The Chicago School

1. The Chicago School Emphasis on “ecology of crime” The root of control / social learning Social Disorganization Theory

2. Chicago School • University of Chicago • Department of Sociology (but others also) • Social Context • Chicago as a microcosm of change in America • “Individual (especially biological) explanations seemed foolish

3. Earnest Burgess and Robert Parks City comparable to “ecosystem” (Parks) How does a city grow and develop? • Concentric Zones Industrial zone Zone in transition Residential zones

4. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay • Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas • Mapped addresses of delinquents (court records) • Zone in transition had stable and high delinquency rates over three decades • Even through occupied by different waves of immigrants!! • Therefore, not “feeble minded” immigrants or the “City” in general.

5. Social Disorganization • What were the characteristics of the zone in transition that may cause high delinquency rates? • Population Heterogeneity • Transient Population • Physical Decay • Poverty/Inequality • Why might these ecological characteristics lead to high crime rates? • Shaw and McKay not clear on this point…delinquent values…lack of control?

6. Shaw and McKay II • Why are the crime rates stable in the zone of transition? 1. Cultural Transmission of Values • Roots of Sutherland’s Differential Association (micro) and Subculture of violence theories (macro) 2. Lack of Informal Social Control • Roots of control theories (micro) and modern social disorganization (macro)

7. Social Disorganization 1960-1980 • Fell out of favor in sociology • Individual theories gained popularity • Hirschi (1969); Burgess and Akers (1968)… • Criticisms of Social Disorganization • Are these neighborhoods really “disorganized?” • Cannot measure “intervening variables” • Cannot get neighborhood level measures • “Chicago Specific”

8. Modern S.D. Theory • Interest rekindled in the 1980s (continues today). • Theory Recast as a “macro” version of informal social control • Sampson and Groves (1989) • Ecological characteristics social control Population turnover Street supervision Poverty / inequality Collective efficacy Divorce rates / single parents Friendship networks

9. Sampson and Groves • British Crime Survey Data (BCS) • Survey done based on neighborhood, so neighborhood measures of: • Poverty, Family disruption, Residential Mobility AND • Supervision of street corners, friendship networks,participation in community organizations

10. Sampson et al. (1997) • Replicated results in Chicago • In areas with “concentrated poverty,” communities lack “collective efficacy” • After controlling for “composition,” collective efficacy predicted: • UCR homicides • Perception of Neighborhood Violence • Violent Victimizations

11. Sampson and Wilson • Why are African Americans “trapped” in the inner city, whereas other immigrants “escaped” • Barriers disrupted “natural flow” • Rekindle “delinquent culture” ideas, but place them in proper context • “Cognitive Landscape”

12. Review of Social Disorganization • Macro (Ecological) Theory • Explains why certain neighborhoods have high crime rates • Ecological variables (population density/turnover, poverty…) influence a neighborhood’s ability to “bond” and engage in informal control.

13. Policy Implications? • Build neighborhood “collective efficacy” • How do you do this? • Address ecological characteristics that ruin collective efficacy • Family disruption, concentrated poverty, residential mobility

14. Note the “Control Theory Assumption” in S.D. • Unless controlled, delinquency will fester in neighborhoods • Similar to individual level control theory • Different from Anomie theory