Social Disorganization Theory - Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay

Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay

Mapping can show spatial distributions of delinquency and crime, but it cannot explain the results. Indeed, such research has often been used politically to ascribe immorality to specific population groups or ethnicities. Social disorganization theory and cultural transmission theory examine the consequences when a community is unable to conform to common values and to solve the problems of its residents. Shaw and McKay (1942) applied Sutherland's theory of systematic criminal behavior, and claimed that delinquency was not caused at the individual level, but is a normal response by normal individuals to abnormal conditions. Thus, if a community is not self-policing and imperfectly policed by outside agencies, some individuals will exercise unrestricted freedom to express their dispositions and desires, often resulting in delinquent behavior. They considered the Concentric Zone Theory and produced a diachronic analysis to demonstrate that delinquency was already dispersed in urban areas, and that more wealthy and important groups moved to avoid the existing social disorganization. Their concepts, hypothesis, and research methods have been a strong influence on the analysis of delinquency and crime. Their dependent variables in the delinquency rates were measured by arrests, court appearances, and court adjudications of institutional commitment. Their independent variables were economic conditions by square-mile areas, ethnic heterogeneity, and population turnover. These variables were based on where delinquents lived and consisted of 10 to 16 year-old males who were petitioned to juvenile court (56,000 juvenile court records were used as data from 1900–1933). The time frames they selected showed strong patterns of immigrant migration, believing that they could demonstrate whether delinquency was caused by particular immigrant groups or by the environment in which the immigrants lived, i.e.:

• if high delinquency rates for particular immigrant groups remained high during their migration through the city’s different ecological environments, then delinquency could be associated with their distinctive constitutional or cultural features;
• if delinquency rates decreased as immigrants moved through different ecological environments, then delinquency could not be associated with the particular constitution of the immigrants, but must somehow be connected with their environment.

Shaw and McKay demonstrated that social disorganization was endemic to the urban areas which were the only places the newly arriving poor could afford to live. In these areas, there was a high rate of turnover in the population (residential instability) and mixes of people from different cultural backgrounds (ethnic diversity). Shaw and McKay's analyses relating delinquency rates to these structural characteristics established key facts about the community correlates of crime and delinquency:

• The rates of juvenile delinquency were consistent with an ordered spatial pattern with the highest rates in the inner-city areas and declining with distance from the city center.
• There was an identical spatial pattern revealed by various other indexes of social problems.
• The spatial pattern of delinquency rates showed significant long-term stability even though the nationality structure of the population in the inner-city areas changed greatly throughout the decades.
• Within inner-city areas the course of becoming delinquent occurred through a network of interpersonal relationships involving family, gangs, and the neighborhood.

Comparing the maps, Shaw and McKay recognized that the pattern of delinquency rates corresponded to the "natural urban areas" of Park and Burgess’ Concentric Zone Model. This evidenced the conclusion that delinquency rates always remained high for a certain region of the city (ecological zone 2), no matter which immigrant group lived there. Hence, delinquency was not "constitutional", but was to be correlated with the particular ecological environment in which it occurs. In this context, Shaw and McKay asserted that ethnic diversity interferes with communication among adults, with effective communication less likely in the face of ethnic diversity because differences in customs and a lack of shared experiences may breed fear and mistrust.

There are a number of problems in Shaw and McKay's work. As defined, social disorganization downplays the significance of ethnic and cultural factors in delinquency. Some ethnicities may encourage criminal activity because the behavior is not considered criminal or wrong. Although research in different countries has tended to support their findings that delinquent rates are highest in areas with economic decline and instability, that research has not found that crime rates spatially disperse from the city center outward. In fact, in some countries, the wealthy live in the center, while the poorest zones are near its fringes. Further, their work does not consider why there is significant non-delinquency in delinquency areas. Thus, the theory identifies social causes of delinquency that seem to be located in specific geographical areas, and its conclusions are not completely generalizable. For a general discussion of their work, see Snodgrass (1976).