Chapter 5: Social Disorganization Theory

Explains the relationship between social disorder and deviance. This is a macro-level theory that tries to explain why certain neighborhoods control deviance and why others are unable to minimize or eliminate it . This theory assumes that most people do not want to live in neighborhood with high level of delinquency and crime, but because of structural conditions some people are not able to work together to achieve common goals. It has focused primary on juvenile delinquency and street crime.

Emerged at the end of the 19th century/ the transition to the 20th. Deviance was flourishing in Chicago and the focus was on deviance of individuals and groups, specifically new immigrants (america has a history of using immigrants as a scapegoat for crime, crimes and deviances was due to new immigrants). Certain type of deviance seemed to flourish in some areas over time, even though the "types of people" (racial and ethnic groups) who lived there changed tragically

Shaw and McKay's work is labeled as the origin of social disorganization theory , which was based on Park and Burgess's human ecology approach. Results: Delinquency did not appear to be distributed randomly. Neighborhoods close to the central business districts (CBD) had the highest rates of delinquency and delinquency appeared in clusters in certain areas. Also, delinquency was highest in neighborhoods in or around business and industrial areas. Delinquency tends to decline as one moved away from the CBD Three characteristics of neighborhoods with high rate of delinquency Poverty Population Turnover Racial/Ethical Heterogeneity Social disorganization refers to the inability of local communities to realize the common values of their residents or solve commonly experienced problems. People are focused on getting out of those areas, not making them a better living environment

1. The field of criminology shifted focus onto individuals 2. Longitudinal data (data collected over time) are expensive and difficult to collect 3. Considerable confusion about what social disorganization actually was and how it should be measured 4. Theory of social disorganization had largely focused on juvenile delinquency and street crime

Ruth Korhauser (1978) argued individuals in neighborhood categorized by Poverty, Population Turnover , and Racial/Ethical Heterogeneity cannot control their environment and achieve common goals.

Suggested that we should think about neighborhoods as a social context for individuals behavior, use measures of deviance that are not only the result of official responses (UCR vs, NCVS), and consider the feedback effects of crime and delinquency on social disorganization. Argued that the primary goals of the residents is to move out, so there is no incentive or financial resources to make the place better, the landlords don't care, and structural factors (Poverty, Population Turnover , and Racial/Ethical Heterogeneity) consistently characterized high delinquency areas even though the specific types of people changed over the decades.

argued that neighborhoods characterized by spare friendship networks, unsupervised teen peer groups, and low organizational participation would be less able to control certain forms of deviance because residents were not communicating with one another and allowed teens to roam the streets unsupervised. These areas have higher rates of victimization and self-reported offending regarding violent and property crimes

Robert Sampson drew an analogy between individuals efficacy (an individual's ability to accomplish a task) and neighborhood or collective efficacy ( a neighborhood's ability to recognize common goals of a safe environment that is free from crime and deviance) Collective Efficacy serves as a mediating effect between structural factors associated with social disorganization and deviant behavior Structural factors—> Low collective efficacy —> Deviance Typical measures include: Lack of informal social controls (skipping school, graffiti, disrespect) Cohesion and trust (willingness to help neighbors, levels of community trust, resource sharing)

Browning showed that the effect of collective efficacy extent beyond violence and street crime to affect intimate partner violence Cancino shows that collective efficacy is not only important in inner cities but applies to nonmetropolitan areas os well Wright and Cullen's parental efficacy, which focused on parents' ability to control their children's behavior through parent - child attachment, rules, supervision, and also social support

Wilson and Kelling (1982): Disorder leads to greater disorder, and attracts and promotes more serious forms of deviance. Physical Disorder —> Social Disorder The policy implications of the theory is that police should attack crime at its roots: we should target minor forms of deviance that seem to be the crucial causes of the escalation of crime and further deviance & this theory parallels social disorganization theory although they developed separately and the race important differences What are these differences? policy outcomes