Social Disorganization Theory On Urban Ecology And Burgess 's Concentric Model

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.

Based on the social disorganization theory; Shaw and McKay account for high crime begins with poverty, low socioeconomic status and the inability to “control the teenage population,” (Sampson, 2016). Shaw and McKay also knew that within the community, delinquency was a trait that was picked-up by and from other delinquents. Furthermore, if the ability to control young

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.

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.

Tonya Graham’s worry that her son would become ‘another Freddie Gray’ is one echoed by others, but not evenly among different groups. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay developed Social Disorganization Theory in Chicago in 1942 (Seepersad). In the 1960’s and 1970’s Social Disorganization Theory was seen as less relevant by many criminologists, but this soon changed in the 1980’s when the theory was expanded (Seepersad). More recent research

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,

Social disorganization theory explains the ecological difference in levels of crime, simply based on cultural and structural factors that influence the social order in a given community. Social disorganization is triggered by poverty, social stability, ethnic heterogeneity, and a few key elements. Although Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), were known for social disorganization theory, in 1947 Edwin Sutherland introduced the notion of a ecological differences in crime that is the result of differential social organization. Despite similar arguments on social organization, Shaw and Mckay argued that the cultural integration explained the ecological variation in crime rates as a result of the negative impact on the community. Also elaborating on structural socioeconomic factors shaping informal control like poverty, heterogeneity, and residential mobility. Later Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989), refined the work of Shaw and Mckay by highlighting on the importance of social ties and new measures of social disorganization.

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.

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.

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 social structure theory deliberates delinquency as a gathering of the person’s dealings with numerous groups, organizations, and process in the society. Any person irrespective of their prominence in life is likely to become delinquents if they continue with negative social affiliations. Every aspect of the society, social and economic must be viewed using the social structure theories to find the cause of crime and deviance. The social structure theories consist of four types which include social disorganization theory, anomie theory, differential association theory, and labeling theory. Several theories offer different answers to this delinquent of influential the key features of a social group.

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