The Utility of Social Capital and Collective Efficacy: Social Control Policy in Nonmetropolitan Settings

• Author: Jeffrey Michael Cancino
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403404271247
• Published date: 01 September 2005
• Date: 01 September 2005

10.1177/0887403404271247CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2005Cancino / UTILITY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY

The Utility of Social Capital

and Collective Efficacy:

Social Control Policy in

Nonmetropolitan Settings

Jeffrey Michael Cancino

Texas State University

Researchersand practitioners have made great strides at implementing crime reduc-

tion and preventionpoliciesin urban areas;however, such policies are largelyabsent

in less densely populated nonmetropolitan settings. This article provides a reviewof

major findings fromtwo recent nonmetropolitan studies using survey data from 1,125

citizens nested in 31 nonmetropolitan residential units (RUs) located in the state of

Michigan. Hierarchical linear modeling results provide empirical evidence that the

differential ability of nonmetropolitanMichigan residents to realize mutual trust and

solidarity (i.e., social cohesion) is a major source of RU variation in citizens’per-

ceived incivility and burglary. Toward this end, severalpolicyrecommendations are

endorsed in nonmetropolitan communities, whereby resources of social capital can

help facilitate collective efficacy for the purpose of social controland improvement of

citizen quality of life. Using a social capital framework is likely to benefit rural

researchers and policy makers alike.

Keywords: nonmetropolitan; social capital; collective efficacy

Guided by social disorganization theory, urban researchers have provided

the impetus for public discourse on crime policy. Researchers and practi-

tioners have made great strides at implementing crime reduction and pre-

vention policies in urban settings. Such policies, however, are largely

absent in less densely populated nonmetropolitan settings because little

research has been conducted to help guide the development of policies. To

overcome this void, this article draws on two recent nonmetropolitan

287

AUTHOR’SNOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 39th Annual Meet-

ing of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Anaheim, California. The author would

like to thank the anonymous reviews for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 16, Number 3, September 2005287-318

DOI: 10.1177/0887403404271247

© 2005 Sage Publications

studies (Cancino, 2003; Reisig & Cancino, 2004). Toward this end, several

policy recommendations are advocated in nonmetropolitan communities

whereby resources of social capital can help facilitate collective efficacyfor

the purpose of social control and improvement of citizen quality of life.

Using a social capital framework is likely to benefit rural researchers and

policy makers alike.

Following much of the urban social ecology of crime literature and

methodology, Reisig and Cancino (2004) and Cancino (2003) extended

social disorganization theory to nonmetropolitan communities. Both stud-

ies used survey data collected from 1,125 citizens nested in 31

nonmetropolitan geographic units located in the state of Michigan. In addi-

tion, these studies applied hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) techniques

to assess the influence of structural constraints and social conditions on

crime-related outcomes, net of individual-level covariates. The primary

research objectives were to (a) determine the impact of structural features

(e.g., poverty) consistent with urban research and (b) determine whether

social processes (e.g., social cohesion and collective efficacy) found to

mediate the social disorganization–crime causal pathway in urban settings

have similar effects across nonmetropolitan communities. Note that the

present research does not directly operationalize social capital; instead,

social capital is used in a way that offers a policy rationale for the successful

extension of resources (e.g., community, school, police) toward the

development of collective actions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Given the legacy of urban social disorganization theory, the following

section is a review of the extant research. Next, specific social dimensions

are highlighted, such as social capital, social cohesion, and the emergent

concept of collective efficacy. The literature review concludes with a dis-

cussion on the limited empirical assessments of social conditions in

nonmetropolitan communities.

Social Disorganization Theory

Social disorganization theory focuses on both structural constraints and

the processes of social networks that influence various crimes and crime-

related outcomes. With this said, for more than 70 years, scholars have pos-

ited that adverse ecological constraints (e.g., poverty,residential instability,

ethnic heterogeneity) undermine neighborhood social relationships, which,

288CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2005

in turn, fosters crime across urban neighborhoods (Kornhauser, 1978; Shaw

& McKay, 1942). The negative effects of structural disorganization, how-

ever, are not limited to crime. Recent scholarship indicates that structural

constraints (e.g., poverty) also influence citizens’perceptionsof quality of

life, such as fear of crime, perceived violence, and incivilities (Aneshensel

& Sucoff, 1996; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; R. B. Taylor &

Covington, 1993). The notion is that impoverished communities, for exam-

ple, are deficient in terms of social relationships and mutual trust, which

leads to subjective responses among citizens that crime is prevalent and

criminals are seeking suitable targets and perceptions of personal threat and

vulnerability (Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, &Chavis, 1990;

Skogan, 1990, p. 75).

Although structural constraints (e.g., poverty) have been convincingly

articulated in the criminological literature, Whyte (1943, p. 75) suggested

that what appears to be social disorganization effects on crime-related out-

comes is actually the lack of social organization among residents who failed

to adapt to the changing community structure.1The connection, then, is that

the social ecology of crime literature is influenced by the concept of social

capital (a detaileddiscussion of the conceptand characteristicsof social capi-

tal are discussed below; Rose & Clear, 1998). Forinstance, some socialdis-

organization theorists purport that neighborhoods depleted of social capital

are less likely to achieve norm consensus and unlikely to ascertain effective

social control (Bursik, 1999); whereas others argue that the lack of social

capital is one of the primary features of socially disorganized communities

(Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993; Sampson, 1992). The underlying premise

is that social investments are necessaryto sustain sufficient and meaningful

ties among neighbors aimed at regulating the behavior of residents and

improving social problems (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Rose & Clear, 1998;

Sampson et al., 1997, p. 919).

Many of the larger social capital elements are exemplified in Bursik and

Grasmick’s (1993) systemic model. Bursik and Grasmick’s (see also

Hunter, 1985; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974) systemic approach suggests that

social networks can mediate the impact of structural constraints that induce

crime-related outcomes. Bursik and Grasmick (pp. 24-59) identify three

variants of social networks that constitute the communities’core social fab-

ric that are capable of combating crime and improving quality of life: (a)

private (e.g., family and friends), (b) parochial (e.g., neighbors and mem-

bers of social clubs), and (c) public (e.g., police).

Although scholars have marshaled impressive evidence that neighbor-

hood social conditions have the capability of mediating the effect of

Cancino / UTILITY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY289