Social Disorganization And Collective Efficacy

In this research study, we will be examining The Social Disorganization Theory derived from The Chicago School of criminology. The purpose of this study is to better understand the social and ecological characteristics of those whom reside within this community and the environmental influences that may have contributed to the increased crime rate; which has significantly lead to mass incarceration within the urban community. This research will examine how many environmental characteristics impact the community and the particular disadvantages which lead to the increase in crimes? We will also assess the different legislative factors that theoretically contribute to the growing rate in poverty, which ultimately leads to an increase in the incarceration rates? Lastly, we will further explain the correlation between poverty and crime, and how it contributes to greater disparities within the community. These questions will be answered by focusing on impoverished communities consisting of primarily African Americans and Latinos.

Frank Schmalleger explains the theory of social disorganization as one that depicts both social change as well as conflict, and lack of any agreement as the origin of its cause for both criminal behavior as well as nonconformity to society and closed associated with the ecological school of criminology (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 152). The philosophy behind the organization and structure of a society and how that contributes to criminal behavior within society is by stressing poverty, economic conditions, lack of education, lack of skills, are not sought-after in the work place, and divergent cultural values. Criminal behavior is the result of the person’s assignment of location within the structure of society.

Sutherland’s theory piggyback on Social Disorganization theory by answering some of the critic’s questions about why only some people in crime-prone neighbors commit crime while many others do not. While Aker’s theory pick up where Sutherland

This breakdown of organization and culture within a community leads to a lack of informal social control which in turn leads to higher crime rates especially in the juvenile population (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005). Social disorganization theory asserts that strong levels of connection within a community along with a sense of civic pride motivate individuals to take a more active role in the community therefore acting as a deterrent to crime.

Social disorganization theory was established by Shaw and Mckay (1942) in their famous work “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”. The main argument of the social disorganization theory is that, the place where people live will influence the individual’s behavior, and this may lead them to crimes. More precisely, certain characteristics of the neighborhood/community will strengthen or weaken the informal social control within the community, and this has mediating effect on crimes.

Apart from social-cognitive tradition, social disorganization theory contributes to the development of collective efficacy concept as well. Disorganization theory emphasizes on structural disadvantage and the prevalence of social networks at community level (Browning and Cagney, 2002). Traditionally, this theory explains social mechanisms as the channels that connect social-structural disadvantage to crime and mediate this relationship, while collective efficacy is an important one among them (Gau, 2014). Although contemporary social disorganization theory centers on informal social control (Jiang, Wang and Lambert, 2010), the latter is closely intertwined with collective efficacy, making it an inextricable part of the theory. Valuable as it is, disorganization theory nowadays plays a less important role in community collective efficacy research due to changes in urban ecology, the forms of community, and the relationship between urban neighbors (Sampson, 2012). Nevertheless, the legacy of this intellectual tradition – that is, the influence factors of community disorganization – has been absorbed into collective efficacy measurement and become a crucial part of it.

The rational choice theory and social disorganization theory contrast in so many ways. The rational choice theory is when wrongdoers choose to commit crimes and is punished severely. On the other hand, the social disorganization theory is differences in crime levels based on structure and culture factors that shape the nature of social order across communities. Furthermore, the difference between the two is that one of the is about a decision making process choice and the other is about how socialization controls criminal behavior.

So far, both theories are able to explain the crime inequality observed insides neighbourhoods; however, when it comes to explaining the difference in crime rates between neighbourhoods with similarly low levels of poverty, social disorganization theory is not able to fully explain why such difference may occur, as it places a greater focus on the internal dynamics of the neighbourhoods than on the external contingencies (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 92). Based on Table 4.5 of Divergent Social Worlds: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial-Spatial DivideI, minority low-poverty areas have roughly two and a half times more violence than their white counterparts (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 88). Social disorganization theory insists that residential instability (percent of those who owns and percent of those who rent) , population heterogeneity (internal differences, including ethno-racial differences), poverty (percent of those who live in poverty), income, deteriorating neighbourhood, and population loss (percent of those who leave due to deterioration) are mechanisms that leads to the absence of informal social control and increases social disorganization, causing the loss of control over youths who then hang out at spontaneous playgrounds and form gangs with delinquent traditions that get passed down through cultural transmission. If such was the case, then one would expect neighbourhoods with similar and comparable local conditions to have similar average rates of crimes. However,

The social disorganization theory is directed towards social conditions. This theory argues that crime is due to social conflicts, change, and lack of consensus in the group.

Background on the Chicago Theory In the 1920's, a group of sociologist known as the Chicago School tried to expose the relationship between a neighborhood's levels of crime and the characteristics. Many researchers tried to understand why certain population moved to certain parts of that city. Some say that the structure of the community shapes the routine of its inhabitants which will affect the crime rates. Studies show that neighborhoods with high criminal behavior also have high levels of social disorganization.

When crime occurs we often see that it is analyzed in a microscopic point of view. The emphasis is on the “characteristics, environments, and motivations of individuals who commit criminal acts” (Akers 166). The analysis is then compared with individuals who do not commit crime. However, social disorganization theory serves to look at those differences in our communities with high and low crime rates. Some factors such as poverty hold a potential risk for higher crime rate.

For collective efficacy is showing us how people from a town or city are trying to control the bad behavior that is going in the town or city. As “collective” is trying to show us how as a neighborhood they all have the same goals, and that they could count on people in their neighborhood to have the same goals and ideas. The goal they are trying to create is keep the crime level to a minimum in their area. If they are able to keep the crime level down to a minimum. This then can give their neighborhoods a safe place to live in. We also see the three levels of community control. Communities that have all three of these are more organized. Whereas disorganized communities do not have it.

Social Disorganization theory connects crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics. Based on the research and according to Osgood and Chambers, social disorganization theory specifies three important variables; residential instability, ethnic Heterogeneity, female-headed households. These three variables are considered to be the most criminogenic.

The Social Disorganization theory is an intriguing theory that can be seen in our society today. This theory states that “disorganized communities cause crime because informal social controls break down and criminal cultures emerge” (Cullen 6). The city of Chicago was the predominate focus upon the construction of this theory. The reasoning for this was because Chicago was the fastest growing population in the 19th century, a population starting at 5,000 in 1800 and growing to 2 million in 1900, nearly doubling every decade. At this point in time, the city was composed of citizens who did not speak a common language nor shared the same cultural values. Due to this social divide, these community members were unable to organize themselves in

Social disorganization theory is part of the positivist paradigm of criminology, a scientific approach to crime causes, and part of the Chicago School of crime. While trait theories under the positivist approach assume that crime is cause by internal factors, social disorganization theory relies on the assumption that crime is caused by environmental