Neighborhoods and Crime: The Theory of Social Disorganization
The study of crime based on neighborhoods is a common practice that has played an integral role in the understanding and fight against crime in the United States and beyond. Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls (1997) observe that crime rates have always varied across neighborhoods around the world, with high concentrations happening in low socio-economic neighborhoods. Most scholars attribute high levels of violent crime to the low socio-economic status of neighborhoods and their residential instability. Poverty is considered a crime catalyst in low socio-economic status neighborhoods as households strive to meet their daily social demands with limited resources. The investigation with regard to the link between crimes and neighborhoods has been done by several researchers with the explanation of this trend gravitating to the social disorganization theory (Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls, 1997).
The theory of social disorganization as described by Kubrin and Weitzer (2003) refer to the inability of communities in various neighborhood settings to solve their chronic challenges in addition to achieving commonly set goals and targets. The various types of neighborhoods are thought to thus facilitate the rate of crime and delinquency across different economies. Through the theory of social disorganization, Kubrin and Weitzer (2003) argue that poverty, residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity and the lack of strong social networks weakens the ability of low-socio-economic neighborhoods to manage their security. The only homogeneity shared in the poor neighborhoods is the lack of sufficient social resources, hence, increasing the likelihood of crime occurrence as residents seek to meet their daily social needs at all costs.
Through this study, an analysis of the link between neighborhoods and crime will be analyzed to help clarify why high crime rates occur in low socio-economic state neighborhoods when compared to the low rates in the more affluent estates. The theory of social disorganization will largely help in the examination of the factors that facilitate high crime rates in poor neighborhoods. The use of the social disorganization theory is highly suited for this study as it helps fuse the crime interlinking factors in various socio-economic settings.
Relationship between Social Disorganization and Crime
Crime is not a recent phenomenon as it has existed for thousands of years across different social, economic and political settings around the world. Xiong (2016) argues that the prevalence of crimes occurs in varied patterns across the different social setups around the world. The increases in the levels of economic growth across various economies accompanied with rapid social transition largely contribute to a state of social disorganization leading to an increase in crime rates (Xiong, 2016). The social transitions occurring in community settings alter the nature of social life in different ways leading to an emergence of a gap in management in social institutions as administrators have to cope with the social changes to help them catch up with crime perpetrators.
Zhou (2004) notes that the rapid social and economic changes across different neighborhoods in the modern world hinder the efficiency of the set crime prevention mechanisms and bring about confusions that lead to social disorganization. According to Holcombe (2008) there are a variety of factors that influence the existence of social disorganization in various neighborhoods. The most notable causes of social disorganization across different neighborhoods include poverty, mixed land use, population density, residential mobility and dilapidation. Through this study, an analysis of the influence of these factors on the level of crimes across different neighborhoods will be conducted with the help of the theory of social disorganization to help establish the link between neighborhoods and the prevalence of crimes.
Influence of Poverty on Crimes in Low Socio-economic Neighborhoods
Poverty influences the level of crimes across different neighborhoods as the poor strive to use unethical means to meet their daily social demands. Kirtivo and Peterson (1996), note that high poverty levels bring about increased social disorganization leading to a corresponding increase in crime rates. The authors note that the structural settings of neighborhoods play an integral role in influencing the phase of crime. Kirtivo and Peterson (1996) argue that a rapid rise in neighborhoods with high poverty levels bring about an establishment of societal settings with a desperate niche away from the mainstream society leading to a rise in crime levels. Through this argument, Kirtivo and Peterson (1996) imply that poverty and its associated shortcomings lead to negative societal outcomes as those caught up in the poverty traps endeavor to pull out by use of unethical means such as committing crimes.
In low socio-economic neighborhoods, social control mechanisms either do not exists or are extremely weak leading to the creation of an appropriate brooding ground for criminals who engage in crimes with high success levels. Kirtivo and Peterson (1996) note that people living in poor neighborhoods witness the success of their peers, friends or other residents in crimes and thus develop first hand role models who inspire their path to violent crimes to help them meet their social needs and grow their wealth. Hovel (2014) opines that people from poor neighborhoods enjoy greater benefits and satisfaction from engaging in all sorts of crimes, hence, have higher levels of motivation to engage in violence when compared to their counterparts in more affluent neighborhoods. According to Havel (2014), the inability of people in poor neighborhoods to setup efficient protective barriers around their homesteads serves as a risk factor that increases occurrences of crime; as burglars and other criminals find it easier to attack their targets. In high-income neighborhoods, the level of property security is heightened; leading to a successful rebuff of criminals, hence, low crime prevalence.
Kirtivo and Peterson (1996) observe that crime is an everyday experience in poor neighborhoods, breeding a crime-ridden environment that influences the growing children to take up crime as an economic activity. The crime-prone environments in poor neighborhoods breed a culture of violence as dwellers of these neighborhoods learn to always fight for their lives and property. High crime prevalence in low socio-economic neighborhoods make residents develop defensive approaches` to their lives and property through practices like walking around with weapons ready to defend themselves violently in case of any aggression (Kirtivo & Peterson, 1996). Low socio-economic neighborhoods have a dominant characteristic of joblessness which leads to increased idleness among residents. The idleness in the poor neighborhoods facilitate the thoughts to commit crime as the unemployed gather in places such as pool halls or in some corners to discuss the challenges of life.
Kirtivo and Peterson (1996) observed that unemployment enhances poverty as people caught in this trap lack economic means of meeting their livelihood demands, prompting the temptation to engage in violent crimes to help meet social needs. High poverty concentrations increase the levels of desperation and stress among the neighborhood dwellers, making it difficult to even setup informal social control mechanisms. This is because most of the people in these settings are more worried about their survival in terms of meeting basic needs instead of the overall welfare of others through the provision of security. The lack of advanced security establishments in the largely informal settlements within poor neighborhoods serves as a catalyst for the proliferation of insecurity in such settings. Kirtivo and Peterson (1996) argue that the advanced lack of social, financial and institutional endowments in low socio-economic settings boosts the rise in criminal activities, hence, making poor neighborhoods more susceptible to crime unlike their more affluent counterparts.
Impact of Population Density on Social Disorganization
Neighborhoods need to hold populations whose needs they can meet with the available resources. An increase in population density in an area leads to a creation of an urban center, though Nolan III (2004) notes available studies provide no clear link between population size and crime rate in various residential settings. The findings of this research, however, indicates a positive link between population size and crime rates when calculated mathematically. Nolan III (2004) argues that the link between crime rates and population size is a variable of the correlation between the volumes of crime in an area with regard to its population size. An analysis of the link between population size and overall social disorganization in an area helps provide crime data across various jurisdictions to help determine which structural settlements were more prone to crime attacks.
Nolan III (2004) observes that public opinion holds that higher crime rates are associated with low socio-economic settings, characterized with high population sizes of people with low incomes and limited social resources. Through his study of the relationship between population density and crime in various residential settings, the researcher notes that a high significance linking population density with variations in crime rates does exist. According to Nolan III (2004), cities with high population densities record higher crime rates when compared with those with low population densities, hence, bringing about a positive correlation between crime rate and population density. Twinam (2014) however notes that the positive link between population density and crime rates does not however always hold, as some cities with higher populations report lesser crime rates when compared with some less populated neighborhoods.
Twinam (2014) notes that there are highly populated cities around the world with low crime rates despite most recording higher crime rates. However, on a closer inspection, Nolan III (2004) observes that the breakdown of cities with high population densities and crime rates indicate higher crimes in poor neighborhoods; that have limited social resources and mechanisms to help provide for their security. The low-socio-economic neighborhoods face the challenges of high populations due to the affordability of both formal and informal housing units in these areas. As a result, it is important that authorities in these regions institute strong social control measures to help mitigate the rampant spread of crime in high density poor neighborhoods. The theory of social disorganization links population density with crime in low socio-economic settlements due to the vulnerability of the populations in this area to temptations to commit crime for a living.
Low socio-economic settlements have high populations of idle and unemployed people who have to provide for their families and themselves. The inability of meeting the needs of the family and individual, pushes the residents to utilize any existing loopholes like inadequate security to fight for their survival through crimes, some of which are very violent. The higher the disorganized population, the greater the risk of committing crime as it remains the only economic activity due to the lack of employment and poverty characterized with low socio-economic neighborhoods. The findings of Nolan III (2004) largely apply to low socio-economic settings where higher population densities imply a huge size of a desperate population that has to do anything possible to meet social needs. Thus, it is important that this study undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the link between population density and crime rates in low socio-economic settlements to help ascertain the exact relation between the two.
Mixed Land-Use and Neighborhood Crime
Most urban settings embrace the mixed land-use design which involves a conglomeration of various human activities in a given area. Bahadure and Kotharkar (2012) describe mixed land-use settlements as those designed to help people live, work, leisure and shop in close proximity. The researchers argue that the mixed land-use settlement design increases contact between people as it brings about high people mobility, moving around in search of various services across the mixed neighborhoods. According to Bahadure and Kotharkar (2012), urban mixed land-use helps reduce crime incidents by a great percentage as both the predators and prey interact often in busy environments leading to a decrease in the possibility crime attacks.
Mixed land-use enhances the walk ability of residents and is safe, hence, enhancing the social aspect of life in various neighborhoods. According to Twinam (2014), mixed land-use is the most ideal form of urban settlement as it enhances the chances of a safe neighborhood, as was proposed in the early works of renowned urban planners such as Jane Jacobs. Twinam (2014) argues that mixed commercial and residential land use helps ensure increased human traffic which further enhances the level of street supervision leading to increased levels of security. The establishment of mixed land-use settings additionally helps grow social sustainability across various urban neighborhoods. Bahadure and Kotharkar (2012) argue that in mixed land-use settlements, social interactions get boosted in addition to cultural enrichment that comes with the mix up of people from varied backgrounds.
Strict urban zoning is identified as an unrealistic urban development plan as it brings forth isolated urban spaces that are not ideal for social interactions, hence, contributing little to the realization of social sustainability within various urban neighborhoods. Bahadure and Kotharkar (2012) argue that from the early works of great scholars like Jane Jacobs, mixed-use neighborhoods enhance safety and socio-economic growth due to the enhanced vibrancy of the residents. The adoption of mixed-use neighborhoods brings about several benefits to dwellers that help enhance their overall wealth.
Bahadure and Kotharkar (2012) observes that the health of residents in mixed-use neighborhoods is enhanced as the residents walk around with confidence, hence, exercising. Such settings also enhance equality and diversity as they accommodate people from varied walks of life in addition to providing room for various family settings to help cater for the needs of the rich and the poor. The availability of big houses for large families and small affordable ones for smaller families shows how best the mixed urban settings attempt to meet the needs of residents at their levels of financial and social abilities. Despite the many benefits emanating from mixed-use neighborhoods, Bahadure and Kotharkar (2012) observe that low socio-economic areas experience lots of anti-social behavior due to the numerous deprivations residents go through.
The poor people in mixed-use settings may be a nuisance as they may attempt to use the vulnerability of the buoyancy of the neighborhoods to commit crime at the site of any loophole, prompting the need to establish strong social control mechanisms. High density, mixed-use, poor neighborhoods could be dangerous to stay due to the problems they face and issues such as youth nuisance could be rampant. The theory of social disorganization helps understand why anti-social behaviors are common in low socio-economic neighborhoods despite being located in mixed-use areas. Some of the residents of low socio-economic neighborhoods have lost hope in life and have low opportunity costs when engaging in crimes.
Mixed land-use in these areas largely helps reduce levels of insecurity, though so much needs to be done to help sanitize the order of activities in such areas. Bahadure and Kotharkar (2012) propose the need to use community inclusive measures when dealing with challenges of social disorganization in mixed-use low socio-economic neighborhoods. Through this study, a detailed analysis of the role of mixed land-use in reducing crime prevalence in socially disorganized neighborhoods will be discussed. Additionally, the study will provide recommendations on how best to curb crimes in low socio-economic neighborhoods with the help of mixed land-use developments.
Residential Mobility and Neighborhood Crimes
Residential mobility is a common practice among urban dwellers. DeLuca, Rosenblatt and Wood (n.d.) conducted a detailed analysis of residential mobility in poor urban neighborhoods and their link to crimes. The researchers argue that the common reason for neighborhood mobility is a flaw of character and the lack of ability to maintain social relationships within some particular neighborhoods. The practice of residential mobility is particularly common in low socio-economic neighborhoods where people continually move to areas that favor their social status. DeLuca, Rosenblatt and Wood (n.d.) argue that residential mobility among the well-off families happens as they seek better jobs and better houses to fit their status in more affluent neighborhoods. The poor on the other hand move across areas that meet their social needs and are never moved by their social dissatisfaction due to the lack of means to move upwards, and away from unfavorable neighborhoods.
Residential mobility among the poor is considered a security risk because the more they move to a particular neighborhood, the larger the number of people deprived of social needs, thus, capable of resorting to violence to help meet their daily social needs. DeLuca, Rosenblatt and Wood (n.d.) opine that ethnic and racial heterogeneity plays an integral role in the determination of the movement patterns in the poor neighborhoods. The low-income earners who are mainly poor move from one neighborhood to another in search of comfort among people with similar levels of income. Additionally, the researchers argue that mobility in low socio-economic neighborhoods is influenced by the desire to gain comfort among people from similar race or ethnicity. This implies that there barely exist any substantive reasons for mobility in poor neighborhoods when compared to the reasons for mobility in affluent neighborhoods.
Residential mobility in low socio-economic neighborhoods greatly contributes to increased strain on the already limited resources, increasing the levels of deprivation in these areas leading to increased chances of participating in crime. When the poor move to places of similar ethnicity, race or income level, they gain much satisfaction but increase the disorganization in such settings because they come to add to the already existing problems instead of bringing solutions. Through the theory of social disorganization, this study understands that the low socio-economic neighborhoods continue lacking the ability to help meet the social needs of their residents due to the increased number of desperate and deprived residents. This study will comprehensively analyze the link between residential mobility and increased cases of crime in low socio-economic neighborhoods in a bid to help manage crimes in poor neighborhoods.
Relationship between Dilapidation and Neighborhood Crimes
Urban neighborhoods from the industrial era bore the characteristics of dilapidation, poverty and residential instability. The majority of these characteristics affected low socio-economic neighborhoods, where residents found it difficult to raise enough money to help build or repair existing houses. Sampson (2003) observes that residents of dilapidated and poverty stricken neighborhoods characteristically suffered from calamities like high child mortality rates, crimes and anti-social behaviors. House dilapidations are reflective of the instability of the affected parties to raise sufficient income for repair or relocation and indicate the susceptibility levels of the residents to criminal attacks. The security in dilapidated houses is poor and thus helps facilitate the occurrence of crime.
The dilapidation of houses, roads, drainage and sewerage systems in low socio-economic neighborhoods is a reflection of the neglect the residents endure from those tasked with the management of their social well-being (Hovel, 2014). Dilapidation not only indicates neglect in the provision of repair and maintenance services, but it is also reflective of the negligence with which the welfare of the residents is handled, including security. Dilapidated neighborhoods provide good grounds for crime to thrive, as criminals can easily disappear into the shadows and are not easily caught due to the poor road conditions, while some of the collapsing buildings provide meeting grounds for planning crimes. Dilapidation is thus reflective of social disorganization in poor neighborhoods and exhibits the vulnerability such neighborhoods have to the advancement of crimes. This study will duly analyze the link between dilapidation and neighborhood crimes to help ascertain the possibility of dilapidated neighborhoods contributing to increased cases of crime.
Research Methodology
This study will aim at analyzing the overall link between neighborhoods and crimes with the help of a focus on the social disorganization theory. The study will be quantitative in nature and will embrace the use of a quantitative survey design to help achieve its goals and targets. The survey design was suitable in this study as the researcher aspires to use a random sampling technique to help select a study sample population of 500 participants. The survey will help the researcher reach to all respondents without necessarily meeting them face to face and this will be done with the aid of closed questionnaires. The questionnaires will help enhance the confidence of participants in taking part in the study as the disclosure of identity shall be optional. The setting of the study questions will be anchored on the five variables discussed in this study that the researcher wishes to gauge their contribution to the enhancement or reduction of crimes in low socio-economic neighborhoods. The Yes/No answers expected in this study will help enhance the data analysis process to help the researcher achieve the set study objectives.
This study will be based in Minneapolis, a low socio-economic setting in Minnesota, whose crime rate is thought to be influenced by the variables indicated in this study. The participants to be picked from this study area will be male and female of twelve years of age and above, with no upper limit. With the help of the random sampling technique, the researcher will select the expected respondents and allocate them closed questionnaires either by mail or physically. The use of the random sampling technique in this study will help reduce bias in the process of selecting a small survey sample, reflective of the population of Minneapolis under the study. The responses will be retrieved by the researcher in a maximum period of one week for analysis. The process of collecting the questionnaires will involve physical travel to the respondents to retrieve the questionnaires or by mail. To help enhance the data collection process in the study area, the researcher will zone the area into four parts and undertake a data collection process from all the zones with a two-week time frame per zone.
The types of criminal activities included in the questionnaires will be attained from the available police public records of common crimes in the Minneapolis area. The police public records will not only provide a bearing for the formulation of questionnaires but will also help the study in gauging the authenticity of the results as the study will aspire to exhibit the most commonly experienced crimes in the area and compare them with the police records. The records will also provide vital information with regard to the average age of most criminals which will also be compared with the study findings.
The collected data in this study will then be subjected to comprehensive analysis with the help of the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) to help determine the exact correlation of all the study variables with regard to the crimes experienced in this study area. The SPSS method is ideal for this study as it will help bring about a correlation of the study variables of poverty, dilapidation, residential mobility, mixed land-use and population density to crime in this study area. The data analysis formula will also help provide a room for comparison to help gauge which variable is more aligned to crime than that of the other. Thus, the SPSS technique is considered highly suitable for the attainment of the study objectives in this research. The collected and analyzed data will be presented in the form of tables, graphs and charts to help enhance its comprehension to all those concerned about this study’s findings.
The analysis of the findings in this study is likely to center on the realization of findings similar to those from earlier scholars who found a positive correlation between dilapidation, poverty, residential mobility, mixed land-use and high population density to crimes delinquency. The people under analysis are those living within low socio-economic neighborhoods, who directly suffer from the afore-mentioned variables that are thought to influence the level of crimes across various societal settings. The variables under consideration in this study have influenced the prevalence of crime in various urban settings with more pronounced effects centering on low socio-economic settings that experience high disorganization levels. The inability of the low socio-economic neighborhoods to meet the social needs of their residents in addition to the lack of ability to solve the chronic challenges facing people in these neighborhoods enhances the occurrence of crime.
Validity Threats
A discussion of potential validity threats
Ethical Considerations
This study will observe high ethical standards to help ensure the success of this project. To begin with, this study will maintain high confidentiality levels for the information provided by the respondents unless authorized otherwise by the respondents themselves. The high observance to confidentiality helps enhance the confidence of the study participants to participate in this study, thus helping increase response rates which leads to a corresponding increase in the success of this study. Confidentiality also helps cushion the respondents from any forms of victimization and prejudice they may face from the rest of the society in case they disclose highly sensitive information that is likely to affect the welfare of some society members.
The study will also avoid intimidation or coercion of participants to take part in this study. All respondents will choose to take part in this study at their own free-will. The use of force to seek responses is likely to violet the respondents’ right to freedom in addition to subjecting the study to biased findings as some may provide wrong information in retaliation. This study will thus observe high ethical standards throughout the data collection, analysis and presentation stages to help ensure the study exhibits the true state of the influence of the various variables to crime rates in socially disorganized neighborhoods.
Conclusion
Crime rates have been noted to vary significantly across different neighborhoods. The majority of the studies attribute to the extent and prevalence of crime rates to be under the influence of variables such as poverty, dilapidation, residential mobility, mixed land-use and population density. Low socio-economic neighborhoods experience most of these crime facilitating variables, prompting a need to ascertain the crime rates between low socio-economic structural settings and affluent settings. Most studies conclude that crime rates in low socio-economic neighborhoods are higher when compared to those in affluent settings due to high prevalence of the variances of crime in poor neighborhoods. This study aspires to make a detailed analysis on the link of neighborhoods to crime rates in addition to the influence of crime variances on the crime rates witnessed in low socio-economic neighborhoods. This study will use the theory of social disorganization to help ascertain the influence of the various variables on crime in low socio-economic status neighborhoods.
References
Bahadure, S. & Kotharkar, R. (2012). Social sustainability and mixed landuse, case study of
neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 2(4), 76-83.
DeLuca,S., Rosenblatt, P. & Wood, H. (n.d.). Why poor people move (and where they go):
Residential mobility, selection and stratification. Johns Hopkins University.
Holcombe, B. (2008). Neighborhood crime, depression, and social disorganization theory.
Thesis. University of Florida.
Hovel, A. (2014). Crime, income inequality, and density at the neighborhood level. Honors
Theses. Paper 43.
Krivo, L.J. & Peterson, R.D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime.
Social Forces, 75(2), 619-648.
Kubrin, C.E. & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 374-403. DOI: 10.1177/0022427803256238
Nolan III, J.J. (2004). Establishing the statistical relationship between population size and UCR
crime rate: Its impact and implications. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(2004), 547– 555.
Sampson, R. (2003). The neighborhood context of well-being. Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine, 4(3), S53-S64.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W. & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and crime: A multi-level
study of collective efficacy. Science, New Series, 277(5328), 918-924.
Twinam, T. (2014). Danger zone: The causal effects of high–density and mixed–use
development on neighborhood crime. Department of Economics. University of Pittsburgh
Xiong, H. (2016). Urban crime and social disorganization in China. Springer Science Business
Media. Singapore
Zhou, L. (2004). New contemporary empirical criminology. Beijing: People’s Court Publishing
House.
