SAGE Reference

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal

Psychology
Social Disorganization Theory

By:William L. Sandel & Wayman C. Mullins

Edited by: Robert D. Morgan
Book Title: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Chapter Title: "Social Disorganization Theory"
Pub. Date: 2019
Access Date: September 8, 2022
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks,
Print ISBN: 9781483392264
Online ISBN: 9781483392240
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483392240.n455
Print pages: 1406-1408
© 2019 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

In general, social disorganization theory maintains that the cause of delinquency (i.e., crime) is associated
with locations rather than individuals. This theory is based on research findings that suggest delinquency
occurs in the same areas as social problems like unemployment and poverty. This makes social
disorganization theory a macro-level theory because the units of analysis are neighborhoods and
communities, not offenders. Social disorganization theory is a mix of control theory and learning theory.
Many of the controls evaluated by social disorganization theory are informal controls. When a neighborhood
or community is unable to maintain social controls (i.e., agreed-upon values and norms), the result is an
atmosphere in which crime more easily occurs. This entry examines the history of social disorganization
theory, the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and crime, the introduction of collective efficacy
to the theory, and the challenges associated with measuring social disorganization.

History
Social disorganization theory is rooted in the work of Robert Park and Ernest Burgess, who were human
ecologists (i.e., researchers who seek to understand social processes). Park and Burgess began their work in
Chicago in the 1920s where many social changes were occurring due to an influx of foreign-born immigrants.
As the city expanded, many areas began to experience a change in land use. This expansion changed the
layout of Chicago not only by expanding the city but also actually creating large areas of transition between
the city center and the suburbs. Just as in natural ecology, Park and Burgess observed invasion, dominance,
and succession when examining the social processes of Chicago. Examples of this would include different
areas being rezoned from commerce to residential. Additionally, there are examples of neighborhoods
changing from racially homogenous to heterogamous. Park and Burgess divided the city into concentric rings
known as zones. Each zone was characterized by a specific type of land use and, in turn, type of occupant.

The city center was labeled as Zone 1 and primarily consisted of stores, businesses, and office buildings.
Zone 2 was a zone of transition and was comprised of a mix of factories and deteriorated housing. This zone
of transition was so named due to businesses moving in, while those who could afford to moved out. Zone
3 was mostly occupied by single-family tenements and was widely considered to house the working class.
Zone 4 was a residential zone that contained mostly single-family homes with yards and was occupied by
what tended to be the middle class. Zone 5 was the final and furthest zone from the city center. This zone
was commonly referred to as the commuter zone and consisted of suburbs populated by upper middle-class
families.

Conducting a systematic observation of these zones from the 1940s through 1960s birthed the concentric
zone theory that Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay used as a base for social disorganization theory. It is
important to note that Park and Burgess did not use this method to study crime; rather, they focused on social
processes and interactions.

Relationship Between Neighborhood Characteristics and Crime

Shaw and McKay used this concentric zone theory to examine parallels between delinquency and the social
characteristics of a neighborhood. Using official records of juvenile delinquents and census data to create
delinquency rates for specific areas in Chicago, Shaw and McKay found that the zones in transition tended to
have more crime than those that were stable. They also used interviews to add to their quantitative research,
gathering life histories of juvenile delinquents. Up to this point, most of criminological research focused on
the individual causes of crime and delinquency rather than social causes. Through their research, Shaw and
McKay were able to make comparisons across different zones, while associating the social characteristics of
those zones with the delinquency rates. Their primary findings suggested that delinquency occurs in the same
areas as social problems like unemployment and poverty. This led them to the idea of social disorganization,
which means there is an inability of the community to realize shared values and therefore an inability to
maintain effective social controls. According to the theory, crime will occur without these social controls.

For a neighborhood to have social controls, it must have high solidarity, cohesion, and integration. Solidarity
means that a neighborhood must have agreed-upon values and norms. Cohesion refers to residents of a
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Page 2 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

neighborhood having a strong bond with one another (i.e., they know and like one another). Finally, integration
means that there are frequently occurring social interactions among residents. Together these elements
create a strong, organized community resulting in higher informal controls and less crime because people feel
comfortable, and even obligated, to watch out for their community. Therefore, socially organized communities
will have people who share the goal of living in a crime-free area, know and talk to each other, and frequently
interact with each other. Conversely, residents in disorganized neighborhoods will not talk to each other,
making it easier for crime to occur. It should be noted that the control is all informal and not official. Some
argue that the formation of gangs occurs when juveniles seek to form their own social controls. It is in this idea
that the social learning aspect of the theory comes into play. That being said, this aspect of social learning is
not frequently associated with the main concept of the theory.

To examine social disorganization in a neighborhood, typically, measures of racial heterogeneity, residential

mobility, and income-based estimates of socioeconomic status are used. It is believed that neighborhoods
with high racial heterogeneity will be disorganized because the residents will never be able to achieve
a consensus due to the fact that they have different goals. Furthermore, racial heterogeneity impedes
communication: Residents do not talk to one another about suspicious activity in the neighborhood. High
residential mobility results in unstable communities (i.e., residents tend to avoid getting to know one another).
With a lack of residential interactions comes a lack of social informal controls. It is thought that lower
socioeconomic status areas lead to higher racial heterogeneity, residential mobility, and more disorganization.
It is important to note that social disorganization theory does not refer to disorganized residents but only to
a disorganized community. Additionally, it should be noted that these elements themselves do not directly
cause crime nor does a disorganized community. These elements only serve to mediate the occurrence of
crimes in an area.

Remaking Disorganization Theory: Collective Efficacy

Social disorganization theory began to be viewed as irrelevant because of the idea that the theory itself was a
manifestation of middle-class bias toward inner-city lower-class neighborhoods. Many argued that there were
no actual measures of the amount of social disorganization within a community. Robert Sampson and Byron
Groves revitalized the theory using 1984 data from Britain by including family disruption and urbanization
as some of the causes of social disorganization. Sampson and Groves, using self-reported juvenile data
from both the United States and the United Kingdom, found support for social disorganization when using
additional measures like social networks and participation in formal organizations. This was a more in-depth
study of social disorganization because it included mediating effects rather than just exogenous variables and
outcome measures. Their study found that communities with greater informal controls and social ties had
lower rates of delinquency. Additionally, they found higher control of teenage peer groups that have lower
rates of property crimes. The inclusion of these new variables changed the scope of social disorganization. It
was then that collective efficacy became a relabeling of social disorganization theory, thereby increasing its
popularity once more.

Collective efficacy refers to the extent to which neighborhood residents can marshal their own informal
social controls, making the variable an alternative to social disorganization. An example of this would be a
neighborhood where there is high collective efficacy, or adequate social controls, having a low crime rate,
whereas in neighborhoods with low collective efficacy, the crime rate will be high. Having better measures
of the mediating variables allows for communities that have low socioeconomic status and high racial
heterogeneity, yet still have a low crime rate due to high collective efficacy. Social disorganization theory uses
delinquency rates to explain social disorganization; however, the theory states that delinquency is caused by
social disorganization, making this theory tautological. Collective efficacy, on the other hand, focuses more on
how certain aspects of a neighborhood cause social disorganization and in turn victimization and offending.
Much of the research in this area examines juvenile delinquency. It is thought that having high collective
efficacy has actually had a protective effect on children due to increased social controls.

Challenges Associated With Measurement

One of the biggest problems when examining social disorganization theory has been determining the proper
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Page 3 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

way to measure social disorganization. As mentioned previously, socioeconomics, racial heterogeneity, racial
mobility, family disruption, and urbanization are all factors that have been examined in studies of the theory.
It has been argued that social disorganization is too abstract to truly be measured and that aforementioned
variables do not truly measure social disorganization. This argument primarily points to the inability of these
variables to measure informal social controls. According to this line of thinking, only secondary variables are
being considered. For example, measuring residential mobility does not provide the actual amount of social
disorganization within a community. Rather it measures something that could lead to social disorganization.
Many researchers have sought to use survey data and interviews as a means of filling this gap. Such research
asks questions about how individuals would react if their neighbors were being victimized. It is believed that
the collective answers within a community are an accurate measure of collective efficacy. Another major
critique of the theory is that using official data for crime counts produces biased results since many argue that
the juvenile criminal justice system was particularly biased during the 1920s and 1930s, when the early data
used to fuel the theory were collected.

Final Thoughts
The findings of theorists like Park and Burgess, who used concentric zones to examine social ecology, laid
the framework for Shaw and McKay. Park and Burgess placed Chicago’s business district at the center of
their map and made the neighborhoods surrounding it Zone 1. This zone contained the highest concentration
of delinquents as well as the greatest poverty. Building on the work of Park and Burgess, Shaw and McKay
discovered a strong relationship between neighborhood characteristics and delinquency. Additionally, the
neighborhoods suffering from high crime rates had physical deterioration, a higher percentage of foreign-
born individuals, more residential mobility, and other assorted social ills such as unemployment and disease.
According to Shaw and McKay, neighborhoods existing in such conditions have higher levels of social
disorganization and weak social controls, thereby causing crime. Many of these types of neighborhoods
are found in inner-city locations; therefore, virtually all of the research on social disorganization theory
is conducted within urban areas. Such findings led to the conclusion that social disorganization causes
delinquency. It was Sampson and Groves who expanded on this theory by adding additional variables (e.g.,
family disruption and urbanization). With the inclusion of these measures, collective efficacy reinvigorated the
idea that informal social controls mediate crime in certain areas.

See also Community Context and Mass Incarceration; Community Policing and Crisis Intervention Team
Model; Crime Prevention, Policies of; Criminal Culpability; Criminal Lifestyle; Criminal Profiling; Criminogenic
Needs; Criminogenic Needs, Targeting

William L. Sandel & Wayman C. Mullins

• social disorganization theory

• zoning
• crime
• neighborhoods
• delinquency
• social interaction

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483392240.n455
10.4135/9781483392240.n455

Further Readings
Osgood, D. W., & Chambers, J. M. (2000). Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural
youth violence. Criminology, 38(1), 81–106.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis.
Crime and Justice, 32, 373–450.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, B. W. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization
theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Page 4 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1972). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Warner, B. D. (2003). The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory. Criminology, 41(1),
73–97.

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology

Page 5 of 5