Deviant Behavior

ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

A Theoretical Explanation of the Influence of

Gentrification on Neighborhood Crime

Michael S. Barton & Colin P. Gruner

To cite this article: Michael S. Barton & Colin P. Gruner (2015): A Theoretical Explanation
of the Influence of Gentrification on Neighborhood Crime, Deviant Behavior, DOI:
10.1080/01639625.2014.983004

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983004

Published online: 16 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20

Download by: [Central Michigan University] Date: 31 October 2015, At: 07:35
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983004

A Theoretical Explanation of the Influence of Gentrification

on Neighborhood Crime
Michael S. Barton and Colin P. Gruner
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA; University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Gentrification and other types of neighborhood revitalization strategies Received 7 April 2014
have been promoted as viable crime reduction strategies, but empirical Accepted 17 September
assessments of this relationship produced inconsistent results. The mixed 2014
results were partly due to a narrow theoretical focus on social disorganiza-
tion and routine activities, but also because of a limited conceptualization
of gentrification. The current study draws on gentrification literature more
broadly and incorporates insights from additional criminological theories to
provide a more complete understanding of how gentrification is related to
neighborhood crime. Specifically, three pathways through which gentrifica-
tion influences neighborhood crime are identified.
Deviant Behavior

The dramatic decline in crime during the 1990s has been well documented, but the cause of this
decline continues to be debated. Recent research has suggested that this decline was associated with
the spread of gentrification in American cities during the 1980s and 1990s (Kirk and Laub 2010).
The specific definition varies, but gentrification has typically referred to “the process by which higher
income households displace lower income [households] of a neighborhood, changing the essential
character and flavor of that neighborhood” (Kennedy and Leonard 2001: 5). Many studies have
referenced the importance of gentrification for crime, but the few studies that empirically assessed
this relationship produced mixed results.
The inconsistency in results was likely the result of limited theoretical development as much of
this research drew on concepts from criminological theories such as social disorganization
(Covington and Taylor 1989; Y. Lee 2010; Kreager, Lyons, and Hays 2011; Papachristos et al.
2011; Taylor and Covington 1988; Van Wilsem, Wittebrood, Dirk De Graaf 2006) and routine
activities (Covington and Taylor 1989; Kreager et al. 2011) that do not map directly onto the
gentrification and crime relationship due to the complexity of the gentrification process.1 These
theories suggest that gentrification results in short-term increases in crime because it disrupts the
local social order, which results in decreased guardianship and social control (Anderson 1990;
McDonald 1986; Skogan 1990). As the gentrification process takes root, the social order of the
neighborhood stabilizes and crime declines.
The changes to neighborhoods highlighted by the social disorganization and routine activities
frameworks do not address all aspects of the gentrification process. For example, in addition to
changes to the composition of neighborhood populations, gentrification scholars also highlighted
the importance of physical renovations and the potential for fear and resentment among
gentrifiers and incumbent residents. As the importance of such changes have been highlighted

CONTACT Michael S. Barton mbartos3@lsu.edu Department of Sociology, 139 Stubbs Hall, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
1
The only empirical assessment of the gentrification–crime relationship that did not draw on criminological theory was O’Sullivan
(2005), who drew on economic theory. This study assessed whether neighborhoods gentrified as a response to declines in crime
and therefore did not seek to explain why crime declined.
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 2 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

by the broken windows thesis, the civic communities perspective, and the defended communities
thesis, drawing on these theories in addition to social disorganization and routine activities
should shed additional light on the relationship between gentrification and crime.
The current study highlights how a deeper understanding of what gentrification is and how it
shapes neighborhoods combined with the inclusion of theories other than social disorganization and
routine activities can further develop understanding of the relationship between gentrification and
crime. This study first reviews the overall research on gentrification before discussing research on
gentrification and crime. The review of previous research is followed by a discussion of how the
gentrification and neighborhood crime literatures can be joined to identify three ways that gentri-
fication influences crime.

What is gentrification?
Gentrification has been of interest to urban scholars since the 1960s, but the topic became of special
interest during the 1980s and 1990s as cities began to recover after multiple decades of decline.
Believed to be partly a desire among middle-class individuals for inexpensive housing and access to
urban amenities and partly a strategy promoted by city governments seeking to revitalize deterio-
rated areas, gentrification was often understood to be “the process by which higher income house-
holds displace lower income [households] of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and
flavor of that neighborhood” (Kennedy and Leonard 2001:5). This process has frequently been
discussed as a reversal of the middle-class migration to suburban areas that occurred in the wake
of World War II, which resulted in elevated concentrations of disadvantaged populations and higher
crime rates in many inner-city areas.
Deviant Behavior

Even though it has been studied for about 50 years, gentrification scholars have yet to come to a
consensus on a definition (Lees, Slater, and Wyly 2008). Most acknowledge that gentrification was
first identified in London during the 1960s by Glass (1964:xviii) who used the term to describe the
“invasion” of middle- and upper-class residents into traditionally working-class neighborhoods,
resulting in the displacement of incumbent residents and a change of the social character of the
neighborhood. Decomposing this definition reveals that gentrification is a process that occurs over
time and changes the social composition and “social character,” or culture, of neighborhoods.
When describing changes to the social composition of neighborhoods, gentrification scholars
frequently discussed changes in the socioeconomic and racial composition of neighborhood popula-
tions. To this effect, previous research highlighted the greater representation of white residents,
residents with college educations, residents employed in professional occupations, reductions in
poverty, and smaller households (Bostic and Martin 2003; Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Ley 1996).
Research on the correlates of crime has found similar changes were negatively associated with crime
(Sampson 2012; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997).
When discussing changes to the social character of neighborhoods, previous research emphasized
changes in housing and businesses. Discussions of housing focused on the conversion of former
manufacturing sites into luxury loft-style apartments, but also described increases in property values
overall (Curran 2007; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2006; Zukin 1982). Others noted that gentrification
resulted in cultural changes to neighborhoods as traditional family-owned businesses were replaced
with chain stores and restaurants (Freeman 2006; Zukin 2010). Changes to the availability of housing
and neighborhood culture were important because they disrupted the local social order and were
resented by incumbent residents (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Nyden, Edlynn, and Davis 2006).
While gentrification scholars generally agreed that the process shaped the social composition and
character of neighborhoods, the extent to which each aspect was incorporated into the operationa-
lization of gentrification was greatly influenced by methodological differences. Qualitative studies
typically focused on individual gentrifying areas and emphasized the transition from traditional
racial or ethnic neighborhood cultures to a uniform, middle-class, white culture (Anderson 1990;
Freeman 2006). In contrast, quantitative studies explored changes in larger samples of
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 3

neighborhoods and frequently identified neighborhoods as gentrifiable if they featured a particular

characteristic or characteristics, usually measurable with census data, at the beginning of a decade
and gentrified if they experienced a change in the identified characteristic or characteristics.
Atkinson (2000) used a simple version of this strategy by identifying gentrified neighborhoods as
those that experienced gains in the proportion of workers employed in professional occupations
between two time points as gentrified. In contrast, Bostic and Martin (2003) developed a more
complex measurement that assessed changes in nine sociodemographic variables frequently asso-
ciated with gentrification. These strategies allowed for the inclusion of large samples, but were often
criticized for relying too heavily on census indicators that offered limited measurement of changes to
the social character of neighborhoods.
Two strategies were offered to address the limitation of using only census-based indicators to
identify gentrified neighborhoods. The first was to combine qualitative and quantitative data sources.
Hammel and Wyly (1996; Wyly and Hammel 1998, 1999) were the forerunners of this approach.
These authors used a combination of fieldwork and census analyses to develop a database of
neighborhoods in 23 large American cities that experienced gentrification during the 1990s. More
recently, Hwang and Sampson (2014) drew on a combination of census indicators and systematic
social observation of Chicago streets using Google Street View to identify gentrified neighborhoods.
While the use of qualitative and quantitative information sources allowed for the refined measure-
ment of gentrification, the labor intensiveness of the data collection makes these strategies difficult to
replicate.
A second, less-labor intensive strategy to supplemented census indicators with non-census based
measures of gentrification such as the number of coffeeshops (Papachristos et al. 2011; C. M. Smith
2014) and mortgage lending information (Kreager et al. 2011). Such measures allowed for refined
Deviant Behavior

measurement of gentrification that also incorporated changes over time. These strategies were limited,
however, in that they were unable to account for unmeasurable influences such as city planning efforts,
individual tastes and residential preferences. In addition, they did not allow for the distinction of
gentrification-related investments from other types of investment such as incumbent upgrading.
Differences in the operationalization of gentrification were important in and of themselves,
but also because these differences may have influenced research on neighborhood outcomes,
much of which focused on residential displacement and changes in crime. For example, quali-
tative case studies consistently documented fear of displacement (see Anderson 1990; Freeman
2006; Newman and Wyly 2006), but empirical analyses indicated that displacement affected a
small proportion of households (Freeman and Braconi 2004; Newman and Wyly 2006). While
residential displacement is not the focus of this article, the potential for fear of displacement has
important consequences for the relationship of gentrification with crime.
The results of research on the association of gentrification with changes in neighborhood crime
were more varied. Some studies found gentrification was positively associated with crime (Covington
and Taylor 1989; C. M. Smith 2014; Taylor and Covington 1988; Van Wilsem et al. 2006), while
others found a negative association (McDonald 1986; Papachristos, et al. 2011; C. M. Smith 2014).
To complicate the issue further, research by Kreager et al. (2011) and Y. Lee (2010) found that the
association of gentrification and crime varied over time, with gentrification initially associated with
increased crime, but as time progressed the relationship reversed and gentrification was associated
with decreased crime. These divergent findings were partly due to differences in how gentrification
was measured, but also the result of limited theoretical development as much of this research drew
on two criminological theories that were unable to account for the complexity of the gentrification
process.

Criminological theory and the association between gentrification and crime

Research on gentrification and crime primarily emphasized the importance of the social disorgani-
zation framework and routine activities theory. While these theories offer insight into the
 4 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

gentrification–crime relationship, neither maps perfectly. Additional insights from the broken
windows thesis, civic communities perspective, and defended community thesis should be utilized
to improve our understanding of the gentrification–crime relationship.

Social disorganization
The most utilized theory in gentrification–crime research was the social disorganization theory
(Covington and Taylor 1989; Kreager et al. 2011; Papachristos et al. 2011; Taylor and Covington
1988; Van Wilsem et al. 2006). The original statement of this framework by Shaw and McKay (1969)
predicted crime would be higher in neighborhoods characterized by concentrated disadvantage,
residential instability, and racial and ethnic heterogeneity. Shaw and McKay (1969) hypothesized
that these factors were associated with the formation of tenuous social networks, which in turn
decreased the probability of informal social control (Sampson and Groves 1989:775). In a widely
cited critique of the disorganization framework, Kornhauser (1978:33) criticized much of the
research on social disorganization for being unable to differentiate the effects of structural causes
from subcultural causes of crime. To address this critique, recent developments in the form of the
systemic model of crime (Bursik 1988; Bursik and Grasmick 1993) and collective efficacy theory
(Sampson 2012; Sampson et al. 1997) expanded upon Shaw and McKay’s (1969) framework by
explicitly describing why the strength of social networks was an important intervening mechanism.
The systemic model of crime built on Kasarda and Janowitz’s (1974) argument that local
communities are the result of complex systems of friendship and kinship networks and the work
by Hunter (1985), who identified social control as a function of private, parochial, and public social
networks. Private networks refer to informal primary groups such as families, whereas parochial
Deviant Behavior

networks develop through interaction with broader institutions such as schools and churches. Public
networks provide access to goods and services outside of the local community such as street
maintenance and policing (1985:233). Drawing on the ideas of Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) and
Hunter (1985), the systemic model argues that community disorganization should be defined in
terms of the capacity of a neighborhood to regulate itself through formal and informal processes of
social control. These processes are based on the complex system of associational ties in a neighbor-
hood, reflected in the operation of private, parochial, and public forms of social control (Bursik
1988:527).
The other extension of the social disorganization framework, collective efficacy theory, argues that
strong social networks are less likely to form in neighborhoods characterized by concentrated
disadvantage, residential stability, and racial and ethnic heterogeneity. These factors hinder the
development of social networks and decrease the probability that residents will participate in local
social organizations or have the resources required to develop them (Sampson 2012; Sampson et al.
1997). The limited social networks and weaker community organizations decrease the collective
efficacy of the neighborhood, which is defined as the “ability of neighborhoods to realize common
values among residents and maintain effective social controls” (Sampson et al. 1997:918). Decreased
collective efficacy is important because it means that these neighborhoods are less able to draw on
informal techniques of social control (Sampson 2012; Sampson et al. 1997; Taylor 2001).
Gentrification–crime research emphasized the social disorganization perspective because the
process of gentrification results in changes to the three social structural factors highlighted by social
disorganization, namely disadvantage, residential stability, and heterogeneity. The influx of affluent
households results in a deconcentration of disadvantage, which was important because disadvan-
taged households often did not have the social capital or social support required to assist each other
during times of need (Triplett, Gainey, and Sun 2003). Further, the increase in affluent residents was
important for formal social control, as affluent residents were better able to make demands of city
officials to address neighborhood issues such as general maintenance and crime control (Freeman
2006; Skogan 1990). Proponents of gentrification as an urban renewal tool suggested that the
increased presence of middle-class residents that resulted from gentrification would eventually
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 5

lead to reductions in crime in the neighborhood (Sullivan 2007:583). The influence of gentrification
on crime has not, however, been found to be such a straightforward process.
The influence of the greater representation of affluent households on crime is unclear because the
very act of moving-in decreases the residential stability of the neighborhood and increases the
socioeconomic, and often racial, heterogeneity of the neighborhood. Not only was it harder to
form networks across cultural, racial, and economic divides, the incorporation of the new residents
into existing social networks was often hindered by concerns among incumbent residents of
displacement (Freeman 2006; Newman and Wyly 2006). Many researchers discussed racial tensions
between white gentrifiers and minority incumbent residents, but tensions between gentrifiers and
incumbent residents of the same race were also identified (Anderson 1990; Freeman 2006). Such
tensions, whether based in race, class, or a combination of the two, reduce the potential for collective
efficacy and thereby informal social control in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification (Van
Wilsem et al. 2006).
Empirical assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship suggest short- and long-term
effects of residential instability. Taylor and Covington (1988) and Van Wilsem et al. (2006) suggested
that the association of gentrification and crime was mediated by residential instability. Consistent
with the economic heterogeneity angle, Kreager et al. (2011) found that crime rates initially increased
in neighborhoods experiencing an influx of investment, but crime declined after a tipping point of
gentrification was reached.
Gentrification may also result in long-term neighborhood stabilization as the process typically
increased the proportion of homeowners in the neighborhood (Kreager et al. 2011). Home
purchases represent significant investments, and homeowners are more likely to be involved in
crime-fighting behaviors such as neighborhood watches and calling the police to intervene in
Deviant Behavior

dangerous or suspicious situations (Hipp 2007:688). Further, continued gentrification may

eventually reduce heterogeneity, allowing for the stronger network ties and bonds, which
would enable collective efficacy. The greater willingness to engage in crime-fighting behaviors
suggests that gentrification would result in long-term declines in crime.

Broken windows thesis

Research on the broken windows thesis has referenced the importance of gentrification and other
forms of urban renewal for reducing the prevalence of social and physical disorder (Beckett and
Herbert 2008; Skogan 1990; Taylor 2001), but empirical assessments of gentrification and crime have
not drawn on the broken windows thesis. The basic argument of the broken windows thesis is that
crime is more likely in neighborhoods characterized by social (public arguments, public drunken-
ness) and physical (graffiti, vandalism) disorder because these indicate that residents are either
unable or unwilling to maintain order in the neighborhood, thereby decreasing the risk of punish-
ment (Kelling and Coles 1996; Taylor 2001). It is surprising that apart from a few anecdotal
references, assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship have not drawn on the broken
windows thesis. Gentrification scholars generally agreed that the process resulted in reinvestment
of capital into disadvantaged neighborhoods. The reinvestment in capital was in turn associated with
a reduction in signs of disorder overall, especially in regard to physical disorder as many deteriorated
building were renovated (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Kirk and Laub 2010; Taylor 2001).
Gentrification and other neighborhood restoration processes were being discussed before Wilson
and Kelling (1982) formally stated the broken windows thesis, but very little literature has linked the
two together. Areas characterized by incivilities are prime targets for gentrification as property values
in these areas tend to be lower than in more affluent areas. From the standpoint of the broken
windows thesis, neighborhoods undergoing gentrification should see reduced crime because gentri-
fication removes the signs of disorder in an area, which are the root causes of criminal activity. For
example, the higher socioeconomic status of gentrifiers provides them with greater access to social,
economic, and political resources. Greater access to resources makes them better able to repair or
 6 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

maintain neighborhood buildings, act collectively to solve neighborhood problems, and make
demands of local city agencies such as the police or sanitation (Freeman 2006; Skogan 1990).
Assessments of the broken windows thesis found disorder to be correlated with felonies overall
(Kelling and Coles 1996), robbery (Kelling and Coles 1996; Skogan 1990), and burglary (Rountree
et al. 1994). In an often-cited critique, Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) assessed the effectiveness of
the broken windows thesis in Chicago and argued that the relationship between disorder and crime
was spurious as both crime and disorder were due to low collective efficacy. Gault and Silver (2008)
criticized Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) for testing a direct link between disorder and crime
though, because Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) original statement of the broken windows thesis
claimed that the association between disorder and crime was mediated by weakened community
(such as lower collective efficacy), consistent with Sampson and Raudenbush’s (1999) findings. We
concur with Gault and Silver’s (2008) critique and suggest that reductions in neighborhood disorder
that result from gentrification should make crime less inviting and increase the sense of security
among residents. These changes in turn facilitate engagement in collective anti-crime activities.
Both the social disorganization and broken windows frameworks suggest that gentrification will
reduce crime by enhancing residents’ ability to engage in crime fighting activities and form a sense of
collective efficacy. The two theories, however, offer different predictions as to how this plays out over
time. The social disorganization framework suggests that crime will initially increase as gentrification
begins to occur, but then decrease as the community in the neighborhood re-establishes itself. In
contrast to social disorganization, the broken windows thesis predicts a linear effect over time. As
gentrification progresses, more and more of the dilapidated and boarded up buildings are renovated
and signs of disorder steadily decline. Coinciding with that decline is an increased sense of security
among neighborhood residents and an increased willingness to combat crime on the part of
Deviant Behavior

residents. Thus, crime should decline in a linear fashion as gentrification progresses.

Civic communities perspective

Another theory that bears on the gentrification–crime relationship is the civic communities per-
spective. According to this perspective, locally oriented capitalism and civic engagement provide the
foundation for the trust and cooperation among citizens that forms local communities (M. Lee 2008;
Tolbert et al. 2002). Similar to the social disorganization framework, the civic communities perspec-
tive argues that rapid population growth can disrupt local communities because it is often associated
with decreased homogeneity (Brown, Forsyth, and Berthelot 2014; M. Lee and Thomas 2010).
While the basic argument made by the civic communities perspective is similar to those of the
classical human ecology and social disorganization frameworks, it is distinctive in three ways.
Specifically, because it emphasizes communities rather than neighborhoods as the units of analysis
this perspective is not spatially constrained. Further, it places more emphasis on changes in the local
business climate and highlights the interrelations between the social, political, economic, religious,
and other spheres of community organization (M. Lee 2008; M. Lee and Thomas 2010).
Applications of this perspective found that more civically engaged communities featured higher
levels of income and residential stability because the owners and managers of locally owned
businesses were more likely to embed themselves in local institutions and hire local residents
(Tolbert et al. 2002:96). Further, civic and social capital institutions can reduce the community
disruption that occurs as a result of rapid population growth by facilitating the integration of new
individuals into the preexisting community (Brown et al. 2014). The civic communities perspective
has only recently been incorporated into criminological research (M. Lee 2008; M. Lee and Thomas
2010). Assessments of this perspective found that areas characterized by locally oriented small
businesses, an economically independent middle class, residential stability, home ownership, and
civically engaged people and institutions featured lower rates of violent crime (M. Lee 2008) and
smaller increases in violent crime over time (M. Lee and Thomas, 2010).
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 7

The emphasis on the interrelation of different spheres of community and local businesses
provides additional insight into the gentrification–crime relationship. The importance of different
spheres of community is similar to the systemic model’s focus on the strength of private, parochial,
and public social networks (Bursik 1988; Bursik and Grasmick 1993). Residential stability is a key
component of civic communities perspective as well because social connections among residents of a
neighborhood take time to develop (M. Lee 2008). Given this argument, gentrification may initially
result in increased crime as the introduction of new residents and possibility of forced displacement
of incumbent residents was associated with the breakdown of close-knit communities (Atkinson
2000; Freeman 2006).
The civic community perspective’s emphasis on changes to local businesses also bears on the
gentrification–crime relationship as the urban research on gentrification has highlighted the impor-
tance of changes in local businesses. For example, gentrification scholars have recognized the
potential for the displacement of locally owned businesses (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Zukin
2010). As recognized by Tolbert (2002:96), the removal of locally owned businesses was important
because locally owned businesses were more likely to hire informally from within the community.
Such changes to local businesses were disruptive because incumbent residents were afraid that they
would not be able to afford to shop at the new businesses (Freeman 2006; Zukin 2010). This
disruption damages the trust among neighborhood residents.
To summarize, discussions of the civic communities perspective suggested that the introduction
of new residents and reduction in locally owned and operated businesses disrupted the local social
order, which in turn was positively associated with violent crime. Given that gentrification is
associated with an increase in new residents and changes in neighborhood businesses, it is reason-
able to expect that disruptions to the local social order due to gentrification will result in increased
Deviant Behavior

crime, at least in the short term. As the new residents and businesses become established in the
neighborhood, crime should decline.

Routine activities theory

While research on the gentrification–crime relationship has not explicitly assessed the routine activities
theory, a few studies have referenced its importance (Covington and Taylor 1989; Kreager et al 2011;
Papachristos et al. 2011; Van Wilsem et al. 2006). According to routine activities theory, crime is more
likely to occur when a suitable target (high value) that is lacking in capable guardianship converges in
space and time with a motivated offender (Cohen and Felson 1979).
The first tenet of routine activities, that crime requires a suitable target, is exemplified by the
influx of new residents associated with gentrification. Gentrifiers own higher value possessions and
may lack capable guardianship due to their unfamiliarity with techniques for protecting themselves
while walking on the street (Anderson 1990:149). The location of gentrified neighborhoods near
disadvantaged neighborhoods may also attract offenders from nearby neighborhoods (Taylor
2001:326).
Offender motivation may be guided by income and wealth disparities between gentrifiers and
incumbent residents as well as the resentment that incumbent residents feel toward gentrifiers
(Taylor and Covington 1988). An example of how anti-gentrification resentment may be associated
with increased victimization is the “mug-a-yuppie” campaign, which was documented in London,
New York City, and San Francisco (Atkinson 2004; Mele 2000). Similar examples of crime such as
arson and vandalism against gentrifiers were documented in Berlin, Germany (Connolly 2010) and
Minneapolis, Minnesota (Stoecker 1994) as well.2 The extent of interpersonal violence that occurred
because of gentrification is unknown, so it remains unclear whether these actions were associated
with an increase in violence or merely an increase in fear of violence.
2
Although the arsons were attributed to anti-gentrification activists, it is unclear the extent to which gentrification was actually a
motivating factor.
 8 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

Guardianship in gentrified neighborhoods will change over time in ways that will initially
result in increased crime, but should also result in a decline in crime over time. Qualitative
studies of gentrification often highlighted the resentment that incumbent residents felt toward
the incoming gentrifiers who were seen as threats to the traditional way of life in a neighbor-
hood (Freeman 2006; Mele 2000). This resentment is important as it may encourage incumbent
residents to victimize gentrifiers, but it may also discourage incumbent residents from acting as
capable guardians. Capable guardians need to be able and willing to intervene on the behalf of
an individual or their property. It is plausible to suggest that incumbent residents may be
resentful of or at least weakly connected to gentrifiers and therefore less likely to intervene on
their behalf. This lowered guardianship could initially lead to more crimes being committed in
the neighborhood. This increase in crime would be inflated by the greater ability of gentrifiers to
make demands on city services such as the police, because greater utilization of the police entails
more crimes being reported to the police and thus recorded in official statistics (Freeman 2006;
Skogan 1990). Eventually, the greater ability of gentrifiers to act collectively and make demands
of local city agencies should increase formal and informal guardianship as increased presence of
formal social control may increase the willingness of neighborhood residents to engage in
informal social control (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003:383). The increase in both forms of social
control should result in lower crime in the long term.
To summarize, the routine activities perspective argues that crime is more likely to occur in
neighborhoods characterized by large numbers of suitable targets, lack of guardianship, and moti-
vated offenders. Given these tenets, crime may initially increase due to gentrification as the process
increases the interactions between motivated offenders and high values targets lacking in capable
guardianship. Over time, however, the number of motivated offenders should decline as the
Deviant Behavior

characteristics of gentrifiers make them less likely to engage in crime and more likely to mobilize
formal sources of guardianship.

Defended communities thesis

Similar to the routine activities theory, the defended communities thesis was not assessed in
research on the gentrification–crime relationship but offers insight into this relationship. This
perspective argues that residents in neighborhoods facing threats to the social order such as
racial or economic succession will resist the changes, resorting to criminal action if necessary
(Suttles 1972). In this context, legal means of resolving disputes are viewed as unavailable or
ineffective, thereby allowing illegal actions to be seen as justifiable and acceptable so long as they
serve the purpose of preserving the neighborhood from external threats.
This perspective was developed to explain why crime increased in white neighborhoods due to
in-migration of black residents, the opposite of gentrification. While residents of the typical
defended community were whites fearing increased crime, falling property values, and a loss of
neighborhood character, residents of the typical gentrifying neighborhood fear rising rents,
evictions, and a similar loss of neighborhood character. New businesses, many of which may
not be affordable for incumbent residents to shop at (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Nyden et al.
2006; Sullivan and Shaw 2011), provide visible evidence that the neighborhood is changing to
serve the needs of the gentrifiers. In both cases, the introduction of new residents results in
disruptions to the conventional social order, which may encourage crime.
Applications of the defended community thesis found that anti-black hate crimes were more
prevalent in white strongholds experiencing black in-migration (Green, Strolovitch, and Wong
1998; Lyons 2008) and that this relationship was even stronger in neighborhoods characterized
by strong informal social control and community attachment (Lyons 2007, 2008). Similar
examples of anti-outgroup crime such as arson and vandalism against gentrifiers have been
documented (Connolly 2010; Mele 2000; Stoecker 1994). Whether such actions were common in
gentrified neighborhoods remains unclear as the only quantitative study that included
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 9

characteristics of victims did not explore differences in the characteristics of victims in gentrified
versus non-gentrified neighborhoods (Van Wilsem et al. 2006).
The key distinction between the typical defended community and the typical gentrifying
neighborhood lies in the level of social organization. It was the solidarity and sense of commu-
nity that were considered to motivate the criminal acts of resistance to neighborhood transition
and neighborhoods targeted for gentrification are often considered to lack this solidarity. This is
consistent with Suttles’ (1972) original formulation of neighborhood defense:
Although the defended neighborhood does not always seem to arise from the preexisting cohesive groupings, it
may itself create cohesive groupings. The defensive measures of these neighborhoods, of course, generally call
for some level of concerted action and thus a certain degree of cohesion. This cohesion is most apparent in
street-corner gangs, vigilante-like citizens’ groups, and restrictive covenants. (34)

An example of this is the “Mug a Yuppie” campaign where residents banded together informally in
an attempt to force out the gentrifiers (Atkinson 2004; Mele 2000). Research on gentrification and
crime also found that following the demolition of public housing, gang homicides increase (C. M.
Smith 2014), suggesting that the local gangs became more aggressive as their neighborhoods were
altered. Even if neighborhood defense begins with individual acts or gang activities, these very acts of
predation upon gentrifiers may enhance the sense of community solidarity among incumbent
residents. The fear of displacement may further encourage incumbent residents to organize together
using both grass-roots protests and vigilantism to discourage the gentrification process from con-
tinuing (Atkinson 2003; Mele 2000; Stoecker 1994). This prediction is different from that of social
disorganization theory as increased social cohesion may represent concerted action against gentri-
fication, including crime.
Empirical assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship have yet to draw on the
Deviant Behavior

defended community perspective, but the findings of previous research on the influence of
gentrification on local communities was consistent with predictions made by the defended
communities perspective. The more tension present in a neighborhood, the more likely resis-
tance will form and lead to crime. Given that previous research described gentrifiers as being
predominantly white (Anderson 1990; Freeman 2006), the added aspect of racial tensions should
make gentrification more likely to provoke a defensive response in predominantly black neigh-
borhoods than white neighborhoods. Consistent with this premise, Papachristos et al. (2011)
found that gentrification was positively associated with robbery in predominantly black neigh-
borhoods, but negatively associated with robbery in predominantly white neighborhoods.
In regard to time, the defended communities theory suggests that crime will spike as gentrifica-
tion begins and then fade over time. The greatest reaction to the newcomers should be when they
first enter the neighborhood and start to change its character. While the resentment may not fade
among incumbent residents, the volume of resentment will fade as the gentrifiers become an (albeit
unwelcome) part of the neighborhood. Crimes against gentrifiers should level off both because
incumbent residents may be displaced or move out and because those crimes would no longer be
expected to convince the gentrifiers to leave. This initial increase followed by a decrease in crime is
consistent with the findings of Kreager et al. (2011). Unlike the other theories discussed, the eventual
decrease in crime posited by the defended communities is due to a “regression to the mean” effect,
which means that gentrification should not result in lowered levels of crime in a neighborhood.

Summary of criminological theory and the gentrification–crime relationship

Most criminological theories make similar predictions in regard to the relationship between
gentrification and crime, but the causal mechanisms described by each theory are quite different.
Social disorganization theory and the civic communities perspective predict that gentrification
will result in short-term increases in crime because sociodemographic shifts disrupt the local
social order, making it difficult for residents to organize against crime. Over time, however, the
 10 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

deconcentration of poverty and reductions in residential mobility will increase the ability and
willingness of neighborhood residents to organize against crime. Community organization would
be aided by the reduction of physical disorder as the broken windows thesis argues the removal
of signs of disorder should encourage neighborhood residents to engage with their local com-
munity. Routine activities and defended community theories likewise argue for short-term
increases in crime, but for different reasons. Routine activities predicts short-term increases in
crime because gentrifiers are attractive targets for crime and the changes associated with
gentrification disrupt guardianship patterns. In comparison, the defended community thesis
argues that resentment toward gentrifiers may encourage criminal activity that targets them.
Overall, criminological theories predict crime should be highest in the early stages of gentrifica-
tion, but then decline as gentrification continues and neighborhoods stabilize. While most of the
assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship have not adequately investigated the importance
of time, research by Kreager et al. (2011) indicated neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime
until a tipping point of gentrification was reached, at which point crime declined. The trigger for this
tipping point is currently unknown. Future research on gentrification and crime should therefore
focus on the causal mechanisms to determine what triggers the change in the relationship between
gentrification and crime. The ensuing section identifies and elaborates on three pathways through
which gentrification may affect crime, highlighting the mechanisms that should be tested on each
pathway.

Toward a fuller understanding of the gentrification–crime relationship

Deviant Behavior

Urban scholars and criminologists have each discussed the gentrification–crime relationship, but
most empirical assessments were unable to account for the complexity of gentrification. Strict
application of any one criminological theory is problematic because it will not account for the
other ways in which gentrification affects crime. Further, the inability to fully capture the complexity
of the gentrification process has resulted in limited and inconsistent strategies for the measurement
of gentrification, which hampered the understanding of underlying mechanisms of the gentrifica-
tion–crime relationship. Drawing on a combination of the literatures on gentrification and neigh-
borhood correlates of crime we suggest that there are three pathways through which gentrification
influences neighborhood crime (Figure 1). The ideal study would incorporate all three pathways as
each incorporates different aspects of the gentrification process, all of which are necessary to develop
the fullest possible understanding for why gentrification is important for understanding changes in
neighborhood crime.

Figure 1. Pathways for the association of gentrification and crime.

 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 11

Pathway 1: changing demographic and cultural representation

One explanation for why gentrification influences crime is that it changes the demographic
composition and cultural identity of neighborhoods, aspects of the gentrification process first
emphasized by Glass (1964). The importance of these changes for crime are highlighted by the
social disorganization, civic communities, routine activities and defended community theories,
which all suggest that the population changes associated with gentrification would result in short
term increases in crime. For example, crime may increase during the initial stages of the
gentrification process because the increased prevalence of middle- and upper-class residents in
disadvantage neighborhoods increases the probability that high value targets will interact with
motivated offenders. Crime may also increase because incumbent residents fail to provide
guardianship either because they have not yet built relationships with the new residents or as
an expression of resentment toward changes to the local neighborhood culture. As gentrification
progresses and gentrifiers become the majority in the neighborhood, crime should decline
because gentrifiers are less likely to engage in street crime and because new residents will
develop the social bonds that facilitate guardianship practices as the local community reforms.
The demographic component of this explanation was thoroughly assessed in previous research
due to the dominance of the social disorganization framework in research on neighborhood
correlates of crime and the wide availability of census data. While grounded in contemporary
research on social disorganization, most of the assessed models were unable to address
Kornhauser’s (1978) criticism of classical disorganization research in that these studies could not
differentiate the influence of structural and subcultural causes of variation in crime. The inability to
differentiate between structural and subcultural causes is a likely culprit for the contradictory
findings of previous research on gentrification and crime.
Deviant Behavior

Papachristos et al. (2011) and C. M. Smith (2014) began to explore the importance of cultural
changes through the inclusion of a measure of the number of high-end coffeeshops. Papachristos
et al. (2011) and C. M. Smith (2014) found that the number of coffeeshops were negatively
associated with homicide and gang-related homicide, respectively. Results by Papachristos et al.
(2011), however, also indicate that the association between the number of coffeeshops and
robbery was influenced by the dominant racial group in a neighborhood, as this relationship
was negative in predominantly white and Latino neighborhoods and positive in predominantly
black neighborhoods. Given the limited incorporation of cultural change in assessments of the
gentrification and crime relationship, it remains unclear whether the contradictions were the
result of how cultural variation was measured or if demographic and cultural changes interacted.
Therefore, assessments of this explanation should incorporate additional measures of cultural
change such as changes in other local businesses or residents’ perceptions of the neighborhood.
The literature on the civic communities is a fruitful avenue for this type of research, as
assessments of this framework incorporated measures such as the number of self-employed
residents of an area (M. Lee 2008; M. Lee and Thomas 2010). Alternatively, a measure of the
number of locally owned and operated businesses within a neighborhood could be used, as
research on the civic communities perspective (M. Lee 2008; Tolbert et al. 2002) and gentrifica-
tion (Nyden, et al., 2006; Sullivan and Shaw, 2011; Zukin 2010) independently described the
importance of local-owned businesses for neighborhood social order.

Pathway 2: resentment and pro-crime organization

A second explanation for how gentrification influences crime further addresses Kornhauser’s
(1978) suggestion that structural and subcultural influences be differentiated. Specifically, this
explanation emphasizes how changes in the local social order may result in increases in crime.
Whereas much of the research on communities and crime has taken a normative stance and
argued that neighborhoods characterized by high crime featured little or no social order, this
 12 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

explanation incorporates the concept of differential social organization. Differential social orga-
nization recognizes that neighborhood groups may organize for the purpose of anti- or pro-
crime activity (Matsueda 1997; Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill 1992).
Gentrification may encourage the development of collective efficacy, but much of the quali-
tative research on gentrification suggests the development of collective efficacy in gentrifying
neighborhoods may be hampered by concerns of displacement among incumbent residents.
Drawing on the civic communities perspective, the new residents may be viewed suspiciously
and not welcomed into local civic and social organizations until they have proved their
commitment to the existing social order (Brown et al. 2014). For example, one of the individuals
interviewed by Freeman (2006: 68) indicated that not everyone in her neighborhood liked the
changes that occurred due to gentrification “because we have other people living here” (emphasis
added). Similarly, interviewees of a gentrified neighborhood in Portland Oregon identified by
Sullivan and Shaw (2011:422) expressed resentment toward gentrifiers by referring to gentrifiers
as “not longtime residents” or not belonging to “this community.” Statements such as these
suggest that gentrifiers are recognized as being distinct from incumbent residents.
Drawing on the defended communities perspective and the concept of differential social organi-
zation, concerns about displacement may encourage incumbent residents to organize against gentri-
fiers and engage in criminal activity to make the neighborhood less appealing to gentrifiers. Thus,
while the elements of social cohesion highlighted by the social disorganization and civic commu-
nities frameworks would be present, the differential social organization of the incumbents may
encourage informal social control activities that are criminal in nature. Previous research documen-
ted examples of anti-gentrification efforts including organized protests in Thompkins Square Park in
the Lower East Side neighborhood of Manhattan (N. Smith 1996) and the Mission Anti-
Deviant Behavior

Displacement Coalition in San Francisco (Lees et al. 2008). The devolution of the Thompkins
Square Park protest into riots described by N. Smith (1996) and the “Mug-a-Yuppie” campaign
described by Atkinson (2000) and Mele (2000) indicate that this type of resistance can result in crime
and violence against those imposing the gentrification. Such community resistance would likely fade
with time as the “voice of the area increasingly becomes that of middle-class and professional
households” through either social or physical displacement (Atkinson 2004:116).
Empirical research on the gentrification and crime relationship has yet to explore this pathway
due to data limitations. Testing this pathway would require measuring the attitudes and organization
of incumbent residents. More difficult, it would require distinguishing victimizations of incumbent
residents from the incoming gentrifiers. Accurate measurement of these differences would be
complicated given that victimization would likely encourage new residents to move away from the
neighborhood.

Pathway 3: anti-crime organization

A third pathway emphasizes the ability of local communities to organize against crime.
Gentrification introduces residents who are better able to establish long-term residence and who
are better able to draw on outside resources to address local social problems. Longer-term residence
allows for repeated interactions among neighborhood residents, a requisite for the development of
social cohesion and shared expectations of appropriate behavior. This process is gradual and would
therefore only manifest in the later stages of gentrification. The development of social cohesion and
shared expectations should facilitate community organization efforts among neighborhood residents
to combat crime. Further, the greater ability of gentrifiers to draw on outside resources such as city
officials should facilitate reductions in crime as formal social control may make residents feel more
supported when engaging in informal social control (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003:383).
The gentrification process also shapes the physical appearance of neighborhoods. By improving
the appearance of the neighborhood, gentrification reduces signs of disorder and thus increases the
willingness of residents to organize together and engage in informal social control. This is
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 13

consistent with the findings of Sampson and Raudenbush (2001), who found that disorder was
positively associated with crime, but also that the association between disorder and crime was
mediated by collective efficacy. Therefore, assessments of this explanation should recognize that
gentrification shapes the physical appearance of neighborhoods, but that such changes may not be
associated with changes in crime after controlling for collective efficacy.
Even though research recognizes that neighborhoods change over time, much of the empirical
research on neighborhoods and crime has utilized cross-sectional research designs due to the limited
availability of longitudinal data sources (Hipp 2010; Kirk and Laub 2010). To test the third pathway,
measures of neighborhood disorder and collective efficacy would need to be present for several time
points that are at least several years apart given the gradual nature of neighborhood change. This
would allow for the assessment of whether changes in crime resulted from changes in the demo-
graphic and cultural characteristics or changes to the social order and physical appearance of
neighborhoods, which occur more gradually.

Discussion
This article reviewed and expanded on research on the gentrification–crime relationship by
connecting the broader literature on gentrification with research on neighborhoods and crime
to fully explore the ways that gentrification may influence neighborhood crime. Much of the
empirical research on gentrification and crime was grounded in the social disorganization and
routine activities frameworks. The current discussion draws on the broader gentrification litera-
ture and argues that empirical assessments of the gentrification–crime relationship could benefit
from the inclusion of other criminological theories, specifically the civic communities perspective,
Deviant Behavior

defended community thesis, and broken windows thesis. Incorporating pieces of additional
criminological theories with a more thorough understanding of how gentrification shapes neigh-
borhoods will help to ensure that gentrification is measured and assessed in a way that captures
the full extent of the process. Further, a more comprehensive measurement of gentrification and
an expanded analytic strategy may highlight underexplored aspects of the gentrification–crime
relationship that can resolve the inconsistent findings of previous research.
Drawing on the urban sociological and criminological literatures, this article proposed three
pathways through which gentrification influences crime. The first pathway suggested that socio-
demographic changes associated with gentrification result in changes in neighborhood crime because
gentrification disrupts the conventional social order and the opportunities for criminal acts. The
second pathway suggested that gentrification results in increased crime because incumbent residents
do not welcome gentrifiers into the existing community and may organize against gentrifiers. The
third pathway argued that the influence of demographic changes on neighborhood crime is mediated
by the ability of residents to organize against crime.
Empirical research has only partially tested these pathways due to the limited availability of data
sources that include measures of changes to local communities and the physical appearance of
neighborhoods. Measurement of the first pathway has been the easiest to achieve due to the
availability of tract level census statistics providing sociodemographic information. More commonly
used measures included increases in income, the white population, rate of homeownership, percent
college educated, and percent employed in professional occupations (Bostic and Martin 2003;
Hammel and Wyly 1996; Sullivan 2007).
In addition to the sociodemographic information available at the tract level, measurement of the
second and third pathways requires detailed measurements of a kind found mainly in the Project on
Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The PHDCN itself, however, is not
ideal for assessing the proposed pathways because community measurements were only captured at
two time points and with different samples (Sampson 2012). Given that gentrification is a gradual
process, it is important for research on the association of gentrification and crime to analyze
variation in multiple time points across multiple decades so that the full effect of gentrification on
 14 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

changes to local communities can be assessed. Specifically, changes to the sociodemographic

characteristics of neighborhood populations, neighborhood culture, the physical appearance of
neighborhoods, and the social organization and interactions of neighborhoods should be measured
as changes to each of these aspects likely mediate the relationship between gentrification and crime.
While there is no substitute for surveys when assessing collective efficacy and social organization, the
use of Google Street View by Hwang and Sampson (2014) offers a promising avenue for measuring
disorder.
In addition, measurement of the second pathway would require victimization data indicating the
tenure and socioeconomic status of the victim. Combining victimization data such as that used by
Van Wilsem et al. (2006) with information about the organization among incumbent residents holds
promise. A less conclusive test of this pathway could assess the difference in changes to instrumental
and expressive crime rates in gentrifying neighborhoods. The first and third pathways suggest
increases in overall crime and in instrumental (money-oriented) crime. In contrast, the resentment
and hostility posited by the defended communities and routine activities theories suggest that there
might be an increase in expressive crimes such as vandalism, assault, rape, and homicide in order to
drive out the gentrifiers.
Research on the gentrification–crime relationship has suffered from limited generalizability as
much of this research has been case studies of single cities. McDonald’s (1986) descriptive analyses of
the gentrification–crime relationship in five American cities and Van Wilsem et al.’s (2006) multi-
variate analyses of zip code areas in the Netherlands were the exceptions to this. The rest were case
studies of American cities including Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City,
Portland Oregon, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. While it would be ideal to assess
the proposed pathways in all of these cities for the same years, this relationship should at minimum
Deviant Behavior

be assessed with data from Chicago and New York City as these cities have been more thoroughly
studied in the gentrification literature. Ideally, more cities would be included so that sufficient
sample sizes would be available for statistical analyses and to ensure the generalizability of the
results. Perhaps the greatest drawback of existing research was that they mostly focused on high-
profile cities. The politics and cultures of cities like New York and Chicago are different from those
of lower-profile mid-sized cities, and thus the effects of gentrification on crime in these cities may
differ from the effects in other cities.
Determining the spacing and number of data collection points is difficult, and as a matter of
practicality is largely a matter of data availability. Previous research has assessed the relationship between
gentrification and crime with intervals of 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, with the most common being 10. Given
that we have argued that gentrification holds a nonlinear relationship with crime over time, ten years may
be too large an interval to capture this nonlinearity. The smaller the interval, the more accurately the
transition from gentrification’s positive association with crime to a negative association can be measured.
Of course, it is also possible that ten years may not be enough as neighborhood changes such as
gentrification were often found to be gradual (Kirk and Laub 2010). In either case, this nonlinear
relationship should be explained once the mediating variables described in the pathways are included.
Five-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates are probably the only source available for
information at the tract level for many sociodemographic variables, so testing these pathways with five
year intervals provides an ideal starting point for future analyses.

Conclusion
Gentrification has been a hotly debated topic since Glass’ (1964) conception, a debate that has
become more important in the United States as city officials increasingly look to gentrification and
other neighborhood revitalization strategies as a means of reducing social problems such as crime in
disadvantaged neighborhoods. Therefore, it is important to have a more comprehensive under-
standing of how gentrification influences crime. By assessing the proposed pathways, research can
contribute to the policy discussion. For example, distinguishing between the pathways will determine
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 15

how gentrification results in changes to neighborhood crime. In doing so, research can demonstrate
how much time is required before gentrification or gentrification-related processes begin to result in
changes to neighborhood crime. By taking a more nuanced approach to the topic, assessment of
these pathways will determine whether the crime decline in the latter stages of the gentrification
process results in lower crime than the neighborhood would have had if gentrification had not
occurred.

Acknowledgments
Authors listed alphabetically, but share authorship equally. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers at Deviant
Behavior for their insightful feedback.

References
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Atkinson, Rowland. 2000. “Measuring Gentrification and Displacement in Greater London.” Urban Studies 37:149–
165.
———. 2003. “Introduction: Misunderstood Saviour or Vengeful Wrecker? The Many Meanings and Problems of
Gentrification.” Urban Studies 40:2343–2350.
———. 2004. “The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance?” European
Journal of Housing Policy 4:107–131.
Beckett, Katherine and Steve Herbert. 2008. “Dealing with Disorder: Social Control in the Post-Industrial City.”
Theoretical Criminology 12:5–30.
Deviant Behavior

Bostic, Raphael W. and Richard W. Martin. 2003. “Black Home-Owners as a Gentrifying Force? Neighborhood
Dynamics in the Context of Minority Home-Ownership.” Urban Studies 40:2427–2449.
Brown, Timothy C., Craig J. Forsyth, and Emily R. Berthelot. 2014. “The Mediating Effect of Civic Community on
Social Growth: The Importance of Reciprocity.” The Social Science Journal 51:219–230.
Bursik, Robert J. 1988. “Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency.” Criminology 26: 519–551.
Bursik, Robert J. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.”
American Sociological Review 44:588–608.
Connolly, Kate. 2010. “Anarchists in Berlin Turn Anger on New ‘Bourgeoisie’: Arsonists Torch Luxury Cars as Way of
Fighting the Growing Gentrification of Many Areas of the City.” The Observer, January 10, p. 37.
Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor. 1989. “Gentrification and Crime: Robbery and Larceny Changes in
Appreciating Baltimore Neighborhoods During the 1970s.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 25:142–172.
Curran, Winifred. 2007. “‘From the Frying Pan to the Oven’: Gentrification and the Experience of Industrial
Displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.” Urban Studies 44:1427–1440.
Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Freeman, Lance and Frank Braconi. 2004. “Gentrification and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s.” Journal of
the American Planning Association 70:39–52.
Gault, Martha and Eric Silver. 2008. “Spuriousness or Mediation? Broken Windows According to Sampson and
Raudenbush (1999).” Journal of Criminal Justice 36:240–243.
Glass, Ruth. 1964. “Introduction: Aspects of Change.” Pp. xiii–xlii in London: Aspects of Change, Center for Urban
Studies Report, edited by Ruth Glass, E. J. Hobsbawm, Harold Pollins, W. Ashworth, J. H. Westergaard, William
Holford, Margot Jefferys, John A. Jackson, and Sheila Patterson. London, UK: Macgibbon and Kee.
Green, Donald P., Dara Z. Strolovitch, and Janelle S. Wong. 1998. “Defended Neighborhoods, Integration, and Racially
Motivated Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 104:372–403.
Hammel, Daniel J. and Elvin K. Wyly. 1996. “A Model for Identifying Gentrified Areas with Census Data.” Urban
Geography 17:248–268.
Hamnett, Chris and Drew Whitelegg. 2006. “Loft Conversion and Gentrification in London, UK: From Industrial to
Postindustrial Land Use.” Environment and Planning 39:106–124.
Hipp, John R. 2007. “Income Inequality, Race, and Place: Does the Distribution of Race and Class within
Neighborhoods Affect Crime Rates?” Criminology 45:665–697.
———. 2010. “A Dynamic View of Neighborhoods: The Reciprocal Relationship between Crime and Neighborhood
Structural Characteristics.” Social Problems 57:205–230.
 16 M. S. BARTON AND C. P. GRUNER

Hunter, Albert. 1985. “Private, Parochial, and Public Schools Orders: The Problem of Crime and Incivility in Urban
Communities.” Pp 230–242 in The Challenges of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building in Modern
Society: Essays in Honor of Morris Janowitz, edited by Gerald D. Suttles and Mayer N. Zald. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Hwang, Jackelyn and Robert J. Sampson. 2014. “Divergent Pathways of Gentrification: Racial Inequality and the Social
Order of Renewal in Chicago Neighborhoods.” American Sociological Review Online First. doi: 10.1177/
0003122414535774
Kasarda, John D. and Morris Janowitz. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society.” American Sociological Review
39:328–339.
Kelling, George L. and Catherine M. Coles. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our
Communities. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Kennedy, Maureen and Paul Leonard. 2001. “Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and
Policy Changes.” Discussion Paper Prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan
Policy.
Kirk, David S. and John H. Laub. 2010. “Neighborhood Change and Crime in the Modern Metropolis.” Crime and
Justice 39:441–502.
Kornhauser, Ruth. 1978. Social Source of Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kreager, Derek A., Christopher J. Lyons, and Zachary R. Hays. 2011. “Urban Revitalization and Seattle Crime,
1982–2000.” Social Problems 58:615–639.
Kubrin, Charis E. and Ronald Weitzer. 2003. “New Directions in Social Disorganization Theory.” Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 40:374–402.
Lee, Matthew R. 2008. “Civic Community in the Hinterland: Toward a Theory of Rural Social Structure and Violence.”
Criminology 46:447–478.
Lee, Matthew R. and Shaun A. Thomas. 2010. “Civic Community, Population Change, and Violent Crime in Rural
Communities.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47:118–147.
Lee, Yan Y. 2010. “Gentrification and Crime: Identification Using the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles.”
Journal of Urban Affairs 32:549–577.
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. 2008. Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge.
Deviant Behavior

Ley, David. 1996. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Lyons, Christopher J. 2007. “Community (Dis)Organization and Racially Motivated Crime.” American Journal of
Sociology 113:815–863.
———. 2008. “Defending Turf: Racial Demographics and Hate Crimes Against Blacks and Whites.” Social Forces
87:358–385.
Matsueda, Ross L. 1997. “‘Cultural Deviance Theory’: The Remarkable Persistence of a Flawed Term.” Theoretical
Criminology 1:429–452.
McDonald, Scott C. 1986. “Does Gentrification Affect Crime Rates?” Pp. 163–203 in Communities and Crime, Vol. 8,
edited by Albert J. Reiss Jr. and Michael Tonry. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Mele, Christopher. 2000. Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real Estate, and Resistance in New York City.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Newman, Kathe and Elvin K. Wyly. 2006. “The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to
Displacement in New York City.” Urban Studies 43:23–57.
Nyden, Philip, Emily Edlynn, and Julie Davis. 2006. The Differential Impact of Gentrification on Communities in
Chicago. Chicago, IL: Loyola University Chicago Center for Urban Research and Learning.
O’Sullivan, Arthur. 2005. “Gentrification and Crime.” Journal of Urban Economics 57:3–85.
Papachristos, Andrew V., Chris M. Smith, Mary L. Scherer, and Melissa A. Fugiero. 2011. “More Coffee, Less Crime:
The Relationship between Gentrification and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005.” City &
Community 10:215–240.
Rountree, Pamela Wilcox, Kenneth C. Land, and Terance D. Miethe. 1994. “Macro-Micro Integration in the Study of
Victimization: A Hierarchical Logistic Model Analysis across Seattle Neighborhoods.” Criminology 32:387–413.
Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, Robert and W. Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization
Theory.” The American Journal of Sociology 94:774–802.
Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look
at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” The American Journal of Sociology 105:603–651.
———. 2001. “Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods—Does It Lead to Crime?” Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A
Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277:918–924.
 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 17

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1969 [1942]. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Skogan, Wesley G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Smith, Chris M. 2014. “The Influence of Gentrification on Gang Homicides in Chicago Neighborhoods, 1994–2005.”
Crime & Delinquency 60:569–591.
Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stoecker, Randy. 1994. Defending Community. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Sullivan, Daniel Monroe. 2007. “Reassessing Gentrification: Measuring Residents’ Opinions Using Survey Data.”
Urban Affairs Review 42:583–592.
Sullivan, Daniel Monroe and Samuel C. Shaw. 2011. “Retail Gentrification and Race: The Case of Alberta Street in
Portland, Oregon.” Urban Affairs Review 47:413–432.
Sutherland, Edwin, Donald R. Cressey, and David F. Luckenbill. 1992. Principles of Criminology. Dix Hills, NY:
General Hall.
Suttles, Gerald D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Ralph B. 2001. Breaking Away from Broken Windows: Baltimore Neighborhoods and the Nationwide Fight
against Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Taylor, Ralph B. and Jeanette Covington. 1988. “Neighborhood Changes in Ecology and Violence.” Criminology
26:553–589.
Tolbert II, Charles M., Michael D. Irwin, Thomas A. Lyson and Alfred R. Nucci. 2002. “Civic Community in Small-
Town America: How Civic Welfare Is Influenced by Local Capitalism and Civic Engagement.” Rural Sociology
67:90–113.
Triplett, Ruth A., Randy R. Gainey, and Ivan Y. Sun. 2003. “Institutional Strength, Social Control, and Neighborhood
Crime Rates.” Theoretical Criminology 7:439–467.
Van Wilsem, Johan, Karin Wittebrood, and Nan Dirk De Graaf. 2006. “Socioeconomic Dynamics of Neighborhoods
and the Risk of Crime Victimization: A Multilevel Study of Improving, Declining, and Stable Areas in the
Netherlands.” Social Problems 53:226–247.
Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. 1982. “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.” The Atlantic
Deviant Behavior

Monthly M( arch):29–37.
Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Hammel. 1998. “Modeling the Context and Contingency of Gentrification.” Journal of
Urban Affairs 20:303–326.
Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Hammel. 1999. “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence
of Gentrification.” Housing Policy Debate 10:711–771.
Zukin, Sharon. 1982. Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University
Press.
———. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Notes on contributors
MICHAEL S. BARTON is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Louisiana State University. He
received his Ph.D. from the University at Albany. His research interests join the criminological and urban sociological
literatures to explore the geographic contexts in which crime occur. His recent research has appeared in Urban Studies
and Crime and Delinquency.
COLIN P. GRUNER is an instructor in the Department of Sociology at the University at Albany. He received his Ph.D
from the University at Albany. His research interests focus on crime and neighborhood effects and their interac-
tions with poverty and welfare policy.