Social disorganization theory attempts to explain why some communities have higher crime rates than others rather than focusing on a single individual’s propensity toward crime. Neighborhoods are considered as specific zones with characteristics that have a correlation with that zone’s crime rate. The policy of community unity is used in order to reduce crime and gain social order. Through involvement in institutions such as churches and community centers and the development of a genuine concern for its other member, a community can gain more social control and have a dramatic effect on crime rates.
Social disorganization theory is essentially based on the idea of mutual dependence, that no individual can function “correctly” alone and must depend on the family and community around him or her. It is deeply rooted in ecology. That is, the relationship between and organism and its environment. Communities are generally founded on the interdependence of those living there, institutions and local government. When this relationship is functioning properly, crime levels are minimal. If police forces, schools, churches, individual families, businesses and informal associations work with a concern for the wellbeing of all, communities successfully fulfill their purpose (Miller, 2006).
Because the successfulness of community unity may vary within a single city, it is necessary to divide any crime riddled area using the “concentric zone model” (Miller, 2006). In Chicago, where the social disorganization theory was developed, these divisions manifested in five zones. The innermost zone, Zone I, was the central business district. Primarily an industrial zone, Zone I is nearly uninhabitable with the sights, noises, and smells associated with industry. Zone II is called the transitional zone; apartments and homes are more prevalent, but residents still have to deal with the side effects of industry. Homes and streets are rundown and often in decay. High crime and established poverty are ingratiated into everyday life and the people there are often complacent in attempting to change the circumstances of their community. The transitional zone is the primary zone for the study of the disorganization theory (Miller, 2006).
The other three zones become progressively more desirable the farther they are from the inner city. Zone III is that of the working class who, though not wealthy, maintain their property better than those of the transitional zone. This is the zone in which those in the transitional zone imagine one day moving into. The fourth zone, the residential zone, is comprised of middle-class families and more established residents. On the outskirts of the city, in Zone V, reside those who commute into the city. Noise and pollution is minimal here and the land is still pristine (Miller, 2006).
The crime rate in Zone II is much greater than those of Zones III, IV, and V. The outer zones are also more organized that the transitional zone and have cleaner streets, more attractive housing, and less delinquents. Social organization is clearly to the benefit of all the members of the community, yet in the transitional zone it is almost nonexistent. Resident become reliant only on themselves and crime becomes an rooted part of the community. This disorganization is due to poverty, the transience inherent in poverty, and the racial and ethnic disparities that separate individuals (Miller, 2006).
Social cohesion is not priority of the poor. When one’s life revolves around the survival of the self, it is difficult for one to consider that the wellbeing of the surrounding community is of personal significance. The concentration of poverty also limits the capital available for community programs and institutions.
Those who live in these impoverished neighborhoods usually do not want to remain in these neighborhoods; leaving and moving to an outer zone is considered a goal in personal survival. It becomes difficult, then, for one to take interest in the maintenance and upkeep that would make such a neighborhood more desirable to live in and thus improve the standard of living. There becomes an apathy and complacency in the perception of crime. If it does not involve an individual, it is of little importance as the individual does not plan to remain there.
Though racial diversity is generally considered beneficial, it often creates cultural barriers that are difficult to overcome. Individuals of different ethnic backgrounds are often uncomfortable interacting with each other, fearing misunderstandings or prejudices. Problems of one group are not always the same problems of another. Thus, priorities frequently differ and there is a lack of unity between racial groups that is reflected in the community as a whole (Miller, 2006).
Various studies have tested the validity in the assumption that one‘s neighborhood can shape one‘s propensity toward crime if the right factors are in place. A study of the direct influence a neighborhood has on the youth supports the social disorganization theory. Cantillon stated that the sense of community is the most accurate measure of a cohesive and supportive neighborhood. The neighborhood can have either a positive of negative effect on how the youth turn out (2003).
An article on the patterns of rural and urban crime used the theory of social disorganization to measure and compare crime in rural areas to those that are urban. Using a national county-level data set, it was found that the ecological and structural factors used to analyze urban crime were less able to predict rural crime. There must then be two set of variables to consider, one for rural and one for urban (Wells, 2004).
The affects of crowding in neighborhoods, like that found in the transitional zone, are described in Levy’s study based on the city of Chicago. Variables were used that induced stress in different areas of the city. It was found that in the more crowded areas there were higher crime rates and divorces (1978).
An unorganized neighborhood tends to be more susceptible to violence. Wilsem hypothesized that victimization likely occurs in disorganized neighborhoods as well as neighborhoods where improvements are taking place. Different incomes, ethnicities, and the immigration of new residents are all factors. Using a victimization survey with 70,00 people in 2500 neighborhoods, the hypothesis is supported (2006).
Other studies have confirmed that poverty, transience, and ethnic heterogeneity are the primary causes of social disorganization. Haynie used the data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health with a sample size of 12, 747 to discover why juvenile crime consistently occurs in areas of economic depression. The results indicated that disadvantaged neighborhoods often expose adolescents to violent peers and influence behavior. Socioeconomic disadvantages affect adolescent violence indirectly by increasing opportunities for youth to become concerned in violent peer groups (2006).
A study of the homicide rates in different ethnic groups in Miami and San Diego from 1985-1995 attempted to validate the social disorganization theory’s assumptions about ethnic heterogeneity and transience. Both cities had witnessed large amount of immigration and it was proposed that the cities would have higher homicide rates. The frequent influx of population would have a tendency to make neighborhoods more disorganized (Nielsen, 2005).
One study purposed that poverty, geographic mobility, and ethnic heterogeneity directly disrupt the parenting process which is considered the impetus to adolescent transgressions. The study supports that lack of informal social control in a neighborhood is the cause of juvenile crime (Weatherburn, 2006). Joanna C. Jacob’s study on male and female youth crime in Canadian communities concluded that though the social disorganization theory is often only applied to male youths, the effects of poverty on community organization is more universal and generally valid (2006).
Though data and research support many aspects of the social disorganization theory, it is difficult to measure the specific levels of disorganization. Given its limitations, it should still be considered a worthwhile possibility when forming policies to curb crime in neighborhoods. There should be the promotion of community institutions and organizations that promote bonding between members. Churches and community centers are the primary institutions through which such bonds are created. When residents agree to watch out for one another and begin to better upkeep the community, it will be a more controlled environment with fewer chances for crime.
The Chicago Area Project is an example of a large scale program that was successful in giving social control of a community to its residents (Miller, 2006). Camps, athletic leagues, and recreation programs helped to form informal relationships between teenagers and prevented the association with violent peers. It created community role models out of law abiding citizens that were seen to have been able to deal with crime. However, there were mixed results with some neighborhoods showing a rise in crime and others a fall. This fact revealed that such programs must be constantly sustained by the members of a community. In many cases, financial support was reduced or withdrawn and programs were no longer successful. Those communities that were able to sustain such programs did, however, show lower levels of delinquency and crime (Miller, 2006).
The community leaders needed to keep organizational programs running are often among those desperate to leave the impoverished transitional zone. The drawbacks of the capitalist system that perpetuate poverty prevent the development of an area while still allowing the poor to remain and benefit from the development. The incarceration of the poor and minor criminals, often seen as a quick solution, is detrimental to developing community unity. Because social bonds are necessary in community organization, continually removing and returning member of a community prevent bonds from forming (Miller, 2006). Furthermore, incarceration may prevent some communities in fostering community control because they weaken family and community structures.
The policies that should be adapted to prevent crime, according to the social disorganization theory are rather straightforward. Community programs that promote social organization should be encouraged. This includes church programs, recreational centers, and informal activities that encourage community involvement. Residents should take an active role in maintaining such programs, even though poverty often makes it seem futile. In addition, government leaders should reconsider policies that increase the incarceration of minor criminals.
While crime is clearly connected to the factors of poverty, transience, and ethnic heterogeneity, it is difficult to measure the sense of community in any given neighborhood. Informal networks, community supervision, and the participation in organizations can often predict crime in a community. However, the challenge of disorganization is often cyclical. Communities are unable to become organized because they are too disorganized to implement the needed programs.
References
Cantillon, D., Davidson II, W.S., Shweitzer, J.H. (2003). Measuring community social organization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 321-339.
Haynie, D.L., Silver, E., Teasdale, B. (2006). Neighborhood characteristics, peer networks, and adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 147.
Jacob, J.C. (2006). Male and female youth crime in Canadian communities. The Canadian Geographer, 50, 487-502.
Levy, L., Herzog, A. (1978). Effects of crowding on health and social adaptation in the city of Chicago. Urban Ecology, 3, 327-354.
Miller, J.M., Shreck, C.J., Tewksbury, R. (2006). Criminological Theory. Boston: Pearson.
Nielsen, A.L., Lee, M.T., Martinez Jr., R. (2005). Integrating race, place and motive in social disorganization theory. Criminology, 43, 36.
Weatherburn, D., Lind, B. (2006). What mediates the macro-level of economic and social stress on crime. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39, 384.
Wells, L.E., Weisheit, R.A., (2004). Patterns of rural and urban crime. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 1-29.
Wilsem, J.H., Wittenbrood, K., De Graff, N.D. (2006). Socioeconomic dynamics of neighborhoods and the risk of crime victimization. Social Problems, 53, 226.