Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Fay-Ramirez, S. (2015). The comparative context of collective efficacy: Understanding neighborhood disorganization and willingness to intervene in Seattle and Brisbane. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 48(4), 513-542.

Abstract: The collective efficacy literature provides a framework to understand how neighbourhood structure influences violence. Existing findings have been based largely on American cities where disadvantage and ethnic segregation are more concentrated. Thus, they are not always representative of other Western cities where structural disadvantage has a different history as well as less variation across neighbourhoods. This paper explores the comparative effect of collective efficacy in Seattle, USA, and Brisbane, Australia. Findings show that collective efficacy is a significant predictor of violent victimisation in both cities. However, in Brisbane, traditional measures of structural disorganisation are less of an influence on victimisation than in Seattle, and that collective efficacy as a neighbourhood process can exist and vary across neighbourhoods without extreme disorganisation.

Journal Article 2: Jobes, P. C., Barclay, E., Weinand, H., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2004). A structural analysis of social disorganization and crime in rural communities in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(1), 114-140.

Abstract: This paper extends research on rural crime beyond North America by analysing associations between census measures of community structures and officially reported crime in rural New South Wales (Australia). It employs social disorganisation theory to examine variations in crime rates between different kinds of rural communities. A typology of rural communities was developed from cluster analysis of demographic, economic and social structural measures of rural local government areas (LGAs) in NSW. Six distinct types of rural communities were found to have unique crime characteristics. Structural measures were statistically associated with four types of crime. Overall, the findings support social disorganisation theory. Crime generally decreased across an urban-rural continuum, and more cohesive and integrated community structures had less crime. One highly disorganised type of small community had extremely high crime. These analyses demonstrate how specific structures of rural places are linked to rural crime.