Most sociologists acknowledge that there is a definite link between location and crime, along with other aspects such as ethnicity and gender and try to link parallels with it.

They found that this was because the high levels of population turnover along with significant levels of poverty and poor housing combined a state of social disorganisation. The influx of new immigrants also prevented the development of strong shared values to prevent offending, taking the realist view also that social order must be held. They then amended the concept ‘social disorganisation’ to describe a distinct non-conformist set of values in opposition to those of mainstream society.

    Sutherland & Cressey (1966) introduced the concept of ‘differential association’ to challenge Shaw & McKay’s theory.  They believed that someone is likely to become criminal if they receive an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law, not acknowledging the location in which the individual lives within. Further tightening his approach in order to avoid vagueness criticisms like Shaw & McKay’s theory, he stated that definitions vary in frequency, duration, priority, e.g. more influenced during primary socialisation and intensity., ignoring the relationship between geographical area and crime.

    Not only is this hard to apply to the contemporary UK due to the fact that the theory is not only dated, but more applicable within the USA, as housing policies mirror, in that British research has failed to reproduce the clear pattern of concentric circles that Chicago School has identified. Morris (1957) stated that there was no evidence that people in high areas in high delinquency held a coherent set of values that was any different from that of mainstream society, ignoring the relationship between location and crime, the reason being the council’s housing policies in his study of Croydon, the council kept high-problem families together so that almost by definition, it was a high-crime area.

To expand on this, applicable to the high-problem zone in Shaw & McKay’s theory is the process of ‘tipping’. Informal social control imposed by the majority of resident limits the offending behaviour of the anti-social minority, however if this has broke down, it tends to drive away some of the law-abiding families and those who wish to enter tend to be relatives of those already located there.  It has ‘tipped’ and therefore becomes regarded as a problem estate, as shown in Baldwin & Bottom’s study (1976) which compared two similar housing estates, one; ‘Gardenia’, had a 300% higher number of offenders and 350% higher level of crimes than the other ‘Stonewall’ due to this process, agreeing with the view that social control limits problem areas and those which are regarded as such are done socially.

     Felson & Clark developed the Opportunity Theory to explain why and where offending occurs. They suggest the likelihood of an offence occurring depends on two factors; target attractiveness and accessibility. In correlation with this developing a similar view, Felson then developed Routine Activities Theory, when he investigated burglars in Texas City and found that offenders weighed up the possibility of being caught against the attractiveness of the objects to be stolen as they key elements in their decision, and concluded they were more likely to break into those properties in areas that they knew well as this increased their confidence in escaping afterward, taking into account whether there is a capable guardian, such as a police officer or informal social control engendered by a sense of community. Another key factor they acknowledged was the time as well as the place, the same place can be a bigger target within the night than in the day, helping to explain why most crime occurs in the evening and weekends in the city centres and why burglaries are likely to occur in poorer, urban areas; the main victim of crime being young males.

   Another theory similar to this was that developed by various sociologists named ‘Cognitive Maps’. Patricia and Paul Brantingham, for example, argue that people have different perceptions to others of the area in which they live, depending upon where they live and routes to and from work. Each person then carries in their mind a different image of their city; called a cognitive map.

Wiles & Costello extended this further when they studied offenders in Sheffield; finding that offenders on average travelled approximately two miles to commit offences and invariably the area chosen was based on strategic decisions within their routine activities and cognitive maps.

     In contrast to these, administrative criminology theories such as these have been criticised by Jock Young, as they do not explain why people commit offences within these areas, merely the circumstances that they are more likely to commit them within. Furthermore, it seems illogical that offenders makes calculated decision regarding offending, as some other studies suggest that these are mostly not rational, motivated purely by thrills and the search for excitement, such as that of Katz Pleasure of Crime in the instance of joyriding within contemporary society.