The Doors of the Church are Now Open: Black Clergy, Collective Efficacy, and Neighborhood Violence

Abstract

Prior research has documented the historical significance of the black church beyond serving parishioners' religious and spiritual needs. Specifically, several black churches are involved in community organizing, social service activities, and political action. Scholars, however, have paid less attention to its role as a potent social institution in community crime control and prevention efforts. We conducted faceto-face interviews with 30 members of Boston's Ten Point Coalition of activist black clergy to document the motivations for and mechanisms through which ministers became involved in efforts to reduce street violence, the varied methods through which ministers develop strategic coalitions and manage violence reduction initiatives, and the ways ministers address the complex challenges involved in doing this work. Study findings suggest that black churches can serve as sources of collective efficacy that can help mobilize other churches, community organizations, police departments, and neighborhood residents in a coordinated effort to address urban youth violence.

The role of collective efficacy in long‐term condition management: A metasynthesis

“…Several studies highlighted the fragility of collective efficacy and how it could be undermined by environmental influences. This included the exposure to the effects of crime or other negative experiences such as domestic violence that undermined personal self‐esteem and feelings of personal safety and identity (Jarrett et al, ; Kleinhans & Bolt, ; McNamara, Stevenson, & Muldoon, ; Pegram, Brunson, & Braga, ; Turney et al, ; Wickes, ). Perceived threats and experiences can outweigh the potential positive effects of collective efficacy (Bazant & Boulay, ).…”

“…Coping strategies to deal with the latter can bring about further social isolation and avoidance (Rogers et al, ). A lack of clear visible leadership around a matter of group or locality concern can also suppress collective efficacy (Pegram et al, ; Petrosino & Pace, ), as do lack of skills with engaging with, and mistrust of formal organisations (Rogers et al, ; Sargeant et al, ). Cultural barriers, such as expectations from others for reciprocity, may also contribute to a lack or diminution of collective efficacy (Mok & Martinson, ).…”

“…The process of negotiating a set of common goals (such as starting walking or joining a walking group) between group members is a key component in the development of collective efficacy (Beverly & Wray, ; Ingram et al, ; Vassilev et al, ). Familiarity is another component: getting to know others helps people to work together, through building a sense of safety (Pegram et al, ), opportunity understanding, communicating and sharing mutual or exchangeable skills and capabilities (Bess et al, ; Howarth et al, ) or in helping others to ‘bridge the gap’, when their own personal capabilities and resources are lacking (Shin, ). Collective efficacy has been associated with the sharing of personal information, developing a sense of belonging and establishing feelings of trust and trustworthiness between network members (Ingram et al, ; Mok & Martinson, ).…”

“…Following the emergence of collective efficacy, whether triggered by a critical incident, or nurtured through the development of relationships over time, the evidence reviewed suggests that further work must be undertaken to sustain the process. This involves the deployment of authoritative support in the form of visible leaders or a set of group members responding to individual concerns, and driving collective goals and actions (Carter et al, ; Pegram et al, ; Petrosino & Pace, ; Shin, ; Teig et al, ). Constancy of effort and ongoing review of common goals are relevant to this (Ingram et al, ) as is feedback on the performance and achievements of the collective which promotes and reinforces action over time through increased self‐ and collective‐efficacy (Beverly & Wray, ; Fisher & Gosselink, ).…”

Neighborhood collective efficacy and collective action: The role of civic engagement

“…Collective efficacy is defined as the connections and social relationships among community members combined with the willingness to utilize these relationships to facilitate community change (Odgers et al., ). Recent research focuses on the relationships between collective efficacy at the neighborhood level (i.e., neighborhood collective efficacy) and a wide range of topics including intimate partner violence (Jackson, ), fear of crime among public housing residents (Kilewer, ), neighborhood crime and violence (Browning, Feinberg, & Dietz, ; Higgins & Hunt, ; Hipp, ; Pegram, Brunson, & Braga, ), adolescent substance abuse (Fagan, Wright, & Pinchevsky, ; Jackson, Denny, Sheridan, Zhao, & Ameratunga, ), child development (Smith, Osgood, Caldwell, Hynes, & Perkins, ), parenting (Ma, ; Ma & Grogan‐Kaylor, ; Zuberi, ), and community gardening (Teig et al. ().…”