Social Disorganization Theory By Clifford Shaw And Henry D. Mckay

The author concludes based on the results of the analyses that the evidence shows that “the evidence crime-reduction strategies that focus primarily on deterring the individual through ‘get-tough’ initiatives will struggle due to the social structural influences that communities’ experience” (Hayes-Smith, 2009). The cautions and limitations that the author raised about interpreting the study is that people can falsify self reports. It also is not a direct measure of social disorganization theory, because it only uses exogenous variables of the theory.

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.

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.

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.

Have you ever watched the news and wondered why so much crime is taking place in or around your neighborhood and by whom? You're not alone in trying to figure out why that is happening. The city of Chicago was experiencing major crime in their neighborhood by juvenile delinquency and could not pinpoint the reason behind it. Criminology theorists went on a mission to find why crime was popular in the neighborhoods of Chicago. They created a theory called social disorganization theory which is also known as the theory of the Chicago school.

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.

Bursik (1988) states that, “… there persists a notable tendency in sociological theory to attribute the malfunctioning of social structure primarily to those of man’s imperious biological drives which are not adequately restrained by social control (p. 97). The concepts of social structural theory are based on the foundation of strain theory and social disorganization theory. The aspects of society can cause criminality, because of the various circumstances that are preventing opportunities for prosperity. Social structural processes are happening because of the various roots society has created for crime to take place, the various neighborhood effects of crime, and structural barriers that antecedents to crime. Also, individuals go beyond measures to coordinate with society new procedures; however, if that means committing a crime is a result, then all measure will be met.

In their article, Clifford R. Shaw & Henry D. McKay address their statement of social-disorganization theory. Shaw & McKay start their article off by addressing the differences between high and low-crime-rate neighborhoods, but mainly those in Chicago where they performed their studies. They go into detail and discuss the moral values within the high and low-crime-rate neighborhoods. Shaw & McKay also address the delinquency data rates within both the low and high-crime-rate neighborhoods. They also discuss the areas with high and low delinquency rates. Shaw & McKay also share and describe two case studies they had with two delinquent boys, who both grew up in different parts of Chicago. The first case study address a boy, who at a young age

In 1942, Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay produced Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, which aimed to explain crime in urban communities using social disorganization theory. Elliot and Merrill (1934) define social disorganization as “a breakdown in the equilibrium of forces, a decay in the social structure, so that old habits and forms of social control no longer function effectively” (p.20). Using this definition and the ecological approach, Shaw and McKay argue that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility led to the disruption of community social organization (Shaw and McKay 1942). This disruption is what essentially leads to delinquency and further crime. Numerous empirical studies and tests were conducted in order to determine the validity of the theory. Studies done in the United States and in other countries have also shown support for the theory. In addition, the theory has been extended and revised by multiple scholars and applied to nonmetropolitan areas. The numerous studies and tests of social disorganization theory will prove whether the theory is applicable to other metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and whether the theory is still applicable to the modern era.

Hotspot analyses have become more popular among police officers today. In this article, the authors expressed concern about the offender’s residences in relating to the crime location. It has been discussed that when analyzing an offender’s residence, it may add support to the police officers job. The authors, fail to determine that the distance offender’s travel to commit comes, may or may not be influenced by the local environment in which the offenders may live in, verses traveling to commit a crime. According to this article, the authors’ social disorganization theory provided the framework for current environmental criminology. The authors pointed out, that social disorganization predicts offenders on where they live and have been linked

The main assumption of Social Disorganization Theory is the ability to explain why crime committed by lower class communities is more prominent than neighborhoods from communities in better economic areas. This theory is the relationship of the destabilization of urban communities and neighborhoods through Shaw and McKay’s study (Quoted in Siegal, 2010) that used the analysis of Ernest Burgess’s Concentric Zones Model. This model generates ideas that the closer to “zone 2”, individuals in a community have more stress factors

The theory that I found most illuminating in sociology is the social disorganization theory because is amongst the most imperative theories developed by the Chicago School, identified with ecological theories. The theory straightforwardly connects crime rates to neighbourhood ecological characteristics which a center standard of social disorganization theory is that place matters. In different words, an individual 's private area is a significant component shaping the probability that that individual will get to be included in illegal activities. The theory proposes that, among determinants of an individual’s later illegal movement, private area is as significant as or even more significant than a person 's own characteristics for example gender, race or age. Case in point, the theory proposes that young people from bad neighbourhoods take part in a subculture which supports on doing deviant activities and that these young people in this way gain criminality in this cultural and social setting.

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 has its roots in urban ecology and Burgess’s concentric model. As part of the positivist paradigm of criminology, it poses a scientific examination of the connection of social disorganization and crime mediated by structural factors. The macro-level research concludes that a weakening of social bonds between an individual and institutions of socialization will lead to delinquency. Over time, there has been much empirical support for the theory and extensions have been made to include more reliable measures of social disorganization within a community. This paper will discuss the origins of the theory developed by Shaw and McKay, then move forward to prominent empirical support, social disorganization research on suburban areas and lead up to valid criticism of the theory. Finally, there will be an examination of the policy implications originally posed and a proposal towards a more integrated approach addressing causes for social disorganization through the critical paradigm of criminology.