Mechanisms of Community Control: Informal Social Control and the Activation of Formal Systems of Community Control

Background

Collective efficacy, comprised of informal social control and social cohesion, has been used as a theoretical framework to better understand how interpersonal-level interactions impact community-level outcomes. Research findings support collective efficacy working as an important mediating factor for predicting lower levels of neighborhood violence, crime, and disorganization. Critiques of the collective efficacy framework, however, suggest the need for a more nuanced work to determine how its two components, informal social control and social cohesion, operate.

We aimed to understand if endorsement of neighborhood-level informal social control is positively associated with endorsement of formal systems of control. Three domains of social control were examined: (1) nativism, or the belief in protecting your neighborhood from “outsiders”, (2) carceral control, through systems of formal policing, and (3) controlling morality, through controlling the general behaviors between neighbors.

Methods

Data and Samples: Data for this study were drawn from Part 1 of Warner’s (2000) study on the effect of cultural disorganization on informal social control within the context of two Kentucky neighborhoods with high-levels of drug use. Participants (N=2,304) completed a survey regarding their perceptions of their neighborhood. Respondents were relatively evenly distributed by race (49% White, 51% Black), as well as homeownership (50% rent, 50% own), with a mean age of 46 years old.

Measures and Analysis: We examined 8 variables across three different models to understand how they interact with informal social control and social cohesion: Nativism, measured by length of time lived in the neighborhood, homeownership, and suspicion towards outsiders; carceral control, measured by how often they called the police, and a belief in police legitimacy; and controlling morality, measured by intervention in others’ behavior, aversion to substance use, and belief in respect of elders. We used two hierarchical multiple regression models to distinguish between neighborhood-level and individual-level factors related to informal social control. A third hierarchical multiple regression model was utilized to determine how social cohesion related to formal social control.

Results

Nativism and controlling morality resulted in increased perception of informal social control. In particular, suspicion of others (𝛽 = .158, p < .001), aversion to substance use (𝛽 = .157, p < .001), and view of respect were significant (𝛽 = .157, p < .001). At the individual-level, perception of informal social control was significantly affected by one’s endorsement of police legitimacy (𝛽 = .189, p < .05). Formal systems of control were not, however, significantly related to the endorsement of social cohesion within the neighborhood.

Implications

Our findings suggest that informal social control operates in a similar way to formal social control mechanisms, whereas individual’s endorsement of informal social control may relate less to their desire for community cohesion and more to the desire to control others’ behavior. This suggests that social work researchers engaging in community building efforts should be attentive to the social justice implications of community members’ endorsement of formal systems of social control. Future research should examine how to balance community members’ desires for a safe environment with potential for over-policing of residents.