Structural Theories of Crime
1. Social Structure
2. Disorganization Theory
What is social structure?




Constellation (or arrangement) of statuses,
roles, norms, and values
How is it different from any other structure?
Does everything have structure?
Friendship, classroom, gangs, intimate
homicide
Crystal Structure (crystal system)

The atomic arrangement of the atoms of an
element when it is in its solid state
What is social structure?

Social structure refers to that way in which a
society is organized into predictable
relationships
What is social structure?



Social structure is flexible
A particular social setting/interaction has its
own structure
Ascribed/achieved status
Social Structure Theories




Explain crime by reference to the institutional
structure of society
Agents are passive
Social structure is imposed on them
Social structure theorists view members of
economically disadvantaged groups as being
more likely to commit crimes (structure made
them disadvantaged)
Social Structure Theories


They see economic and social
disenfranchisement as fundamental cause of
crime
Structure causes crime
Social Structure Theories


Crime is seen largely as a lower-class
phenomenon
Criminality of middle class is generally
discounted as less severe, less frequent, and
less dangerous
Social Structure Theories



Disorganization Theory
Strain Theories
Cultural Deviance Theory (combined the
effects of the first two)
Social Disorganization Theory




Crime is caused primarily by social factors
Official statistics are OK, but fieldwork is
better (acceptance of official arrest data)
The city is a perfect natural laboratory
(Chicago reflects society as a whole)
Components of social structure are unstable
(conflict, anomie, social disorganization)
Social Disorganization Theory


Instabilities and their effects are worse for the
lower classes (lower class crime focus)
Human nature is basically good but subject
to vulnerability and inability to resist
temptation
Social disorganization definition

Social disorganization is defined as an
inability of community members to achieve
shared values or to solve jointly experienced
problems (Bursik, 1988).
CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY






Park and Burgess (1920s) saw cities as
consisting of five zones:
Zone I - Central buisness
Zone II - Zone of Transition
Zone III - Working Class Homes
Zone IV - Middle Class Homes
Zone V - Commuters
CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY




Crime rates were then monitored for each of these
geographic regions.
The highest crime rate was found to be located in
the zone that had been labeled Zone II (zone of
transition)
Zone II was marked by a high level of transition,
people moving in and out of the area
It was hypothesized that this "zone of transition" led
to social disorganization.
CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY


They defined social disorganization as "the
inability of a group to engage in selfregulation" which is a social control theoretic
formulation
Their model of the city tested well in most
modern planned cities
Shaw and McKay (1930s)





Inspired by Park and Burgess
They collected their data from over 56,000 juvenile
court records with covered a period of time from 19001933.
They found that delinquency occurred in the areas
nearest to the business district
Those areas were characterized by a high percentage
of immigrants, non-whites, lower income familes
High-delinquency areas had an acceptance of
nonconventional norms, which competed with
conventional ones
Shaw and McKay (1930s)



Were concerned about the three D's of
poverty: Disease, Deterioration, and
Demoralization
They never said that poverty causes crime
They only said that "poverty areas" tended to
have high rates of residential mobility and
racial heterogeneity that made it difficult for
communities in those areas to avoid
becoming socially disorganized
Shaw and McKay's Model
Residential Mobility
Poverty
Racial Heterogeneity
Disorganization
Crime
Sampson and Grove (1989)
Residential Mobility
Low Economic
Status
Racial Heterogeneity
Family Disruption
Population
Density/Urbanization
Unsupervised teenage peer groups
Low organizational
participation
Spare local
friendship networks
Crime
Residential mobility

When the population of an area is constantly
changing, the residents have fewer
opportunities to develop strong, personal ties
to one another and to participate in
community organizations
Ethnic diversity

According to Shaw and McKay (1942), ethnic
diversity interferes with communication
among adults. Effective communication is
less likely in the face of ethnic diversity
because differences in customs and a lack of
shared experiences may breed fear and
mistrust (Sampson and Groves, 1989).
Family disruption


Sampson (1985) argued that unshared parenting
strains parents' resources of time, money, and
energy, which interferes with their ability to supervise
their children and communicate with other adults in
the neighborhood
The smaller the number of parents in a community
relative to the number of children, the more limited
the networks of adult supervision will be for all the
children
Economic status


Areas with the lowest average
socioeconomic status will also have the
greatest residential instability and ethnic
diversity, which in turn will create social
disorganization (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993)
Many studies have found that urban
neighborhoods with high rates of poverty
also have greater rates of delinquency
(Warner and Pierce, 1993).
Population density

High population density creates problems by
producing anonymity that interferes with
accountability to neighbors
Collective efficacy and neighborhood
safety



Robert Sampson (1990)
Concept of “collective efficacy” captures
“trust” and “cohesion” on one hand and
shared expectations for control on the other
Collective efficacy is associated with lower
rates of violence
Collective Efficacy


Informal Social Control: peers, families,
relatives, neighbors
Formal Social Control: schools, churches,
volunteer organizations