ORGANIZATIONAL THEORISTS DEFINE ORGANIZATIONS AS SOCIAL STRUCTURES WHICH COORDINATE INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS IN ORDER TO ATTAIN GOALS. DESPITE PUBLIC IMAGES TO THE CONTRARY, ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT EFFICIENT, SMOOTHLY RUNNING MACHINES. THE COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH THEY OPERATE, AND THE DIFFICULTIES THEY ENCOUNTER IN ACHIEVING GOALS SET, PROMOTE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR TO ACHIEVE THE ORGANIZATION'S GOALS. UNLIKE INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS MONITORING, PRESSURES TO PERFORM, EFFORTS TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTY, AND DIFFUSED RESPONSIBILITY. ALL THESE FACTORS PROMOTE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. DATA FROM THE U.S., JAPAN, GERMANY, AND AUSTRALIA SUPORT THESE VIEWS. FIVE PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES ARE: (1) GREATER ORGANIZATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF CRIME; (2) HUMAN SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE OUTPUTS ARE DIFFICULT TO MEASURE ARE LESS CRIMINOGENIC THAN ARE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS; (3) PRESSURE TO COMMIT CRIME DECREASES IF THE ORGANIZATION IS ABLE TO SHIFT ITS GOALS; AND (4) THE MOST DEVIANT BEHAVIOR OCCURS IN THE PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT ARE MOST CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH THE ORGANIZATION'S CLIENTS; AND (5) DECENTRALIZATION PROMOTES CRIME IN DECENTRALIZED UNITS. THIS ANALYSIS ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THESE PROBLEMS ARE PROBABLY GREATER THAN IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES THAN IN CAPITALIST COUNTRIES AND THAT ORGANIZATIONS' DOMINANT POSITIONS IN CURRENT SOCIETIES RESULT NOT FROM THEIR EFFICIENCY BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR POWER WHICH PREVENTS DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR ACHIEVING SOCIAL GOALS. FOOTNOTES WHICH INCLUDE REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. FOR RELATED ARTICLES IN THE SAME BOOK, SEE NCJ 62118-62123, 62125, AND 62126. (CFW)