Bernardo Guillen
Governor State University
Introduction
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay initially
 proposed the theory in their book published in
 the year 1942.

Highlights variations in crime rates among
 neighborhoods.

Assumes that basis of crime behavior is entirely
 dependent on neighborhood’s structural and
 cultural states.
Development of the Theory
Clifford and Henry examined distribution of
 delinquency among various groups in Chicago.
Found that cases of delinquency reduced as one
 moved from the city center outwards.
Neighborhoods with high levels of delinquency
 had high numbers of social problems.
Concluded that crime is a likely product of
 neighborhoods dynamics.
Family as a process leading to
               crime
Social disorganization causes juvenile violence by
 affecting family structures and stability.

Family instabilities eliminates essential set of
 regulations that control youth’s behavior.

Weak families and lack of effective guardianship
 lead to increased crimes.
The influence of Sutherland
Sutherland sets the stage for understanding
 several theories on crime based on Differential
 Association Theory.
An individual can acquire criminal tendencies by
 associating with persons who are considered
 deviant.
This relationship allows persons to learn specific
 traits
Frequency, and time determine the likelihood of
 crime
Influence of Sutherland
Sutherland’s assertion explains the influence of
 peers in crime processes.
Sutherland presents nine propositions that can be
 summarized as learning crime.
Additionally, he addresses explores criminal
 motivation, communication, logic, and group
 think.
Neighborhood processes and crime
          occurrence
Social disorganization such as low economic
 status, residential mobility and ethnic
 heterogeneity affect informal regulations plans.
Neighborhood processes and crime
          occurrence
Neighborhoods with compromised social state
 are likely to have sparse local friendship network,
 unsupervised youths and poor social organization.

Lack of effective control measures increases the
 rates of crimes.
Social disorganization models promote the
 assessment of important social dynamics that result
 in cohesive and helpful neighborhoods
Economic factors and crime rates
Economic deprivation leads to social
 disorganization.
Social disorganization and poverty increases
 violence among youths.
Poor communities lacks enough resources for
 defending their interest collectively.
Economic inequalities creates latent hostilities.
The Implication of the theory
Public spending and private investments should
 be channeled towards impoverished areas.

Family preservation programs should be funded.


Large public bureaucracies should be
 neighborhood-based.
References
 Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general
   theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction
      Publishers.
 Steenbeek, W., & Hipp, J. R. (2011). A longitudinal test of
         social disorganization theory: feedback effects among
  cohesion, social control, and disorder. Criminology, 49(3),
 Sun, I., Ruth T., & Randy G. (2004). “ Social Disorganization,
      Legitimacy of local institutions and neighborhood crime: An exploratory
      study of perceptions of police and local governments,” journal of crime
      and justice Witherspoon, D., & Ennett, S. (2011). “An Examination of
     Social
        Disorganization and Pluralistic Neighborhood Theories     with
  Rural Mothers and Their Adolescents.” Journal Of        Youth &
  Adolescence,

Social Disorganization Theory

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Introduction Clifford Shaw andHenry McKay initially proposed the theory in their book published in the year 1942. Highlights variations in crime rates among neighborhoods. Assumes that basis of crime behavior is entirely dependent on neighborhood’s structural and cultural states.
  • 3.
    Development of theTheory Clifford and Henry examined distribution of delinquency among various groups in Chicago. Found that cases of delinquency reduced as one moved from the city center outwards. Neighborhoods with high levels of delinquency had high numbers of social problems. Concluded that crime is a likely product of neighborhoods dynamics.
  • 4.
    Family as aprocess leading to crime Social disorganization causes juvenile violence by affecting family structures and stability. Family instabilities eliminates essential set of regulations that control youth’s behavior. Weak families and lack of effective guardianship lead to increased crimes.
  • 5.
    The influence ofSutherland Sutherland sets the stage for understanding several theories on crime based on Differential Association Theory. An individual can acquire criminal tendencies by associating with persons who are considered deviant. This relationship allows persons to learn specific traits Frequency, and time determine the likelihood of crime
  • 6.
    Influence of Sutherland Sutherland’sassertion explains the influence of peers in crime processes. Sutherland presents nine propositions that can be summarized as learning crime. Additionally, he addresses explores criminal motivation, communication, logic, and group think.
  • 7.
    Neighborhood processes andcrime occurrence Social disorganization such as low economic status, residential mobility and ethnic heterogeneity affect informal regulations plans.
  • 8.
    Neighborhood processes andcrime occurrence Neighborhoods with compromised social state are likely to have sparse local friendship network, unsupervised youths and poor social organization. Lack of effective control measures increases the rates of crimes. Social disorganization models promote the assessment of important social dynamics that result in cohesive and helpful neighborhoods
  • 9.
    Economic factors andcrime rates Economic deprivation leads to social disorganization. Social disorganization and poverty increases violence among youths. Poor communities lacks enough resources for defending their interest collectively. Economic inequalities creates latent hostilities.
  • 10.
    The Implication ofthe theory Public spending and private investments should be channeled towards impoverished areas. Family preservation programs should be funded. Large public bureaucracies should be neighborhood-based.
  • 11.
    References  Akers, R.L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.  Steenbeek, W., & Hipp, J. R. (2011). A longitudinal test of social disorganization theory: feedback effects among cohesion, social control, and disorder. Criminology, 49(3),  Sun, I., Ruth T., & Randy G. (2004). “ Social Disorganization, Legitimacy of local institutions and neighborhood crime: An exploratory study of perceptions of police and local governments,” journal of crime and justice Witherspoon, D., & Ennett, S. (2011). “An Examination of Social Disorganization and Pluralistic Neighborhood Theories with Rural Mothers and Their Adolescents.” Journal Of Youth & Adolescence,