1 / 17

Disorganization Theory

Disorganization Theory . Origin . The social disorganization theory comes from the Chicago school of sociology in the early 1920s

lorant
Download Presentation

Disorganization Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disorganization Theory

  2. Origin • The social disorganization theory comes from the Chicago school of sociology in the early 1920s • This theory claimed that delinquency was not caused at the individual level, but was considered to be the normal response of normal individuals to abnormal social conditions

  3. Social disorganization definition • Social disorganization is defined as an inability of community members to achieve shared values or to solve jointly experienced problems (Bursik, 1988).

  4. CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY • Park and Burgess (1920s) • They saw cities as consisting of five zones (CBD - Central Business District, transition, workingman, residential, and commuter) • Their "zonal hypothesis" was that delinquency is greatest in the zone of transition

  5. Shaw and McKay (1930s) • They never said that poverty causes crime • They only said that "poverty areas" tended to have high rates of residential mobility and racial heterogeneity that made it difficult for communities in those areas to avoid becoming socially disorganized

  6. Residential Mobility Poverty Racial Heterogeneity Disorganization Crime Shaw and McKay's Model

  7. Sampson and Grove (1989) Residential Mobility Low Economic Status Racial Heterogeneity Family Disruption Population Density/Urbanization Unsupervised teen-age peer groups Low organizational participation Spare local friendship networks Crime

  8. Residential mobility • When the population of an area is constantly changing, the residents have fewer opportunities to develop strong, personal ties to one another and to participate in community organizations

  9. Ethnic diversity • According to Shaw and McKay (1942), ethnic diversity interferes with communication among adults. Effective communication is less likely in the face of ethnic diversity because differences in customs and a lack of shared experiences may breed fear and mistrust (Sampson and Groves, 1989).

  10. Family disruption • Sampson (1985) argued that unshared parenting strains parents' resources of time, money, and energy, which interferes with their ability to supervise their children and communicate with other adults in the neighborhood • The smaller the number of parents in a community relative to the number of children, the more limited the networks of adult supervision will be for all the children

  11. Economic status • Areas with the lowest average socioeconomic status will also have the greatest residential instability and ethnic diversity, which in turn will create social disorganization (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993) • Many studies have found that urban neighborhoods with high rates of poverty also have greater rates of delinquency (Warner and Pierce, 1993).

  12. Population density • High population density creates problems by producing anonymity that interferes with accountability to neighbors

  13. Collective efficacy and neighborhood safety • Robert Sampson (1990) • Concept of “collective efficacy” captures “trust” and “cohesion” on one hand and shared expectations for control on the other • Collective efficacy is associated with lower rates of violence

More Related