Crime is a complex phenomenon which is caused by many factors because of its constant change across cultures and time. There are many theories which have attempted to explain the concept of criminology. These theories are classified as biological or sociological. The former refers to individual-based causes while the later refers to external contributions to crime like peer pressure. The purpose of the essay is to identify and explain the major theory associated with the Chicago School of Criminology.
Identification of the theory
Chicago School of Criminology sought to explore the sociological causes of crime by use of evidence-based theory. In 1942, two sociologists, Clifford Shaw, and Henry McKay came up with a spatial mapping –oriented theory known as the social disorganization theory which has been associated with the Chicago School of Criminology (Barton, Jensen " Kaufman, 2010, p.245).
Explanation of the theory
Industrial revolution resulted in the rapid development of the urban areas in the United States which brought about social problems like crime and poverty. The sociologists in the Chicago School under the Department of Criminology became concerned about the rising crime rates in the United States. Two researchers, Shaw and McKay, developed a model relying on the census data to explain the crime rates' patters which could assist in the explanation of the crime phenomenon experienced in the early 1920s. The model of disorganization theory was then developed by the two sociologists. Shaw and McKay came up with an assumption that crime rates were not equally distributed in the neighborhoods with areas located in Zone II of Burgess reporting the highest rates (Barton, Jensen " Kaufman, 2010, p.248). Besides, they believed that the zone was a hotbed of crime because of industrialization which took up residential spaces of the locals.
The theory suggests that crime rates have a direct correlation with social problems. Shaw and McKay further claimed that poverty, heterogeneity, and physical dilapidation were common social problems which contributed to crime and that any neighborhood which had high crime rates had at least these social problems. Shaw and McKay noted two characteristics of areas associated with high crime rates. According to the two researchers, these areas had high unemployment rates among the youth and a highly transient population.
Shaw and McKay demonstrated that the frequency of social ills in the society determined delinquency and crime rates. In explaining the model, the researchers believed and wanted to demonstrate that regions in transition posed a major risk of having high crime rates because of system breakdown. The model explained that when society fails to respect the existing laws, the behavior of the children and youth are controlled by themselves. According to Shaw and McKay, the youth often teach illegal practices like the crime to children who grow knowing the social evil as the only way of life (Walker " Zawisza, 2014, p. 3).
The model, therefore, explained criminal behavior as a three-stage process. The first stage in the model is the existence of social problems in the society. According to Shaw and McKay, the common social problems are poverty, cultural mix or heterogeneity which brings about the misunderstanding in the community and physical dilapidation. The other social issues which result in crime are high mobility of residents, high rate of diseases and skyrocketing mortality rates. The second state is social disorganization. Shaw and McKay explained that when a society, city or neighborhood experiences such as social problems, there exists social disorganization regarding laws and general community principles. For example, when a larger portion of the society is poor, they lack time to come together thus the society cannot solve simple problems like theft and other complaints (Walker " Zawisza, 2014, p. 5). The final stage in the disorganization theoretical model is criminal behavior. In their framework, Shaw and McKay demonstrated that societies that cone solve their problems because of proper existing governing laws have a lower chance of promoting criminal behavior. However, in a society where social organization is missing, and therefore solutions to the community problems like the high mobility of residents are impossible, there is a high possibility that criminal behavior may grow (Walker " Zawisza, 2014, p. 7). For example, if a society is languishing in absolute poverty while the neighborhood is full of factories which provides employment to the youth and generate income, the unemployed group of youths may find crime as the only way to share resources with the neighbors especially if there are no strict laws restricting the criminal offenses and activities (.
Concepts involved in the disorganization theory
There are various terms and concepts used by the theorist to explain how social disorganization causes crimes. The first concept is collective efficacy. The concept implies the ability of a society to use informal means of social control to prevent criminal activities or behaviors that deviate from normal societal practices. For example, the use of corporal punishment by community leaders can help in preventing social crimes in the neighborhood. Shaw and McKay used the concept to test the efficiency of collective efficacy in societies which had the highest crime rates.
The second concept relied upon by the theorists was the concentrated disadvantage. The term refers to a similarity in the social spectrum which works to the disadvantage of the community. For example, Shaw and McKay sought to find out if the crime rates were higher among the blacks, families with high poverty levels, families headed by women or unemployed youths.
Social capital was another concept used in the disorganization theory. According to the theorists, zones or regions which had the least investments in the form of volunteer, political and economic activities had the highest crime rates. Besides, Shaw and McKay believed that social capital explained the general society engagement which had a significant role in the study of crime rates. The disorganization theory relied on two other important theories: the structural and urban ecology. According to the structural theory, variations in structural differences and conditions in communities account for the difference in the crime rates in the concerned communities. However, the urban ecology theory explains that just like the ecological theory of plants and animals are organized in concentric zones spreading from the center to outer regions, crime rates begin at the Central Business Districts and move towards the residential areas of most communities.
Criticism of the Social Disorganization theory
Even though the theory has received practical support from contemporary researchers, some theorists have criticisms about it. These critics base their anti-social disorganization proposition on three arguments. First, they argue the theorists, Shaw and McKay, failed to test the social disorganization as the primary construct but instead focused on the social problems and the connection they had on the crime rates. For example, the critics argue that Shaw and McKay majored on the relationship between poverty and crime rate without explaining the link between social disorganization, poverty, and the crime rate. However, the model is still valid and significant even if the primary construct was measured. For instances, if the construct that poverty increases lawlessness in the society is measured, one can find that the crime rate is brought indirectly by poverty and directly by the disorder. Therefore, the criticism about the measurement of the primary construct does not render the theory useless or invalid (Sampson, 2018, p. 124).
According to Sampson (Sampson, 2018, p. 117), the second criticism of Shaw and McKay’s theory is their over-reliance or emphasis on the aggregate analysis of data used to draw the correlation between social problems and crime rates. For example, the critics argue that the social disorganization theory does not explain why a small fraction of individuals in the worst neighborhoods fail to commit the crime or why some youths in the zones considered "best " in crime rates still commit the criminal activities. For example, the research done by Shaw and McKay concluded that the Japanese community was the highest in Zone II while they had the lowest crime rates.
The third criticism is that the theory is biased and the findings are not conclusive. The critics have evidence that part of the research was financed by business people and factory owners and that the theorists failed to propose ways of ameliorating transitional zone neighborhood problems even though their model identified the issue as a major cause of crime. For example, the theorists was unable to demonstrate how the government can stop factories' invasion into the residential areas despite demonstrating that the establishment of industries in the residential areas contributed to the high crime rates (Sampson, 2018, p. 115).
The Chicago Area Project (CAP)
The theory resulted in a major project which was named the Chicago Area Project despite its weaknesses and criticisms. The project was directed by Clifford Shaw and dealt with the creation of neighborhood centers in the regions which were considered most crime-ridden in Chicago. The centers used various strategies to reduce crime rates in the affected areas. For example, the youths were exposed to activities like games and programs which brought them closer to their parents and officials like counseling. The program still exists despite it lacking a scientific backing and evaluation because it has been proven to be successful in Chicago. Besides, the program inspired other regions like Boston to start a similar arrangement to reduce crime rates.
Conclusion
Criminology is an important area of study because it does identify not only crime-related statistics like distribution of criminal activities but also explains measures that can be taken to address the different levels of crime. Theories present the framework upon which criminologists asses and determine the most satisfactory and relevant strategies of combating crime. The paper has identified Social Disorganization theory as the one closely associated with the Chicago School of Criminology and explained the theory in various aspects. The specific elements of the discussion are the meaning, concepts involved and criticisms of the theory. Besides, the essay has explained how the Social Disorganization theory was used by Shaw to develop the Chicago Area Project (CAP) which provided a solution to the crime-ridden areas and has been used as an example of combative projects across many jurisdictions.
References
Barton, M.S., Jensen, B.L. and Kaufman, J.M., 2010. Social disorganization theory and the college campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), pp.245-254.
Sampson, R.J., 2018. Organized for what? Recasting theories of social (dis) organization. In Crime and social organization(pp. 113-128). Routledge.
Walker, J.T. and Zawisza, T.T., 2014. Social disorganization theory. The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology, pp.1-9.
