual Differences and Life Styles, Willan Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 2006.
[33]
L. Br？nnstr？m, Phantom of the Neighbourhood: Longitudinal Studies on Area-Based Conditions and Individual Outcomes, Swedish Institute For Social Research Dissertation Series, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2006.
[34]
T. Thorlindsson and J. G. Bernburg, “Durkheim's theory of social order and deviance: a multi-level test,” European Sociological Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 271–285, 2004.
[35]
F. Fari？a, R. Arce, and M. Novo, “Neighborhood and community factors: effects on deviant behavior and social competence,” Spanish Journal of Psychology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 78–84, 2008.
[36]
J. G. Bernburg and T. Thorlindsson, “Community structure and adolescent delinquency in Iceland: a contextual analysis,” Criminology, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 415–444, 2007.
[37]
D. Oberwittler, “Stadtstruktur, freundeskreise und delinquenz. Eine mehrebenenanalyse zu sozial？kologischen kontexteffekten auf schwere jugenddelinquenz,” in Soziologie Der Kriminalit？t, D. Oberwittler and S. Karstedt, Eds., pp. 135–170, Vs Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, Germany, 2004.
[38]
E. Sellstr？m and S. Bremberg, “Is there a “school effect” on pupil outcomes? A review of multilevel studies,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 149–155, 2006.
[39]
C. Baerveldt, “Schools and the prevention of petty crime: search for a missing link,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79–94, 1992.
[40]
G. C. Ousey and P. Wilcox, “Subcultural values and violent delinquency: a multilevel analysis in middle schools,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 3–22, 2005.
[41]
D. Oberwittler, “The effects of ethnic and social segregation on children and adolescents: recent research and results from a german multilevel study,” Discussion Paper Sp Iv 2007-603, Social Science Research Centre Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2007.
[42]
H. Goldstein, Multilevel Statistical Models, Edward Arnold, London, UK, 2nd edition, 1995.
[43]
T. M. Kauppinen, “Schools as mediators of neighbourhood effects on choice between vocational and academic tracks of secondary education in Helsinki,” European Sociological Review, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 379–391, 2008.
[44]
H. Goldstein, “Multilevel cross-classified methods,” Sociological Methods and Research, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 364–375, 2006.
[45]
J. Rasbah and H. Goldstein, “Efficient analysis of mixed hierarchical and cross-classified random structures using a multilevel model,” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 337–350, 1994.
[46]
H. Brutsaert, Co-Educatie: Studiekansen en Kwaliteit van het Schoolleven, Garant, Leuven, Belgium, 2001.
[47]
R. J. Sampson and D. J. Bartusch, “Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) Tolerance of deviance: the neighborhood context of racial differences,” Law and Society Review, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 777–804, 1998.
[48]
P. O. H. Wikstr？m and R. Loeber, “Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? A study of male juvenile serious offending, individual risk and protective factors, and neighborhood context,” Criminology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1109–1140, 2000.
[49]
T. Snijders and R. Bosker, Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, Sage, London, UK, 1999.
[50]
G. J. N. Bruinsma, Geografische Mobiliteit En Misdaad, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2000.
[51]
R. Svensson and L. Pauwels, “Is a risky lifestyle always “risky”? The interaction between individual propensity and lifestyle risk in adolescent offending: a test in two urban samples,” Crime and Delinquency, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 608–626, 2010.
[52]
R. J. Sampson, “Moving to inequality: neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 189–231, 2008.
[53]
P.-O. H. Wikstr？m and M. Torstensson, “Local crime prevention and its national support: organisation and direction,” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 459–481, 1999.
[54]
N. Declerck and L. Pauwels, Individu, Omgeving en de Verklaring van Jeugdcrimineel Gedrag. Een Toets in Twee Stedelijke Settings, Maklu, Antwerp, Belgium, 2000.
[55]
J. Ludwig, G. J. Duncan, and P. Hirschfield, “Urban poverty and juvenile crime: evidence from a randomized housing-mobility experiment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 655–679, 2001.
[56]
H. G. Grasmick, C. R. Tittle, R. J. Bursik, and B. J. Arneklev, “Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 5–29, 1993.
[57]
M. G. Turner and A. R. Piquero, “The stability of self-control,” Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 457–471, 2002.
[58]
A. T. Vazsonyi, L. E. Pickering, M. Junger, and D. Hessing, “An empirical test of a general theory of crime: a four-nation comparative study of self-control and the prediction of deviance,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 91–131, 2001.
[59]
R. Agnew, “The interactive effects of social control variables on delinquency,” in Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency. Advances in Criminological Theory, C. L. Britt and M. R. Gottfredson, Eds., vol. 12, pp. 53–76, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2003.
[60]
C. L. Chapple, J. A. McQuillan, and T. A. Berdahl, “Gender, social bonds, and delinquency: a comparison of boys' and girls' models,” Social Science Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 357–383, 2005.
[61]
R. Agnew and D. M. Peterson, “Leisure and delinquency,” Social Problems, vol. 36, pp. 332–350, 1989.
[62]
J. G. Bernburg and T. Thorlindsson, “Routine activities in social context: a closer look at the role of opportunity in deviant behavior,” Justice Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 543–567, 2001.
[63]
J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin, “Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior: the role of structure and social context,” Journal of Adolescence, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 113–127, 2000.
[64]
K. B. Novak and L. A. Crawford, “Routine activities as determinants of gender differences in delinquency,” Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 913–920, 2010.
[65]
D. W. Osgood and A. L. Anderson, “Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency,” Criminology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 519–549, 2004.
[66]
D. W. Osgood, J. K. Wilson, P. M. O'Malley, J. G. Bachman, and L. D. Johnston, “Routine activities and individual deviant behavior,” American Sociological Review, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 635–655, 1996.
[67]
S. Gsir, Housing and Segregation of Migrants—Case study, Eurofont Publications, Antwerp, Belgium, 2009.
