The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crime

The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization,

and CrimePart III

Movement from Biological to Sociological Theories

Individualistic theories were dominant into the early 20th century ◦ Ignored larger forces in society that could

influence crime

The U.S. changed from a land of small stable communities to a land dominated by crowded cities ◦Sociologists argued these changes

and forces outside the individual influenced criminal behavior

Social Disorganization in the City

In the early 1900s, Chicago, like other cities, underwent rapid social change

Ernest Burgess theorized urban areas grow from their inner core toward outer areas ◦Concentric zone theory ◦Most important zone: Zone in

Transition Where the newcomers settle

Burgess’s Five Concentric Zones

Zone 1: CentralBusiness District

Zone 2: Zone inTransition (highest crime)

Zone 3: Zone of Workingmen’s Homes

Zone 4: Residential Zone

Zone 5: Commuters’Zone

Zone 4Zone 5

Zone 3Zone 2

Zone 1

Shaw and McKay: Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas

Burgess’s theory directed Shaw and McKay’s investigation of juvenile delinquency

Hypothesized higher rates of delinquency would be found in inner city areas

Inner cities were characterized by high levels of social disorganization ◦Poverty◦Rapid population growth◦Heterogeneity ◦Transiency


Tested this hypothesis by examining how measures of crime were distributed in the different zones of the city ◦Mapped (by hand) the addresses of each delinquent

Found rates of crime by area remained similar regardless of the ethnic group that lived there

Thus, characteristics of the area, not the people, regulated levels of delinquency


Areas most disadvantageous in relation to economic, social, and cultural values had the highest rates of delinquency

In high-rate delinquency areas, competing and conflicting moral values had developed◦In contrast, low-rate delinquency areas often had

uniformity, consistency, and universality of conventional values


Low-rate delinquency areas had constructive leisure activities, supervised children, and resisted behavior that threatened conventional values often absent in high-rate delinquency areas◦High-rate areas often had many adult criminals◦Many delinquents from these areas committed their

offenses in groups

◦High-rate areas allowed for youths to be in contact with criminal values and associates which facilitated the transmission of criminal values across generations


Levels of officially recorded delinquency decreased as people moved away from the inner city

Found support that social disorganization was a major cause of delinquency


Social disorganization is the breakdown of social institutions in a community

This fosters criminal behavior in that area because:◦ Conventional institutions become weak, which results in

lower supervision Families disrupted, schools disordered, few organized

activities◦ A value system supportive of crime is nurtured and

transmitted across generations


Policy implications coming from Shaw and McKay’s work◦Chicago Area Project

Try to organize communities Create recreational programs,

revitalize the appearance of the neighborhood, help problem youth

Revitalization of Social Disorganization Theory

Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization work lost its appeal by the 1960s

Revitalized in the 1980s with a renewed interest in the ecology of crime and macro-level criminology◦Macro-level criminology: how characteristics of

geographical areas influence crime rates

Blau and Blau (1982) found violence was more pronounced in urban areas with economic inequality, especially inequality between whites and blacks

Revitalization of Social Disorganization Theory

The work of Robert Sampson was influential◦ Sampson (1986)

Argued crime was higher in the inner city because residents lost the ability to exercise “informal social control”◦ Cannot supervise youths

◦ Sampson and Groves (1989) British Crime Survey Measured social disorganization directly Found structural conditions lead to social disorganization which leads to

increased crime rates Social disorganization mediated the relationship between structural

conditions and crime rates

Extending Social Disorganization Theory: Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality Sampson and Wilson (1995) extended social

disorganization theory by placing it within the realities of contemporary America ◦Structural social disorganization and cultural social

isolation explained the high rate of inner city crime◦Argued variations in disorganization were linked to racial

inequality

◦Blacks were more likely to reside in areas where there is concentrated poverty due to macrostructural factors Deindustrialization, departure of middle-class

blacks, racial discrimination in housing, etc.

Sampson and Wilson: A Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality

Also argued that structural conditions influenced the culture in the community◦In these concentrated poverty areas, the

people often live in social isolation and lack contact or interaction with individuals and institutions representing mainstream society This results in restricted legitimate opportunities

and impaired communication


In socially isolated areas, cultural values often develop that view violence and crime as unavoidable given the situation ◦ Referred to as cultural disorganization—attenuation of societal

cultural values◦ Do not approve violence/crime, but tolerate it

Culture is the acquisition of “cognitive landscapes”◦ Ecological structured norms regarding appropriate standards and

expectations of conduct◦ Because exposed to crime and have few opportunities,

see crime/violence as a potential choice and possibly unavoidable Have role models, possible access to weapons, etc.


Thus, Sampson and Wilson argued that crime could be explained by:

MACROSTRUCTURAL FORCES

Deindustrialization

Out-Migration

Segregation

Concentrated Disadvantage

Social Isolation

Structural Disorganization

Weakened Culture (Cultural Disorganization)

Crime

Extending Social Disorganization Theory: Collective Efficacy

Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) further elaborated social disorganization theory◦Wanted to understand the intervening variable

between the structural characteristics of a community and crime

◦Developed the concept of collective efficacy Combination of both informal social control and

social cohesion


Collective efficacy is the willingness of community residents to (1) exercise informal social control and (2) trust and help one another

Enriched the social disorganization perspective in two ways:

1. Added the element that neighbors must mutually trust or support one another

2. Envisioned collective efficacy as a dynamic factor A resource that can be mobilized/activated when the

need arises


Collective efficacy is the “process of activating or converting social ties to achieve desired outcomes” (Sampson et al., 1999, p. 635)

Communities low in collective efficacy cannot mobilize as a group to solve problems and thus have high crime rates

Communities high in collective efficacycan mobilize and thus have lower crime rates

Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls: Collective Efficacy and Crime

To test their postulation, studied violence in 343 Chicago neighborhoods◦Project on Human Development in Chicago

Neighborhoods◦Obtained both micro- and macro-level data in

order to test for both compositional and contextual effects


Found:◦Concentrated disadvantage (poverty, race and age

composition, and family disruption) was related to violence in a neighborhood

◦Concentrated disadvantage, residential stability, and immigrant concentration explained 70% of the neighborhood variation in collective efficacy

◦Collective efficacy was inversely related to crime◦The associations between concentrated disadvantage and

residential stability with crime were largely mediated by collective efficacy

◦The results held after controlling for compositional effects


Limitations of the study:◦The basic analysis was cross-sectional◦Informal social control and social cohesion were

not observed directly ◦Findings are limited to one city—Chicago◦May be other dimensions of neighborhood

efficacy (e.g., political ties)

Summary

As the U.S. began to become more urbanized, our thinking about crime changed◦ Saw a move from micro-level theories to macro-level theories

Shaw and McKay put forth social disorganization theory Social disorganization theory remained popular until the 1960s;

however, it was revitalized in the 1980s and 1990s◦ Especially by the work of Robert Sampson

Social disorganization theory has now been extended in two major ways: 1. Takes into account racial inequality (Sampson and Wilson)

2. Examines the role of collective efficacy (Sampson, Raudenbush, Earls)

The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crime

Documents

Transcript of The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crime