In the original test of social disorganization theory by Sampson and Groves , low SES was found to be significantly associated with crime. The link between economic deprivation and crime may be more complex than the simple explanation that poor people have higher incentives to commit crime and suffer lower opportunity costs for doing so. For example, Sampson reports in an earlier work that low SES neighborhoods have higher levels of police supervision, independent of actual law violative behavior . Sampson concludes that “the influence of SES on police contacts is contextual in nature, and stems from an ecological bias with regard to police control” . Whether economic deprivation has a direct relationship with crime through individuals’ behavioral mechanisms , or an indirect effect on crime rates through the operation of police bias, there is a strong theoretical basis for the finding that poor neighborhoods report higher crime rates than rich ones. Mollie Orshansky developed the original poverty thresholds in 1963-64 when she was an economist working for the Social Security Administration, shortly before the declaration of a “War On Poverty” by President Johnson . An individual or household is in poverty when its total cash income falls below the applicable threshold, determined by family size and composition . The 2010 poverty thresholds range from $11,139 for a single individual living alone to $42,156 for a family of eight or more people living in the same household.Indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage, including poverty and unemployment, have been associated with higher crime rates in Miami, Florida and Columbus, Ohio . Other studies show that rates of crime and violence are extremely high in neighborhoods containing public housing developments,cannabis dryer which are areas of extremely concentrated socioeconomic disadvantage .
In their study of medical marijuana dispensaries in Sacramento, Williams and colleagues found that violent crimes were significantly associated with “concentrated disadvantage”, a variable constructed from 2008 poverty guidelines. Property and violent crimes were not associated with density of marijuana dispensaries, but both categories were significantly related to unemployment rate . Further evidence of the link between crime and unemployment is found in crime data from across the United States in the 1990’s, a decade of incredible crime reduction. Raphael and Winter-Ebmer found that a substantial amount of the reduction in property crimes could be explained by the corresponding decline in unemployment rate. A weaker relationship existed between unemployment and violent crime, according to the researchers. Freeman presents similar findings and concludes that as much as one-third of the drop in crime in the 1990’s can be explained by the expanding job market. Theorizing from earlier empirical work by Sampson , which found that macrolevel indicators of family disruption were related to rates of juvenile crime, Sampson and Groves include family disruption among their “exogenous sources of social disorganization” . The theoretical basis for this lies in the notion that “traditional” families provide their communities with greater parental supervisory resources, compared to single-parent families. Additional supervision results in greater social control and more effective prevention against crime . According to social disorganization theory, communities with higher levels of residential turnover suffer from correspondingly lower levels of social control and are therefore likely to report higher rates of crime . The present study conceptualizes “residential instability” as an index of the percent of housing units in a given census tract that are vacant and the percent of individuals living within the tract who are between the ages of 18 and 29. These variables are also used by Martínez and colleagues in their study of crime and drug use in Miami neighborhoods. Williams and colleagues found that property crimes—but not violent crimes— were significantly associated with percent of owner-occupied households, which is a measure of residential stability. Hipp and colleagues examined residential turnover in an ethnic context and found it to be significantly associated with crime.
They conceptualized “residential stability” as the average length of residence of households in the relevant census tract .Although it is not included in the forthcoming analysis, there is one final measure of social disorganization that appears in the theoretical literature which is relevant to the present discussion of crime in city neighborhoods: population heterogeneity . The argument here is that segregated communities suffer from lower rates of communication and interaction, which prevent them from organizing collectively to reduce crime and delinquency—even when the different population groups have a shared interest in law and order. A number of studies have found that population heterogeneity is associated with higher crime rates .In this chapter I have reviewed the literature on cannabis, MCDs, and crime that is relevant to the present study. Particular attention has been given to routine activities theory and social disorganization theory . In the next chapter I extrapolate from these theories in developing a conceptual model of crime to test for the criminogenic effect of MCDs.This study examines the spatial relationship between medical cannabis dispensaries and crime across 189 census tracts in San Francisco in the year 2010. I test two competing hypotheses drawn from the theoretical literature on routine activities theory , controlling for neighborhood characteristics drawn from social disorganization theory . The first is that MCDs increase crime by attracting likely offenders and presenting them with suitable targets; the second is that MCDs actually decrease crime by protecting their surrounding community with adequate security measures and thereby providing capable guardianship. The theoretical bases for these claims are discussed in greater length in the previous two chapters. In this chapter I discuss the research methodology employed by this study and present results. Data are collected from the San Francisco Police Department, Planning Department, and Department of Public Health; the California Department of Finance; the American Community Survey ; and the United States Census Bureau. Linear regression models are tested using four dependent variables at the census tract level: total property crimes, property crimes per 1,000 residents, total violent crimes, and violent crimes per 1,000 residents.
Findings are largely but not perfectly consistent across these different models with respect to the spatial relationships between crime, MCD density, and the eight other neighborhood characteristics analyzed: poverty, unemployment, family stability, vacancy rate, percent of the population ages 18-29, percent of the population that is male, total population size, and percent of land commercially zoned.As a matter of simple spatial correlation, MCD-containing tracts have higher rates of both property crime and violent crime than tracts that do not contain MCDs. But this relationship may be obscured by the limited number of cases under review—26 dispensaries across 16 census tracts, compared to 173 non-MCD-containing tracts—and the fact that MCDs are clustered in busy downtown areas . This highlights the need to consider other variables related to crime. A more nuanced approach reveals that crime is more strongly predicted by certain “exogenous sources of social disorganization” than by MCD density. Poverty is a strong predictor of high crime rates across all four of the regression analyses conducted by this study—much stronger than MCD density. By “stronger” I mean that it has a larger correlation coefficient and a higher degree of statistical significance . “Family stability” is negatively associated with crime across all four models. Again,vertical farming systems this link is stronger than the link found between MCD density and crime. Residential instability is not as strongly predictive of crime in the present model as socioeconomic disadvantage or family disruption. In the following sections I discuss the current research design in greater detail and present empirical findings. In a recent working paper for the California Center for Population Research at UCLA, Nancy Williams and colleagues present a routine activities approach for examining the link between MCDs and crime. They examine 95 census tracts in Sacramento using data for the year 2009. Their findings indicate that tracts containing dispensaries are not significantly associated with higher rates of crime when controlling for neighborhood characteristics associated with crime . This study borrows from their work in conducting an observational study of the spatial relationship between MCDs and crime in 189 San Francisco census tracts for the year 2010. All measures are aggregated to the level of census tracts. Census tracts are convenient units of analysis because they have similar population sizes, their boundaries align with the physical environment, and they are intended to be homogenous with respect to population characteristics and living conditions . Thus they roughly approximate city neighborhoods. From a routine activities perspective, I argue that it is reasonable to assume in the case of densely populated cities like San Francisco that likely offenders, in choosing whether, where, and when to commit a crime—that is, in weighing the target suitability and guardianship of potential victims—are going to consider targets within an area roughly the size of a census tract. Maps presented in the forthcoming analysis should illustrate the geographic implications of this assumption. Another advantage to using census tracts as the spatial unit of analysis is that there is an abundance of demographic information available at the census tract level via the U.S. Census Bureau and ACS. This provides for an excellent range of control variables.Greenbaum’s second line of contention. The present model does not account for criminal activity in other tracts and therefore misses the “spillover effects” that a land use such as MCDs may have on crime in neighboring tracts.
This presents a significant limitation for the present model—although one that could theoretically be corrected for, to some extent, through more sophisticated spatial analyses. Considering the lack of empirical evidence currently available with respect to this issue—and its significant implications for policy making and future research—I argue that, as a preliminary analysis, this study has tremendous value despite this and other limitations. It may not account for inter-tract crime, but it does provide new knowledge about the nature of intra-tract crime. City residents probably are concerned about businesses in adjacent neighborhoods; but when it comes to crime they are concerned, first and foremost, with the people next door.In this study I examine the relationship between MCDs and crime rates across San Francisco neighborhoods in the year 2010. This provides an excellent case study for analyzing the criminological impact of MCDs because it offers a high level of certainty and relevance. It can be said with a high level of certainty that there were 26 dispensaries operating in San Francisco in 2010 and that they were open for most or all of that year; similar statements are difficult to make with respect to other jurisdictions. In some other municipalities, governments and MCD operators have undergone heated legal battles with one another. This has resulted in a “regulatory vacuum” with respect to MCDs in many jurisdictions . In such a vacuum, it is difficult if not impossible to determine exactly how many MCDs are open at a given time . Perhaps the most notable example of this is Los Angeles, where MCDs have been in legal limbo for years. Studies of MCD density and local crime rates in Los Angeles, while certainly compelling, would require a substantial amount of field research. San Francisco provides a case in which important information can be determined with high certainty and low cost. Other cities may provide even higher certainty, but these generally suffer from limited relevance because of the small number of dispensaries that they contain. San Francisco is not the only municipality to escape the “regulatory vacuum”. Other California cities have enacted similar MCD ordinances, including two prominent examples that can be found directly across the water from San Francisco in the cities of Berkeley and Oakland. But as a case study San Francisco has several advantages over these and other alternatives. First and foremost, it is a major city with a large sample of MCDs in the year for which data are collected. By comparison, Berkeley and Oakland have smaller populations and “hard caps” on the number of dispensaries allowed.So although they present interesting pieces of the legal, social, and political puzzles presented by California’s medical cannabis law, their small sample size limits the extent to which they are useful cases for empirical study. Unlike the “regulatory vacuum” experienced by MCDs in some other jurisdictions, MCDs in San Francisco face a number of local regulations. Thus San Francisco is not only a convenient case to study, it is also relevant and important—it touches directly on whether, and to what extent, locally regulated MCDs are related to crime.