The Theory Of Social Disorganization Theory

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.

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.

Sampson and Groves (1989) argued that if we use residential instability for example, this should not be regarded as a direct cause of crime, but as something which ‘fosters institutional disruption, and weakened social controls’ (Sampson et al., 1997: 919) (Sutherland et al. 2013 p. 3). Likewise, it is through that a lack of contact and the loss of trust in neighbours may contribute to criminal behaviour (Sampson et al., 2005). ‘Family disruption’ (lone parents) was added to the list by Sampson (1987) to an illustrative model of crime; this was thought to affect the ability of parents to manage their own children as well as their capacity to provide guardianship of the local community (Sutherland et al. 2013 p.3)

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 focus of this theory is on the association between social control, the neighborhood structure, and crime (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). Social disorganization is the incapability of the community to solve significant problems and achieve common goals. The theory posits that residential mobility, poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and weak social networks decrease the ability of the neighborhood to manage the behavior of people and hence the likelihood of crime is increased (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). Therefore, the social and physical environments of neighborhoods can increase the chances robbery. Factors such as unemployment, vandalized buildings, and poverty can thus be used to explain the occurrence of robbery. When the robbery rates have increased in a neighborhood, an examination of the social and physical environment can yield answers to robbery patterns.

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 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.

Although my personal experiences are not involved in gang like activity, or serious deviant behavior, it still resembles the actions children make when they are left unsupervised. These behaviors become so normalized in these inner cities, which people just become accustom to delinquent behavior because it is so embedded within communities. This theories concern is only with how the “characteristics of geographical areas, such as whether they are disorganized, influence crime rates” (Cullen). Although I think that this is an interesting aspect to consider upon looking at crime rates, I do not think it is accurate to study a community without studying the characteristics of those who make up the community as well. Sampson and Wilson argue that social disorganization is linked to racial inequalities rather then it being a natural part of city growth. I think that this is an accurate statement, because racial inequality is what creates such a tremendous divide among communities, and I believe that if racial inequality did not exist, we would not have as much disorganization within communities. It has also been argued that “cultural values emerge that do not

A common theory in criminology and in sociology suggests that class and race are vital roles regional crime rates. Previous research indicates that the distribution of class and race within certain residential areas has a key role in the outcome of certain violent acts. In his study, Income Inequality, Race, and Place: Does the Distribution of Race and Class within Neighborhoods Affect Crime Rates, John R. Hipp states “Specifically, studies have tested how the distribution of economic resources across neighbor-hoods, as measured by income or poverty, affects neighborhood crime rates or the how the distribution of racial/ethnic minority members across neighborhoods, as measured by the percent nonwhite, and so on, affects neighborhood crime rates (Hipp 2007). While one may traditionally assume that minorities neighborhoods yield a more intensive crime rate, this is not necessarily true.

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.