Social Disorganization Theory: The Role of Attenuated Culture on Crime

by
Tanya Gladney
A Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Sociology

Under the Supervision of Professors Helen Moore and Hugh Whitt

Lincoln, Nebraska

August, 2009

UMI Number: 3388963

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3388963
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Social Disorganization Theory: The Role of Attenuated Culture on Crime

Tanya Gladney, Ph.D.
Unversity of Nebraska, 2009
Advisors: Helen Moore and Hugh Whitt

Crime in urban neighborhoods has historically captured the attention of scholars

who examine community influences on delinquency and crime. Social disorganization
has been a leading theory in community research over the years, particulary with regard
to community crime. The theory has provided a framework that has been extended by
scholars by including structural and cultural variables. The purpose of this study is to
H[WHQG:DUQHUVUHVHDUFKE\H[DPLQLQJWKe effects of structural and cultural
disorganization on urban community crime rates.
This study uses secondary data from two cities (Louisville and Lexington, KY).
The study examines seven K\SRWKHVHVWRH[SORUHZKHWKHURUKRZUHVSRQGHQWV
perspective on cultural strengths mediates the effects of informal social control on crime.
These are: H1 Higher stability will be associated with higher social ties and informal
social control; H2 More concentrated disadvantage will be associated with less cultural
strength and informal social control; H3 More social ties will be directly associated with
more cultural strength; H4 Communities with more conventional values will have more
cultural strength, and more cultural strength will be associated with more informal social
control; H5 More stability will be associated with lower crime rates; H6 More
concentrated disadvantage will be associated with higher crime rates; and, H7 More
informal social control will be associated with lower crime rates.
Overall results from the path analysis indicate no direct association between
UHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQRIFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKDQGFULPHUDWHV+RZHYHUUHVSRQGHQWV
perception of cultural strength had a significant negative total indirect effect on both total
victimization and personal victimization. The relationship was stronger with personal
YLFWLPL]DWLRQWKDQWRWDOYLFWLPL]DWLRQ7KHILQGLQJVVXJJHVWUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQRI
cultural strength can only be said to operate through informal social control (that is,
indirectly) to reduce crime.

i
Acknowledgments
I have had a lot of support during my time in the Ph.D. program at the University
of Nebraska. This process has been a challenging, but also rewarding, experience.
During this journey, I had a web of support from family and friends. I am so thankful to
have each of these people in my life, and I would like to take the time to thank you
personally.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my heavenly father for giving me the
strength, knowledge, and patience to complete such a daunting task. None of this would
be possible without Christ in my life! It was the constant prayers of family and friends
that guided me to the end. Anita, thanks for all the prayers and support during my time in
the programdoQWOHWWKHSUD\HUVVWRS0RPDQG'DGWKDQNVIRU\RXUORYHDQG
support, you have always believed in me, and that love has sustained me throughout my
life. Cheryl, my sister, thanks for all your support and being willing to help me in any
way needed. I thank God for your kindness and love!
I have learned so much from graduate school, and I would like to thank my
committee members, who guided and challenged me to the end. To Dr. Helen Moore,
you have been a valuable resource from the time I started the program to the very end. I
would like to thank you for all of your advice and guidance; both have played a major
role in my development as a scholar. Words can not express how much your support
means to me, thank you so much! To Dr. Hugh Whitt, thank you for your guidance and
encouragement during this process. To Dr. Julia McQuillan, thank you for your statistical
guidance and your knack for challenging without discouraging; I thank God for your gift
of words. To Dr. Amy Anderson, thank you so much sharing for your expertise on Social

ii
Disorganization Theory; your comments were very helpful in further developing my
theoretical knowledge. And thanks for your commitment to the project. I would also like
to thank Dr. Barbara D. Warner for answering questions relating to her study. I could not
have completed this project without her assistance, which allowed me to replicate and
extend her study.
Finally, I would like to say thanks to the sociology department. It was their letter
of acceptance that marked my career change from law enforcement to teaching. After
receiving acceptance, I resigned from my full-time job in law enforcement and moved to
Lincoln, Nebraska. I did not know what to expect, but I truly stepped out on faith that
this was the right choice to pursue a career change. I now know that the sociology
department at University of Nebraska-Lincoln was the place for me. I would like to
thank the entire faculty, each of whom worked with me to bring out my best ability.
Thanks, too, for inviting me to your homes for holidays, dinners, and other events. All of
you made my time in Lincoln, Nebraska a wonderful experience!

iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
A History of Social Disorganization Theory and Theoretical Assumptions
Studies on Social Disorganization Theory
Studies on Social Disorganization and Crime
Summary of Literature Review
Informal Social Control and Attenuated Culture
Proposed Hypotheses
Chapter 3: Methodology
Data
Measures
Procedure
Chapter 4: Results
Chapter 5: Discussion
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Future Directions
References
Figures
Tables

i
1
9
9
13
16
22
23
26
29
29
30
33
36
41
46
50
55
56

Chapter 1
Introduction
According to the Uniform CULPH5HSRUWV&ULPHLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDFFRXQWV
IRUPRUHGHDWKLQMXULHVDQGORVVRISURSHUW\WKHQDOOQDWXUDOGLVDVWHUVFRPELQHGEXWWKH
effects of crime in those urban settings have not been fully explored as they relate to
culture.1 Traditionally, sociologists have characterized American neighborhood crime as
primarily occurring in urban settings. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (2005)
reports both property and violent crime rates are considerably higher in urban than in
rural settings. Past sociological research and theory also provides strong models for a
connection between urban settings and crimes. The connection, however, merits further
exploration so that scholars might understand how community crime rates are influenced
by the commuQLW\VGHPRJUDSKLFDQGFXOWXUDOGLPHQVLRQV8VLQJVHFRQGDU\GDWDWKLV
study helps clarify the relationships between community attachment (particularly cultural
strength), social ties and informal social control, and crime rates. Further, it extends
WarnHUVUHVHDUFKWRH[DPLQHWKHHIIHFWVRIVWUXFWXUDODQGFXOWXUDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQ
on urban community crime rates.
:DUQHUVFRQWHPSRUDU\ZRUNRQFRPPXQLW\-level research draws from decades
of investigations into urban characteristics and crime, providing a theoretical framework
that extends the social disorganization model. The extended model includes cultural
variables in relation to attenuated culture, which Kornhauser (1978) referred to as the
disuse of traditional conventional values within a community.
:DUQHUDQG5RXQWUHHVVWXG\SURYLGHGWKHILUVWWHVWDEOHPRGHORQ
DWWHQXDWHGFXOWXUHE\H[WHQGLQJ:LOVRQVFRQFHSWRIJKHWWR-UHODWHGEHKDYLRUV

2
reflected as cultural attenuation (weakened culture). The authors argued that the
traditional community and crime model, particularly the systemic model by Sampson and
Groves (1989), centers on community networks and shared values that foster behaviors
toward informal controls among residents. They further note that the systemic model
assumes value consensus in order for networks to informally control crime, but address
the gap by exploring the reinforcement of values within the community, rather than just
WKHYDOXHVWKHPVHOYHV:DUQHUVVWXG\DVFRPSDUHGWRWKHVWXG\ZLWK
Rountree, provides a more complete model in examining the role of attenuated culture. It
ILUVWXVHVUHVLGHQWVUHVSRQVHVLQVWHDGRIFHQVXVGDWDWRPHDVXUHDWWHQXDWHGFXOWXUHDQG
second, examines the impact of attenuated culture on informal social control within the
social disorganization model. One goal of this current project is to further our
XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIXUEDQVHWWLQJVE\H[WHQGLQJ:DUQHUVUHVHDUFKRQWKHIRUPRI
structural and cultural disorganization factors and their effects on variations in urban
crime rates.
Crime in urban neighborhoods has historically captured the attention of scholars
who examined community influences on delinquency and crime. Sociological efforts to
understand neighborhood crime rates extend back through theories and research in the
early and mid-twentieth century. From early analyses of the urban setting (Park 1925,
Wirth 1938) to social disorganization theories (Shaw and McKay 1942), the
understanding of community structure and urban cultural differences has been implied,
but not fully explored.
7KHHDUOLHVWXUEDQUHVHDUFKGHULYHVIURPWKHZRUNRI5REHUW(3DUNV
investigation of human behaviors in the urban environment.2 Park conceptualized the

3
FLW\DVDVRFLDOLQVWLWXWLRQDQGGHILQHGWKHFLW\DVDVHFWLRQRIFRUSorate human nature
SOXVWKHPDFKLQHU\DQGWKHLQVWUXPHQWDOLWLHVWKURXJKZKLFKWKDWKXPDQQDWXUHRSHUDWHV
3DUNIXUWKHUGHWDLOHGWKHFLW\DVWKHSODFHDQGWKHSHRSOHZLWKDOOWKH
machinery, sentiments, customs and administrative devices that goes with it, public
opinions, and street railways, the individual man and the tools that he uses, as something
PRUHWKDQDPHUHFROOHFWLYHHQWLW\7KHVHHQWLWLHVDUHSV\FKRSK\VLFDO
PHFKDQLVPVIDFLOLWDWHGWKURXJKSULYDWHDQGSROLWLFDOLQWHUests (Park 1915). Later, Park
DQG%XUJHVVFRQFHSWRIWKHFLW\VXJJHVWVWKDWWKHSURFHVVRIFRPSHWLWLRQIRUGHVLUDEOH
space is driven by economics and culture and organizations within a city create a
population distribution guided by group solidarity (1925).
,QFRQWUDVW:LUWKDUJXHGWKDWXUEDQLVPFUHDWHVVHFRQGDU\UDWKHUWKDQ
primary relationships due to lack of solidarity. The characteristics of the city (population
density and heterogeneity) would be barriers to strong social networks. DespLWH:LUWKV
FRQIOLFWLQJYLHZVZLWK3DUNDQG%XUJHVVRYHUWKHVWUHQJWKRIVRFLDOERQGVWKHVFKRODUV
VLPLODUDQDO\VHVRIQDWXUDODUHDVZHUHODEHOHGWKHhuman ecology model and, together,
laid the foundation for contemporary urban neighborhood research. The theoretical
approach to social disorganization subsequently came to focus neighborhood research,
particularly on crime and delinquency.
6KDZDQG0F.D\VSocial Disorganization Theory has enabled scholars to
explain why some areas might be high crime areas within larger urban neighborhoods. In
WKHLU&KLFDJR$UHD3URMHFWWKH\XQFRYHUHGXUEDQSDWWHUQVWKDWWKH\RXWOLQHGNH\
components of social disorganization theory. The theory postulates that, when a
breakdown occurs in conventional institutional controls and informal social controls

4
within a community or neighborhood, it leads to a rise in juvenile delinquency and crime
rates (Shaw and McKay 1942). Their model has generated ongoing research into the
characteristics of high crime neighborhoods and cities. Specific characteristics that have
been catalogued by researchers as contributors to social disorganization include economic
deprivation, large size, high density, overcrowding, residential mobility, and family
disruption (Elliot et al. 1996; Gottfredson, McNeil, and Gottfredson 1991; Petee,
Kowalski, and Duffield 1994; Sampson and Groves 1989; Spelman 1993; Skogan 1990).
In addition to these characteristics, Wilson (1987) posited that extremely disadvantaged
neighborhoods are characterized by a high degree of social isolation from mainstream
society. As such, their residents have less access to jobs and are more often exposed to
serious crime.
Although the social disorganization model strongly influenced research on crime
within neighborhoods, it had limitations. The definition of community controls, for
example, was vague and the process of influencing increases in crime was not fully
understood. Later efforts were made to extend the social disorganization model to
examine community level effects on crime rates. Sampson and Groves (1989) extended
the social disorganization model by introducing key mediating variables that reflected
community levels of informal social controls and social ties such as sparse local
friendship networks, unsupervised teenage peer groups, and low organizational
participation. These informal controls did, indeed, contribute to predicting neighborhood
crime rates. Informal control and social ties are defined as the ability of a community to
supervise and intervene on the behalf of the common good (Sampson 1986). These
factors are identified in the systemic model. The model acknowledges the role of

5
community control on informal controls and social networks (Kornhauser 1978; Sampson
1985, 1987; Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997; Bellair
1997).
Another limitation of the disorganization model was its lack of empirical
examination of the role of culture in disorganized neighborhoods. Research had identified
informal social control and social ties as key sources of stability in these neighborhoods,
and Shaw and McKay (1942) made reference to subcultures in helping to explain the
subtle differences between areas with low and high rates of delinquency. They noted that
the areas with high GHOLQTXHQF\DUHFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\ZLGHGLYHUVLW\LQQRUPVDQG
VWDQGDUGRIEHKDYLRUWKHPRUDOYDOXHVUDQJHIURPWKRVHWKDWDUHVWULFWO\FRQYHQWLRQDOWR
those in direct opposition to conventionality as symbolized by the family, the church, and
other instLWXWLRQVFRPPRQWRRXUJHQHUDOVRFLHW\6KDZDQG0F.D\6RFLDO
disorganization models, however, still did not fully explore the role of culture on
community control. In response to lack of empirical examination by Shaw and McKay
(1942), Kornhauser (1978) turned her attention to the role of culture, theoretically
considering how the sources of social disorganization affect both structural and cultural
characteristics of communities and how these, in turn, affect delinquency through weak
controls.
Attenuated culture occurs when traditional values are no longer effective within a
community. Kornhauser suggests that ecological factors (economic segregation, low
economic status, heterogeneity, and mobility) account for the cultural and subcultural
characteristics of disorganized neighborhoods by fostering an environment of cheap slum
DUHDVWKDWDWWUDFWORZLQFRPHJURXSVZLWKPL[HGYDOXHV/LNH:LUWK.RUQKDXVHU

6
concludes that a common community culture is difficult to achieve in heterogeneous
communities. This creates an attenuated, or weakened, culture that impedes community
controls that might otherwise prevent neighborhood crime.
'UDZLQJIURP.RUQKDXVHU:DUQHUVUHVHDUFKH[WHQGVWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\
model of social disorganization, including both cultural and structural variables. She is
particularly interested in the role of attenuated culture in influencing social ties and
LQIRUPDOFRPPXQLW\FRQWUROV,QWKLVZRUN:DUQHUVXJJHVWVWKDWFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKFDQ
be viewed as the extent to which normative values (conventional values) are visibly and
DXGLEO\DOLYHLQDFRPPXQLW\DQGVWDWHVWKDWDFXOWXUHLVVWURQJZKHQLWVUHVLGHQWV
FRQVLVWHQWO\PDNHVWDWHPHQWVDQGEHKDYHLQOLQHZLWKWKHFXOWXUH6LPSO\SXW
Warner views cultuUDOVWUHQJWKDVWKHDFWLYHSUHYDOHQFHRIYDOXHVZLWKLQWKHFRPPXQLW\
(2003). By combining urban social disorganization models with attenuated culture
theories, she suggests that disadvantage and residential mobility make it difficult for
communities to provide informal social control, partly by weakening social ties.
:DUQHUVLPSRUWDQWZRUNH[DPLQHGWKHHIIHFWVRQLQIRUPDOFRQWURODQGSURYLGHGWKH
theoretical framework for the current research to examine crime rates. The purpose of the
current stud\LVWRH[WHQG:DUQHUVUHVHDUFKWRH[DPLQHWKHHIIHFWVRIVWUXFWXUDO
and cultural disorganization on urban community crime rates.
The results of this research looking into cultural factors connected to urban social
disorganization may assist local and state governments in building stronger communities
by identifying processes that facilitate community networks. If the research findings
demonstrate that cultural strength (i.e., a unity of common values in a given
neighborhood) does mediate the effects of informal social control on crime rates, then

7
state and city policies can be enhanced. By providing neighborhoods with resources that
aid community leaders in providing neighborhood cohesiveness (e.g., through community
festivals, ethnic recreation centers, and mentoring programs), cultural ties within
neighborhoods can be strengthened even as informal social controls over crime are
strengthened. Research has shown that structural characteristics (residential stability and
concentrated disadvantage) are related both directly and indirectly to crime. Cultural
characteristics may be an important addition to that equation. The significance of this
study is to further our understanding on the role of community attachment, particularly
cultural strength, on crime rates. Understanding the role of cultural strength through
UHVLGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQVRIWKHLUQHLJKERUVZLOOKHOSIDFLOLWDWHWKHSURSHUXVHRIFRPPXQLW\
resources through appropriate avenues to help neighborhoods block crime.
I use structural equation modeling in two separate analyses to address these
research questions: Does culture strength mediate the effects of structure on informal
FRQWURO"$QGKRZGRHVWKLVDIIHFWFULPHUDWHV"8VLQJ:DUQHUVGDWDFROOHFWHGLQ
from two urban cities (Louisville and Lexington, KY), I expand her analysis of cultural
disorganization. My first analysis explores the direct effects of structural (stability and
concentrated disadvantage), mediating (social ties and informal control), and cultural
(conventional values, cultural strength) variables on crime rates. Using the same
variables, the second analysis explores indirect effects of the variables to identify
relationships among variables within the path model.
The social disorganization theory suggests that when formal and informal
processes are weak in a neighborhood, the residents lack control over their environment;
this can lead to illegal activities and/or an unsafe environment. The systemic model adds

8
the dimensions of culture and conventional values that can also buffer or enhance the
ability to maintain community control. Therefore the role of cultural strength should
influence community control which will buffer crime within the community. I will
further explore the effects of structural and cultural disorganization on various types of
neighborhood crimes, especially to distinguish personal and violent crime rate outcomes.
1

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
Prior urban research dates back to 1895 with the Hull House Papers documenting urban research in
Chicago.

9
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
To provide background for my research, this chapter provides an overview of the
history and theoretical assumptions of the social disorganization theory. This is followed
by an overview of studies on social disorganization theory and empirical research on
social disorganization and crime. I also provide a discussion of the limitations of the
theory and current research in assessing culturally diverse communities. Finally, I
GLVFXVV:DUQHUVUHVHDUFKDVDIRXQGDWLRQIRUP\UHVHDUFKDQGVWDWHP\
hypotheses.

A History of Social Disorganization Theory and Theoretical Assumptions

The social disorganization theory is one of the branches of social structure theory.
This theory has early origins with A.M. Guerry and Adolphe Quetlet. In conducting a
European environment analysis of criminality, Guerry and Quetlet used maps and charts
to demonstrate the quantitative distribution of crime and delinquency. Because of their
PHWKRGVVRPHZHUHSURPSWHGWRQDPH*XHUU\DQG4XHWOHWVDSSURDFKWKHFDUWRJUDSKLF
VFKRRO6XWKHUODQGand Cressey 1978).
Although supportive research on environmental explanation and criminality was
conducted by the cartographic school, the interpretation of these results was not guided
by theory (Shoemaker 2000). By the late nineteenth century, however, Emile
'XUNKHLPVWKHRUHWLFDOFRQFHSWRIanomie DQG.DUO0DU[VWKHRU\of class behavior
patterns contributed to the merger of facts with theory in the area of delinquency and
crime research.

10
This pattern was driven by conflict of vital forces that accompanies individuals
and communities occupying an institutional form. Park wrote in the early twentieth
century that the character of the institutional form outlines a city that possesses moral and
SK\VLFDORUJDQL]DWLRQ,WLVWKURXJKWKHFLW\SODQWKDWSK\VLFDOJHRJUDSK\LV
outlined in urban areas, creating a market for competition for land usage among
businesses and manufactories. The buying of land among corporations and factories
increases land value, producing patterns of population distribution. Social organization,
then, evolves from the phenomena of class and race and is influenced by population
distribution.
As social organization occupies space in urban areas, Park (1915) identified
several organizations that should be investigated when studying human behavior in the
city. These included racial communities, industrial organizations (which affect the
division of labor, mobility, education, etc.), primary relations (church, family, and
school), secondary relations (city government, criminal laws, criminal courts, etc.),
commercialized vice and liquor traffic, political organizations, advertisement (e.g.,
newspapers), and transportation.
3DUNVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQRIWKHFLW\OHGWRIXUWKHUFROODERUDWLRQZLWK%XUJHVV7KH\
noted that cities tend to exhibit patterns of physical, social, and cultural characteristics
that could be conceived of as five concentric zones and called it the ecological model. In
their model, Zone I referred to the central business zone RUWKHORRSDQGZDVORFDWHGDW
the center of the city. Zone II was referred to as the zone of transition, the oldest section
RIWKHFLW\DQGWKHRQHEHLQJLQYDGHGE\EXVLQHVVDQGLQGXVWULDOH[SDQVLRQ=RQH,,,
was identified as the zone of the working-class homes, Zone IV was the location of

11
single-family homes and more elegant apartments, and Zone V was the FRPPXWHUV]RQH,
consisting of suburbs and satellite cities surrounding the central city (Park and Burgess
1925).
7KLVHFRORJLFDOPRGHOSURYLGHGWKHIUDPHZRUNIRU6KDZDQG0F.D\V
Chicago Area Project in which they investigated crime and delinquency rates within the
city of Chicago and twenty other cites over three time periods: 1900-1906, 1917-1923,
and 1927-1933. Their study revealed that rates of delinquency decreased as one moved
from Zone I, at or near the central business district, ouWZDUGWR=RQH9WKHFRPPXWHUV
zone. This pattern was repeated in all three time periods. Seventy-five percent of the
neighborhoods with the highest delinquency rates in 1900-1906 were still among the
highest delinquency areas in 1927-1933, with a total correlation of .61 between the two
time periods (Shaw and McKay 1969). Shaw and McKay concluded that the same
ecological process that structured the concentric zones was related to patterns of
delinquency rates. That is, economic deprivation leads to high rates of population
turnover due to undesirable living areas, and high rates of population turnover led to
rapid changes that made it difficult for communities to provide resistance to outsiders.
These neighborhood characteristics created challenges for neighborhoods to provide
common unity that would facilitate informal controls which would provide resisistance to
WKRVHFRQVLGHUGRXWVLGHUV7KLVODFNRIUHVLVWDQFHLVZKDW6KDZDQG0F.D\FDOOHG
social disorganization (Bursik and Grasmick 1993).2
SKDZDQG0F.D\VH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHLUUHVXOWVKDVJHQHUDWHGFULWLFLVPGXHWRWKH
ODFNRIWKHRUHWLFDOFODULW\LQH[SODLQLQJFDXVDOIDFWRUV.RUQKDXVHUQRWHGWKDWLQ
various sections of their work, they freely draw on elements of strain, cultural conflict,

12
DQGFRQWUROWKHRULHV2WKHUFULWLFVSRLQWHGRXWWKDW6KDZDQG0F.D\KDGIDLOHGWR
distinguish between the causes and the outcomes of social disorganization, leading to
misconceptions of their theory and the occasional measurement of delinquency as a
characteristic of disorganization instead of the outcome of disorganization (Bursik 1988;
Lander 1954; Kobrin 1971). As Bursik wrote,
It becomes hard to distinguish the various components of the Shaw and McKay
model and, because only ecological indicators appear in most models, the social
disorganization framework may therefore appear to many to implicitly assume
that lower class neighborhoods with a large proportion of black or foreign-born
residents are disorganized. Yet, it is important to emphasize that this is definitely
not an inherent assumption of the theory. Rather, the degree to which these
ecological processes are associated with the ability of a community to regulate
itself is an empirical question. (1988:531)
Despite such criticism from scholars, social disorganization theory has made a significant
contribution to criminological research by providing a theoretical framework for scholars
to investigate humans in urban communities.
6KDZDQG0F.D\VFRQFHSWRIVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQKDVEHHQGHILQHGDVWKH
capacity of a neighborhood to regulate itself through formal and informal processes of
VRFLDOFRQWURO%XUVLN7KHUHIRUHWKHVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKHRU\KDVEHHQ
categorized as a control theory because of its emphasis on community networks
(Kornhauser 1978; Bursik 1988). As a control theory, social disorganization theory
makes the following theoretical assumptions. First, the theory assumes that delinquency
is primarily the result of a breakdown of institutional and community-based controls.

13
Second, disorganization of community-based institutions is often caused by rapid
industrialization, urbanization, and immigration processes, which occur primarily in
urban areas. Third, this theory assumes that the effectiveness of social institutions and
the desirability of residential and business locations correspond closely to natural and
ecological principles, which are influenced by the concepts of competition and
dominance. Lastly, the social disorganization theory assumes that people in disorganized
areas tend to develop criminal values and traditions which replace conventional values
and that this process is self-perpetuating (Bursik 1988; Kornhauser 1978; Shoemaker
2000).

Studies on Social Disorganization Theory

6WDUNVstudy used the ecological approach to study deviance, identifying
five essential features of urban neighborhoods: density, poverty, mixed use, transience,
and dilapidation. These characteristics identified neighborhoods with high deviance.
Importantly, this research reasserted the significance of places and groups and the
importance of structures on deviance and crime. Other studies (Byrne and Sampson
1986; Bursik 1988; Kornhauser 1978; Reiss and Tonry 1986) extended the theory of
6KDZDQG0F.D\V social disorganization model by including mediating variables
to examine their intervening effects on crime. Informal social control became a key
mechanism for identifying the mediating effect between community structure and crime.
6DPSVRQDQG*URYHV(1989) research was the first study to test Shaw and
0F.D\VWKHRU\RQFRPPXQLW\VRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQDWERWKDFRPPXQLW\DQGD
QDWLRQDOOHYHOSULRUWRWKLVVWXG\6KDZDQG0F.D\VWKHRU\KDGQHYHUEHHQGLUHFWO\

14
tested). Sampson and Groves hypothesized that low economic status, ethnic
heterogeneity, residential mobility, and family disruption all lead to community social
disorganization, which, in turn, increases crime and delinquency rates. Local friendship
networks, control of street-corner teenage peer groups, and prevalence of organizational
SDUWLFLSDWLRQZHUHXVHGDVPHDVXUHVRIDFRPPXQLW\VOHYHORIVRFLDORUJDQL]DWLRQWKDW
is, as intervening variables). At the community level, 238 localities in Great Britain from
a 1982 National Survey of 10,905 residents were analyzed, and the model was then
replicated with an independent national sample of 11,030 residents of 300 British
localities.
Results from both surveys concurred with the social disorganization theory and
found that community structural disorganization (as characterized by low socioeconomic
status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential stability, family disruption, and urbanization)
transmits the effects of community structural characteristics into higher rates of criminal
victimizatLRQDQGFULPLQDORIIHQGLQJ6DPSVRQDQG*URYHVVWXG\UHYHDOHGWKDWHWKQLF
heterogeneity had a large, direct effect on mugging and street robbery and family
disruption had an indirect effect on all three of the personal violence catgories they
examined (mugging/street robbery, stranger violence, and total victimization). Low
socioeconomic status and residential instability were insignificant with respect to all three
categories of personal violence. For crimes against persons (i.e., fighting and assault)
and property (i.e., vandalism and larceny), the study revealed that low socioeconomic
status, heterogeneity, and residential stability had no significant direct effects on
offending rates, but their effects were mediated through unsupervised teenage peer
groups. Finally, family disruption had a large direct effect on property theft/vandalism.

15
'HVSLWHVRPHOLPLWDWLRQV6DPSVRQDQG*URYHVVWXG\GHPRQVWUDWHGWKDWVRFLDO
disorganization theory has validity and relevance for explaining macro-level variations in
FULPHUDWHV,WDOVRUHYHDOHGWKDW6KDZDQG0F.D\VPRGHOFRXOGEHH[WHQGHGWR
explain crime and delinquency rates outside the United States. This study, examining the
effects of community structure on crime, is now considered a classic in criminological
research.
/DWHU9H\VH\DQG0HVVQHUUHDVVHVVHG6DPSVRQDQG*URYHVGDWD
by using growth curve model (covariance structure modeling -LISREL) instead of the
weighted least square regression employed by Sampson and Groves (1989). Their
findings partially supported the mediating effects of community structural variables on
crime. The results revealed that all of the variables in the model are moderately related to
crime and that the indicators of social disorganization (weak local friendship networks,
low organization participation, and unsupervised peer groups) effectively mediate the
relationship between crime and residential stability, socioeconomic status, and ethnic
heterogeneity.
Whereas Veysey and Messner reassessed Sampson DQG*URYHVdata,
Lowenkamp, Cullen, and 3UDWWVVWXG\ZDVWKHILUVWWRV\VWHPDWLFDOO\UHSOLFDWH6DPSVRQ
and Groves studyUHYLVLWLQJWKH%ULWLVK&ULPH6XUYH\DGHFDGHODWHUWo investigate
whether the findings reported in the original analysis will remain stable as social
GLVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKHRU\ZRXOGSUHGLFW
In the new study, the authors used the questions from the 1994 British Crime
Survey that most closely matchHGWKRVHLQWKHVXUYH\XVHGLQ6DPSVRQDQG*URYHV
study. The authors first examined the effects of the five structural characteristics

16
(socioeconomic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential stability, family disruption, and
urbanization) on the three measures of social disorganization (weak local friendship
network, low organization participation, and unsupervised peer groups) outlined in
6DPSVRQDQG*URYHVVWXG\7KHQWKH\H[DPLQHGWKHHIIHFWVRIVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQDV
intervening variables (weak local friendship network, low organization participation, and
unsupervised peer groups) predicting crime rates (i.e., personal and household
victimization). They found that the five structural characteristics were significantly
related to at least two (weak local friendship network and unsupervised peers) of the three
social disorganization measures. When adding crime rates to the full model, all of the
social disorganization measures were significantly related to rates of total criminal
victimization, however urbanization was not fully mediated by social disorganization (in
FRQWUDVWWR6DPSVRQDQG*URYHVUHVXOWV2YHUDOO/RZHQNDPS&XOOHQDQG3UDWWV
survey of the 1994 data mirrors the results from the 1982 survey, supporting the use of
social disorganization theory in criminological research within the United States and
Great Britain.

Studies on Social Disorganization and Crime

The social disorganization theory provides a community structure framework that
explores living conditions in neighborhoods to explain various criminal outcomes. In the
PRGHOWKHSUHYDOHQFHRIFULPHLQQHLJKERUKRRGVLVDVLJQRIUHVLGHQWVLQDELOLW\WR
maintain order or neighborhood control over public space. Neighborhood studies often
use parts of the social disorganization model (e.g., economic status and heterogeneity) to
explain community outcomes such as adolescent development (Gunn et al. 1993; Elliott

17
et al. 1996), mental health (Ross 2000; Ross and Mirowsky 2001; Silver 2001) and
parenting (Simons et al. 1997). However, the work of Shaw and McKay (1942) is
traditionally known for using social disorganization theory to explain crime and
GHOLQTXHQF\7KLVVWXG\VRYHUDOOIRFXVLVRQFRPPXQLW\DQGFULPHDGLVWLQFWLYH
subfield in community research. In that light, I only identified studies that were
theoretically driven by the components of the social disorganization framework and that
used crime as a dependent variable in an effort to contribute to this field of research.
Several studies fit that description, having tested the social disorganization theory on
various types of crimes (including property crime, homicide, and robbery).
Kubrin and Herting (2003) used growth curve models to examine neighborhood
structure and three types of homicide (general altercation, felony, and domestic) over
time (1980-1994). Overall, the study revealed that initial levels of each homicide type
were each related in similar ways to the neighborhood characteristics (disadvantage and
instability); the trends for each subtype differed according to the shape of the trajectory
and the type of homicide being observed; and that the neighborhood factors associated
with the three types of homicides varied for each type. More specifically, general
altercation homicides were significantly positively associated with initial levels of
killings. Neighborhoods with higher levels of disadvantage and greater population sizes
were more likely to have higher initial levels of general altercation homicides in 1980 and
also experienced more rapid declines in levels. The upswing in general altercation
killings was sharper in areas of greatest initial disadvantage.
Reflecting a similar picture, disadvantage was significantly positively associated
with initial levels of felony murder. Instability was also significantly positively related to

18
felony homicide, although this relationship indicates a weak association; the association
reflects that greater levels of residential mobility and divorce reflect greater levels of
felony homicides.
For domestic killings, disadvantage, instability, and population size were
positively associated with initial levels. Likewise, instability and population size were
negatively related to declines and eventual upswings in domestic homicides over the
fifteen-year period.
In another study of social disorganization and crime, Lanier and Huff-Corzine
(2006) applied the theory to American Indian homicide rates. They hypothesized that
counties with higher levels of social disorganization would have higher levels of
American Indian homicide. Their findings revealed that family disruption and ethnic
heterogeneity was associated with increases in American Indian homicide, but that
poverty and residential mobility were not associated with homicide.
Social disorganization theory was initially derived from research on urban
settings. It evolved to explain how ecological and neighborhood structural characteristics
affect neighborhoods and the ability for residents to govern their own space. Osgood and
Chambers (2000), went further, examining the social disorganization beyond large urban
settings. Their study presented an analysis of structural correlates of arrest for juvenile
violence in 264 nonmetropolitan counties of four states. The overall findings revealed
similar patterns for rural and urban areas. That is, juvenile violence was associated with
rates of residential instablility, family disruption, and ethnic heterogeneity in either area.
Although rates of poverty on juvenile delinquency were not supported, the overall results
revealed that social disorganition theory could also explain rural area delinquency.

19
A more recent study, Wells and Weisheit (2004), further examines the effects of
community structural variables from the social disorganization model (urban density,
housing instability, family instability, population change, economic change, economic
resources, racial heterogeneity, and cultural capital) on patterns of urban and rural crime
rates (violent crime rates and property crime rates) to see if the theory was applicable in
non-urban areas. They reported that ecological and social structure factors were not good
predictors for crime rates in the rural area; social disorganization variables were better
predictors of property and violent crime rates in urban areas, reflecting the difference
between urban and rural community dynamics in generating crime.
As policy makers debate how to adequately implement welfare reform, scholars
have also examined relationships between welfare and property crime. Hannon and
Defronzo (1998) studied whether differences in the levels of AFDC assistance affected
property (burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft) crime rates. Drawing from three
theories (strain, social support, and a partial version of the social disorganization theory),
they hoped to explain the link between welfare and property crime. They used 1990
census data to construct the independent variables (% of poor, female-headed families; %
of population over age 14; divorce; male unemployment rate; % of women in the civilian
labor force; per capita income; and % 16-24 population-log) and the 1990 Uniform Crime
Report for the property crime rates. The level of welfare benefits was measured by the
average amount of 1990 AFDC support per capita.
UsinJ2UGLQDU\/HDVW6TXDUHV2/6+DQQRQDQG'HIURQ]RVUHVXOWVFRQFOXGHG
that the percentages of poor families and female-headed households had the strongest
effects on property crime rates (.58 burglary, .42 larceny, and .52 for motor vehicle).

20
Divorce rates had a significant positive relationship to burglary and larceny, per capita
income had significant negative effects on burglary and larceny rates, and the percentage
of population between ages 16-24 had a significant effect only on larceny rates. The
percentage of women in civilian labor force showed a significant positive effect on
larceny and auto theft, but not the burglary rate, and, finally, the population size (log) had
significant positive effects on all property rates (burglary, larceny, and auto theft).
Overall, their theoretical arguments were partially supported: deriving from the
strain theory, welfare benefits did reduce economic hardship, which reduced crime. Their
ILQGLQJVDOVRVXSSRUWHG6DPSVRQDQG:LOVRQVYHUVLRQRIWKHVRFLDOGLsorganization
theory, which proposed that more economic advantage should be associated with higher
percentages of two-parent households and with lower crime rates (Hannon and Defronzo
1998). Lastly, routine activity suggests that people make rational choices to commit
crimes, therefore welfare aid should be significantly related to property crime (high levels
of AFDC assistance would generate more goods as targets for potential theft). Hannon
DQG'HIURQ]RVUHVXOWVGLGQRWVXSSRUWWKHURXWLQHDFWLYLW\WKHRry.
An additional study integrated theories to better explain the phenomenon of
criminal behavior. Smith, Frazee, and Davison (2000) integrated social disorganization
and routine activity theory to examine street robbery as a diffusion process. Their
research theoretically suggests that disorganized neighborhoods have low levels of social
control. Offenders commit crime in any socially disorganized areas, not just their block.
However, routine activity theory suggests that offenders commit crimes in their
DZDUHQHVVVSDFH7KHUHVHDUFKHUVIRXQGWKDWVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQDQG
routine activity variables did predict street robbery. However, street robbery potential

21
was caused more by social disorganization than routine activities, and social
disorganization variables did not alone predict street robbery.
,QWKLVSDSHU,ZLOOIXUWKHUDQDO\]HFULPHUDWHVE\H[WHQGLQJ:DUQHUVVWXG\
on the role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory. Attenuated culture
(weakened conventiRQDOYDOXHVLVVHHQDVWKHLQDELOLW\RIFRPPXQLW\UHVLGHQWVWR
UHDOL]HPDQ\RIVRFLHW\VFRPPRQYDOXHVWKDWZHDNHQLQIRUPDOVRFLDOFRQWURO:DUQHU
2003:76). Previous studies mainly saw social ties as mediating structural characteristics
on informal coQWURO,QDGGLWLRQWRH[DPLQLQJVRFLDOWLHV:DUQHUVUHVHDUFKPRGHO
combined aspects of both cultural and structural disorganization, arguing that social ties
were the facilitator for cultural strength. This suggests that, if social ties are weak, then
conventional values will be weak (attenuated culture), blocking efforts at informal
control. The model includes structural (stability and concentrated disadvantage) and
cultural (conventional values) variables, along with social ties and cultural strength as the
mediating variables on informal control. To test the model, Warner used survey data
from 66 neighborhoods in a southern state, along with supplemental data from the 1990
census.
7KHXQLTXHDVSHFWRI:DUQHUVPRGHOLVKHULQFOXVLRQRIFXOWXUDOVWrength. As
mentioned previously, systemic models assume value consensus, whereas Warner
PHDVXUHVYDOXHFRQVHQVXVWKURXJKUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQRIQHLJKERUKRRGFRQYHQWLRQDO
YDOXHVZKLFKUHIOHFWWKHFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKLQWKHQHLJKERUKRRG:DUQHUVPRGHO
theoretically suggests that concentrated disadvantage and residential mobility make it
difficult for communities to provide informal social control because of attenuated culture,
itself partially due to weak social ties. Social ties operate as the avenue for conventional

22
YDOXHVWREHH[SUHVVHGVKDUHGDQGGLVSOD\HG:DUQHU:DUQHUVPRGHO
provides the basis for my study, which extends a further analysis to assess if informal
social control predicts crime rates.

Summary of Literature Review

Shaw DQG0F.D\VVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKHRU\SURYLGHGVFKRODUVZLWKDPRGHO
to examine how neighborhood structural characteristics affect crime and delinquency.
Early studies examined the effects of neighborhood characteristics on crime rates and
revealed mixed results, with some studies reporting direct relationships between social
disorganization and crime rates (Block 1979; Bursik 1986, 1988; Byrne and Sampson
1986; Curry and Spergel 1988; Wells and Weisheit 2004; Hannon and Defronzo 1998;
Smith, Frazee, and Davison 2000), while others revealed weak to insignificant direct
relationships (Messner and Tardiff 1986; Sampson 1985). Inconsistent results have been
linked to variations in the measurement of neighborhood; studies have used local
community areas, census tracts, and electoral wards as neighborhood boundaries,
yielding mixed results (Bursik and Webb 1982; Taylor and Covington 1988; Sampson
and Groves 1989).
The extended model of the social disorganization theory includes intervening
variables (social ties, cultural strength, and informal control) to explain the possible
causes of crime and delinquency. In general, most studies show support for the
hypothesis that informal controls mediate the effects of neighborhood structural variables
on crime rates (Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower 1984; Simicha-Fagan and Schwartz

23
1986; Sampson and Groves 1989; Bellair 1997; Elliott et al. 1996; Markowitz et al.
2001). However, past research has several gaps that this research will address.
First, most studies use the extended version of the social disorganization model,
which includes neighborhood structural variables and mediating variables such as
informal controls, but not cultural disorganization. Second, research has neglected to
examine the role of culture specifically on crime rates. Later scholars have built on the
work of Shaw and McKay by extending social disorganization theory as a systemic
model to better explain the role of social networks reflecting neighborhoods as a model of
social control (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974). This systemic model provides the
theoretical order in how networks, key to understanding how individuals come together
to develop values and facilitate informal control in their neighborhoods, mediate the
structural (instability, concentrated disadvantage, and conventional values) effects on
neighborhood crime rates. This relationship may be challenged by structural conditions
that weaken (attenuate) culture ties within neighborhoods.

Informal Social Control and Attenuated Culture

A key dimension of community social disorganization is the absence or
ZHDNHQLQJRILQIRUPDOORFDOIULHQGVKLSQHWZRUNV6KDZDQG0F.D\VUHVHDUFKDUJXHV
that community level control is an important mechanism for controlling delinquency in
neighborhoods. Such controls include the supervision of youth, intervention in corner
groups, and questioning of suspicious activities (Shaw and McKay 1969; Thrasher 1963;
Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson et al. 1997). Although Shaw and McKay referred
to the role of formal and informal control on disorganization, they did not empirically test

24
for this in their research. Scholars later developed an alternative model known as the
systemic model which incorporates the role of community attachments or networks.
Some studies on community disorganization have focused on trying to understand
the effects of industrialization on the social fabric of community. Kasarda and Janowitz
(1974) examined two popular opposing models: the linear model, which focuses on
population size and density and is driven by the Toennies-Wirth approach to community
attachment, and the systemic model that focuses on length of residence and is driven by
:,7KRPDVDQG3DUNDQG%XUJHVV7KHSXUSRVHRI.DVDUGDDQG-DQRZLW]VUHVHDUFK
was to see which model better explained community attachment and social bonds within
a community.3
The linear model suggested that the larger the size and density of a neighborhood,
the weaker the community attachment would be. In contrast, the systemic model saw the
length of residence as the key factor influencing levels of community attachment.
.DVDUGDDQG-DQRZLW]VUHVXOWVUHYHDOHGWKDWSRSXODWLRQDQGGHQVLW\ZHUHQRW
significantly related to local social bonds, whereas length of residence was significant
with all local social bonds except for participation in informal activities. The same
pattern was reported for community sentiment; population and density had a weak to
insignificant relationship, while length of residence had a significant effect on community
sentiments. Overall, the study concluded that population size and density did not weaken
bonds (kinship and friendship), but that length of residence was a pivotal factor in
developing social bonds. It also concluded that increases in population size and density
did not result in the substitution of secondary for primary and informal contacts; instead,

25
formal ties fostered more extensive primary contacts in local community (Kasarda and
Janowitz 1974:338).
7KHORFDOFRPPXQLW\LVVHHQDVDQRQJRLQJV\VWHPRf social networks into which
new generation and new residents are assimilated, while the community itself passes
through its own life-F\FOH.DVDUGDDQG-DQRZLW]$VVXFKQHZUHVLGHQWVFDQ
hinder the development of social networks including local social bonds (sometimes
identified as social ties, friendship, and kinship bonds), formal associations (community
organization), and informal associations within the community (Kasarda and Janowitz
1974). These networks are examined in research as variables between structural
FKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGFULPHUDWHV7KHV\VWHPLFPRGHOVXJJHVWVWKDWORFDOLW\-based social
QHWZRUNVFRQVWLWXWHWKHFRUHVRFLDOIDEULFRIKXPDQHFRORJLFDOFRPPXQLWLHV.DVDUGD
and Janowitz 1974, as cited in Sampson and Grove 1989). Theoretically, then,
communities that cannot control group-level activities will experience higher rates of
delinquency and crime.
,QDGGLWLRQWRLQIRUPDOFRQWUROV6KDZDQG0F.D\VVWXG\DOVRGUDZV
inferences regarding subcultural deviance and convenWLRQDOYDOXHV7KH\ZULWHWKDWWKH
dominant tradition in every community is conventional, even in those having the highest
rates of delinquents, and that the traditional conventional values are embodied in the
family, the church, the school, and many othHUVXFKLQVWLWXWLRQVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQV6KDZ
McKay 1942 as cited in Kornhauser 1978:440). In contrast to Shaw and McKay, this
study will empirically measure conventional value as cultural strength to demonstrate the
role of culture within the neighborhood.

26
In summary, Shaw and McKay (1942) provided a model for scholars to examine
how differences in structural characteristics are associated with differences in rates of
crime and delinquency between neighborhoods. However, their model did not provide an
explicit analysis of structural characteristics and crime and delinquency (Bursik 1988).
The rebirth of their theory extended the social disorganization model by providing
community level indicators (mediating variables) to better explain how formal and
informal controls affect crime. This version is based on a systemic model of control in
which social networks within a community operate as social control mechanisms
(Janowitz 1967; Kasarda and Janowitz 1974). In this model, social networks are seen as
critical to social control because they provide the mechanism through which individuals
in a neighborhood come to know each other, establish common values, and carry out
informal social control.

Proposed Hypotheses
$FFRUGLQJWR6KDZDQG0F.D\VRriginal model, residential mobility acts
as a barrier to developing community bonds. This interferes with kinship bonds,
friendship networks, and local association ties (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974). Therefore,
avenues that create informal social ties are key factors in community networks.
$GGLWLRQDOO\UHVLGHQWLDOPRELOLW\VWDELOLW\IRUWKLVUHVHDUFKGLVUXSWVDFRPPXQLW\V
QHWZRUNRIVRFLDOUHODWLRQVLQZKLFKDV.DVDUGDDQG-DQRZLW]DUJXHWKHPDMRU
intervening variables are friendship and kinship bonds and formal and informal
DVVRFLDWLRQDOWLHVZLWKLQWKHORFDOFRPPXQLW\6WURQJVRFLDOWLHVGULYHQE\

27
cultural strength provide the means for communities to increase social control, which, in
turn, reduces crime (Skogan 1986; Sampson and Grove 1989).
In addition to residential stability, concentrated disadvantage (e.g., low
VRFLRHFRQRPLFVWDWXVPLQRULW\HWKQLFFRQFHQWUDWLRQRUJKHWWRL]DWLRQKHWHURJHQHLW\
family disruption, and urbanization), a concept derived from Shaw and McKay (1942)
and Wilson (1987), also operates as a barrier that reduces the positive effects of cultural
strength and informal social control. No previous study has presented a comprehensive,
community level analysis of the effects of cultural strength on crime rates. Previous
studies have evaluated social disorganization theories of crime, but have not included
cultural strength; those studies only evaluated the effects of informal social control on
crime rates. The current study, therefore, extends previous research by providing a
community level analysis of crime rates, with a particular emphasis on the effects of
cultural strength.
The order of my hypotheses is rooted in the theoretically-prescribed order of the
variables. To avoid bias in selecting variables in a path analysis, this research is guided
by theory and extensive review of previous research (Kline 2005). Therefore, based on
the concepts of social disorganization theory and previous research, the following
hypotheses are proposed (see Figure 1):
H1 Higher stability will be associated with higher social ties and informal social
control.
H2 More concentrated disadvantage will be associated with less cultural strength
and informal social control.
H3 More social ties will be directly associated with more cultural strength.
H4 Communities with more conventional values will have more cultural strength,
and more cultural strength will be associated with more informal social control.

28

H5 More stability will be associated with lower crime rates.

H6 More concentrated disadvantage will be associated with higher crime rates.
H7 More informal social control will be associated with lower crime rates.
The central focus of this research is to explore whether or how cultural strengths mediate
the effects of informal social control on crime.
3

The current research does not focus on population size, but the theoretical approach is driven by the
classical work of W. I. Thomas and Park and Burgess that focus on community attachment and social
bonds (social ties) and stability which are rooted in the systemic model.

29
Chapter 3
Methodology
Data
This study uses secondary data collected in two cities (Louisville and Lexington,
Kentucky) in 2000 for the purposes of examining the effect of cultural disorganization on
crime rates. Neighborhoods were defined by census block group, and 66 neighborhoods
were used in this study. The data, drawn from several sources, is analyzed in two parts:
Part 1 was collected from face-to-face and telephone interviews and Part 2 data was
collected from the 2000 United States Census, the Lexington and Louisville, KY police
crime incident reports, and police data on drug arrests. Part 1 responses were aggregated
to the census block group level and combined with the data from Part 2.
Telephone interviews were conducted between February 16 and June 11, 2000.
$OOWHOHSKRQHLQWHUYLHZVEHJDQZLWKDFRQILUPDWLRQRIWKHUHVSRQGHQWVDGGUHVVVRWKDW
researchers were certain to interview only persons at the sampled addresses. Interviewers
were instructed to speak with the person in the household who had most recently had a
birthday and who was at least 18 years of age. Disconnected numbers were tried again
two weeks later in order to attempt to capture temporary disconnects. If those numbers
ZHUHVWLOOGLVFRQQHFWHGWKH\EHFDPHHOLJLEOHWREHLQFOXGHGLQWKHQR-SKRQHOLVW$W
least 20 attempts (and, in some neighborhoods, as many as 30 attempts), were made to
contact a household member at the listed phone number (Warner 2003).
Approximately 75 percent of the completed surveys were conducted over the
phone, and 25 percent were conducted in person. Two neighborhoods were eventually
dropped from the study; one neighborhood in the medical area of Louisville had only a

30
small number of respondents, and another neighborhood consisting of elderly housing
had a low response rate. For Part 2, police data for each of the two study cities were also
collected. Researchers collected police incident reports for 1997, 1998, and 1999, as well
as drug arrest data for 1999. All police data were geocoded using ArcView (Warner
2003). After geocoding, a list of incidents was printed for each neighborhood. These
lists were verified by a research assistant, who checked addresses on all boundary streets
to be sure only those addresses on the included side of the street (odd versus even) were
counted.

Measures
This study measures structural conditions based on the traditional social
disorganization framework, along with cultural variables from the systemic model
(stability, concentrated disadvantage, and conventional values). The structural
characteristics are based on 1990 and 2000 census data. The unit of analysis is the census
block; therefore, individual reports described below are aggregated to the census block
level.
Previous studies have used victimization reports to measure crime rates,
suggesting a better predictor of community crime rates and supporting the basic premises
of the social disorganization theory (to explain crime rates). This study follows the same
approach in an effort to avoid system bias from police reports. Additionally, the
GHSHQGHQWYDULDEOHVPHDVXUHPHQWVDUHFRQVWUXFWHGXVLQJSUHYLRXVUHVHDUFKWKDW
examines crime at the community level (Sampson and Groves 1989; Veysey and Messner
1999). This study examines total and personal victimization to see if attenuated culture

31
differs among types of victimization. Based on previous studies, an examination of
different types of victimization provides a broader YLHZRQFRPPXQLW\VUHVSRQVHWR
certain crimes. The dependent variables for the proposed study are crime rates, total
victimization rates, and personal victimization rates. Total victimization rates (VIC3MR)
DUHPHDVXUHGE\RQHTXHVWLRQ7KLQNLQJEDFNRver the last three months, have you are
DQ\RQHLQ\RXUKRXVHKROGEHHQDYLFWLPRIDFULPH"3HUVRQDOYLFWLPL]DWLRQUDWHV
19,&7DUHPHDVXUHGZLWKWKHTXHVWLRQ+RZPDQ\WLPHVKDVWKLVRFFXUUHGLQWKHODVW
VL[PRQWKV":KLOH\RXKDYHOLYHGLQWKLVQHLJhborhood, have you or any member of
\RXUKRXVHKROGEHHQDYLFWLPRIYLROHQFHVXFKDVPXJJLQJVH[XDODVVDXOWRUDILJKW"
Both dependent variables are aggregated to neighborhood level.
The following independent variables are measures of social disorganization
(residential stability and concentrated disadvantage) and conventional values. Residential
Stability (based on census data) is measured as percent homeowners (Factor = .83) and
the percent of residents who lived in the same house five years earlier (Factor = .94). The
reliability is .77. Concentrated Disadvantage (based on census data) is measured with a
four-item scale: percent below poverty (Factor = .82), percent of female-headed
households with children (Factor = .77), percent African American (Factor = .85), and
percent with less than a high school degree (Factor = .78). (Alpha .82).
Conventional Values are measured individual responses regarding how strongly
each subject personally agreed or disagreed with the following statements: (1) It is
important to get a good education. (2) It is important to be honest. (3) Family members
should make sacrifices in their personal life for the good of the family. (4) It is wrong to
drink alcohol to the point of getting drunk. (5) Selling drugs is always wrong. (6)

32
Children should always respect their elders. (7) It is wrong for young women to get
pregnant before they are married. Respondents could strongly agree (1), somewhat agree
(2), somewhat disagree (3), or strongly disagree (4). The first twRLWHPV,WLVLPSRUWDQW
WRJHWDJRRGHGXFDWLRQDQG,WLVLPSRUWDQWWREHKRQHVWZHUHDSDUWRIWKHRULJLQDO
scale, but did not load well, because almost everyone agreed with the items. Like
Warner, I omitted these items from the analysis, recoding so that higher numbers would
reflect higher levels of values (Alpha .76). The responses are summed and aggregated to
neighborhood level.
Mediating Variables are social ties, cultural strength, and informal social control.
All mediating variables are summed and aggregated to neighborhood level. Social Ties
DUHPHDVXUHGE\WKHIROORZLQJWZRTXHVWLRQV+RZPDQ\RI\RXUUHODWLYHVOLYHLQ\RXU
QHLJKERUKRRGQRWLQFOXGLQJWKRVHLQ\RXUKRXVHKROG"DQG1RWLQFOXGLQJSHRSOHLQ
your household, how many of your nHLJKERUVGR\RXFRQVLGHUWREHIULHQGV"
5HVSRQGHQWV3HUFHSWLRQRI&XOWXUDO6WUHQJWK is measured as the extent to which
residents perceive that their neighbors strongly agree with conventional values.
5HVSRQGHQWVZHUHDVNHG%DVHGRQZKDW\RXVHHDQGKear in your neighborhood, how
strongly do you feel your neighbors would agree or disagree with the following
statements? (1) It is important to get a good education. (2) It is important to be honest. (3)
Family members should make sacrifices in their personal life for the good of the family.
(4) It is wrong to drink alcohol to the point of getting drunk. (5) Selling drugs is always
wrong. (6) Children should always respect their elders. (7) It is wrong for young women
to get pregnant before they are married7KHVHLWHPVDUHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIQRUPDWLYH
values taught in schools and churches. Again, respondents could (1), strongly agree, (2),

33
somewhat agree, (3), somewhat disagree, or (4), strongly disagree. I recoded the data so
that higher numbers reflected perceptions of greater cultural strength (Alpha .86). As
:DUQHUQRWHVWKLVPHDVXUHWUHDWVFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKDVDTXDOLW\RIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
distinct form the average level of conventional values held by the individual respondent.
In as such, by measXULQJUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQVRIQHLJKERUKRRGVYDOXHV
neighborhood respondent act as observers of their neighborhood, and thereby provide a
PHDVXUHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHQHLJKERUKRRGIRFXVRIWKHVWXG\
Informal Social Control is measured by individual responses to the likelihood of someone
in the neighborhood intervening in the following six behaviors: children spray painting
graffiti on a local building, children showing disrespect to an adult in the neighborhood,
someone being beaten up in front of your house, someone breaking into your house,
someone trying to sell drugs to a neighborhood child, and someone trying to sell drugs to
an adult in plain sight (Elliott et al. 1996; Sampson et al. 1997). The average percentage
is calculated across DOOVL[LWHPVRIUHVSRQGHQWVZKRVWDWHGWKDWLWZDVYHU\OLNHO\WKDW
someone from the neighborhood would do something to stop each behavior; this provides
the average percentage of respondents in each neighborhood who perceive it is very
likely that neighbors would intervene across the six behaviors (Alpha .91).

Procedure
A path analysis within a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework is used
to test the hypotheses for this study. Path analysis is distinctive from the standard SEM
models in that it does not contain latent variables (Raykov and Marcoulides 2006).

34
Path analysis was first developed by Sewall Wright in the 1930s for use in ecological
VWXGLHV:ULJKWVJXLGHWRSDWKDQDO\VLVVXJJHVWWKHIROORZLQJVWHSVZULWHRXWWKHPRGHO
equations relating measured variables; work out the correlations among them in terms of
the unknown model parameters; and, last, try to solve in terms of the parameters in the
resulting systems of equations in which correlations are replaced by sample correlations
5D\NRYDQG0DUFRXOLGHV%DVHGXSRQ:ULJKWVWUDGLWLRQDODSSURDFKWRSDWK
analysis, an SEM framework can analyze path models by viewing them as special cases
of structural equation models. Therefore, path analysis can be seen as characteristic of
structural equation models which assume that there is an explanatory relationship
between latent variables, that the independent variables are associated with no
measurement error, and that all latent variables are measured by single indicators with
unitary loadings (Raykov and Marcoulides 2006:78).
As opposed to regular regression techniques, path analysis allows for the explicit
modeling of measurement error in the observed variables (Kline 2005). In addition, the
multivariate nature of path analysis allows researchers to test direct, indirect, and total
effects. Regression can be used to test indirect effects, but this is only suitable when
there are no measurement errors involved in the predictor variables. This assumption is
usually unrealistic in empirical research (Raykov and Marcoulides 2006). Also,
sequential regression analysis makes it difficult to compute standard errors for the
significance of indirect paths (Raykov and Marcoulides 2006). Other advantages of path
analysis compared to multiple regression are the ability to model error terms, to test
models with multiple dependent variables, and to model several mediating variables in
one model (Kline 2005; Raykov and Marcoulides 2006). The complexity of social

35
disorganization theory in terms of multiple proposed mediating factors further justifies
the use of path analysis. In addition, path analysis is based on existing or proposed
theories to explain phenomena under investigation. To better understand the role of
cultural strength, a path model is used to test both structural and cultural variables. The
model is a recursive model which assumes that all causal effects are represented as
unidirectional and no disturbance correlations exist among endogenous variables with
direct effects between them.
For missing data, I use standardized full information maximum likelihood
estimation which assumes that the population distribution for the endogenous variables is
multivariate normal (Kline 2005). This means that values are selected to maximize the
chances of correct parameter estimate for the population (Allison 2002; Enders, in press).
Path analysis within a structural framework marks the best approach for the
proposed research question: Does community cultural strength mediate the effects of
informal control on crime rates? The answer to this question will add insight to
neighborhood research, helping to better understand effects of neighborhood culture on
crime rates.

36
Chapter 4
Results
7KLVVWXG\H[WHQGV:DUQHUVUHVHDUFKE\H[DPLning the effects of
DWWHQXDWHGFXOWXUHRQFULPHUDWHV,ILUVWUHSOLFDWHWKHGLUHFWLRQRIFRHIILFLHQWVLQ:DUQHUV
model. Warner used LISREL 8.3, but I use Mplus 5.1 version, therefore there may be
differences in our results. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were used to determine if the model fit the data. The
RMSEA measures the error of approximation (lack of fit model fit) per model degree of
freedom which also accounts for sample size. The general rule is that RMSEA < .05
represents a close fit, between .05 and .08 is a reasonable approximation, and RMSEA >
.10 is considered poor fit (Raykov and Marcoulides 2006; Browne and Cudek 1993). The
CFI also adjusts for sample size, measures non-centrality, and accounts for average
correlation in the data. Therefore, if the average correlation between the variables is
high, the CFI will be high or reverse effect.4 CFI ranges from 0 to 1; the larger the value
the better model fit. Acceptable model fit is indicated by a CFI value of 0.90 or greater
(Hu and Bentler 1999).
Although this research sample is considered small (N = 66), the fit indices reflect
an adequate fit to the data; x2 = 101.21 df =12, p = 0.00, CFI.99; RMSEA = .06.
Next, two separate models that add the two crime variables to the existing path
model are run. The model with the proportion of residents reporting that a member of
their household was victimized by a crime (personal victimization) and the model with
the average number of crimes per household (total victimization) both have CFI (.99) and
RMSEA (.05) estimates that reflect adequate model fit.

37
The central foci of this research are mediating (cultural strength, social ties, and
informal control) variables. As shown in Table 1, when comparing conventional and
cultural values, there are noticeable differences revealing that respondents have higher
perceptions of their own conventional values but tend to have lower evaluations of their
QHLJKERUKRRGVYDOXHV7KHGLIIHUHQFHVUHIOHFW UHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQVRIWKHLU
neighborhood, demonstrating attenuated culture within the community. Descriptive
statistics for the study variables are located in Table 2. These indicate average
community total victimization was relatively low (.07%), whereas average community
personal victimization was more prevalent (.12%). Also, the average number of
community person victimization is close to one. This supports the crime trend which
reflects high incidents of personal crimes.
Among the independent variables, the average degree of community mobility is
1.8, meaning residents will move from one to two times within five years. The
community conventional values are .75%; this reveals a strong consensus among
UHVSRQGHQWVYLHZVRIYDOXHV7KHGHVFULStive for the intervening variables indicates for
FXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQVRIWKHLUQHLJKERUVFRQYHQWLRQDOYDOXHV
of the community agrees with conventional values. The community social ties show that
8.3% of the residents have friends or relatives in the neighborhood, with the average
number of relatives/friends ranging from 39 to 78. The average amount of community
willingness to intervene on behalf of the neighborhood is .56%, with the average number
of times from .33 to .81.
Table 4 provides answers to the proposed hypotheses. Considering the small
sample size and specified directions of the hypotheses, this study uses a 1-tailed t-test (t

38
>1.65) to report results. All paths in Figure 1 were modeled simultaneously. H1: Higher
stability will be associated with higher social ties and informal social control. As
expected, higher stability was associated with higher social ties (B = .56, Beta =.18) and
higher informal social control (B = .01, Beta = .01). Neither association, however, is
statically significant. Consistent with hypothesis 2, communities with more concentrated
disadvantage will have lower cultural strength (B = -.012, Beta = -.129) and lower
informal social control (B = -.029, Beta = - .278), but only the latter path reaches
statistical significance.
Hypothesis 3 was supported; more social ties were directly associated with a
greater respondent perception of cultural strength (B=0.01, Beta=0.32). For hypothesis 4,
findings support that communities with more conventional values will have respondents
with a greater perception of cultural strength (B = 0.81, Beta = 0.62). This means that
communities in which individuals endorse more conventional values also have residents
who perceive others in their communities as endorsing conventional values (cultural
strength). Greater respondent perception of cultural strength was associated with more
informal social control (B = 0.42, Beta = .39). In hypothesis 5, I predicted that more
stability would be associated with lower crime rates. Although the results are in the
hypothesized direction, the association did not reach statistical significance. Also,
contrary to hypothesis 6, the community level of concentrated disadvantage does not
have a significant association with victimization reports (personal victimization or total
victimization). Only one community level variable had a statistically significant direct
association with both victimization reports. As predicted in hypothesis 7, communities
with higher informal social control had lower personal victimization (B = -.704, Beta =

39
.418*) and total victimization (B = -.148, Beta = -.304*). See Figure 2 for significant
paths.
In addition to the path model results, I also examine the indirect effects of the path
coefficients through effect decomposition (Kline 2005). The indirect effects offer a more
complete picture, revealing how the paths affect each other beyond a direct relationship
and showing how the effect of a variable is transferred to the next in a chain of effects
(see Tables 5 and 6 for decomposition results).5
The decomposition effect results show that cultural strength has a negative
significant total indirect effect (-.11 p <.10) through social control on total victimization.
Although marginal, the indirect path lends support to the central focus of this research by
UHIOHFWLQJWKHUROHRIUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQRIFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKRQWRWDOYLFWLPL]DWLRQ
demonstrate an indirect relationship on crime rates. Meaning, although respondent
perception of cultural strength is not directly associated with crime rates, it is indirectly
associated through social control. Concentrated disadvantage also has only an indirect
effect on total victimization rates, primarily through respondent perception of culture and
social control (the largest indirect path, though neither variable is significant on its own).
Conventional values do not have a total significant indirect path on total victimization.
When examining social ties, results show a negative significant total indirect effect on
total victimization.
$OWKRXJKWKHUHLVQRGLUHFWDVVRFLDWLRQEHWZHHQUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQRI
cultural strength and personal victimization, there is a significant indirect effect through
informal social control (B = - .302, Beta = -.163; t = -2.227). Community concentrated
disadvantage has a significant total indirect effect on personal victimization rates (B =

40
.024, Beta = .138) through informal control. Community concentrated disadvantage also
has a significant total indirect effect on total victimization with no specific path.
Therefore, higher concentrated disadvantage is associated with lower informal social
control, and lower informal social control is associated with higher personal
victimization. More social ties have a negative total indirect effect on personal
YLFWLPL]DWLRQWKURXJKLQIRUPDOVRFLDOFRQWURODQGUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQRIFXOWXUDO
strength (-.213 p <.01). This association demonstrates the important role of community
social ties in reducing personal victimization.
The central focus of this research was to explore whether cultural strength
mediates the effects of informal social control on crime. How does this affect crime rates
(i.e., total victimization and personal victimization)? The results revealed no direct
association between aggregate perception of cultural strength and crime rates. However,
a different picture emerged for the indirect effects; the decomposition effects reveal that
aggregate UHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQRIFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKKDVVLJQLILFDnt negative total
indirect effects on both total victimization and personal victimization. The relationship is
stronger with personal victimization (-.16 p <.02) than with total victimization (-.11 p
<.10). The specific indirect path also illustrates a significant negative relationship
through informal social control. According to these results, aggregate perception of
cultural strength is inversely related to crime, demonstrating that cultural strength
indirectly contributes to crime rates.
4

http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm
The decomposition tables only include the direct, total, and total indirect. The specific indirect paths
coefficient are not in the tables, but can be provided upon request.
5

41
Chapter 5
Discussion
The overall goal of this research was to explore the role of cultural strength on
informal social controls and on crime rates (reflected by victimization reports). In this
ZD\WKLVVWXG\H[WHQGHG:DUQHUVPRGHOWKDWLQFOXGHGFXOWXUDODQd structural
variables to examine crime. Using secondary data along with a thorough review of
previous literature, seven major hypotheses were developed and tested and cultural
strength was shown to indirectly contribute to crime rates.
The theoretical URRWVRIWKLVVWXG\DUHIRXQGLQ6KDZDQG0F.D\V
examination of crime and delinquency in urban areas and the classical concept of social
disorganization. The basic premise of the social disorganization theory is that structural
(e.g., stability and concentrated disadvantage) conditions block the ability for
neighborhoods to provide informal social controls which causes social disorganization.
Early scholars criticized the social disorganization framework because it failed to
distinguish between the symptoms and the outcomes of social disorganization (Bursik
and Grasmick 1993). Therefore, scholars (Kornhauser 1978; Bursik 1988; Sampson and
Grove 1989) refined social disorganization as a systemic model which includes
community level controls as mediators; they clarified the distinctions of social
disorganization. While social disorganization model as systemic model produced a
plethora of urban research, the role of culture was neglected. My research attempted to
address the dearth of research on the role of culture in urban crime.
My results provided partial support for the proposed hypotheses for this study.
The systemic model of social disorganization suggests that instability makes it difficult to

42
establish community networks, and a lack of community networks hinders the
willingness of neighbors to intervene on the behalf of the community (the informal social
control that might result in lower crime). There was partial support for H1, reflecting that
higher stability was significantly related to informal social control and supporting the
concept that neighbors are more likely to facilitate informal controls among stable
residents. However, the results departed from the proposed path model, revealing that
higher stability did not have a significant relationship with higher social ties and
demonstrating that informal controls are key to residents responding to neighborhood
problems. Some scholars suggest that networks such as social ties provide the resources
that facilitate informal social controls, but social ties themselves do not facilitate action.
(Sampson et al. 1997; Kubrin and Weitzer 2003). Although social ties do have a
significant role in community research, the results in this study present a different picture.
Additional structural effects for H2 showed that more concentrated disadvantage
was associated with less informal control; this supported the systemic model in that in
neighborhoods with high levels of community disadvantage (i.e., poverty), residents lack
resources to facilitate social controls. For example, a neighborhood with high poverty
and high unemployment might not see a need to invest in a community that only provides
hopelessness. Therefore, concentrated disadvantage be expected to also lower
community culture; however, concentrated disadvantage was not significantly related
with less cultural strength. Wilson (1996) argues that, despite high levels of poverty in
inner-city ghettos, most black residents verbally reinforce traditional (conventional)
American values. Therefore, respondents could have underestimated their perception of
neighborhood values due to the crime in the neighborhood. Demonstrating concentrated

43
disadvantage alone does not take away conventional values; it is the blocked
opportunities that produce actions contrary to stated conventional values. A respondent
from the South side of Chicago, for example, reflects on the loss of jobs in the
community:
You could walk out of the house and get a job, Maybe not what you want but you
could get a job. NoZ\RXFDQWILQGDQ\WKLQJ$ORWRISHRSOHLQWKLV
QHLJKERUKRRGWKH\ZDQWWRZRUNEXWWKH\FDQWJHWZRUN$IHZEXWDYHU\IHZ
WKH\MXVWGRQWZDQWWRZRUN7KHPDMRULW\WKH\ZDQWWRZRUNEXWWKH\FDQWILQG
work. (Wilson 1996:36)
The values are not lost, just the opportunities.
Taking a closer look at the community level variables, hypothesis 3 was
supported; more social ties were associated with cultural strength. Also, social ties had a
negative significant indirect effect on personal and total victimization through culture and
informal social control. This reflects the significance of social ties as an important
avenue that facilitates cultural strength and informal social control. The indirect
association provides community constraints that buffer victimization rates (Korhn 1986).
This association extends into full support for hypothesis 4; communities with more
conventional values were associated with more cultural strength and more cultural
strength was associated with more informal social control. The results did not support
hypothesis 5, though interestingly, in the hypothesized direction, stability did not have a
direct or indirect significant relationship with crime rates. Most surprising was that there
were no indirect relationships among the community level variables (social ties, cultural
strength, and informal social control) from the systemic model.

44
7KHUHVXOWVSDUWLDOO\UHIOHFW:DUQHUVVWXG\ZKLFKUHSRUWHGWKDWVWDELOLW\
had a direct affect on informal control, but was not mediated by social ties as
hypothesized. My results also showed no support for hypothesis 6; concentrated
disadvantage was not significantly related to crime rates. However, the indirect
associations support the systemic model which reflects the community level effects and
reveals that more concentrated disadvantage has a significant total indirect effect on total
victimization and personal victimization. A more specific picture emerged for personal
victimization, with higher concentrated disadvantage indirectly affecting informal social
control which indirectly increases personal victimization. Both hypotheses 5 and 6
SDUWLDOO\VXSSRUWSUHYLRXVOLWHUDWXUH6DPSVRQDQG*URYHVVWXG\UHSRUWVQRGLUHFW
relationship between residential stability and socioeconomic status and crime rates
(property and personal crime), but was mediated by unsupervised teenagers. Lastly, a
hypothesis 7 was supported reflecting more informal social control was associated with
lower crime rates.
Importantly, the central focus of this research was to examine the role of cultural
strength on victimization rates. The decomposition effects reveal that cultural strength
did have significant negative indirect effects on both total victimization and personal
victimization through informal social control. However, the results also showed that
more informal social control had a direct negative association with both personal
victimization and total victimization. As a result, cultural strength can only be said to
operate through informal social control (that is, indirectly) to reduce crime.

Limitations

45
This study adds to the crime literature by exploring the role of culture, previously
understudied in community crime research. The results provide insight into community
dynamics that are important for residents; however, there are limitations that must be
noted. First, the model did not fit the data as well as expected. Although the CFI and the
RMSEA were good, the chi-square value reflected a poor fit. Since this study was driven
by a specific theory, the model does provide future guidance for testing/examining the
UROHRIFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWK6HFRQGRQHRIWKHXQLTXHDVSHFWVRI6KDZDQG0F.D\V
study was that it was longitudinal and could account for ecological changes over time.
Although the majority of studies on social disorganization use cross-sectional data, this is
a drawback, because cross-sectional data does not account for changes over time within
the neighborhood. Feedback loops my also be considered when using cross-sectional
data. Third, the results of this study are based on aggregated data, which can result in
DJJUHJDWLRQELDVZKHUHLQWKHUHVXOWVDUHGHSHQGHQWXSRQWKHVL]HRIWKHXnit of analysis
(Bursik and Grasmick 1993). Despite the challenges associated with aggregated data, it
does allow a scholar the opportunity to examine community dynamics at different levels.
Although Bailey (1985) cautions that the use of different analysis can affect
neighborhood research, he concludes that the unit of analysis should be based on the
theory being tested, and social disorganization theory is based on neighborhood research.
$QRWKHUOLPLWDWLRQRIWKLVVWXG\LVWKDWUHVSRQGHQWVSHUFHSWLRQVRIWKHLU
QHLJKERUKRRGDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHWKHQHLJKERUKRRGV conventional values (a reflection
of culture within the neighborhood). This may underestimate the level of culture reported
by respondents, a fact that should be considered with the conclusion. Finally, this study

46
UHSOLFDWHG:DUQHUVVWXG\EXWXVHd different software, which may alter the results
of this study.

47

Chapter 6
Conclusion and Future Directions
Neighborhoods are considered foundations for fostering a nurturing and safe
environment; however, some neighborhoods are deprived of the opportunity to provide
WKDWEXIIHURIVDIHW\6KDZDQG0F.D\V&KLFDJR$UHD3URMHFWKDVEHHQSUDLVHG
by early scholars as a social movement that greatly influenced community leaders,
political leaders, and residents in facilitating resources to combat community social
problems (particularly crime and delinquency). Building on this social movement, the
goal of my study was to provide a closer view on the role of cultural strength as it relates
to crime in shaping the local community structure. Understanding the role of cultural
strength within neighbhorhoods will add a dimension to crime research that has been
neglected in the past. The results from this study provide implications that can assist
communities with reducing crime.
Based on the results of this study, cultural strength cannot be said to
independently affect crime, but it is facilitated through informal social control. This
reflects that having strong culture in the community is not enough in itself to buffer
crime. Therefore, a proposed solution might be to enhance community crime prevention
programs that advocate for action, VXFKDVWKH&LWL]HQV/HDJXHZKLFKSURPRWHVFLYLF
engagement among community leaders, politicians, and scholars to engage various topics
that affect urban policies.

48
IQDGGLWLRQ%XUVLNDQG*UDVPLFNQRWHWKHLQFRUSRUDWLRQRIFULPHSUHYHQWLRQ
programs into the agenda of existing local organizations means that such activities can
EHQHILWIURPWKHVWUHQJWKRILQWHUQDOVWUXFWXUHVWKDWKDYHHYROYHGRYHUWLPH7KHrefore,
community-based crime prevention programs should also focus on building formal (i.e.,
police, state, and local government) and informal controls that helps facilitate community
actions against crime.
This study provides encouragement for future research that exploring the role of
culture within neighborhoods and its effects on crime. This dissertation relies on
aggregated community data, and future research should consider multi-level analysis to
account for individual level factors that may influence victimization rates. In addition,
most studies are based on cross-sectional analyses and do not acount for change in
neighborhood culture or in crime outcomes over time. Future studies should incorporate
more growth-curved models that can account for changes over time in crime rates and
community structures.
Most importantly, the focus on this research was on the role of attenuated culture
PHDVXUHGDVUHVSRQGHQWVSHUVSHFWLYHRIFXOWXUDOVWUHQJWKLQYLFWLPL]DWLRQUHSRUWV7KLV
research used the traditional views of conventional values within the American system.
This traditional sense dictates the value system for all American citizens. As Shaw and
0F.D\QRWH7KH$PHULFDQ9DOXHV\VWHPLVXQLYHUVDOLVWLFLWRUGDLQVWKHVDPH
goal for all, rather than a graded series of goals considered appropriate for different
FDWHJRULHVRIFLWL]HQV.RUQKDXVHU'LUHFWLRQVIRUIXWXUHUHVHDUFKFRXOGDOVR
include mixed methods by using qualitative research to examine how residents would
themselYHVGHILQHFRPPXQLW\FXOWXUHDVRSSRVHGWRWKHUHSRQGHQWVSHUVSHFWLYHRI

49
conventional values. This would provide a more robust measure of cultural strength to
better examine its role in crime. This study has provided the ground work for examining
the role of attenuated culture by collecting data at a community level. Future research
will focus on collecting data in St. Paul, MN to measure the same concept, further
examining attenuated culture.

50
References
%DLOH\:LOOLDP&$JJUHJDWLRQDQG'LVDggregation in Cross-Sectional Analyses
RI&ULPH5DWHV7KH&DVHRI6DWHV606$DQG&LWLHVLQNeighborhood and Crime
edited by Robert J. Bursik and Harold G. Grasmick. Lexington Books: Lanham,
Maryland.
Bellair, Paul E. 2000a,QIRUPDOVXUYHLOODQFHDQd street crime: A complex
UHODWLRQVKLSCriminology 38: 137-170.
------. 1997b6RFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQDQd community crime examining the
importance RIQHLJKERUQHWZRUNVCriminology 35: 677-703.
%ORFN5LFKDUG&RPPXQLW\(QYLURQPHQWDQG9LROHQW&ULPHCriminology 17:
46-57.
Brooks-*XQQ-HDQQH-*'XQFDQ3DPHOD.HOEDQRY16HDODQG'R
1HLJKERUKRRGVLQIOXHQFH&KLOGDQG$GROHVFHQW'HYHORSPHQW"American Journal of
Sociology. 35: 3-95.
Browne, Michael and Robert Cudeck. 1993. $OWHUQDWLYHZD\VRIDVVHVVLQJPRGHOILW
Testing structural equation models, edited by In K.A. Bollen and J.S. Long, Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Bursik, Robert Jr. 1986'HOLQTXHQF\5DWHVDV6RXUFHVRI(FRORJLFDO&KDQJHLQThe
Social Ecology of Crime. Springer-Verlag: New York.
Bursik, Robert Jr. 6RFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQDQGWKHRULHVRIFULPHDQGGHOLQTXHQF\
3UREOHPVDQGSURVSHFWVCriminology 26: 519-549.
Bursik, Robert Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The
Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lexington Books: Lanham, Maryland.
Bursik , Robert Jr. and Jim Webb. &RPPXQLW\&KDQJH and Patterns of
GHOLQTXHQF\American Journal of Sociology 88: 24-42.
Byrne, James M. and Robert J. Sampson. 1986. The Social Ecology of Crime. SpringerVerlag: New York Inc.
&XUU\*'DYLGDQG,UYLQJ$6SHUJHO*DQJ+RPLFLGH'HOLQTXHQF\DQG
&RPPXQLW\Criminology 26: 381-405.
Elliot, Delbert S., William Juilus Wilson, David Huizinga, Robert J. Sampson, Amanda
Elliot, and Bruce 5DQNLQ7KHHIIHFWVRIQHLJKERUKRRGGLVDGYDQWDJHRQ
DGROHVFHQWGHYHORSPHQWJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33: 389- 426.

51
Gottfredson, Denise C., R.J. McNeil III, and Gary D. *RWWIUHGVRQ6RFLDODUHD
inflXHQFHVRQGHOLQTXHQF\$PXOWLOHYHODQDO\VLVJournal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 28: 197-226.
Hannon, Lance and James 'HIURQ]R:HOIDUHDQG3URSHUW\&ULPHJustice
Quarterly 15: 273-288.
Hu, Li-W]HDQG3HWHU0%HQWOHUCutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance
6WUXFWXUH$QDO\VLV&RQYHQWLRQDO&ULWHULD9HUVXVQHZ$OWHUQDWLYHVStructural Equation
Modeling 6:1-55.
Janowitz, Morris. 1967. The Community Press in an Urban Setting. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Kasarda, John D. and Morris -DQRZLW]Community Attachment in Mass
6RFLHW\American Sociological Review 39: 328-339.
Kline, Rex B. 2005. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Korbin, 6RORPRQ7KH)RUPDO/RJLFDO3URSHWLHVRIWKH6KDZ-Mckay
'HOLQTXHQF\7KHRU\LQEcology, Crime and Delinquency Appleton- Century-Crofts:
New York.
Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency: An appraisal of analytic
models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
.URKQ0DUYLQ'7KH:HERI&RQIRUPLW\$1HWZRUN$SSURDFKWRWKH
([SODQDWLRQRI'HOLQTXHQW%HKDYLRUSocial Problems 33: 81-93
Kubrin, Charles E. and Jerald R. Herting. 2003. Neighborhood Correlates of Homicide
Trends: An Anaylis using Growth Curve Modeling. The Sociological Quartely 44: 329350.
Kubrin, Charles E. and Ronald :HLW]HU1HZGLUHFWLRQVLQVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQ
WKHRU\ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40: 374-402.
Lanier, Christina and Lin Huff-Corzine. American Indian Homicide: A County/HYHO$QDO\VLV8WLOL]LQJ6RFLDO'LVRUJDQL]DWLRQ7KHRU\Homicide Studies 10: 181-194.
Lander, Bernard. 1954. Towards an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency. Columbia
Unversity Press: New York.
Lowenkamp, Christopher T., Francis T. Cullen, and Travis C. 3UDWW5HSOLFDWLRQJ
Sampson and *URYHVVWHVWRIVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKHRU\5HYLVLWLQJDFULPLQRORJLFDO
FODVVLFJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40: 351-373.

52
2VJRRG:D\QH'DQG-HII0&KDPEHUV6RFLDO'LVRUJDQL]DWLRQRXWVLGHWKH
0HWURSROLV$QDQDO\VLVRI5XUDO<RXWK9LROHQFHCriminology 38: 81-101.
Markowitz, Fred E., Paule E. Bellair, Allen E. Liska, and JianHong Liu. 2001.
([WHQGLQJVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKHRU\0RGHOLQJWKHUHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQFRKHVLRQ
GLVRUGHUDQGIHDUCriminology 39: 293-320.
Park, Robert (7KHFLW\6XJJHVWLRQIRUWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQRIKXPDQEHKDYLRULQ
WKHFLW\HQYLURQPHQWThe American Journal of Sociology 20: 577-612.
Park, Robert E. and Earnest Burgess. 1925. The City. Chicago, IL: University Press.
3HWHH$7*6.RZDOVNLDQG:''XIILHOG&ULPHVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQ
and social structure: A research notHRQWKHXVHRILQWHUXUEDQHFRORJLFDOPRGHOV
American Journal of Criminal Justice 19: 118-139.
Raykov, Tenko and George A. Marcoulides. 2006. A First Course in Structural Equation
Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Reiss, Albert J. Reeiss Jr. and Michael Tonry. 1986. Communities and Crime. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ross, Catherin (1HLJKERUKRRGGLVDGYDQWDJHDQGDGXOWGHSUHVVLRQJournal of
Health and Social Behavior 41: 177-187.
Ross, Catherine E. and John 0LURZVN\1HLJKERUKRRG'LVDGYDQWDJH'LVRUGHU
DQG+HDOWKJournal of Health and Social Behavior 42: 258-276.
Sampson, Robert J. 1986aEfftects of Socioeconomic Context on Official Reaction to
Juvenile Delinquecy.Ameriacn Sociological Review 51: 876-55.
------. 1985bNeighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of
SHUVRQDOYLFWLPL]DWLRQJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22: 7-40.
------. 198F8UEDQ%ODFN9LROHQFH: The Effects of Male Joblesness and Family
Disrupton. American Journal of Sociology 93: 348-82.
Sampson, Robert and W.Byron *URYHV&RPPXQLW\VWUXFWXUHDQGFULPH7HVWLQJ
VRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKHRU\American Journal of Sociology 94: 774-802.
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton (DUOV1HLJKERUKRRGV
DQGYLROHQWFULPH$PXOWLOHYHOVWXG\RIFROOHFWLYHHIILFDF\Science 277: 918-924.
Sampson, Robert and Willliam Julius Wilson. 1995Toward a Theory of Race Crime
and Urban Inequalityin Crime and Inequaltiy. Stanford University Press: Stanford,
CA.

53

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shoemaker, Donald J. 2000. Theories of Delinquency. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Silver, Eric1HLJKERUKRRGVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQDVDFRIDFWRULQYLROHQFHDPRQJ
SHRSOHZLWKPHQWDOGLVRUGHUVInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 45: 403-406.
Simons, Ronald L., C. Johnson, Rand D. Conger, and Fredick 2/RUHQ]/LQNLQJ
FRPPXQLW\FRQWH[WWRTXDOLW\RISDUHQWLQJ$VWXG\RIUXUDOIDPLOLHVRural Sociology
62: 207-230.
Skogan, Wesly G. 1986. )HDURI&ULPHDQG1HLJKERUKRRG&KDQJHLQComunities and
Crime. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Skogan, Wesly G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in
American neighborhoods. New York: Free Press.
Smith, William R., Sharon Glave Frazee, and Elizabeth /'DYLVRQ)XUWKHULQJ
the intergration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: Small units of
DQDO\VLVDQGWKHVWXG\RIVWUHHWUREEHU\DVDGLIIXVLRQSURFHVVCriminology 38: 489524.
Simicha-Fagan, Ora and Joseph (6FKZDUW]1HLJKERUKRRGDQGGHOLQTXHQF\
An assessment RIFRQWH[WXDOHIIHFWVCriminology 24: 667-704.
Spelman, William$EDQGRQHGEXLOGLQJV0DJQHWIRUFULPH"Journal of
Criminal Justice 21: 481-93.
Starks, Rodney'HYLDQW3ODFHV$WKHRU\RIWKHHFRORJ\RIFULPHCriminology
25: 893-909.
Sutherland, Edward H. and Donald R. Cressey. 1978. Criminology, (10th ed.). New
York: Lippincott.
Taylor, Ralph B. and Jeannette &RYLQJWRQ1HLJKERUKRRG&KDQJHVLQ(FRORJ\
DQG9LROHQFHCriminology 26: 553-589.
U.S. Department of Justice. Criminal Victimization 2005. Retrieved March 12, 2006
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv05.htm).

54
Veysey, Bonita M. and Steven F. 0HVVQHUFurther testing of social
disorganL]DWLRQWKHRU\$QHODERUDWLRQRI6DPSVRQVDQG*URYHV FRPPXQLW\VWUXFWXUH
DQGFULPHJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36: 156-174.
Walker, Samuel, Cassia Spohn, and Mariam Delone. 2004. The Color of Justice (3rd ed.).
California: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Warner, Barbara D. and Pamela Wilcox Rountree. 2000. Implications for GhettoRelated Behavior for a Community and Crime Model: Defining the Process of Cultural
Attenuation. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance 2: 39-62.
Warner, Barbara '7KHUROHRIDWWHQXDWHGFXOWXUHLQVRFLDOGLVRUJDQL]DWLRQ
Criminology 41:73-97.
Wells, L.E. and Ralph $:HLVKHLW3DWWHUQVRIUXUDODQGXUEDQFULPH$FRXQW\
OHYHOFRPSDULVRQCriminal Justice Review 29.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and
Public Policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, William J. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of New Urban Poor. New
York: Alferd Knopf.
Wirth, Louis. 1938. Urbanism as a Way of Life. The American Journal of Sociology 14:
1-24.

55
Figure 1. Conceptual Model

Figure 2. Path Model

56

Table 1. Individual Level for Conventional Values and Cultural Strength

Individual Level for Conventional Values
How strongly do you agree or disagree:
It is important to get a good education.
It is important to be honest.
Family members should make sacrifices in their personal
life for the good of the family.
It is wrong to drink alcohol to the point of getting drunk.
Selling drugs is always wrong.
Children should always respect their elders.
It is wrong for young women to get pregnant before they
are married.
5HSRQGHQWV3HUFHSWLRQRI&RQYHQWLRQDO9DOXHV&XOWXUDO6WUHQJWK
Based on what you see and hear in your neighborhood, how strongly do
you feel your neighbors would agree or disagree:
It is important to get a good education.
It is important to be honest.
Family members should make sacrifices in their personal
life for the good of the family.
It is wrong to drink alcohol to the point of getting drunk.
Selling drugs is always wrong.
Children should always respect their elders.
It is wrong for young women to get pregnant before they
are married.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

97.6
97.2

2.0
2.6

.1
0

.2


81.4
68.2
90.2
87.7

16.5
16.7
3.3
9.9

1.6
9.5
3.0
1.4


5.6
3.5
1.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

78.2
74.5

16.9
20.6

2.9
2.9

1.9
2

60.4
44.7
65.1
76.3

32.1
28.7
17.2
17.6

4.5
15.1
10.2
3.2

3.1
11.6
7.6
2.9

57

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics For All Major Variables

(Aggregated level) N = 66
Variables
Dependent Variables:
Total Victimization
Personal Victimization

Mean

Std. Deviation

Min.

Max.

.07
.12

.05
.17

0
0

.2
.89

Independent Variables:
*Residential stability
*Concentrated Disadvantage
Conventional Values

0
0
.75

1
1
.07

-0.2
-0.2
.55

1.8
2.7
.89

Intervening Variables:
Cultural strength
Social Ties
Informal Social Control

.57
8.3
.56

.09
4.9
.1

.39
3.7
.33

.78
39.9
.81

*Factor Scores

Table 3. Bivariate Correlations

1. Total Victimization
2. Personal Victimization
3. Stability
4. Disadvantage
5. Conventional Values
6. Cultural Stregth
7. Social Ties
8. Informal Social Control
**p<.01; *p<.05

1
1
.879**
.090
-.376**
-.163
-.167
-.203
-.162

1
.832
-.341**
-.097
-.136
-.084
-.080

1
.00
.068
.523**
-.027
-.381**

1
.649**
.446**
.116
.666**

1
.617**
.116
.569**

1
-.128
.150

1
.295*

58

Table 4. Path Analysis Results For Total Victimization and Personal Victimization

Stability
Disadvantage
Coventional
Values
Social Ties
Cultural
Strength
Informal
Social Control

RSAWRDRK
RSASDRG

Social Ties
B

.56
.187

Cultural Strength
B

Informal Social Control

B

.011
.108

Total
Victimization
B

0
-.11

Personal
Victimization
B

0
0

RSARSPCT

-.012

-.129

-.029

-.278***

.08

.02

.14

RSAPREG

.818
.010

.629***
.327**

.01

.32***

0
0

0
.09

.39
0

.16
0

.428

.390***

-.03

-.06

-.14

-

-.704

-.418**

RAEDUC
RAHNST
RASACRF

Goodness of fit Indices: Chi-square 114.27, CFI .99, RMSEA .05

S .10, *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table 5. Decomposition of Effects of Variables on Total Victimization

-.06
-
-.18

Culture

Direct
Indirect
Total

B
-.03
-.06
-.09

Concentrated disadvantage

Direct
Indirect
Total

0
0
.01

-.08

-.19

Social Ties

Direct
Indirect
Total

0
0
0

.09
-.17
-.08

Note: Rounding may offset the Direct + indirect total



p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. One-tailed tests.

59

Table 6. Decomposition of Effects of Variables on Personal Victimization

Culture

Direct
Indirect
Total

B
0
-.30
-.30

0
-.16**
-.16

Concentrated disadvantage

Direct
Indirect
Total

.02
.02
.04

.14
.13**
.27

Social Ties

Direct
Indirect
Total

0
-.01
0

.09
-.21**
-.11

Note: Rounding may offset the Direct + indirect total



p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. One-tailed tests.