Peer review

Criminal behavior is often thought of as the result of an individual, whether it be because of their psychological traits, negative reactions to strain, etc. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (Shaw & McKay, 1942) suggested a new type of theory, one that asserts locations as the culprits to crime production. Their goal was to answer both the question why crime is higher in certain neighborhoods and what is it about those neighborhoods themselves that encourages crime. Social Disorganization Theory examines the social norms and activities between organized and disorganized communities and how they affect crime rates. Comment by King, Charles E CIV USA MEDCOM BAMC: This sentence appears to be written in the passive voice. Consider writing in the active voice. Comment by King, Charles E CIV USA MEDCOM BAMC: Change to encourage

The concept of social disorganization is defined as the collective characteristics of a neighborhood that cause delinquency (Akers & Sellers, 2013). These characteristics are not necessarily negative aspects, such as ethnic heterogeneity. The disparity in race and ethnicity among the community has negative effects on collective efficacy, a concept later discussed, which in turn leads estrangement among neighbors. B. Moon explained social disorganization as the inability of a community to realize the common values of its residents and maintain effective controls (personal communication, October 10, 2018). This results in communities of disadvantaged natures and disorder. When applied criminologically, the disorganization creates a perfect environment for deviance. Social disorganization as a theory incorporates multiple factors that can affect the order of a community. These include collective efficacy, social capital, the concentric zone model, and any informal social controls that can possibly affect the neighborhood (Akers & Sellers, 2013).

Collective efficacy was a concept created by Robert Sampson which explains why some areas of a city suffer from more crime than others (Sampson et. al., 1997). Sampson explains collective efficacy as the willingness to act on the neighborhood’s benefit based on the relationships between neighbors. The time and effort to develop these relationships determine the levels of social controls in a neighborhood (Sampson et. al., 1997). The characteristics of a socially organized community contribute to the lack of disorder. As previously mentioned, these characteristics are extensive but can be grouped into three categories (B. Moon, personal communication, October 10, 2018). The first, solidarity, is the internal consensus on important norms and values. The second, cohesion, involves the strong bond among neighbors. Lastly, integration, is the social interactions among neighbors (B. Moon, personal communication, October 10, 2018). Comment by King, Charles E CIV USA MEDCOM BAMC: The comma may be separating the subject and verb in your sentence. Consider removing it.

Shaw and McKay drew their conclusions from Robert Park and Ernest Burgess’ work (Park & Burgess, 1925) on the concentric zone theory. Park and Burgess’ theory regarded expansion as a process with different stages or zones in any given city. Beginning with the central business district, following with the zone in transition, zone of workingmen’s homes, residential zone, and finally, the commuters’ zone (Park & Burgess, 1925). Specifically looking at Chicago, the two ecologists determined that certain zones were areas of deterioration. Most signs of disorder can be found in zones one, the central business district, and two, the transition zone. Shaw and McKay found correlations between the levels of disorder in each area and crime rates (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Comment by King, Charles E CIV USA MEDCOM BAMC: The noun phrase zone seems to be missing a determiner before it. Consider adding an article. the zone or a zone

Social Disorganization Theory has been criticized for the vague and somewhat unclear definitions applied to the word organization. So many factors can contribute to the meaning that sometimes it can be difficult to apply the theory to crime. Is it plausible for physical, economical, and population characteristics to be the only objective measures of disorganization? Most data collections fail to account for some of the attributes of disorder which makes it difficult to test the theory. With the introduction of the concept of social capital (Sampson & Groves, 1989), measurement has been improved and studies have been able to find strong correlations and support. This essay will attempt to complete a full, in-depth analysis of Social Disorganization Theory. I will include a brief origin and history of the theory, a thorough inquiry of the key concepts and propositions, a comprehensive literature review, empirical findings of studies, and policy implications of the theory. Comment by King, Charles E CIV USA MEDCOM BAMC: Change to economic

Key Concepts and Propositions

As previously mentioned, Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess were ecologists, individuals who study the relationship between organisms and their environment. They expanded ecology, which is usually used in an animal perspective, to include humanity (Park & Burgess, 1925). An animal is limited to its surrounding environment based on its’ proximity, the human being, however, is not. Humanity has traveled vast distances throughout their existence and with the help of technology, has also become able to change and manipulate the environment presented to them to fit their needs. Park and Burgess’ book, “The City” (Park & Burgess, 1925) was an introduction to how scholars could investigate the behavior of humans in the new urban environments of the 20th century. Here, they explored the development of communities, the reactions that followed from humanity, and the relationship between the two. It was here, that the concept of the concentric zone model was first introduced.

Burgess regards the concentric zone model as the procedural expansion of a city (Park & Burgess, 1925). There are five zones created through the growth. The first zone, or the central business district, is the center of a city where there is the most activity (Kubrin et. al., 2009). Here, public transportation converges, large amounts of business is conducted, where few people reside. The second zone, or the Transitional Zone, consists of physical decay, broken families, and cheap housing where immigrants could stay while they adapted to their new environment. After having found a decent job and better pay, these immigrants would move away to a further zone with higher levels of social controls. This zone is referred to as the Workingmen’s Homes, where the population had improved in stability and mainly consisted of blue-collar workers. This zone is seen as a median between all others, the zone where everything is average. The last zones, four and five, are the Residential and Commuter zones. They are often grouped together due to their similarities. Inhabitants of these zones are usually middle- to upper middle-class white families with high levels of social control. There is minimal crime, disorder, and decay in these areas (Kubrin et. al., 2009). As the city continues growing, deterioration and disorder follow, originating from the core of a city. The knowledge researched in Park and Burgess’ “The City” was relevant to the sociology discipline, but its’ adaption to criminology would not be considered until 1969 with Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay’s study of delinquency in association with different areas of a city (Shaw & McKay, 1942). This study will be analyzed in depth as it is the first to propose Social Disorganization Theory. Comment by King, Charles E CIV USA MEDCOM BAMC: It appears that upper middle-class is missing a hyphen. (upper-middle-class)

Shaw and McKay began their analysis of Social Disorganization theory in the city of Chicago. Now the third largest city in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), Chicago still experiences the effects of social disorganization. In the 1930’s, the city experienced a population boom that took its toll and began to deteriorate under the strain (Shaw & McKay, 1942). City expansion is a process starting in the center and spreading outward. The industrialization and increased in population, drive residents further to the edges of the central business district (Shaw & McKay, 1942).

Shaw and McKay operationalized social disorganization as the differences between communities specifically those linked to social control (Shaw & McKay, 1942). To conduct their study, Shaw & McKay selected multiple measures categorized into three groups of social disorganization in Chicago (Shaw & McKay, 1942). The first grouping, physical status, finds the population differences in communities. This category found a relationship between population increase/decrease and delinquency. The researchers concluded there could be no direct causation of the two but did find a possible explanation. The second category analyzes the economic status in areas of high delinquency compared to those with lower levels. This is measured two ways, through families on relief and rental and homeownership amount. The final category examines the demographics of delinquents in any area. This measurement is operationalized as the percentage of foreign-born and African-American families.

For the first category, Shaw and McKay (Shaw & McKay, 1942) found that population decreases usually follow an influx of industry and development which can result in a conducive environment for delinquency. Furthermore, they were able determine those who were reliant on government aid, in the lowest rental class, and have lower levels of homeownership, were more likely to have high levels of delinquency. Finally, through the last measurement, they discovered the areas in which foreign-born and African-American families congregated were also areas in which delinquency thrived.

In addition to the previously listed measures of social disorganization, social values and organization in communities also play a part in delinquent behavior. Heterogeneity has long been a divider in the country, its’ effect on delinquency as no exception. Differential values in a community have been correlated with delinquent behavior. (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Areas with wealthier families and less delinquency were found to have similar values among its’ residents. The similarities and willingness to participate in organizations and institutions such as churches, social clubs, and school clubs, reinforces the conventional values of the community as a whole (Shaw & McKay, 1942).

Adversely, the city locations in which the lower class is concentrated are more likely to have conflicting values due to the population heterogeneity. This finding correlates with the previously mentioned fact that lower income neighborhoods were found to mainly be foreign-born and African-American families. Different cultures are bound to exhibit differing beliefs and expectations. The contrast in norms and values leads to internal conflicts in individuals growing up in the area (Shaw & McKay, 1942). According to Shaw and McKay, the ultimate result of the disparities in cultures is delinquency (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Their conclusion is based on the notion that when young boys are presented with the consistency and acceptance of criminals will find solace in the group and engage in delinquency themselves (Shaw & McKay, 1942). The relationship the young boy discovers can become so powerful, it renders the familial connection ineffective.

Shaw and McKay’s findings began a multitude of new research to inquire about the legitimacy of Social Disorganization Theory. The concept of delinquency as a product of its’ location had never been considered in the criminology field. Shaw and McKay’s findings opened a new possible cause of delinquency and potential changes that could be made to reduce crime, on of the goals of this field.

Empirical Findings

One of the main research projects conducted shortly after Shaw and McKay’s proposition are the Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Problems and Prospects by R. J. Bursik (Bursik, 1988). Bursik broke down his research into two parts. First, he thoroughly discusses the criticisms of Social Disorganization theory and offers solutions to them. The second portion of his article provides extensions of social disorganization in research articles that show strong support for the theory (Bursik, 1988). Bursik briefly mentions the format of Social Disorganization theory was still under scrutinization and not perfected as of 1988, therefore not yet a set-in stone theory of crime. The following year, 1989, sociologists Robert Sampson and Byron Groves conducted the first direct test of Shaw and McKay’s proposed Social Disorganization theory (Sampson & Groves, 1989).

Sampson and Groves stated that Shaw and McKay’s theory had yet to be fully tested because of the little expansion on their original theory, mostly due to the lack of specific data needed to measure community relations. A second proposed problem is the over-dependence on official data. Issues with this form of data collection comes from its neglect to incorporate the dark figure of crime. Sampson and Groves goal is to overcome the obstacles and criticisms of previous research and create a true test of Social Disorganization Theory.

Following Shaw and McKay’s systemic model of measuring social disorganization, Sampson and Groves took advantage of the British Crime Survey which measures community relations. This new evaluation allowed for a more thorough examination of Social Disorganization theory. In addition to measuring social capital, the interpersonal relationships between neighbors, the researchers measured exogenous factors including, socioeconomic status, heterogeneity, and family disruption (Sampson & Groves, 1989). The overwhelming support found by Sampson and Groves reestablished Social Disorganization Theory as a relevant explanation for crime. In their concluding remarks, they express their desire for future research to become more precise in their measurements.

Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls introduced the concept of collective efficacy as a way to group measurements together. They proposed that if the interactions between neighbors were positive, it would reinforce the neighborhood’s goal of eliminating crime (Sampson et. al., 1997). This measurement is considered in future research and collected in several ways (Weisburd et. al., 2014; Barton et. al., 2010; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Rose & Clear, 1998; Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2013; Markowitz et. al., 2001; Silver, 2000; Bellair & Browning, 2010; Kingston et. al., 2009; Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011).

Social Disorganization Theory has three overall propositions that must be followed while conducting tests (B. Moon, personal communication, October 10, 2018). The basic understanding of the theory is the characteristics of the neighborhood determine the levels of social organization or disorganization. These facts will then in turn affect the levels of crime in the area. The second proposition states that while crime is the consequence of a human beings’ actions, the concept of social disorganization is solely a descriptor of communities, not individuals. Lastly, those communities in which positive social ties, informal social controls, and collective efficacy are strong will have lower levels of crime and vice versa for communities with weak measures of social organization. These propositions are key and important to keep in mind when testing Social Disorganization Theory (Shaw & McKay, 1942).

Multiple research projects have been conducted since the introduction of the Shaw & McKay’s original suggestion of Social Disorganization Theory. These studies, when properly tested, have been overall supportive (Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011; Markowitz et. al., 2001; Silver, 2000; Kawachi et. al., 1999; Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2013; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Osgood & Chambers, 2000), especially since the introduction of using social capital as a mediating factor to link characteristics of communities to crime (Sampson & Groves, 1989). Research that finds positive results supporting Social Disorganization Theory do their best to measure disorder with data sets already present and available, such as official records (Silver, 2000). These articles should be evaluated carefully to determine their weight. Not utilizing the theory as Shaw and McKay intended could lead to incorrect assumptions (Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011).

Normally, tests of social disorganization are conducted in cities, where crime is most likely to occur. Certain tests have attempted to expand the theory to explain criminal activity in locations other than metropolitan areas (Petee & Kowalski, 1993, Barton et. al., 2010). The results from these studies showed little to no support for Social Disorganization Theory. Barton and colleagues found some effect of social structure of a college campus on crime, but limited amounts. They briefly mentioned the need for better operationalization of social disorganization and structure (Barton et. al., 2010). With no consideration of non-cities, the applicability of the theory is limited. This constraint significantly hinders its ability to be generalized to crime in all types of places.

Previously mentioned, some studies either found limitations in their definitions of social disorganization and related concepts (Barton et. al., 2010; Rose & Clear, 1998) or did not measure all forms of disorganization proposed by Shaw and McKay (Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011; Freisthler, 2004; Silver, 2000). Being able to measure all forms of social disorganization has been an issue since its proposition in 1942 (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Even with the introduction of collective efficacy, not all available data sets included the appropriate measures. Conceivably, this is due to the relatively new concept of measuring neighborhoods and their attributes rather than those of individual people. This limitation is further mentioned later in this essay.

Multiple studies, including the ones that are supportive, have shown their share of limitations. Cross-sectional data sets are a cheaper and more accessible alternative to longitudinal data, though not as reliable. Multiple studies examining the effectiveness of Social Disorganization Theory use cross-sectional data to conduct their research (Friesthler, 2004; Kingston et. al., 2009; Kawachi et. al., 1999; Silver, 2000; Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2013; Rose & Clear, 1998; Petee & Kowalski, 1993; Weisburd, 2014). Although useful in setting a foundation for the theory itself, its’ generalizability is diminished. Though more research is required using longitudinal data, that which has already been conducted shows great promise (Markowitz et. al., 2001). The cross-sectional studies already conducted must be regarded as carefully and with critique as the assumptions made may have been inappropriate (Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011).

Studies also mentioned the need for an expansion of neighborhood measurements (Silver, 2000). Data sets including characteristics of neighborhoods are rare or collected from small datasets. These data sets are difficult to develop due to their evaluation of a physical location, which cannot be questioned. Examining neighborhood characteristics is difficult to isolate as location specific, therefore many research articles opt to incorporate characteristics of residents to determine the areas organization level (Silver, 2000). Markowitz and colleagues conducted research on their extension of Social Disorganization Theory using neighborhood level data (Markowitz et. al., 2001). Their results found strong correlations between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Steenbeek and Hipp also found similar supportive results from their longitudinal neighborhood level data source (Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011). Not only were they able to conduct their research over time to analyze changes in neighborhoods, but also uncover even more reliable data through their separation of social control.

III. Policy Implications

The most recognized community project created from the result of Social Disorganization Theory is the Chicago Area Projects. The goal of the program was to decrease disorder and disorganization in neighborhoods with high levels of criminal and delinquent activity and families of low socioeconomic status (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Significant efforts were made not only with negative physical aspects but social ones as well. Adults free of criminal engagement were critical in supporting the improvement of the youth in their communities. Creation of sport teams, recreational programs, and other activities for local youth needed the assistance of a willing and supportive adult. Overall, studies determined mixed success from the project. The project was not managed very well, as exhibited by the varying results found in each of the neighborhoods included in the study. The Chicago Area Projects could not be determined the cause of declines in crime due to this variation. Again, improvement on social disorganization measurements must take place before including them in community programs.

Similar to the Chicago Area Projects, Neighborhood Watch programs further facilitate the relationships among community residents (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Initially thought to be a form of deterrence to potential criminals in an area, Neighborhood Watch programs have little success in catching criminals in the act. Although not the original intention of Neighborhood Watch, it has significantly improved the cohesion among residents, solidifying the relationships between them. In addition, community policing can be theoretically thought of practice of social disorganization theory. By promoting improved relationships among individuals in a community and those patrolling them, crime can be expected to decrease. These findings can be correlated to the propositions of Social Disorganization Theory.

Current research has called for changes in multiple policies. Rose and Clear find the constant construction of prisons detrimental to the organization of communities (Rose & Clear, 1998). They suggested the current studies testing social disorganization needed improvement. They claim the spike in imprisonment should result in higher levels of social control. When keeping Social Disorganization Theory in mind, the removal of criminals would logically indicate an improvement in neighborhood social controls. Rose and Clear’s results do not reflect such an assumption. They report something entirely different, suggesting the removal of males from the community adds to the disorder and disorganization (Rose & Clear, 1998). They claim the reason for this is because without someone earning income, mechanisms of social disorganization may begin to flourish. Families may be forced to move, inciting residential mobility and unfamiliarity with one’s neighbors. Not only that, but prisons as a solution to crime only facilitates the negative neighborhood characteristics (Rose & Clear, 1998). The continuance of incarceration as a punishment is one of the social conditions that causes crime.

Kawachi and colleagues observed the root causes of social disorganization and suggested improving them (Kawachi et. al., 1999). Efforts should be made in improving housing in disorganized areas, as well as improving public health among the whole population. Betterment of foundational society would affect its organization and in turn, criminal activity in the area. Most of the measures indicating relative deprivation were correlated with areas with high levels of violent crime (Kawachi et. al., 1999). Increased percentages of unemployment, high school drop-outs, and overall poverty were also correlated with low levels of social capital. The environment’s disorder leads to a lack of collective efficacy which then in turn increases criminal activity among neighborhoods.

IV. Conclusion

Social Disorganization Theory is a relatively new explanation of crime. Originally a theory of ecology created by Robert Park and Ernest Burgess in 1925, social disorganization was measured through their concentric zone model. This model asserted certain zones were areas in which disorder occurred. This theory was limited and initially dismissed by other criminologists, until Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay reconsidered its’ effectiveness in explaining crime as a result of location characteristics. They defined their theory with three main propositions. Firstly, neighborhood attributes influenced levels of social organization, or lack of, which then affects crime levels. Second, the theory should only be applied to locations, not individuals as most criminological theories do. Lastly, areas in which social disorganization is abundant, crime levels will be higher.

Concepts included in Shaw and McKay’s theory incorporates the term included in its’ title; social disorganization. This concept relates to the disorder and failure to maintain effective social controls in an area. Measurement of this concept has received criticism and has been listed as a limitation in numerous studies attempting to provide support for the theory. A helpful way in categorizing a socially organized community is to examine the levels social capital. To break the concept down even further, social capital is defined as the solidarity, cohesion, and integration of a neighborhood.

Research that has been conducted up to this point in time show overall support for social disorganization. Studies have ranged from integrating certain populations, such as the mentally ill (Silver, 2000), to examining the effects imprisonment on the organization levels of communities (Rose & Clear, 1998). More thorough research supporting the original framework is necessary to find legitimate support the theory.

References

Akers, R., & Sellers, C. (2013). Social Disorganization Theory: Social Structure, Communities, and Crime. In Criminological theories: introduction, evaluation, and application (Sixth edition.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Barton, M., Jensen, B., & Kaufman, J. (2010). Social disorganization theory and the college campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.02.010