Contemporary Disorganization Research: An Assessment and Further Test of the Systemic Model of Neighborhood Crime

Abstract

The systemic model posits that informal control reduces crime and that social networks reduce crime indirectly by stimulating informal control. The systemic literature consistently supports the informal control-crime relationship but reveals wider variation in the measurement and effects of network dimensions. Recognizing this pattern, some scholars advocate an explicit distinction between networks and informal control. We formally address that issue with analysis of the measurement structure of multiple network and informal control indicators using data collected in 300 Seattle neighborhoods. Results reveal several distinct network dimensions that are themselves distinct from informal control. Regression analysis supports the systemic model: informal control reduces crime victimization, and networks exhibit an indirect, negative effect through informal control. Consistent with prior research, some network measures have a positive, direct effect on crime. We conclude that a distinction between networks and informal control is essential when testing and evaluating the systemic model.

Neighborhood Social Ties and Shared Expectations for Informal Social Control: Do They Influence Informal Social Control Actions?

“…We follow this approach because social cohesion and informal social control are distinct constructs (Bellair and Browning 2010;Browning et al 2004;Horne 2004;RhinebergerDunn and Carlson 2009;Uchida et al 2014). The scale of social cohesion is reliable at the individual (a = 0.69) and neighborhood level (a = 0.89).…”

“…Although criminology offers a ''wide ranging and eclectic'' conceptualization of informal social control (Bellair and Browning 2010, p. 500), it is generally agreed that the exercise of informal social control involves actions aimed at preventing unwanted behavior (Warner 2007). These actions can include ''gossip'', ''scolding'', ''disapproval'' and ''face-to-face discussion'' (Black 1984: 5-7), or they might involve working with neighbors to resolve the problem, the surveillance of property, calling the police or levering other local government organizations (Bellair and Browning 2010;Greenberg and Rohe 1986;Warner 2007).…”

Criminal Neighbourhoods: Does the Density of Prior Offenders in an Area Encourage others to Commit Crime?

“…Most of the research has investigated cross-sectional differences in social processes across neighbourhoods, including social disorganization, informal social control and collective action, and collective efficacy. Informal social control has been identified empirically as a key inhibitor of neighbourhood crime, and appears strongly correlated with: community social cohesion (Bellair and Browning, 2010); residential stability (Sampson and Groves, 1989;Bellair, 1997;McNulty and Holloway, 2000;Hipp 2007); and home ownership rates (Spelman, 1993;Rohe et al 2000;Dietz and Haurin, 2003;Herbert and Belsky, 2008;Lindblad, Manturuk and Quercia, 2012).…”

Community Disadvantage, Parental Network, and Commitment to Social Norms

“…Some studies have confirmed that neighborhood-based ties (Bellair 1997;Sampson and Groves 1989;Sun, Triplett, and Gainey 2004;Veysey and Messner 1999) and participation of residents in community affairs (Hawdon and Ryan 2009;Lowenkamp, Cullen, and Pratt 2003;Sampson and Groves 1989;Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz 1986;Veysey and Messner 1999) negatively influence some types of crime. In contrast, other studies find a positive effect of neighborhood ties on crime rates (Bellair 2000;Bellair and Browning 2010;Browning et al 2004;Kingston, Huizinga, and Elliott 2009), and some research find insignificant effects (Morenoff et al 2001;Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz 1986; also see review in Cantillon, Davidson, and Schweitzer 2003;Sampson et al 2002).…”