Socially Disorganized Communities

1

Social Disorganization Theory’s Greatest Challenge: Linking Structural Characteristics to Crime in

Socially Disorganized Communities

Charis E. Kubrin and James C. Wo

The Handbook of Criminological Theory, First Edition. Edited by Alex R. Piquero. © 2016 John Wiley &

Sons, Inc. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [pp. 121 – 136]

Why do some neighborhoods have higher crime rates than others? What is it about certain communities

that consistently generate high crime rates? These are the central questions of interest for social

disorganization theory, a macro‐level perspective concerned with explaining the spatial distribution of

crime across areas. Social disorganization theory has emerged as the critical framework for understanding

the relationship between community characteristics and crime in urban areas. According to the theory,

certain neighborhood characteristics – most notably poverty, residential instability, and racial

heterogeneity – can lead to social disorganization. Social disorganization, in turn, can cause crime. In this

chapter, we first describe social disorganization theory, laying out the theory’s key principles and

propositions. We then discuss one of the most serious and enduring challenges confronting the theory –

identifying and empirically verifying the social interactional mechanisms that link structural characteristics

of communities, such as poverty and residential instability, to heightened crime rates in socially

disorganized communities. And finally, we present some promising new directions for the theory by

discussing several theoretical concepts that may be useful for scholars interested in identifying and

measuring the theory’s interactional mechanisms; these include social capital, collective efficacy, and

social networks. We conclude the chapter with some remarks about one additional important theoretical

direction for social disorganization theory: incorporating the role of neighborhood subculture in

explanations of crime and delinquency.

The origins of social disorganization theory date back to the early 1900s. In 1929, two researchers from

the University of Chicago, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, began a series of studies using official records

which showed that in the city of Chicago, rates of delinquency, criminality, and commitment to

correctional institutions varied markedly by area. In particular, rates were highest in slums near the city

center and diminished as distance from the center of the city increased, except in areas of industry and

commerce just outside of the central district, which had some of the highest rates.

Shaw and McKay also found that rates of crime and delinquency exhibited a remarkable consistent

patterning over many decades; in particular, the spatial pattern of rates revealed significant long‐term

stability even though the nationality structure of the population in the inner‐city areas changed greatly

over time. Shaw and McKay thus determined that crime and delinquency were not the result of personal

characteristics of the residents who lived in the neighborhoods but were tied to the neighborhoods

themselves. Since areas of high and low crime and delinquency maintained their relative positions over

many years, a key theoretical task became to explain the existence and stability of these area differentials

over time.

A fundamental part of their explanation involved the concept of social disorganization. Social

disorganization refers to the inability of a community to realize the common values of its members and

maintain effective social controls. As Kornhauser describes, “Social disorganization exists in the first

instance when the structure and culture of a community are incapable of implementing and expressing

the values of its own residents.” (Kornhauser, 1978:63) According to the theory, a common value among

2

neighborhood residents is the desire for a crime‐free community. In essence, then, socially disorganized

neighborhoods are ineffective in combating crime. A socially organized community is characterized by (1)

solidarity, or an internal consensus on essential norms and values (e.g., residents want and value the same

things, such as a crime‐free neighborhood); (2) cohesion, or a strong bond among neighbors (e.g.,

residents know and like one another); and (3) integration, with social interaction occurring on a regular

basis (e.g., residents spend time with one another).

Conversely, a disorganized community has little solidarity among residents and lacks social cohesion or

integration. Perhaps the greatest difference between socially organized and disorganized neighborhoods

is the levels of informal social control in those neighborhoods. Informal social control is defined as the

scope of collective intervention that the community directs toward local problems, including crime

(Kornhauser, 1978; Shaw & McKay, 1969). It is the informal, nonofficial actions taken by residents to

combat crime in their communities, such as, for example, when residents question persons about

suspicious activity or admonish misbehaving youth and inform parents of their children’s misconduct. In

essence, residents act as the “eyes and ears” of the community and their informal surveillance, and even

simple presence, deters others from engaging in crime.

According to the theory, socially disorganized neighborhoods have lower levels of informal social control,

and thus experience higher crime rates when compared to more socially organized neighborhoods.

Ecological characteristics of neighborhoods influence the degree of social disorganization in the

community. This is because certain characteristics can impede the development of social ties that

promote the ability to solve common problems, including crime. Ecological characteristics of greatest

interest to social disorganization researchers include poverty, joblessness, population mobility or

turnover, racial composition, and family disruption, among others. Although community characteristics

such as poverty or residential instability are related to crime, these factors themselves do not directly

cause crime, according to the theory. That is, ecological characteristics are related to crime only indirectly

through various neighborhood processes such as informal social control. As such, poverty, residential

instability, and other ecological characteristics are important in as much as they affect the mediating

processes of social disorganization. In light of the above discussion, the basic social disorganization causal

model can be expressed as: neighborhood characteristics → social ties → informal social control → crime.

Sampson describes the processes by which neighborhood characteristics and crime are associated:

Neighborhood characteristics such as family disorganization, residential mobility, and structural density

weaken informal social control networks; informal social controls are impeded by weak local social bonds,

lowered community attachment, anonymity, and reduced capacity for surveillance and guardianship;

other factors such as poverty and racial composition also probably affect informal control, although their

influence is in all likelihood indirect; residents in areas characterized by family disorganization, mobility,

and building density are less able to perform guardianship activities, less likely to report general deviance

to authorities, to intervene in public disturbances, and to assume responsibility for supervision of youth

activities; the result is that deviance is tolerated and public norms of social control are not effective

(Sampson, 1987: 109).

Social Disorganization Theory’s Greatest Challenge

Like all other theories discussed in this volume, there are ongoing challenges facing social disorganization

theory, some of which have been resolved more fully than others. These challenges have been discussed

3

at length in two important assessments of the theory at different points in time: Bursik (1988) and Kubrin

& Weitzer (2003). Although these scholars identify several challenges, perhaps the greatest involves

identifying and measuring the social mechanisms that account for heightened crime rates in socially

disorganized neighborhoods. Stated alternatively, a major conceptual limitation of social disorganization

research is the relative lack of attention paid to the processes that mediate the effect of community

characteristics (see also Byrne & Sampson, 1986).

Given the primitive nature of data analysis during the early 1900s, it is not surprising that scholars were

unable to conduct sophisticated analyses that would allow them to fully test social disorganization

theory’s arguments. Early Chicago school theorists “tested” the theory by plotting the spatial distribution

of crime in the city to determine whether it was consistent with the theory’s predictions, and then

correlated characteristics of neighborhoods with crime rates. Studies were able to document, for

example, that poor, mobile, and racially heterogeneous neighborhoods had the highest crime rates but

they could not specify the mechanisms (e.g., social ties, informal social control) accounting for this

relationship. This was problematic, in part, because it did not allow researchers to rule out competing

theoretical explanations such as strain, which also theorize a poverty–crime association.

Even decades after the early work of Chicago School researchers, little progress had been made in this

area. Studies included the “front end” of social disorganization models, that is, attributes of the

community, as well as the “back end” or crime and delinquency outcomes, but continued to leave out the

crucial middle, or indicators reflecting how much social disorganization is occurring in a neighborhood

(Kubrin, Stucky, & Krohn, 2009: 91).

Significant progress was finally achieved with the publication of Robert Sampson and Byron Groves’ 1989

study, which used data from a large national survey of Great Britain to formally test social disorganization

theory. Sampson & Groves (1989) constructed community‐level measures of neighborhoods (e.g., low

socio‐economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, family disruption, and urbanization) as

well as the mediating dimensions of social disorganization (e.g., sparse local friendship networks,

unsupervised teenage peer groups, and low organizational participation) and determined how both sets

of measures impacted neighborhood crime rates. The findings were largely supportive of social

disorganization theory: communities characterized by strong social ties and informal control had lower

rates of crime and delinquency.

Moreover, these dimensions of social disorganization were found to explain, in large part, the effects of

community structural characteristics on crime rates. This latter finding was important because it verified

for the first time that the structural conditions themselves do not influence crime; rather, they are

important only inasmuch as they produce social disorganization. Despite this progress, only a handful of

studies (e.g., Elliott et al., 1996; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Warner & Rountree, 1997) have fully

documented the theoretical processes laid out by social disorganization theory. Perhaps more

importantly, the findings we do have from this small but critical literature suggest these processes may

not be so straightforward. An increasing finding emerging from the literature is that social ties may not

play the expected role (see Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003: 375–379). As such, researchers are only beginning to

fully identify, understand, and empirically verify the social interactional mechanisms that link structural

characteristics to crime in neighborhoods. In an attempt to address this shortcoming, in part, in the

remainder of the chapter we discuss some promising theoretical developments for social disorganization

theory.

4

Promising Theoretical Developments

For decades following the early Chicago School studies, research testing social disorganization theory, by

and large, emphasized the critical role of two theoretical constructs: social ties and informal social control,

as discussed earlier. In more recent years, however, scholars have begun to introduce additional

theoretical concepts that borrow from – but go well beyond – social ties and informal social control. These

include collective efficacy, social capital, and social networks. For the remainder of this chapter, we discuss

these promising new theoretical directions in social disorganization theory.

Collective efficacy

As noted earlier, Sampson and Groves (1989) incited renewed interest in social disorganization theory and

its ability to explain variations in community crime rates. Recall their argument emphasized the formation

and utility of social ties in terms of providing effective social action (i.e., informal social control) to fight

crime. In recent years, scholars have begun to suggest that perhaps dense social networks of strong ties

might not be sufficient, in and of themselves, to fulfill social control functions (Browning et al., 2004;

Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Pattillo, 1998; Sampson, 2006, Sampson et al., 1997, Venkatesh, 2000, 2006).

According to some, what appears to be missing is the key factor of purposive action, that is, just how ties

are activated and resources mobilized to enhance informal social control (Sampson et al., 1997). Sampson,

Raudenbush, & Earls (1997) address this deficiency in their formulation of the concept of collective

efficacy, which they define as, “the linkage of mutual trust and the willingness to intervene for the

common good” (921). As is evident from the definition, collective efficacy integrates cohesion and mutual

trust among residents with a culturally‐derived neighborhood dynamic (i.e., shared expectations for

control). The concept advances previous theorizing by taking into account mechanisms of social action

that may be facilitated by, but do not necessarily require, an interconnected network of strong ties

(Sampson, 2006: 152). Since “efficacy” refers to the ability to achieve a desired effect or outcome, in the

context of the theory, collective efficacy is best conceptualized as a task‐specific concept that captures

the perceived ability of a neighborhood to solve crime problems. Importantly, there are two components

of collective efficacy.

The first component is the willingness of residents to intervene for the common good of the

neighborhood. Such willingness, according to Sampson and colleagues (1997), is a necessary precursor for

establishing informal social control, or the degree to which actual behaviors are undertaken by residents

as a means to address and prevent crime. To measure this component of collective efficacy, or the

willingness to intervene, in a survey (The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, or

PHDCN Survey), Sampson and colleagues asked 8,782 residents of 343 neighborhoods in Chicago the

likelihood that their neighbors would intervene in the following (hypothetical) scenarios: (1) if children

were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner; (2) if children were spray‐painting graffiti on a

local building; (3) if children were showing disrespect to an adult; (4) if a fight broke out in the front of

their house; and (5) if the fire station closest to their home was threatened with budget cuts. Respondents

answered using a five‐item Likert‐type scale. The assumption is that those neighborhoods that score high

on the collective willingness to intervene scale are more likely to actually intervene when faced with these

and similar situations, thereby reducing the likelihood for crime in those communities.

The second component of collective efficacy is the combination of cohesion and mutual trust. The

importance of common values and similar goals among residents dates back to the earliest social

disorganization research (Park & Burgess, 1925; Shaw & McKay, 1942). When residents are mostly self‐

5

interested and care little about the community at large, it is inherently difficult for the neighborhood to

procure resources and to activate social ties to prevent crime. However, when there is cohesion and

mutual trust among residents, there is a greater likelihood that residents will acknowledge problems in

the community, will achieve consensus on how to address them, and will solve the problems in a more

collective fashion. In this sense, cohesion and mutual trust are precursors to problem solving.

Sampson and colleagues measure this component of collective efficacy by asking respondents in their

survey the extent to which they agree with the following statements: (1) people around here are willing

to help their neighbors; (2) this is a close‐knit neighborhood; (3) people in this neighborhood can be

trusted; (4) people in this neighborhood generally don’t get along with each other; and (5) people in this

neighborhood do not share the same values.

Not surprisingly, measures of social cohesion and shared expectations for control were highly correlated

across neighborhoods in Chicago. The two components were combined to create a summary measure of

collective efficacy.

Sampson and colleagues (1997) contribute to social disorganization theory in two fundamental ways; first,

they empirically demonstrate that collective efficacy has a significant negative effect on violent crime, in

line with what social disorganization theory would predict, and second, they show that associations of

concentrated disadvantage and residential instability with violent crime are largely mediated by collective

efficacy.

The second contribution is arguably the most significant as it implies that neighborhood characteristics

are relevant to crime insofar as they produce (or fail to produce) collective efficacy. In the years since

Sampson and colleagues (1997) introduced the concept, studies examining collective efficacy in Chicago

and beyond have proliferated. In general, findings from this literature echo what Sampson and colleagues

documented – communities with greater levels of collective efficacy have lower rates of crime and

violence, controlling for other factors, and that collective efficacy mediates the effects of ecological

characteristics on crime and violence (Browning 2009; Browning, Feinberg, & Dietz, 2004; Mazerolle,

Wickes, & Mc Broom, 2010; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).

Moreover, given an emphasis on purposive action, the prevailing assumption has become that the

explanatory power of collective efficacy is not limited to just certain types of crime or violence. For

example, Browning (2002) examines the impact of collective efficacy on partner violence. Using Sampson

et al.’s survey data, as well as other data sources, he demonstrates that collective efficacy has a crime‐

reducing impact on partner violence, independent of individual and relationship characteristics that

heighten domestic violence risk.

Another study by Dekeseredy, Alvi, & Tomaszewski (2003), which examines women’s victimization in

Ontario public housing, also documents support for collective efficacy’s impact. In essence, it is becoming

clearer that collective efficacy likely impacts a range of crimes and delinquent behaviors, as well as other

related outcomes such as social disorder (see, e.g., Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).

In recent years, collective efficacy scholars have turned their attention to the role of peers and the extent

to which parental supervision of teenage peer groups may matter for crime. Maimon & Browning (2010)

once again utilize PHDCN survey data to identify whether collective efficacy modifies the effect that

unstructured peer socialization has on violent behavior. Their multilevel models, involving 842 Chicago

6

residents in 78 neighborhoods, confirm that collective efficacy has a negative (independent) influence on

violence. More importantly, they find that an “individual’s unstructured socializing with peers is less likely

to result in violence within high collective efficacy neighborhoods” (466). Their results provide evidence

that collective efficacy can attenuate the deleterious effects of other social pressures on crime. Of course

in assessing collective efficacy’s usefulness for social disorganization theory, and impact in the field more

generally, one should consider the concept’s predictive validity in relation to other correlates of crime –

a task that Pratt & Cullen (2005) undertake in their meta‐analysis of macro‐level crime predictors. Pratt

and Cullen identify over 200 studies from 1960 to 1999 that have examined the ecological correlates of

crime, and perform a meta‐analysis to determine which predictors have strong and stable effects on crime

rates. Their findings reveal that relative to the other predictors, collective efficacy ranks fourth (out of 23)

in weighted effect size. Sampson (2006) argues this finding supports the notion that collective efficacy is

a robust predictor of crime rates, and is fundamental to social disorganization theory. In his presidential

address at the 2012 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Robert J. Sampson suggested

that collective efficacy, in effect, helps neighborhoods mitigate several problems – most notably, crime

and violence. Findings from the small but growing literature indicate he might be right. Yet there remain

only a limited number of studies that have empirically assessed just how collective efficacy affects crime

and related outcomes (for a more detailed discussion on this point, see Pratt & Cullen, 2005). For this

reason, researchers must continue to explore how collective efficacy impacts crime at varying points of

time and in varying social contexts. This will entail applying sophisticated and innovative methodological

approaches. Currently, we know very little about, for example, the longitudinal or reciprocal relationship

between collective efficacy and crime.

Social capital

One source in which scholars have recognized immense potential for understanding variation in

community crime rates is the impact of local organizations. Social disorganization theory presumes that

local organizations conducive to pro‐social interaction such as churches, youth groups, charities, civic

associations, and political groups, can enhance neighborhood informal social control. This is because civic

and social organizations facilitate the sharing of common values and goals among residents, thereby

increasing the collective ability to disseminate information, mobilize resources, and utilize social networks

towards combating crime (Peterson, Krivo, & Harris, 2000; Triplett, Gainey, & Sun, 2003; Wilson, 1987).

Recently, criminologists have adopted the concept of social capital, defined as “the investment in social

relations with expected returns” (Lin, 1999:30), in order to argue that civically engaged communities yield

crime‐control benefits. Scholars posit that the investment in communal social relations (i.e., civic

engagement) is reflected by residents’ participation in civic and social organizations. Prosocial interaction

that originates within organizational settings extends to other settings in the greater community,

ultimately providing the expected return: the emergence or enhancement of informal social control. In

this sense, social capital refers to the potential for effective social action, as it does not directly

encapsulate purposive action. In criminology, social capital’s operationalization most frequently reflects

Lin’s (1999) higher‐order conceptualization, specifically, with respect to the investment in communal

social relations. Previous studies have measured social capital using at least one of the following types of

indicators: (1) a simple count of the number of civic and social organizations in the neighborhood; (2)

residents’ participation in these types of organizations; and (3) the level of trust among residents. The

simple count reflects investment in terms of the availability and opportunity for residents to participate

in pro‐social organizational settings. Residents’ organizational participation signifies the actual investment

7

made in these organizations. Finally, residents’ trust levels reveal the emotional investment that underlies

interpersonal relationships. Studies typically combine these indicators into a summary measure of social

capital or alternatively use one of them as a single‐measure construct (Beyerlein & Hipp, 2005; Lee, 2008;

Peterson, Krivo, & Harris, 2000; Putnam, 2000; Rosenfeld, Messner, & Baumer, 2001). The seminal work

of Putnam (1995, 2000) is arguably considered the standard research on social capital to date. For Putnam,

social capital is conceived as a multidimensional concept reflected by two general forms: trust and social

participation. The concept primarily features indices of political participation, civic participation, religious

participation, workplace connections, informal social ties, philanthropy, altruism, and volunteering.

According to Putnam (1995), levels of social capital in the United States have declined significantly since

the 1960s. Putnam’s evidence in support of this claim includes declining participation rates in bowling

leagues, church attendance, The Boy Scouts, labor unions, and parent– teacher associations. Putnam

maintains this decline is problematic to the extent that “successful outcomes are more likely in civically

engaged communities” (Putnam 1995: 65).

In support of this contention, state‐level analyses of archival and survey data reveal both trust and social

participation to be negatively associated with crime (Putnam, 2000). Thus, consistent with social

disorganization theory, civically active communities have a greater ability to solve and prevent crime, all

else equal. Recent research has built on Putnam by incorporating diverse measures of social capital into

analyses. Beyerlein & Hipp (2005), for example, investigate the religious component of civic engagement

on crime in US counties. Acknowledging differences in social networks among religious traditions, their

models specify the number of congregations per 100,000 for several denominations of Christianity,

including mainline Protestantism, evangelical Protestantism, and Catholicism. Beyerlein and Hipp find that

greater numbers of congregations per capita – regardless of the denomination – are associated with lower

crime rates across counties.

In another study, Lee (2008) develops a civic engagement index that not only includes the number of

religious congregations, but also the number of civic associations, sport leagues, and hobby and special

interest groups in his analysis of rural US counties. Lee (2008) finds that areas with higher levels of civic

engagement have lower crime rates.

And in a third study, Peterson, Krivo, & Harris (2000) examine whether the presence of recreation centers

and libraries impact crime rates in neighborhoods in Columbus, Ohio. Peterson and colleagues discover

that while libraries have little impact on crime, the presence of recreation centers appears to mitigate

violent crime in the most disadvantaged Columbus neighborhoods.

Two key challenges for researchers have been assessing the reciprocal influence that crime has on social

capital and determining social capital’s spatial effects. One study by Rosenfeld, Messner, & Baumer (2001)

examines the reciprocal nature of the social capital–crime relationship. Rosenfeld and colleagues perform

a series of structural equation models (SEM), which reveal that their latent variable of social capital (which

includes a dimension for both organizational participation and trust) is negatively associated with

homicide rates across a sample of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties. This protective effect is

unaffected by standard correlates of crime as well as the reciprocal influence that homicide has on social

capital.

Hipp, Petersilia, & Turner (2010) address the spatial effects of social capital in their investigation of how

the availability of social capital (oriented) organizations affects the likelihood of recidivism for California

8

parolees. Examining the number of such organizations within two miles of the parolee’s current address,

Hipp and colleagues find that a one standard deviation increase in the availability of social capital oriented

organizations decreases the likelihood of recidivating by more than 40%. Although the analysis estimates

an individual‐level outcome (recidivism of individual parolees), it is not unreasonable to suggest that this

protective effect applies at the community level as well.

As previously alluded, social capital can be theorized along several dimensions as well as using a variety

of methodological approaches. Yet, there is a pressing need to identify the general effect that social capital

has on crime rates across aggregate units of analysis. Pratt & Cullen (2005) begin to address this need by

providing a (quasi) quantitative synthesis of studies associated with social capital. They focus explicitly on

the impact of noneconomic institutions, which capture those studies that examine the level of religious

and political participation within communities – two indicators frequently applied in the

operationalization of social capital. They find that the strength of noneconomic institutions ranks first (out

of 23) in weighted effect size and, in line with predictions, such institutions are negatively associated with

crime. Although their measure is only a proxy for social capital, the strength of the effect size suggests

that social capital is potentially a robust predictor of lower crime rates, and therefore crucial to

understanding the establishment of social control. The studies building upon Putnam’s seminal work are

generally supportive of an inverse relationship between social capital and crime. However, we suggest it

would be premature to conclude that social capital is a robust predictor of lower crime rates, mainly

because current studies differ so drastically with respect to units of analysis, research settings, time‐

periods, and estimated outcomes. Moreover, there is a developing concern regarding the extent to which

social capital is theoretically distinct from collective efficacy and social networks (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003).

Scholars have identified mutual trust as a dimension of both social capital and collective efficacy. Similarly,

mutual trust may condition the relationship between social networks and crime. In summary, although

social capital presents the opportunity to better understand the emergence of social control in

communities, more research must be done before it is fully incorporated into social disorganization

theory.

Social ties and neighborhood networks

From the earliest formulations of social disorganization theory, the concept of social ties has occupied a

central place in the theory. An enduring assumption is that socially disorganized neighborhoods lack the

social ties that activate mechanisms of informal social control (Kornhauser, 1978; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003;

Park & Burgess, 1925; Sampson, 2006; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942). So when crime

problems emerge, the theory reasons, residents are unable to effectively respond via the dissemination

of information, the implementation of guardianship behavior, the mobilization of resources, and the

coordination of civic events. According to the theory, the formation and maintenance of informal social

control thus requires the neighborhood to have an abundant supply of strong ties that connect residents

to one another. Accordingly, criminologists have long examined how the presence of social ties as well as

their utility and content are related to neighborhood crime rates.

Despite substantial work in this area, the measurement of social ties is generally limited to two types of

indicators: (1) the quantity of social ties, and (2) the content of those ties. Such information is typically

ascertained via survey questions which instruct respondents to provide information about their social

exchanges and interactions with fellow neighbors. The first indicator reflects an assumption that there is

9

a high correspondence between an abundance of social ties and the activation of informal social control

mechanisms.

In contrast, the second indicator suggests that the type of social ties among residents (e.g., family, friends,

acquaintances, or strangers) will differentially impact the ability to prevent crime. According to the theory,

those social ties that represent emotional investment and reflect frequent interaction are deemed to be

“strong,” while those ties that exhibit less familiarity and interaction are considered to be “weak.”

Accordingly, the strength of neighborhood ties is considered fundamental to the informal control of crime.

Despite the theory’s predictions, the collective body of research suggests that the evidence in support of

social ties’ impact is mixed with respect to crime reduction. Some studies identify social ties as a catalyst

for effective social action to fight crime (e.g., Sampson & Groves, 1989) while others demonstrate that

social ties may actually facilitate crime (e.g., Pattillo, 1998). In regards to the former, the seminal article

by Sampson and Groves, discussed earlier, lends considerable support to the notion that an

interconnected network of strong ties characterizes lower‐crime neighborhoods. Recall they used data

from a large national survey of Great Britain. The survey included a question instructing respondents to

indicate how many of their friends reside in their local community, from which Sampson and Groves

constructed a community measure of local friendship networks defined as “the mean level of local

friendships” (784). Their network measure captures the abundance of social ties characterized by frequent

interaction and emotional investment. Also recall that Sampson and Groves show that the mediating

dimension of local friendship networks has an independent effect on crime and delinquency outcomes,

net of (exogenous) neighborhood characteristics. This finding suggests that neighborhood networks do

appear to activate and maintain mechanisms of informal social control. The promise of social ties for social

disorganization theory is less apparent in Bellair’s (1997) study, which explicitly assesses how the

frequency of interaction among neighborhood residents influences crime. Using survey data from

residents of 60 urban neighborhoods (spanning three states), Bellair finds that social interaction, here

defined as the percentage of community residents who get together once a year or more, reduces

community rates of burglary, motor vehicle theft, and robbery. He also finds that social interaction largely

mediates the effect of neighborhood characteristics on community crime, in support of social

disorganization theory. Yet Bellair’s findings ultimately raise questions regarding the value of social ties

for the theory. Although social interaction is significantly associated with community crime rates in the

direction the theory predicts, the fact that even infrequent interaction can reduce community crime rates

challenges the theory’s assumption that strong and dense ties are what matter most; Bellair’s “once a

year or more” definition reflects a level of interaction that is arguably less than what the perspective

theorizes.

Other studies produce conflicting evidence regarding the impact of social ties. For example, using survey

data from the city of Seattle, Warner & Rountree (1997) document mixed support for social ties’ crime

reducing impact. Their measure of social ties, or what they refer to as “local ties,” reflects the extent to

which respondents had done each of the following: (1) borrowed tools or food from neighbors; (2) had

lunch or dinner with neighbors; and (3) had helped neighbors with problems. While Warner and Rountree

find that local ties are associated with lower rates of assault in Seattle neighborhoods, they contrastingly

find that these ties are associated with higher rates of burglary. As a result, Warner and Rountree question

the assumption that social ties automatically translate into greater levels of informal social control, as the

theory predicts.

10

Even more troubling are findings from studies which suggest that social ties may, in fact, serve as a source

of social capital for offenders, thereby increasing the likelihood of offending. Browning, Feinberg, & Dietz

(2004) arrive at this conclusion in their study of the impact of collective efficacy and social ties on violent

crime rates in Chicago neighborhoods. Using Sampson’s PHDCN survey data, they discover that while

collective efficacy is associated with diminished rates of violence, social ties and exchange between

residents appears to diminish neighborhood social control. Browning and colleagues also conclude that

the “regulatory effects of collective efficacy on violence are substantially reduced in neighborhoods

characterized by high levels of network interaction and reciprocated exchange” (503).

Questionable findings regarding social ties’ impact are not limited to quantitative analyses. A study by

Pattillo (1998) qualitatively documents the complex relationships among social ties, informal social

control, and crime. Through participant observation and face‐to‐face interviews in a middle‐class black

neighborhood in Chicago, she finds that residents are highly connected to one another and that these

strong ties are characterized by emotional investment and frequent interaction. As a result, and in support

of social disorganization theory, the neighborhood is able to keep crime to a relatively acceptable level

through the supervision of youth, the identification of strangers, and the mobilization of community

organizations. However, the value of these ties comes with a trade‐off; Pattillo also finds that the social

ties frequently connect law abiding residents and criminals, thereby making it more challenging for the

neighborhood to eradicate criminal activity. This occurs because residents are reluctant to publicly shame

or legally sanction those with whom they are closely tied (even in the face of illegal behavior). Once again

these findings, which reveal that social ties can simultaneously enhance and undermine informal social

control, question the relevance of this concept for social disorganization theory. Although the evidence in

support of social ties is mixed, we do not mean to suggest that criminology should abandon studying the

impact of neighborhood networks on crime. Instead, the present challenge is to pinpoint the specific

characteristics of networks that precipitate and mitigate crime. Doing this will require scholars to

recognize, as Sampson (2006: 164) points out, that “not all networks are created equal.” In the context of

social disorganization theory, this means acknowledging that while neighborhood networks may be

capable of facilitating effective social action, they are likely not sufficient, in and of themselves, to fulfill

social control functions.

Sampson (2006) lists three reasons why neighborhood networks should not be equated with effective

social control: (1) weak ties can be equally important in the activation of informal social control (see also

Granovetter, 1973); (2) strong ties can undermine social control efforts; and, (3) social ties may connect

law‐abiding citizens with criminals and vice versa. In extending and refining the concepts of social ties and

neighborhood networks for social disorganization theory, researchers must account for these “social

facts.”

Conclusion

Social disorganization theory has long occupied an important place in criminological thought and

continues to do so well into the 21st century. But as with all theories, in order to survive it must be

continuously subjected to testing and then reevaluated in light of the empirical evidence. Despite the

theory’s predictive power, in this chapter, we have suggested there is room for improvement, particularly

when it comes to specifying the social interactional mechanisms that link structural characteristics of

communities, such as poverty and residential instability, to heightened crime rates in socially disorganized

communities. We have also suggested that such improvement may occur by attending to more recent

11

theoretical concepts that borrow from, but go beyond, social ties and informal social control. These

include collective efficacy, social capital, and social networks. In this chapter, we have defined these

concepts, explicated their usefulness for social disorganization theory, and reviewed the empirical

literature on their effectiveness. We believe these concepts hold significant promise. We conclude with

one final suggestion regarding the fundamental challenge involved in linking structural characteristics to

crime in socially disorganized communities.

This final suggestion is related to the role that neighborhood culture/ subculture likely occupies for social

disorganization theory. Although often downplayed (and even ignored) by scholars today, neighborhood

subculture was of key interest to Shaw and McKay and other early social disorganization theorists.

A central question for these scholars centered on how neighborhood subcultures became entrenched and

affected rates of delinquency. They posed the question: Under what economic and social conditions does

crime develop as a social tradition and become embodied in a system of criminal values? Shaw and McKay

found evidence regarding the impact of neighborhood subculture on crime and delinquency. Of particular

interest is their finding that areas of low economic status were characterized by diversity in norms and

standards of behavior, rather than uniformity (recall that solidarity, or an internal consensus on norms

and values, is critical for social organization). Shaw and McKay found that in poor communities, youth

were exposed to a wide variety of contradictory (and sometimes unlawful) standards rather than to a

relatively consistent and conventional pattern of norms. It was also determined that in these

communities, children were exposed to adult criminals, from whom they could learn (illegal) behavior.

In essence then, alongside social ties and informal social control, neighborhood subculture constituted a

critical component of social disorganization theory, and helped to account for why crime rates were higher

in disorganized neighborhoods. Decades following Shaw and McKay, researchers continued to examine

how neighborhood subculture impacted crime and delinquency, as well as how it was itself impacted by

neighborhood conditions (e.g., Miller, 1958; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Kornhauser, 1978).

Unfortunately, for reasons that have been explicated elsewhere (see Sampson & Bean, 2006),

neighborhood subculture increasingly became irrelevant to the theory. Discussions regarding

neighborhood subculture’s impact became obsolete and empirical examinations of the theory did not

include measures reflecting local subculture.

Most recently, however, cultural explanations have been resurrected in neighborhood research, which

we argue is a positive development. Scholars are both theorizing culture’s potential impact on community

crime rates (Anderson, 1999; Fagan & Wilkinson, 1998; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Sampson & Bean, 2006)

as well as empirically examining just how culture and crime are associated in both organized and

disorganized communities (Berg et al., 2012; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998;

Stewart & Simons, 2006; Warner, 2003). Research on cultural effects is relatively new, so there is much

to be worked out with respect to the precise role that subculture occupies in social disorganization theory.

But scholars are beginning to sort out the issues and progress in occurring. Although we are unable to

review the important findings from this nascent but growing literature, what we can say here is that it is

becoming abundantly clear that, in the words of Kubrin & Weitzer (2003: 380), “cultural factors deserve

greater attention” and can no longer be ignored. As Shaw and McKay and other early theorists believed,

we cannot understand variations in crime rates across communities without also understanding the role

that neighborhood subcultures occupy in the calculus. Along with greater attention to the concepts of

12

collective efficacy, social capital, and social networks, future work must continue to specify subculture’s

critical role.

References

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street. New York: Norton.

Bellair, P.E. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor

networks. Criminology, 35, 677–703.

Berg, M.T., Stewart, E.A., Brunson, R.K., & Simons, R.L. (2012). Neighborhood cultural h eterogeneity and

adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 411–435.

Beyerlein, K., & Hipp, J.R. (2005). Social capital, too much of a good thing? American religious traditions

and community crime. Social Forces, 84, 995–1013.

Browning, C.R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization theory to partner

violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 833–850.

Browning, C.R. (2009). Illuminating the downside of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 52,

1556–1578.

Browning, C.R., Feinberg, S.L., & Dietz, R.D. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks,

collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83, 503–534.

Bursik, R.J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency – problems and prospects.

Criminology, 26, 519–551.

Byrne, J. & Sampson, R.J. (1986). Key Issues in the social ecology of crime. In J. Byrne & R. Sampson (Eds.),

The Social Ecology of Crime. New York: Springer‐Verlag. Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and

Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press.

Dekeseredy, W.S., Alvi, S., & Tomaszewski, A.E. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy and women’s

victimization in public housing. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 3, 5–27.

Elliott, D.S., Wilson, W.J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R.J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects of

neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

33, 389–426.

Fagan, J., & Wilkinson, D. (1998). Guns, youth violence, and social identity in inner cities. In M. Tonry & M.

Moore (Eds.), Crime and Justice, 24 (pp.105–188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Granovetter, M.S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

Hipp, J.R., Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (2010). Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of n eighborhood

context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology, 48, 947–979.

Kirk, D.S., & Papachristos, A.V. (2011). Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood

violence. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1190–1233.

Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13

Kubrin, C.E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, 40, 374–402.

Kubrin, C.E., Stucky, T.D., & Krohn, M.D. (2009). Researching Theories of Crime and Deviance. New York:

Oxford University Press. Lee, M.R. (2008). Civic community in the hinterland: Toward a theory of rural

social structure and violence. Criminology, 46, 447–478.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 1, 28–51.

Maimon, D., & Browning, C.R. (2010). Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior

among urban youth. Criminology, 48, 443–474.

Mazerolle, L., Wickes, R., & McBroom, J. (2010). Community variations in violence: The role of social ties

and collective efficacy in comparative context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 3–30.

Miller, W.B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu for gang delinquency. Journal of Social

Issues, 14, 5–19.

Park, R.E., & Burgess, E.W. (1984[1925, 1967]). The City: Suggestions for Investigation of Human Behavior

in the Urban Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pattillo, M.E. (1998). Managing crime in a black middle‐class neighborhood. Social Forces, 76, 747–774.

Peterson, R.D., Krivo, L.J., & Harris, M.A. (2000). Disadvantage and neighborhood violent crime: Do local

institutions matter? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 31–63.

Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. (2005). Assessing macro‐level predictors and theories of crime: A meta‐analysis.

In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 32 (pp. 373–450). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon

& Shuster.

Rosenfeld, R., Messner, S.F., & Baumer, E.P. (2001). Social capital and homicide. Social Forces, 80, 283–

309.

Sampson, R. J. (1987). Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption.

American Journal of Sociology, 93:348–382.

Sampson, R.J. (2006). Collective efficacy theory: Lessons learned and directions for future inquiry. In F.T.

Cullen, J.P. Wright, & K. Blevins (Eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (pp. 149–167).

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Sampson, R.J., & Bartusch, D.J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The

neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32, 777–804.

Sampson, R.J., & Bean, L. (2006). Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory of community‐

level racial inequality. Pp. 8‐36 In R.D. Peterson, L.J. Krivo, & J. Hagan (Eds.), The Many Colors of Crime:

Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America (pp. 8–36). New York: New York University Press.

14

Sampson, R.J., & Groves, W.B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization

theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.

Sampson, R.J., & Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at

disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603–651.

Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study

of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.

Shaw, C.R., & McKay, H. (1969 [1942]). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Stewart, E.A., & Simons, R.L. (2006). Structure and culture in African‐American adolescent violence: A

partial test of the code of the street thesis. Justice Quarterly, 23, 1–33.

Triplett, R.A., Gainey, R.R., & Sun, I.Y. (2003). Institutional strength, social control, and neighborhood

crime rates. Theoretical Criminology, 7, 439–467.

Venkatesh, S. (2000). American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press.

Venkatesh, S. (2006). Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor. Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Warner, B.D. (2003). The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory. Criminology, 41, 73–

97.

Warner, B.D., & Rountree, P.W. (1997). Local social ties in a community and crime model: Questioning the

systemic nature of informal social control. Social Problems, 44, 520–536.

Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago,

IL: The University of Chicago Press

GET THE COMPLETED ASSIGNMENT

ASSIGNMENT COMPLETED AT CapitalEssayWriting.com

MAKE YOUR ORDER AND GET THE COMPLETED ORDER

CLICK HERE TO ORDER THIS PAPER AT CapitalEssayWriting.com on

Linking Structural Characteristics to Crime in

Socially Disorganized Communities

NO PLAGIARISM, Get impressive Grades in Your Academic Work