The Social Disorganization Theory Is An Intriguing 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.

For years, gang crime has been loathed by society, as society has perceived it to threaten the well-being of its members. In addition to the fear of gang violence, concerns have been raised of gangs polluting youth; hence, policing strategies have emerged more increasingly in an attempt to put an end to the delinquency. Nevertheless, for society the causation of gang crime has been discussed to a lesser extent; thus, the objective of this essay will be to depict a viable explanation of gang crime through the use of two criminological theories. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall, define gang crime, provide a description of social disorganization theory, illustrate how the application of social disorganization theory provides an explanation of gang crime, describe differential opportunity theory, demonstrate how differential opportunity theory can explain gang crime, and exemplify as to which theory provides a superior explanation of gang crime. In the end, it will be clear that social disorganization theory is a superior explanation of gang crime in comparison to differential opportunity theory, due to its ability to deliver a more enhanced explanation than the one that is provided by differential opportunity theory.

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.

There are No Children Here, by Alex Kotlowitz, tells a story about the family of LaJoe and Paul Rivers. The book focuses on Lafayette and Pharaoh, two of the younger children in the family, and their interactions with each other, the neighborhood, their family, their friends, and the police. Following the family over three years shows the importance of neighborhood factors when it comes to crime. According to Sampson and Groves (1989), social disorganization refers to “the inability of a community structure to realize the common values of its residents and maintain effective social controls”. Many aspects in the book exemplify how neighborhood factors, social controls, and community factors have impacts on crime. The book exemplifies how neighborhood disadvantage can lead to informal social controls, which in turn produces crime. Due to these factors, social disorganization is the best theory to explain the crime that occurs in There are No Children Here.

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.

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,

It is expected, based on social disorganization theory, that census tracts with high concentrations of gang members will also be high in disorganization. As seen in figure 1 this will be established by creating a contour line hot spot of gang member locations and drug violations overlaid on a map showing social disorganization. Social disorganization will be based on low education levels and high unemployment rates, which are generally accepted measurements of disorganized neighborhoods (see Gottfredson, Mcneil & Gottfredson, 1991; Teasdale, Clark & Hinkle, 2012). The map clearly shows that gang members live in

Following Osgood and Chambers, In 2006 Joanne C. Jacob did an article named, Male and Female Youth Crime in Canadian Communities: Assessing the Applicability of Social Disorganization Theory which focuses on the relationships between community characteristics and the delinquent activities of both male and female youth. In this study, there was no research questions or hypotheses being posed. Jacob considered factors such as residential instability, ethnic heterogeneity, urbanization, socioeconomic status, and supervision as independent variables (2006). Jacob considered arrest rates as the dependent variable. This cross-sectional study examined written records of 417 municipalities of no more than 25,000 residents (Joanne Jacob,2006). Joanne Jacob found that family attachment, family control, school commitment, strain, differential association, and social disorganization are significantly

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 regards to recent motives and outcomes of crimes, the social disorganization theory presents a new outlook into why individuals from poor neighborhoods can begin to dissociate from social normality and become issues within society. Individually, we have the choices and the ethics to lead our lives. Entering social dilemmas is probable, but with the right choices, anyone can be presently normal. Society demands everyone to be competent, willing to produce content as a job, and withhold from being an issue. Being able to analyze by using the social disorganization theory is needed so that we can start to assist those in the “bad” neighborhoods to prevent any more come ups of people growing into difficult or criminal members of society. As this theory suggests, groups of people within various backgrounds can cause many of these issues, however, with probable resolutions, these issues can digress rapidly and improve all actions of society if the proper motives, authority, and action is taken. This was very present in my hometown with the north side versus the south side of town. I got to grow up on both the good and bad sides of town, making this an advantage for me with

The two studies selected for comparative analysis are Levenson (2008) Collateral Consequences of sex offender residence restrictions and Mustaine, Tewksbury, and Stengel (2006) Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders.

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

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.