The Spatial Distribution and Social Context of Homicide in Toronto’s Neighborhoods

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the social ecology of homicide in Toronto, Canada. Method: Using both ordinary least squares regression and negative binomial models, we analyze the structural correlates of 965 homicides occurring in 140 neighborhoods in Toronto between 1988 and 2003. Results: Similar to research in U.S. cities, Toronto neighborhoods with higher levels of economic disadvantage, higher proportions of young and Black residents, and greater residential instability have higher homicide rates. In contrast to U.S. studies, Toronto neighborhoods with higher proportions of residents who are recent immigrants also have higher homicide rates. In multivariate models, only two of these characteristics-economic disadvantage and the proportion of residents aged 15 to 24-are significantly associated with homicide in Toronto's neighborhoods. Despite low levels of both lethal

Linking Neighborhood Characteristics and Drug-Related Police Interventions: A Bayesian Spatial Analysis

“…The research is inconclusive on this question; some studies found a positive association between residential instability and crime [8,11], while others found no correlation [9,10,54]. Our study aligns with the second group.…”

“…Concentrated disadvantage reflects the negative socioeconomic features of a neighborhood, such as poverty, unemployment, low income, family disruption, or physical and social disorder [5][6][7]. Research has found that concentrated disadvantage is the factor most strongly associated with crime, even after controlling for individual characteristics [1,8]. Immigration has also been related to crime rates, and previous research has shown that higher levels of ethnic heterogeneity are related to higher levels of crime [1,9,10].…”

Neighborhood Sociostructure and Adolescent Homicide Victimization in Johannesburg, South Africa

“…The correlates of adolescent homicide in Johannesburg neighborhoods are similar to those in neighborhoods in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands with respect to concentrated disadvantage (Kubrin, 2003;Nieuwbeerta et al, 2008;Thompson & Gartner, 2014), but differ with respect the effects of residential mobility and measures of family disruption. These differences, especially family disruption, may be due to the study's specific focus on adolescence as well as the sociopolitical and economic context of South Africa, where past apartheid policies had a disruptive effect on families.…”

Structural Constraints, Risky Lifestyles, and Repeat Victimization

“…While theories of offending have always been in mass production in criminology (see Lilly et al 2015), theoretical advances in the study of victimization have largely stalled, and little in the way of new theoretical headway has been made for well over a decade. This is problematic since, just like we know that context matters when it comes to offending (Bursik and Grasmick 1993;Pratt and Cullen 2005;Sampson et al 1997), we know that context matters for victimization as well (Pinchevsky and Wright 2012;Rountree et al 1994;Thompson and Gartner 2014). But what we do not yet have is a theoretical perspective that recognizes the broader structural context that shapes victimization, the changes that people make (or do not make) to their antisocial behaviors, and their likelihood of repeat victimization.…”