Social Disorganization Theory Summary

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.

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.

Substance abuse is known through most populations, particularly acknowledged in the lower economic class. Drug are becoming more popular in this day in time. Drugs are getting the attention of younger teenagers and adults. It is hard to determine if a person is using drugs or not. Substance abuse is a topic that has been spread in the society and is often look upon as the leftover of an inconsiderate acquisitiveness. As you can see on the news more parents are using heroin and other drugs such as cocaine to get a high and will pass out in front of their children. Therefore, heroin and synthetic opioids are driving a recent increase in cocaine-related abuse.

The film American Me shows how Montoya Santana rise from being a minor criminal as a youth who turns into the leader of a feared and violent Latino gang. This paper will show how he turned into a violent gang leader by using social disorganization theory to analyze his life in prison.

To prevent crime, it is imperative that the law enforcement agencies and scholars examine why people commit crime. A number of theories have emerged and many still continue to be explored in exclusion and in combination to seek the best solutions that can ultimately reduce the types and the levels of crime. One such theory that is still being explored is social disorganization theory. According to this theory people's tendency to take part in criminal activities is largely determined by the neighborhood where they are brought up in especially if conditions favorable to crime and delinquency prevail in such places. When communities becomes incapable of realizing common goals and solve problems that its residents face, there is a high likelihood that its residents will engage in criminal activities (Sampson & Grove, 1989). Some of the problems that are likely to increase incidences of crime in neighborhoods when communities fail to address them are poverty, residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity, and weak social networks. They decrease a neighborhood's capacity to control the behavior of people in public.

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.

Many sociological studies fail to provide an accurate picture of substance abuse in a society for a number of reasons. In treatment or survey interviews, substance abusing individuals frequently misrepresent or misreport their frequency of use. Those living in poverty are often more transient in their housing than those of middle and upper classes and may, therefore, be excluded from many types of household surveys. Often, statistical information is gathered from treatment facilities; however facilities do not all report into a national database and a large number of addicts never seek services. One final problem with the validity of studies involving substance abuse and poverty is the isolation, in many studies, of one or more drugs. Many researchers have focused on drugs, such as crack-cocaine or heroin and not marijuana or powder cocaine (Jacobson and Ensminger, 2011). While it is difficult to obtain valid data on the actual rate and incidence of substance abuse in poverty ridden communities, researchers have been able to isolate some negative effects of substance abuse and correlate them to socio-economic status.

This paper will describe the most effective way of reducing juvenile delinquency and provide supporting evidence why community-based programs help reduce crimes in neighborhoods. This paper will focus on the social disorganization theory and explain why some individuals are more likely to engage in crime than others. Social Disorganization The resent rise of legal problems among juveniles and the overload of juveniles in court system has let me to believe that the social disorganization theory is coming in place.

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.

Social Disorganization, the Criteria for Organized Crime and its Varying Relationships Among the criteria that sets how organized crime operates that can be related with social disorganization are as follows: 1) lack of political systems or aims; 2) hierarchal power or authority; 3) “exclusive membership;” 4) continuous operations; 5) use of violence, when necessary; 6) monopolistic control; and 7) compliance with certain rules or governing policies (Lampe, n.d). It is important to note the similarities of socially-disorganized communities with how organized crime operates. The similarities in criteria can easily enable advocates of organized crime to establish relationships and collaborate with authorities and high officials of a certain community.

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 aspect of crime correlating with a particular neighborhood, I believe is true. Disorganization theory exists and can be seen according to the figures in the power point. I personally do not know a lot about the Cleveland area. However, you can clearly see that the lower left part of the map is all light grey. Therefore, that shows me a pattern for whole area. Furthermore, there are clusters of dark grey which does correlate with Shaw and McKay’s theory. Consequently, there are a few areas that are spread out away from the clusters but I believe the figures, 3, 4, and 5 does show that social disorganization theory exists.

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.