Theories Of Social Disorganization Theory

The Chicago School theory, also known as the social disorganization theory, was first developed in 1920 at the University of Chicago (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). This theory wa developed in an attempt to identify environmental factors as they related to crime, comparing neighborhoods as well as crime statistics to determine their influence upon one another. The focus is centered on reducing opportunities for crime to take place.

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.

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 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.

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 assumption with this theory is that those neighborhoods that are disorganized and messy will have higher crime rates than neighborhoods that are clean and orderly. In neighborhoods that are messy and disorganized, it starts to become the norm, and there starts to become less control that leads to disorder and crime.

Another theory that many like to refer to would be social disorganization. This philosophy concentrates more on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. They include, but are not limited to, the destruction of homes and neighborhoods, lack of social control, and the presence of gangs or groups who violate the law (Siegel 2010). Other than this theory, there is such thing as the strain theory. This suggests that crime is brought upon communities and individuals by the overwhelming strain that people are feeling when they aspire to reach their personal ambitions but have no way to grasp them. According to Featherstone and Deflem (2003), strain theorists believe that money and power are spread throughout economic classes unequally. They feel as if this frustration and strain built by individuals who are not able to achieve their goals is what influences a person’s choice to commit a crime. Believing this, strain theorists feel that the youth are certain that the only way to obtain what they desire is to join gangs, because they see other gang members in the community prosper with money. However, it is due to a life of crime and unfortunately, the youth feel as if joining the gang will benefit them in the same way.

This week reading discuss social disorganization and collective efficacy. Higgins (2010) stated that the social disorganization theory where a person live is important in deciding if their is weakness to commit crime. In both text, it stated that social disorganization theory came from the Chicago School's social ecology movement. The theory stated that many factors such as "geography, population movement, and physical environment" and the combination of these factors can cause criminal behavior (Higgins, 2010, p. 30). In explain social disorganization theory, it is broken into zones. The concentric zones explain crime because these are the zones where individuals worked and lived. By having this view it can tell that crime is probably

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.

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.

Those that side with Social Disorganization Theory state that this disparity exists because minorities tend to live in communities that lack organization therefore are likelihood to turn to crime. Studies like those conducted by Clear et al. state that Social Disorganization can be used to explain the overrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanics in the criminal justice system because links have been found between residential mobility and minorities (Clear et al., 2003, p.37) (Rose & Clear, 1998, p.448). Social Disorganization also explains the effect of single parent homes on delinquency stating that as incarceration rates increase chances of moving out of a troublesome neighborhood decreases because more costs are thrown on the shoulders of the single parent out of jail (Clear et al., 2003, 38). Clear et al. also hypothesized that high-incarceration can spread easily which would in turn damage informal social control (1998, p.39) (Rose &Clear, 1998,

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

One of the most central questions in the study of neighbourhood outcomes is the question of what accounts for the unequal pattern of crime by race and ethnicity, in which the violent crime rate in minority neighbourhoods is often higher than in white neighbourhoods. Among the different explanations proposed, there is a predominant theory: the theory of social disorganization. As described by Dr. Rengifo (2009), the social disorganization theory, forwarded by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942), suggests that the variation in crime rates is linked to the weakened social integration of neighbourhoods which is a result of the presence of delinquent subcultures and structural factors on social interactions that lead to the absence of self-regulatory mechanisms.

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 evolved further when, David Bordua started his research in 1959 trying to replicate Lander’s research. His goal was to clear up criticism brought forth from Lander’s outcomes during his research study. Lander and Bordua were trying to prove identical outcomes with their study however; they used a couple of different variables to get their findings. For example, Lander used foreign born and non-white individuals for his study who also were homeowners, while Bordua used everyone in the population and included people who rented their home. Another difference is that Lander was using a census from the 1940s’ while Bordua chose to do his research based on the 1950s’ census. Bordua used the data from the Detroit, Michigan juvenile court as the basis of his research. He ended up with the same general conclusions as Lander’s 1954 research and mostly contradictory to Shaw and McKay’s 1954 studies. Bordua found a relationship between overcrowded areas and juvenile delinquency, not necessarily was crime based on below standard housing. He also concluded that income did not play a significant role of the indicators of delinquency, but being foreign born did have a high correlation with delinquency. (Walker, 2009).