Social Disorganization Theory

Unlike most theories of crime that focus on the individual, social disorganization theory focuses on place and tries to explain why some communities experience high levels of crime while others do not. The theory attends to the ecologies or environments of communities in which social institutions succeed or fail in maintaining order in public places. Arguably, the success of a given neighborhood or community is based upon the effective collective use of skills, resources, focus, and energy to solve problems and enhance the quality of life in order to deter criminal activity. Social disorganization theory argues that because of failures in the skills and networking abilities of community organizations, whether they be educational, business, law enforcement, social services, health care, or religious organizations, a specific neighborhood or community can experience high crime rates through a breakdown in social order and a lack of compliance with social rules.

Keywords Broken Window Theory; Cartographic School; Chicago Area Project; Chicago School Sociology; Concentric Zone Theory; Cultural Transmission Theory; Ecology; Ecological Niche; Environmental Determinism; Collective Efficacy; Network Density; Social Capital; Social Disorganization; Social Integration; Social Networks

Social Disorganization Theory

Overview

Adolphe Quetelet

According to Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (1990), the basis of social disorganization theory emanates from the statistical work of Belgian sociologist Adolphe Quetelet in the early nineteenth century. Quetelet studied various urban geographical areas and determined that the crime rates in each area were stable over long periods of time regardless of the race, nationality, or national origin of an area's residents at a given point in time. Quetelet concluded from this data that there were features unique to each area or to the groups adapting to reside in an area that were responsible for the area's crime rate.

The Chicago School

Theorists in economics, geography, sociology, and criminology built upon Quetelet's work and used maps of geographical areas to show the spatial distribution of crime in a given area. This approach was known as the "Cartographic School," and it was popular with scholars at the University of Chicago during the first half of the twentieth century. William Isaac Thomas and Florian Znaniecki added to the theoretical framework around 1919 by arguing that people's beliefs and attitudes were shaped by their interactions with their "situation," or the environment, as well as their behavior. This acculturation process, they said, takes place on both an individual level and within a group as a whole.

Building on their colleagues' work, in 1925 Robert Ezra Park and Ernest W. Burgess adapted Darwinian evolutionary concepts to this Chicago School Sociology, as it had by then become known. They argued that urban environments mirrored natural ecosystems and that careful analysis would reveal distinctive ecological niches or zones throughout a city. "Ecology" is defined by the Encarta English Dictionary "as the study of the relationships between living organisms and their interactions with their natural or developed environment" (Soukhanov, 2004). Ecological studies of crime view "the physical structure of communities as shaping the routine activities of inhabitants in ways that affect the likelihood of crime" (Gottfredson, 1990, p. 82). Through the interplay of humans with their environment and its resources, the theory holds, the zones evolve into diverse, unique areas with the residents sharing similar social characteristics. This process can be said to mirror the evolutionary changes experienced by plants and animals as they adapt to varied ecological niches in a diverse landscape.

Park and Burgess used their cartographic research on the City of Chicago to argue that urban areas have five distinct zones of natural competition:

• The central business district,

• The transitional zone,

• The working-class zone (single family tenements),

• The residential zone (single family homes with yards and garages), and

• The commuter zone (suburbs).

Their theory, which they called "the concentric zone theory," held that as a city evolves through outward expansion, the more desirable and successful zones are those that avoid the intense concentration and competition for land and resources within the inner city. Zone Two, the transitional zone, is therefore arguably the most disadvantaged and thus evidences the highest rates of crime and delinquency. Park and Burgess described the transitional zone as being driven by industrial expansion; it serves as a residential entry point for immigrants and has a wide variety of cultural groups, high unemployment and welfare rates, low educational and occupational attainment levels, low real estate rental values, and social institutions with poor community organization abilities. Despite high rates of movement in and out of the zones, Park and Burgess argued that each zone retained its characteristics. Subsequent efforts to duplicate their findings in different countries have successfully linked high delinquency rates with areas of economic decline. Park's and Burgess's analysis of concentric zones, however, has proven to be flawed in cities where "the wealthy are often near the center of the city, while the poorer zones of the city are found near its fringes" (Wong, 2007, p. 3).

Shaw & McKay

In 1942, Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay became the most famous members of the Chicago School by trying to explain the spatial distributions of crime and delinquency set forth by their predecessors. In seeking a social causation of crime, Shaw and McKay focused on social institutions—educational, law enforcement, business, social services, healthcare, and religious entities—rather than on individual perpetrators and their social characteristics. Shaw and McKay argued that social institutions in Zone Two–type locales are too disadvantaged and disorganized to perform their major social function of training or socializing individuals to be law-abiding members of the community. Secondarily, they also fail to monitor the behavior of individuals in order to ensure lawful behavior. One major assumption of social disorganization theory, then, is that crime is caused by social factors or bad places rather than bad people. Another term for this perspective is "environmental determinism."

Within this context, social disorganization is defined as "the inability of local communities to realize common values of their residents or solve commonly experienced problems" (Shaw & McKay, 1942, qtd in O'Connor, 2006, ¶ 13). In an attempt to explain why these communities faced social disorganization to such a level that criminal traditions became embedded, three reasons were set forth:

• residential instability/mobility,

• racial/ethnic heterogeneity

• poverty.

Residential instability/mobility was defined as individuals having no commitment to their locale since they moved frequently and intended to leave the area as soon as possible. The mid-twentieth century "white flight," the migration of working- and middle-class Caucasian residents out of areas with growing numbers of African American residents, left the poorest members of these communities behind in an even more depressed environment. Racial, cultural, and language barriers were erected as a result of racial/ethnic heterogeneity to such an extent that residents isolated themselves from dissimilar community members in small pockets of minority areas. In consequence, they forfeited the meaningful interactions that might have led to solutions to overarching community problems such as crime. Finally, because of poverty due to a low tax base and restricted local resources, community members did not have the resources to solve their social problems, and residents continued to seek housing in less disorganized residential zones. Poverty itself does not cause crime, according to Shaw and McKay, but it does facilitate it due to a lack of the resources necessary to eradicate criminal behavior. Subsequent researchers have added family disruption and urbanization as additional factors to the theory.

One major feature of a socially disorganized zone was that it offered an explanation for how high crime and delinquency rates can cause further disruptions in a community due to the high levels of incarceration of its residents. Obviously, according to social disorganization theorists, a pattern of frequent, repeated incarceration adds to the residential instability factors in a given community and only worsens a community's social ills. Thus, a major policy implication of social disorganization theory is to find alternatives to incarceration and crime control. Expanded remedial educational programs, youth athletic leagues, community youth services and clubs, summer camps, youth employment services, recreation programs, and other types of social service and educational interventions are championed by social disorganization theorists to create the positive socialization opportunities for youth that the community is unable offer on its own.

Viewpoints

Strain Theory

Social disorganization theory concerns itself with the abilities of a community's social institutions to inculcate common values of lawfulness and to monitor compliance with those values. One major criticism of the theory focuses on its foundational premise "that people will commit criminal acts when the surrounding 'society' is unable to prevent them from doing so" (Gottfredson, 1990, p. 82). No empirical basis has been offered for this assumption, and several subsequent theorists have argued that the absence of social organization does not adequately account for crime and delinquency. Instead of social disorganization as impetus for crime, Robert Merton and other strain theorists argued that societal pressures and frustration drive crime and delinquency. Strain theory (also referred to as anomie theory) asserts that there is "a universal aspiration to accumulate material wealth," but because our society is stratified into various classes, those in the lower economic levels to not have an equal opportunity to realize the American dream (Gottfredson, 1990, p. 78). Under pressure to reach these culturally inculcated goals, some individuals adapt by turning to crime as a means of material gain. Merton argued further that since middle-class values conflict with engaging in criminal activities generally, individuals will experience higher levels of strain should they consider engaging in criminal conduct. Arguably, crime is higher in Zone Two–type areas because their residents do not have the same socialization or, in fact, because their cultural processes hold a different view of crime altogether and, as a result, they feel less strain against the "dominant" cultural value of behaving in a law-abiding manner. With subcultural values different from or even in opposition to the dominant norm of behaving in a law-abiding manner, Zone Two–type communities may even give law-breakers a high status within the community due to their material success. Interestingly, strain theory argues that individuals residing in socially disorganized zones are aware of the dominant culture's values toward material wealth but are frustrated in achieving the same ends. Social disorganization theorists, on the other hand, would say that the dominant culture's values have not been instilled and, therefore, are not an aspiration.

Cultural Transmission Theory

Elements of these arguments also can be found in cultural transmission theory, which has dominated discussions in criminal causation to this day. According to O'Connor (2006), this theory states that "traditions of delinquency are transmitted through successive generations of the same zone in the same way language, roles, and attitudes are transmitted" (Shaw & McKay, 1942 qtd. in O'Connor, 2006, ¶ 13). One can see from these arguments, and from the assertions of the social disorganization theorists, why there has been controversy and criticism over issues of class and criminality since the 1950s. Given their application to Zone Two–type areas with high immigrant populations experiencing high unemployment levels, charges of racial and ethnic bias were made as well. In fairness, Shaw and McKay argued that a high crime rate was not related to any given racial or ethnic population's presence in the community. Their original theory held that the crime rates of Zone Two–type areas were high regardless of the races or ethnicities of the areas' residents at a given time. Nevertheless, social disorganization theory became unpopular by the 1960s because of its subjective evaluations, negative terminology, and race/class bias.

Although social disorganization theory was meant to be a scientific explanation of crime and delinquency, in the public policy arena it has deteriorated into accusations that individuals residing in high crime areas are immoral. Evidence of this perspective is clear in recent debates over juvenile crime. In a 1995 article in the Conservative Weekly, public policy analyst John DiIulio coined the word "super-predator" to describe what he believed to be a new breed of juvenile criminal. Described as having no conscience and capable of killing at the slightest whim or provocation, super-predators, according to DuIlio, were the result of children being raised in "abject moral poverty… surrounded by deviant, delinquent, criminal adults in abusive, violence-ridden, fatherless, Godless, and jobless settings" (Satterthwaite, 1997, p. 20-21). While this rhetoric has gone a long way in heightening the public's fear of juvenile criminals, it has done little to address the social causes of crime or alleviate the hardship conditions in high crime areas.

Methodological Flaws

Another failing of social disorganization theory is that the methodology employed to establish the theory was based upon circular reasoning. Using crime and juvenile delinquency as an index of social disorganization, Shaw and McKay then argued that social disorganization caused crime and delinquency. Compounding this difficulty was an inability to measure social organization and disorganization within a given community. This challenge remains, and recent efforts focus on "levels of involvement across age-levels in activities coordinated by representatives of the communal institutions (e. g. family heads, pastors, school organizations, and local officials" (Jensen, 2003, p. 1). A community is deemed to be especially organized when it offers high levels of these types of activities. Another difficulty with the theory, however, is that even in communities with high rates of crime, social organization exists: it may simply be structured or operate in a way that does not fit into the methodological framework of social disorganization theorists.

Measuring Social Organization

One outgrowth of social disorganization theory has been the effort to find less pejorative terminology for describing community structure in criminality studies. By the late 1980s, these efforts made social disorganization theory again tremendously popular as a contextual explanation of crime and delinquency. Sampson (1997), for example, coined the words "collective efficacy" to assess a community's ability to control crime in public places. Within Sampson's analysis, in order for a community to be efficacious, "social capital" is needed within the community, meaning that there is significant interdependence, extensive informal networks, and strong social ties that allow community members to work together to achieve common goals of law enforcement. Robert D. Crutchfield, Michael R. Geerken, and Walter R. Gove (1982), among others, focused on "social integration" levels within communities, hypothesizing that high population turnover negatively affects a community's ability to be integrated enough to fight crime. Related theorists, including Rodney Stark and colleagues (1983) and Marvin D. Krohn (1986), suggested a focus on "social networks" and "network density." Their methodology of studying direct relationships between individuals within a community provided another tangible means of determining social organization levels. The scientific means to show the direct relationship between social ties and community control, however, are still undergoing development. The intent of all of these efforts is to go beyond the negative connotations of "social disorganization" and place the theoretical framework within more scientific and measurable contexts. Each of these contributions, however, can be traced back to social disorganization theory.

With the resurgence of interest in social disorganization theory, numerous studies have been undertaken that support the empirical framework. In 1980, James Q. Wilson undertook a study of delinquency in Birmingham, England, and concluded that when parents exercised "chaperonage" they significantly lowered the risk of their child becoming delinquent. Chaperonage was defined as parents keeping a close watch on their children and sheltering them from the negative aspects of neighborhood life. This was accomplished by escorting children to and from school and forbidding them to play with troublemakers. Similarly, a 1982 British Crime Survey by Robert Sampson and W. Byron Groves (1989) "became a criminological classic," according to Christopher T. Lowenkamp and his colleagues (2003, ¶ 1), who set out to replicate the study. Their 1994 analysis offered even greater support for social disorganization theory as a means of understanding criminal causation on a contextual basis. Given advances in statistical studies, economics, and urban policy analysis, Charles E. Kubrin and Ronald Witzer (2003) predicted that groundbreaking work can be expected on the relevance of social disorganization theory, including its application to non-urban areas. Kubrin's article should be required reading for anyone interested in testing this theoretical framework.

Social Control Theory

Because social disorganization theory emphasized the obligation of the community to train or socialize individuals and to then monitor individual behavior to ensure lawful action, it gained significant interest within "social control" theory circles. Social control theorists hypothesize that an individual can turn to crime when his or her connection to or identification with the dominant culture is ineffective. In fact, like their social disorganization counterparts, they believe that people find crime useful, profitable, and enjoyable unless they are influenced by larger societal values to forego these urges. Their ideal is to preserve values about lawful personal conduct. To do this, control theorists argue for interventions that control deviance and reorganize communities in order to advance and enhance traditional cultural values. Identification with these traditional values instills mechanisms of internal, individual control through a social bond that helps group well-being. In addition to policing mechanisms, external social control is exerted through enhanced involvement in community activities and by creating role models and peer pressure so that the individual will not want to disappoint the other members of the group. Many contemporary control theorists, like Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), also focus on the individual's lack of self-control over impulsive urges as a cause of crime and delinquency, but these perspectives move even further from the social disorganization theory's attention on community-level analysis.

Social Disorganization Theory & Immigrant Populations

Family breakdown was considered an important aspect of social disorganization until the 1930s, but interest in this variable waned until the 1980s, according to Wilson (1974). He argues that family dysfunction always was a compelling variable to explain criminal conduct, but that public policy advocates were convinced that other social institutions, like schools, religious organizations, and recreational groups, were the keys to solving social ills. Although the social disorganization theorists tried to be neutral toward the various immigrant populations within their zones of study, reliance on social institutions to develop American values in youth has had a long and hostile anti-immigrant history in social and educational policies since the early 1800s. Standardized educational settings with health education, showers, the Pledge of Allegiance, and numerous other socialization tasks were institutionalized in schools to inculcate American values and behaviors in immigrant youth. The American family may have lost its exclusive influence over child development, but an even greater concern has been that the foreign values and behaviors of immigrant families might alter our dominant culture's identity to an even greater degree. New insights into the motivations and beliefs of the social disorganization theorists might be gained by comparing their writings with those of educational theorists intent upon Americanizing immigrant youth since the early 1800s. At the very least, it would be interesting to know if the social disorganization theorists were aware of the strong anti-immigrant themes in American educational policies and how they contextualized those Americanization goals within their supposedly bias-free socialization processes that looked to schools as one mechanism of social cohesion for survival.

Conclusion

By weaving cartographic data on juvenile delinquency and crime with theoretical analysis, members of the Chicago School Sociology laid a framework that has dominated criminology discussions throughout the twentieth century. Beginning in the 1930s, these theories were put into practice by Shaw, McKay, and their colleagues with the advent of the Chicago Area Project (CAP). Project workers were recruited from the local community to help organize against crime and to provide advocates and role models who would assert larger social interests. Through increased recreational facilities and equipment, community cleanup endeavors, and juvenile justice advocacy linked with social service assistance, CAP efforts established models for community improvement that are still practiced today. O'Connor (2006) has argued that contemporary "public housing tenant councils; citizen task forces; citizen patrols; and neighborhood watch groups" come the closest to mirroring the CAP perspectives and activities (¶ 22). This interest in the role of community action remains a salient feature of criminology theory to date. A prominent example in the tradition of social disorganization theory is Wilson and Kelling's (1982) broken window theory. They argued that "abandoned buildings and automobiles, the accumulation of trash and litter, broken windows and lights, and graffiti or profanity (signs of crime or incivilities) all invite criminal behavior" (O'Connor, 2006, ¶ 23). Unfortunately, since such programs do not generate direct economic gain and they are not naturally self-sustaining, their failure rate is high unless they receive sustained financial support and augmented structural assistance.

Even with a brief introduction to social disorganization theory, it is easy to see the influence the theoretical framework has on our everyday lives in terms of using community organizations to steer youth into law-abiding behaviors. A bumper-sticker on a YMCA van, for example, states "Keep boys and girls in sports and out of courts." Like so many other aspects of our culture, we know the values and beliefs but not the underlying theoretical frameworks that both analyze our society and influence it.

Terms & Concepts

Acculturation: A change in the cultural behavior and thinking of a person or group of people through contact with another culture.

Collective Efficacy: The group's ability to accomplish a goal; more specifically, the ability of a community to maintain order in public places.

Delinquency: Antisocial or illegal acts caused by youth under the age of eighteen years.

Ecology: The study of the interactions between living organisms and their environments.

Environmental Determinism: The idea that all behavior, including human action, is caused by the surroundings of the acting subject.

Social Capital: The many informal, interdependent networks that help a community or individual function effectively and achieve its goals.

Subculture: An identifiably separate group within a larger culture, especially one regarded as existing outside of mainstream society.

Bibliography

Crutchfield, R., Geerken, M., & Gove, W. (1982). Crime rates and social integration. Criminology, 20, 3-4.

Fox, K. A., Rufino, K. A., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). Crime victimization among gang and nongang prison inmates: examining perceptions of social disorganization. Victims and Offenders, 7, 208–225. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=75125546

Gibbons, D., & Krohn, M. (1986). Delinquent behavior. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.

Jensen, G. (2003). Social disorganization theories. In R. Wright (Ed.), Encyclopedia of criminology. Boca Raton, FL: Fitzroy Dearborn.

Krohn, M. (2001). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 33, 81-93.

Kubrin, C. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Crime and Delinquency, 40( 4), 374-402.

Lowenkamp, C., Cullen, F., & Pratt, T. (2003). Replicating Sampson and Grove's test of social disorganization theory: Revisiting a criminological classic. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40 , 351-373.

O'Connor, T. (2006). Social disorganization theories of crime. MegaLinks in Criminal Justice . Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory10.htm

Rock, P., (2002). Sociological theories of crime. In M. Maguire, M. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology. (3rd ed., pp. 51 - 82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Regoeczi, W. C., & Jarvis, J. P. (2013). Beyond the social production of homicide rates: extending social disorganization theory to explain homicide case outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 30, 983–1014. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=91536795

Satterthwaite, M. (1997). Juvenile crime. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea House.

Sampson, R., & Gove, W. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94 , 774-802. Retrieved June 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15648658&site=ehost-live

Sampson, R., Raudenbusch, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 918-924.

Soukhanov, A. (Ed.). (2004). Ecology. Encarta Webster's dictionary of the English language . (2nd ed.). New York: Bloomsbury.

Stark, R., Bridges, W., Crutchfield, D., Doyle, D., & Finke, R. (1983). Crime and delinquency in the roaring twenties. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 20 , 4-23. Retrieved June 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5543290&site=ehost-live

Sutherland, E. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

Teasdale, B., Clark, L., & Hinkle, J. (2012). Subprime lending foreclosures, crime, and neighborhood disorganization: beyond internal dynamics. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 163–178. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=74666779

Warner, B. D., Beck, E., & Ohmer, M. L. (2010). Linking informal social control and restorative justice: moving social disorganization theory beyond community policing. Contemporary Justice Review, 13, 355–369. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=54452823

Warren, M., & Hindelang, M. (1979). Current explanations of offender behavior. In H. Toch (Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice (pp. 166 - 182). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=18&hid=13&sid=ae787b74-ddba-44ae-bcaf-ccb.

Wilson, J. (1975). Thinking about crime. New York, NY: Basic.

Wong, C. (2007). Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay: The social disorganization theory. Retrieved June 29, 2008, from: http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/66.

Suggested Reading

Benko, G., & Strohmayer, U. (Eds.), (1997). Space and social theory: Interpreting modernity and postmodernity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Calhoun, C. (Ed.), (1994). Social theory and the politics of identity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Edberg, M. (2007). Essentials of health behavior: Social and behavioral theory in public health. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Farganis, J., (2004). Readings from social theory: The classic tradition to post-modernism. (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kaylen, M. T., & Pridemore, W. A. (2013). The association between social disorganization and rural violence is sensitive to the measurement of the dependent variable. Criminal Justice Review, 38, 169–189. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87519805

Kivisto, P. (Ed.), (2007). Social theory: Roots and branches: Readings. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford UP.

Lilly, J., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2007). Criminology theory: Context and consequences. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ritzer, G. (Ed.), (2007). Classical sociological theory. (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. (2007). Sociological theory. (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Stinchombe, A. (1987). Constructing social theories. Chicago, IL: U. of Chicago Press.