The social disorganization theory criminology essay

Social disorganization theory says that neighborhood structural factors (concentrated disadvantage and residential mobility) create a shortage of social capita that hinder the creation of informal social control (R. J. Bursik 1988). According to Sampson et al 1997, the increasing population of low income families and female-headed households that live in the metropolitan areas increases the likelihood of economic deprivation. So this leaves them at a disadvantaged intensifying the social isolation of these groups from key resources supporting collective social control. Weak structures of formal and informal control decrease the costs associated with deviation within the group, making high rates of crime and delinquency more likely. Even though the forms of social capita needed to provide informal social control differ between systemic and collective efficacy formulations of social disorganization theory, both models find it important to use informal social control (Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls, Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy 1997). The systemic model focuses on the length of residence as the key factor that influences outside behavior toward the community (R. Sampson 1988) collective efficacy focus on the social cohesion among neighbors and their ability to maintain order in public spaces by intervening on the behalf of the common good (Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls, Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy 1997). Social disorganization theory of informal social control have been perceived in two ways 1) is direct intervention, this is where the resident themselves address both strangers and residents in their neighborhood that are involved in inappropriate or suspicious behaviors and 2) informal surveillance; this is where individuals casually observe the streets during the course of daily activities. They watch neighbor’s homes and property and recognize any strangers in the neighborhood. This form of informal social control increase the likelihood that authorities would be called if any suspicious or deviant behavior were taken place (Warner, Beck and Ohmer 2010). One of the limitations in testing social disorganization theory that Shaw & Mckay failed to test are the lack of research on the role of neighborhood cohesion in mediating effects of population turnover, ethnic heterogeneity, and low economic status on crime rates variables between community structure and delinquency and the overreliance on official crime rates in past research (Sampson and Groves, Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory 1989). To address this problem Sampson and Groves 1989, constructed community-level measures of both outside factors and the mediating elements of social disorganization using data from a national survey of Great Britain. They hypothesized that the outside and mediating variables lead to social disorganization, which increases crime and delinquency. Results from the survey support the social disorganization theory. Some communities have higher crime rates than others. Social disorganization theory depicts on social control theory to explain this information some communities are disorganized because the residents are unwilling or unable to intervene and have social control over one another. This means that communities do not have direct control and residents are less likely to monitor public spaces and sanction individuals for crime and deviance. Residents in this area also have a lower stake in conformity which increases the likelihood of them having close ties to their residents and community (Agnew 2012). Social disorganization theory is also related to strain theory because they both have a commonality. Both social disorganization theory and strain theory propose that social order, stability and integration are conducive to conformity, while disorder and malintegration are conducive to crime and deviance (Sampson and Groves 1989; Bernard, Snipes and Gerould 2010). A social system is described as socially organized and integrated if there is an internal consensus on its norms and values, a strong cohesion exists among its members, and social interaction proceeds in an orderlyway. On the other hand, the system is described as disorganized or anomic if there is a disruption in its social cohesion or integration, a breakdown in social control, or malalignment among its elements. Both theories propose that the less there exists solidarity, cohesion, or integration within a group, community, or society, the higher will be the rate of crime and deviance. Each attempts to explain high rates of crime and delinquency in disadvantaged lower-class and ethnic groups (Sampson and Groves 1989; Bernard, Snipes and Gerould 2010). At one time or another, both theories have focused specifically on delinquent or criminal gangs and subcultures (Bernard, Snipes and Gerould 2010). Since the pioneering studies of Shaw and McKay, a great deal of research has been done on the ecology of urban crime and delinquency. Studies and research data on urban crime remain an important part of criminological research. Agnew, Robert. The Handbook of Deviant Behavior. Routledge, 2012. Bernard, Thomas, Jeffrey B. Snipes, and Alexander L. Gerould. Vold’s Theorectical Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. R. J. Bursik, Jr. ” Social disorganization of theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects.” Criminology, 1988: 519-551. Sampson, Robert J., and W. Byron Groves. ” Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology, 1989: 774-802. Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. ” Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science, 1997: 918-924. Sampson, Robert. ” Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A mulitilevel systemic model.” American Sociological Review, 1988: 766-779. Warner, Barbara D. ” Directley intervene or call the authorities? A study of forms of neighborhood social control within a social disorganization framework.” Criminology, 2007: 99-128. Warner, Barber D., Elizabeth Beck, and Mary L. Ohmer. ” Linking informal social control and restorative justice: moving social disorganization theory beyond community policing.” Contemporary Justice Review, 2010: 355-369.