This study advances research on neighborhood change and crime by examining how key structural characteristics relate to changes in violent crime across diverse urban contexts. Utilizing longitudinal data from 2010 to 2018 in twelve U.S. cities, the analysis applies latent trajectory modeling to test three dynamic patterns: monotonic, asymmetric, and perturbation. Results indicate an asymmetric relationship between disadvantage and violent crime, particularly in large cities. Similarly, residential instability exhibits an asymmetric association with violent crime in stagnant and large cities. Changes in racial/ethnic heterogeneity are generally linked to reductions in violent crime in stagnant and large cities, while in small or growing cities, the relationship is asymmetric. This study provides a more nuanced understanding of how structural conditions shape violence.
BoessenA.ChamberlainA. W. (2017). Neighborhood crime, the housing crisis, and geographic space: Disentangling the consequences of foreclosure and vacancy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(8), 1122–1137.
2.
BoessenA.HippJ. R. (2015). Close-ups and the scale of ecology: Land uses and the geography of social context and crime. Criminology, 53(3), 399–426.
3.
BollenK. A.CurranP. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
4.
BraithwaiteJ. (1975). Population Growth and Crime. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 8(1), 57–60.
5.
ChamberlainA. W.HippJ. R. (2015). It’s all relative: Concentrated disadvantage within and across neighborhoods and communities, and the consequences for neighborhood crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 431–443.
6.
ChavezJ. M.GriffithsE. (2009). Neighborhood dynamics of urban violence: Understanding the immigration connection. Homicide Studies, 13(3), 261–273.
7.
CohenL. E.LandK. C. (1987). Age structure and crime: Symmetry versus asymmetry and the projection of crime rates through the 1990s. American sociological review, 170–183.
8.
CohenM. L.ZhangX. D. (1988). The difficulty of improving statistical synthetic estimation: US Bureau of the Census.
9.
CuiL.WalshR. (2015). Foreclosure, vacancy and crime. Journal of Urban Economics, 87, 72–84.
10.
D’AmatoC.HolmesB.FeldmeyerB. (2021). Economic competition and racial/ethnic disparities in sentencing: A test of economic threat perspective. Social Sciences, 10(6), 206.
11.
FischerC. S. (1975). Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of Sociology, 80(6), 1319–1341.
12.
HippJ. R. (2007). Income inequality, race, and place: Does the distribution of race and class within neighborhoods affect crime rates?Criminology, 45(3), 665–697.
13.
HippJ. R. (2010). A dynamic view of neighborhoods: The reciprocal relationship between crime and neighborhood structural characteristics. Social Problems, 57(2), 205–230.
14.
HippJ. R.BoessenA. (2013). Egohoods as waves washing across the city: A new measure of “neighborhoods”. Criminology, 51(2), 287–327.
15.
HippJ. R.BranicN. (2017). Fast and slow change in neighbourhoods: Characterization and consequences in Southern California. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 21(3), 257–281.
16.
HippJ. R.KubrinC. E. (2017). From bad to worse: How changing inequality in nearby areas impacts local crime. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(2), 129–151.
17.
HippJ. R.LuoX. I. (2022). Improving or declining: What are the consequences for changes in local crime?*. Criminology, 60(3), 480–507.
18.
HippJ. R.RoussellA. (2013). Micro- and macro-environment population and the consequences for crime rates. Social Forces, 92(2), 563–595.
19.
HippJ. R.WickesR. (2017). Violence in urban neighborhoods: A longitudinal study of collective efficacy and violent crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(4), 783–808.
20.
HippJ. R.WoJ.KimY.-a. (2017). Studying neighborhood crime across different macro spatial scales: The case of robbery in four cities. Social Science Research, 68(1), 15–29.
21.
HusseyA.Nikolsko-RzhevskyyA.PacurarI. S. (2011).Crime spillovers and hurricane Katrina. University of Memphis.
KreagerD. A.LyonsC. J.HaysZ. R. (2011). Urban revitalization and Seattle crime, 1982–2000. Social Problems, 58(4), 615–639.
24.
KirkD. S.LaubJ. H. (2010). Neighborhood change and crime in the modern metropolis. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 441–502.
25.
KrivoL. J.PetersonR. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75(2), 619–648.
26.
KubrinC. E.HertingJ. R. (2003). Neighborhood correalates of homicide trends: An analysis using growth-curve modeling. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(3), 329–350.
27.
KubrinC. E.LuoX. I.HippJ. R. (2024), ‘Immigration and Crime: Is the Relationship Nonlinear?’. The British Journal of Criminology, 65, 365–86.
28.
LiebersonS. (1987). Making it count: The improvement of social research and theory. University of California Press.
29.
LivingstonM. (2008). A longitudinal analysis of alcohol outlet density and assault. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(6), 1074–1079.
30.
LyonsC. J.VélezM. B.SantoroW. A. (2013). Neighborhood immigration, violence, and city-level immigrant political opportunities. American Sociological Review, 78(4), 604–632.
31.
MartinezRJr.StowellJ. I.LeeM. T. (2010). Immigration and crime in an era of transformation: A longitudinal analysis of homicides in San Diego neighborhoods, 1980–2000. Criminology, 48(3), 797–829.
32.
MasseyD. S.DentonN. A. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard University Press.
33.
McDowallD. (2002). Tests of nonlinear dynamics in U.S. homicide time series, and their implications*. Criminology, 40(3), 711–736.
34.
McCallP. L.ParkerK. F. (2005). A dynamic model of racial competition, racial inequality, and interracial violence. Sociological Inquiry, 75(2), 273–293.
35.
MorenoffJ. D.SampsonR. J. (1997). Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990. Social Forces, 76(1), 31–64.
36.
OuseyG. C.KubrinC. E. (2014). Immigration and the changing nature of homicide in US cities, 1980–2010. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(3), 453–483.
37.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 373–450.
38.
RotoloT.TittleC. R. (2006). Population size, change, and crime in US cities. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(4), 341–367.
39.
SampsonR. J.GrovesW. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.
40.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
41.
SteinbergJ. (1979). Synthetic estimates for small areas: Statistical workshop papers and discussion (Vol. 24). National Institute on Drug Abuse.
42.
VelezM. B.LyonsC. J.SantoroW. A. (2015). The political context of the percent black-neighborhood violence link: A multilevel analysis. Social Problems, 62(1), 93–119.
43.
WeisburdD.GroffE. R.YangS.-M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press.
44.
WhiteG. F.GaineyR. R.TriplettR. A. (2015). Alcohol outlets and neighborhood crime: A longitudinal analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 61(6), 851–872.
45.
WilsonW. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. Vintage.
46.
WirthL. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.
47.
WoJ. C. (2016). Community context of crime: A longitudinal examination of the effects of local institutions on neighborhood crime. Crime & Delinquency, 62(10), 1286–1312.
48.
WoJ. C.HippJ. R.BoessenA. (2016). Voluntary organizations and neighborhood crime: A dynamic perspective. Criminology, 54(2), 212–241.
49.
YorkR.LightR. (2017). Directional asymmetry in sociological analyses. Socius, 3, 2378023117697180.
