UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 7.8 Free with a free account
Policy Applications of Sociological Theories of Crime and Deviance
Criminology · Chapter 7: Sociological Theories of Crime and DevianceSection 7.8 · lesson 29 of 91video coming soon
← Integrating Social Structure and Process Perspectives in Criminological AnalysisNext lesson: Comparative Evaluation of Social Structure and Social Process Frameworks →
In this lesson
From theory to program, and why sound programs often fail in practice.
- Trace programs that follow from sociological theories.
- Explain why sound programs often fail in implementation.
- Distinguish implementation failure from theory failure.
- Assess a program against the theory it claims to apply.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,493 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
Theory Failure or Program Failure?
A city launches a mentoring program for teenagers. A year later, offending hasn't budged. Was the theory wrong? Or did the program never really happen as designed? Telling those two apart is the central skill in this lesson.
Lesson Roadmap
From Theory to Crime Policy
This lesson follows sociological theories out of the classroom and into crime policy. We will trace the program families that have grown from each theory in this chapter. You will see why theoretically sound programs so often fail when they are put into practice. The key skill is telling implementation failure apart from theory failure. We will also look at why programs are hard to evaluate, even when they are delivered well. Finally, you will assess a described program against the theory it claims to apply. Along the way, notice that every program carries a theory, whether or not anyone states it. That hidden theory is what an evaluation is really testing.
Core Principle
Every Program Rests on a Theory
Every crime-prevention program rests on a sociological theory of why the targeted offending occurs. That theory may be stated explicitly, or left unstated. Identifying it is the first step in judging whether the program could plausibly work. That step comes before any question of funding, staffing, or political support. A program with no identifiable theory has no basis for predicting what it should do. The principle runs in both directions. A program that succeeds without a stated theory offers little guidance, because no one knows which feature worked. A program that fails without one is equally uninformative. Its failure could reflect a flawed theory, flawed implementation of a sound theory, or simple chance. So stating the theory before launch is not a bureaucratic formality. It is a precondition for learning anything transferable from the outcome.
Program Family
Building Community Capacity Against Crime
Programs descending from social disorganization theory target community capacity directly. Community organizing builds resident networks and the capacity for collective action. Collective efficacy building aims straight at the capacity for informal social control. That capacity is the theory's central mechanism, as subchapter seven point three explained. Place-based investment targets the physical and economic conditions of a specific area. The evaluation record for this family is honestly mixed. Some studies find measurable reductions in offending after sustained investment in community capacity. Others find no detectable effect. The reasons include implementation difficulties as much as any doubt about the underlying theory.
Program Family
Expanding Legitimate Opportunity and Attribution
Programs descending from Merton's strain theory target the gap between cultural goals and institutionalized means. They do it through education, employment, and income support that expand legitimate opportunity. These programs face a specific evaluation difficulty. Broad social programs serve many purposes beyond reducing crime. Their primary goal, and their funding case, is usually economic or educational. So attributing a specific crime effect to them is considerably harder. Compare a narrowly targeted crime-prevention program, designed from the start to measure its effect on crime. That kind of program is much easier to evaluate. This attribution problem does not mean strain-based programs fail; it means their crime effects are hard to see.
Program Family
Targeting Bond Elements
Programs descending from social bond theory target one or more of the four bond elements. Mentoring targets attachment. School engagement initiatives target both attachment and commitment. Family support programs can target attachment, commitment, or involvement, depending on their design. A well-specified program states which element it is built to strengthen. A program built around one element should not be expected to move a different one.
Program Family
Association Programs and Iatrogenic Risk
Programs from differential association and social learning theory aim to shift associations and the definitions they reinforce. These carry a well-documented iatrogenic risk, meaning the risk that an intervention itself causes harm. Grouping at-risk young people together can concentrate the very reinforcement and imitation the program means to interrupt. The result can be worse than no intervention, so any such program must be designed with that risk in view.
Comparison
Five Families and Typical Failures
Five program families can be compared by theory, mechanism, and typical failure. Community-level programs rest on social disorganization, and are most prone to insufficient duration or scale. Opportunity-expansion programs rest on strain theory, and are most prone to attribution failure. Bond-building programs rest on social bond theory, and risk targeting the wrong bond element for the population. Association-focused programs rest on learning theories, and risk an iatrogenic grouping effect. Diversion and minimal-intervention programs rest on labeling theory. They aim to avoid the identity change and exclusion that a formal label can trigger. They face the counter-argument from subchapter seven point six, that under-response carries its own costs. Their typical failure is an accountability structure too weak to prevent renewed formal response.
Key Distinction
Four Implementation Failures
Across all five families, implementation failure is the most common reason a sound program misses its predicted effect. Distinguishing implementation failure from theory failure is essential to reading any evaluation correctly. Four implementation failures recur in this literature. Fidelity failure means the program is not delivered as designed. Dosage failure means delivery at lower intensity or frequency than the design specified. Targeting failure means reaching a population different from the one the theory addresses. Staffing failure means the people delivering the program lack the training or consistency the design assumed. A program that fails on any of these can produce a null result. And that null result says nothing about whether the underlying theory was correct.
Worked Example
Mentoring Program Broke at the Dose
Now, back to the city's mentoring program. It's a bond-building program, resting on control theory. Its mechanism is strengthening attachment to a mentor, through weekly mentor contact. But records show contact averaged roughly once a month, not once a week. The evaluation found no detectable change in offending. The chain broke at the dose, which fell well short of the design. So what can the evaluator conclude about social bond theory? Very little. The theory was never tested at the dose it implies. What the evaluator can conclude is that this program's delivery failed, specifically through dosage.
Quick Check
Job Program Reached Wrong Population
Now a new case. A job program was designed for out-of-work young adults in one district, but most people who enrolled were employed students from a nearby suburb. Offending in the district didn't change. Quick check: what failed? Pause, and decide. The targeting failed. The program reached a different population from the one strain theory addresses, so its null result says little about the theory itself.
Evaluation Challenges
Why Good Programs Are Hard to Evaluate
Even a well-delivered program is hard to evaluate. The first difficulty is selection into programs. Participants often volunteer, are referred, or are chosen by staff, rather than being randomly assigned. They may differ from a comparison group before the program even begins. That can make a program look more or less effective than it really is. The second difficulty is that small effect sizes are common. Detecting a small true effect reliably requires larger samples than many evaluations can afford. The third difficulty is building a valid comparison group, similar in every relevant way except program exposure. Without randomization, many evaluations rest on weaker comparisons.
Evaluation Design
Four Things to State Before Launch
A program built to be evaluated meaningfully states four things before it begins. First, the specific mechanism it targets, drawn from one of the theories in this chapter. Second, the population the theory says that mechanism applies to. Third, the dose, meaning the intensity and duration needed to move that mechanism. Fourth, a measure showing whether the mechanism itself moved, not only whether the final outcome changed. Apply this to four programs. A collective efficacy program should measure community capacity for informal social control. An employment program should measure access to legitimate means, and a mentoring program should measure attachment. A diversion program should check whether participants actually avoided a formal, identity-altering label. Without these four specifications, a null result could reflect a flaw in any of them, not the theory.
Broader Context
Political Economy of Crime Policy
A final consideration is the political economy of crime policy. Programs with slow, diffuse benefits, such as community capacity building and opportunity expansion, are harder to sustain politically. Programs promising immediate, visible results are easier to sustain, even when their foundations are weaker. This is not itself a criminological finding. But it shapes which theories receive the sustained investment and long-term evaluation needed to test them. It helps explain why several evaluation records remain mixed. A program starved of the duration and scale its theory requires will produce a weak result, whether or not the theory is sound.
Practice
Matching Programs to Theories
Let's practice matching programs to theories. Building resident networks for collective action rests on social disorganization theory. Expanding access to vocational education rests on strain theory. Mentoring that pairs young people with conventional adults rests on social bond theory. Diverting first-time offenses from formal processing rests on labeling theory. Investing in place-based neighborhood infrastructure rests on social disorganization theory. Income support for families in a disadvantaged area rests on strain theory. Shifting participants' peer associations toward a different group rests on differential association and social learning. And a minimal-intervention policy for minor offenses rests on labeling theory.
Key Takeaways
State Mechanism, Population, Dose, Measure
To recap. Every program carries a theory. Implementation failure is the most common reason sound programs fail. Evaluation is hard, even when delivery is good. So state mechanism, population, dose, and measure in advance.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Policy Applications of Sociological Theories of Crime and Deviance
What is the difference between implementation failure and theory failure?
What are the four common ways a crime prevention program fails in implementation?
Which sociological theory does a mentoring program rest on, and how can it fail?
Why is it hard to evaluate crime prevention programs even when they are delivered well?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →