Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Disorganization Theory :silhouettes:, Concentric Zone Model applied…
Social Disorganization Theory
:silhouettes:
The Chicago School (1920)
Robert Park and Ernest Burgees (1925)
:star:
In the 1920s, Park and Burgees were among the first to argue that
crime stemmed from the social disorganization of the city
(Park et al. 1925)
Burgess concludes that areas with higher mobility will also have higher social disorganization (Stoltz, 2015)
Burgess notes that one
"cause" social disorganization
(of which he considers "disease, crime, disorder, vice, insanity, and suicide" to be rough indexes), is
demographic deviations from a presumed "natural" equilibrium.
"any form of
change
that brings any measurable alteration in the routine of social life tends to break up habits; and in breaking up the habits upon which the existing social organization rests, destroys that organization itself" (Park[1925] 1974: 107)
Urban Expansion:
Expands radially from some epicenter of economic activity.
Concentric Zone Model
ZONE 3: Working Class Homes
Single Family Tenements
ZONE 4: Residential Zone
Single Family Homes
Yards/ Garages
ZONE 2: Transitional Zone
:
Deteriorated Housing
Factories
Abandoned Buildings
ZONE 5: Commuter Zone
Suburbs
ZONE 1: Central Business District
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay(1942)
:star:
Extended Park's emphasis on
DELINQUENCY
Shaw and McKay, Plotted the
distribution of residence of juvenile delinquents
in the city of
Chicago
They focused on how the
structural characteristics of a community impact the occurrence of delinquency
within neighborhood boundaries. (Rhineberger, 2003)
Community influences
are important for the etiology of delinquency
For Shaw and McKay, social disorganization leads to increased delinquency rates by way of a delicate process of
spiraling community deterioration.
(Rhineberger, 2003)
Delinquency occurs as a result of a community's social disorganization (Park, 1925)
Assessed the patterns in the context of Park and Burgees'
Concentric Zone Model
ZONE 2: "ZONE OF TRANSITION"
Located adjacent to the zone 1, the central business district
The zone of transition was concentrated with disadvantaged neighborhoods in-or adjacent to-areas of industry or commerce.
Found distribution around the city that fit a systematic pattern
Crime
They found that the zone of transition had the
highest number of delinquents
compared to the zones further from the city. (Wicks, 2017)
Shaw and McKay links crime rates to
neighborhood ecological characteristics
3 more items...
According to Shaw and McKay,
industry and commerce enroaches on residents
in zone 2
Deteriorated, undesirable housing
1 more item...
Buildings were dilapidated, there were few recreational areas, and
there was virtually no organizational life
in the zone of transition
Community Context:
Delinquents
2 more items...
Residents were unable to develop important social relationships necessary for the informal regulation of crime and disorder
Shaw and McKay's focus was on explaining how structural and demographic characteristics impacted crime and delinquency rates at the neighborhood level.
(Rhineberger, 2003)
Used the
concentric city zones
to guide their investigation into the spatial distribution of delinquency across Chicago neighborhoods. (Wicks, 2017)
Shaw and McKay’s theory suggests that
social disorganization decreases a community’s ability to regulate itself through informal social controls.
(Rhineberger, 2003)
Concentric Zone Theory
Succession
is the term Park and Burgees called when people and businesses
moved outward from the city center.
City is like a target - as the center grows, it pushes the other zones out by invasion, domination, and succession (Dr. Behl, 2020)
Competition for space
Competition for land and resources
led to spatial differentiation of urban space into zones
Deterioration nearly in the city center
Park and Burgees predicted that cities would take the form of five concentric rings with
areas of social and physical deterioration concentrated near the city
center and more prosperous areas located near the city’s edge (Brown, 2002)
Park and Burgees suggests that the struggle for scarce urban resources, especially land, led to
competition between groups
and ultimately to the
division of the urban space into distinctive ecological niches
(Brown, 2002)
Examined the characteristics of Chicago neighborhoods
Definition:
Defined as the inability of community members to achieve shared values to solve jointly experienced problems. (Bursik, 1988)
Social disorganization theory has played a central role in illuminating the neighborhood structures and processes that influence crime and disorder. (Wicks, 2017)
Robert Sampson and W. Byron Groves (1989)
:star:
Extended and tested Shaw and McKay's (1942) social disorganization theory
Sampson and his colleagues focused their research on
active engagement
and
collective efficacy
of communities (Sampson et al. 1999)
From presence of social ties to the process of
activating or converting social ties into the desired outcome of the collective
Sampson et al.
"Collective efficacy of crime"
To test their postulation, Sampson et al. studied
violence in 343 Chicago neighborhoods
Samspon et al. (1997) revealed that
concentrated disadvantage, residential instability and immigrant concentration
explained significant proportion of the variability in collective efficacy across 343 neighborhoods. (Wicks, 2017)
Sampson and Groves (1989) hypothesized that in communities where friendship
networks are small or non-existent, and where participation is low
,
victimization and delinquency rates are likely to be high.
(Rhineberger 2003)
Sampson and Groves (1989) constructed three separate
measures of victimization
(Rhineberger 2003)
Stranger violence (rape and assault)
Total victimization
Mugging and street robbery
Mugging and street robbery variable was based on the respondents' perception of how prevalent these two crimes were in their community area. (Rhineberger 2003)
Sampson and Groves (1989) overcame one important criticism
By constructing all three measures of victimization from
self-report data
on criminal offending and victimization rather than relying on official crime statistics
Sampson and Groves (1989) began by testing their independent effects of the
exogenous variables
on the
intervening variables
Intervening variables
Community's ability to supervise youth groups
:
Systemic theory of community attachment
:
Exogenous variables
Ethnic heterogeneity
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic status having the strongest effect as well as having being the only variable having a negative effect (Rhineberger 2003)
Sampson and Groves (1989) found that "80% of the total SES on mugging and street robber is mediated by the indicator of unsupervised teenage youth" (Rhineberger 2003)
Family disruption
Urbanization
Urbanization had a smaller, negative impact on local friendship ties (Rhineberger 2003)
They found that all exogenous variables were significantly related to unsupervised peer groups(Rhineberger 2003)
Sampson and Groves found that, as expected, both
residential stability and urbanization
affected local friendship ties
(Rhineberger 2003)
Conclusion to their study
Concluded that:
"Communities characterized by sparse friendship networks, unsupervised teenage peer groups, and low organizational participation had disproportionately high rates of crime and delinquency. Moreover, variations in these dimensions of community social disorganization were shown to mediate in large parts of the effects of the community structural characteristics."
Sampson and Groves (1989: p 799) (Rhineberger, 2003)
Their model included the original social disorganization variables
Residential stability
Ethnic heterogeneity
Effective communication is less likely due to the
differences in customs
and lack of shared experiences breed fear.
Socio-economic status
Sampson's model included additional indicators
Family disorganization
Argued that
unshared parenting strains
parents' resources of time which interferes with their ability to supervise their children and communicate with other adults in the neighborhood
Relative deprivation
Sampson and Groves (1989), hypothesized that
informal local friendship networks and residents' formal participation
in local voluntary organizations, committees, clubs, and other activities
are indicators of a community's social organization
(Rhineberger 2003)
"Collective Efficacy"
Term originally coined by
Albert Bandura
(1995, 1997, 2001)
Based upon an agenetic perspective that
views individuals as the producers of their experiences
and the architects of their lives (Wicks, 2017)
"A group's shared belief in it's conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given levels of attainment".(Bandura 1997, p 477)
As a component of his
social cognitive theory
What is Collective Efficacy?
Perceived ability of neighborhood residents to activate
informal social control
Cohesive communities develop mutual trust and shared responsibilities
Collective efficacy is not merely the sum of individual attributes, but represents the
emergent properties of a group that are central to group-level performance
(Wicks, 2017)
it represents the extent to which neighborhoods could mobilize resources effectively and remedy problems facing the collective (Wicks, 2017)
Work together to maintain order
The collective effort to know each other, working together at the community level
Sampson et al. (1997:918) define collective efficacy as "social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good"
Sampson and Raudenbush (1999:603) further extended the definition of collective efficacy to include
"Shared expectations for social control of public spaces".
attachment to one's neighborhood
collective responsibility
The measurement of collective efficacy is utilized
econometric
rather than psychometric indicators (Wicks, 2017)
Econometric Measures
Individual's perceptions of a collective attribute (Raudenbush and Sampson, 1999)
Psychometric Measures
individual's perception of an individual attribute (Raudenbush and Sampson, 1999
The higher the collective efficacy, the lower the crime rate
Sampson and Groves (1989) found the most
important intervening process
associated with lower crime was
the ability of the community to exercise control over adolescent peer groups.
(Wicks, 2017)
Crime was lower in neighborhoods where residents could successfully deter unwanted teenage behavior
The existence of locally based friendship groups was also associated with lower crime (Sampson and Groves 1989)
Mid-1990s a
contemporary reformulation of social disorganization
theory of Robert Sampson and Byron Groves
Focused on
neighborhood effects
and the
differential spatial distribution of crime and disorder
(Sampson et al. 1997)
Neighborhood ties
when neighbors mutually trust one another, this is a form of collective efficacy
Sampson and his colleagues conclude that the efficacious nature of the neighborhood served as the buffer between social disorganization and violent crime (Sampson et al. 1997)
Neighborhood characteristics, social processes and violence (Wicks, 2017)
Prior Violence
Organizational/Institutional Factors
2 more items...
expectations for
informal social control
and crime
"Resources or networks alone are neutral - they may or may not be effective mechanisms for achieving an intended effect, instead,
shared expectations and mutual engagement
may better explain the differential ability of neighborhoods
to react to specific issues facing the collective
" (Sampson et al. 1999 p 635)
BURSIK AND GRAMSICK (1933)
Bursik and Gramsick's Systemic model (Rhineberger, 2003)
Socioeconomic Status
Residential Stability
Primary Networks
External Solicitation
Exercise Public Contriol
Crime Rate
Exercise Private Control
Effective Socialization
Racial/Ethnic Heterogeneity
Secondary Networks
Exercise Parochial Control
They emphasized the effect of
formal
and
informal networks
of control and delinquency at the neighborhood level(Wicks, 2017)
They integrated Albert Hunter (1985) typology of informal social control
Communities could achieve social order and reductions in crime by enacting private, parochial and public control.
Parochial Control
Related to broader interpersonal networks within the community or “relationships among neighbors who do not have the same sentimental attachment” (Bursik and Grasmick 1993, p.17)
formal institutions and relationships, from neighbors to local institutions
Schools, stores, local organizations
Public Control
Public level of control is grounded outside of the neighborhood
the ability to obtain essential services from external sources, centered on loose connections both exogenous and endogenous to the community
Relationships residents and/or neighborhood organizations have with local law enforcement agencies, local financial and housing agencies, and various municipal agencies (Bursik and Grasmick 1993)
Private Control
“intimate informal primary groups that exist in the area”
Referred to the role of intimate kith and kin groups in deterring unwanted behavior and lessening the effects of ostracism and deprivation.
family members, friends, peer groups
Focused on
networks among individuals
within neighborhoods. (Wicks, 2017)
Bursik and Gramsick (1993) argue that Shaw and McKay also ignored individuals and their networks with each other and with local neighborhood institutions
(Wicks, 2017)
They were not concerned with the actions of individuals within the community itself
Bursik and Gramsick suggest understanding how structural conditions affect crime rates, understanding individuals within the neighborhood are both formally and informally connected to each other (Wicks, 2017)
Systemic theory of neighborhood organization and social control
Neighborhood life is shaped by the structure of formal and informal networks of association
They adopted Masada and Janowitz’s (1974) systemic model of community attachment
Which views the local community as a
“complex system of friendship and kinship networks and formal and informal association ties
rooted in family life and on - going socialization processes”. (Kasarda and janowitz 1947: 329)
Wesley G. Skogan (1986 and 1990):star:
Fear of crime
to neighborhood characteristics
As residents' fear of crime increases, their participation in the neighborhood activities decreases, leading to decrease in informal control.
Increased fear of crime may cause individuals to
withdraw physically
and
psychologically
from community life.
When residents withdraw from community life, they take with them their
ability and willingness to supervise local youth
, to intervene in delinquent or criminal activity, as well as their ability to form social networks with other residents.
Withdrawal Occurrence
Avoiding community activities
Residents become unwilling to intervene when they witness crime or delinquent activities
Moving out of the community
Residential Mobility
Skogan argued that fear had direct and negative consequences for community residents through weakening social ties and hindering collective action and this, in turn, led to increased crime (Wicks, 2017)
Skogan argues that disorder affects
neighborhood residents' willingness to engage in neighborhood activities.
He fully articulated the idea of how changes in a neighborhood’s stability and it’s
social and physical structure
can result in a
feedback loop
that leads to
continuing disorganization and decline in the neighborhood
Two Levels of Disorder
Physical Disorder
:Defined as signs of neglect and decay that exist in a neighborhood.
The visible presence of physical disorder impacts the residents
(i.e., abandoned buildings, broken lights and windows, and the presence of trash)
Residents see this deal as a "sign of crime" which raises their fear of crime (Skogan 1990: 47-48)
“Visible social disorder provides direct, behavioral evidence of community disorganization” (Skogan 1990: 21)
crime as a result of the visual presence of disorder
Skogan relies heavily on Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) broken windows theory,
Residents will believe that no cares about the conditions in the neighborhood
A broken window in an abandoned building is a sign of disorder and this will increase crime
This will cause more individuals to believe that
there is no risk or repercussion
for engaging in disorderly and/or criminal behavior
Sense of hopelesness
This results in residents developing a sense of hopelessness about the condition of their neighborhood (Skogan 1990)
Fear and hopelessness increase as residents cognitively connect the increase in disorder with the increased potential for criminal activity.
Social Disorder
:As behaviors that residents of a neighborhood can see or experience.
Tends to involve specific events, activities, or individuals (Skogan 1990: 36)
People see these activities as they occur and attribute them to particular individuals living in their neighborhood, thereby increase the residents' fear of those inviduals (Rhineberger 2003)
(i.e., public drinking, graffiti, and prostitution)
Concentric Zone Model applied to Chicago of the 1920s
