Communities and Crime

Question 1

Park and Burgess: 6 Zoning Frames

Answer 1

Zoning frames included the I. Loop (downtown), II., Factory zone, III. Zone of transition, IV., Working class zone, V. Residential zone, and VI. Commuter zone

Question 2

What 3 Distinct Characteristics of the Zone of Transition did Park and Burgess observe?

Answer 2

(1) strained institutions (e.g., housing), (2) transiency in the immigrant populations, and (3) heterogeneity (e.g., constant mixing of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds).

Question 3

What novel idea came from Park and Burgess?

Answer 3

Community-level perspectives was the idea that city development and organization were patterned—not random—and therefore, crime and delinquency could be explained in the social processes that shaped cities

Question 4

What are the 3 levels of social control as described by Bursik and Grasmick (1993)? Provide examples.

Answer 4

(1) private (e.g., family, close friends), (2) parochial (e.g., schools, churches), and (3) public (e.g., governmental agencies).

See Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Cullen & Wilcox, 2013

Question 5

What did Shaw & McKay (1948) propose were 3 structural conditions that were causally related to crime?

Answer 5

Shaw & McKay (1948) hypothesized that three critical structural conditions had a causal effect on crime/delinquency: (1) poverty (i.e., low socioeconomic status), (2) ethnic heterogeneity, and (3) residential mobility out of the zone of transition.

Question 6

What is “social disorganization”

Answer 6

vital social processes that mediated the relationship between structural conditions and crime/delinquency (Sampson, 2006; 2011; Wilcox et al., 2017).

Question 7

Shaw & McKay (1948) described two key social processes present in “socially disorganized” communities that can facilitate crime. What are they?

Answer 7

(1) structural conditions strained social institutions meant to exert informal social control on crime/delinquency
-strained interpersonal relationships between neighbors, furthering the inability of residents to exert informal social control on unsupervised youths

(2) cultural transmission of deviant values, older boys would pass down delinquent ideals and behaviors to younger boys (Shaw & McKay, 1948).

Question 8

What were some critiques Bursik (1988) (see also Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003) had for Shaw and McKay?

Answer 8

(1) Changing ecological structures of Chicago
(2) Why do some juveniles NOT commit crime in socially disorganized (SD) communities (i.e., cultural transmission of deviance).
(3) Operationalization issues and inherent tautology of SD.

Question 9

What was the key argument made by Kornhauser (1978)
in her seminal work, “Social Sources of Delinquency”?

Answer 9

Shaw and McKay’s (1948) early theoretical works had competing assumptions between: (1) the cultural transmission of deviance—a term she coined, (2) social control theory, and (3) strain theory.

She argued that (1) culture has limited variability

Question 10

What did the following find with regard to the Systemic Model?

Kasarda and Janowitz (1974)

Answer 10

Using survey data of Chicago residents-tested the systemic model-DV: using the length of residence in the community.

Systemic model predicted community attachment in mass society (measured by community attitudes and local networks).

See also Sampson (1988) for support for systemic model.

Question 11

What did the following find with regard to the Systemic Model?

How did they measure intervening social mechanisms?

Sampson and Groves (1989)

Answer 11

British Crime Survey-238 localities

Personal social controls:
(1) sparse local friendship networks, (2) unsupervised teen peer groups, and (3) low organizational participation

Question 12

What is the sine qua non of the Systemic Model?

Answer 12

structural conditions are indirectly associated with crime/delinquency and local social controls (i.e., social ties) partially mediate the relationship between the two

Question 13

What did the following find with regard to the Systemic Model? Did they support or refute?

Lowenkamp and colleagues (2003) and Veysey and Messner (2000)

Answer 13

replicate Sampson and Groves (1989)’s findings with updated data and/or more sophisticated statistical analyses

Question 14

What did the following find with regard to the Systemic Model? Did they support or refute?

Warner and Wilcox Rountree (1997)

Answer 14

replicated most of Sampson and Groves (1989)’s findings using Seattle census tracks

Question 15

What did the following find with regard to the Systemic Model? Did they support or refute?

Bellair; 2000

Answer 15

found support. Suitable for a string citation.

Question 16

What did the following find with regard to the Systemic Model? Did they support or refute?

Pattillo (1998)
Warner & Wilcox Rountree (1999)

Answer 16

Refutes Sampson & Groves (1989).

Pattillo (1998) - social networks can be pro- and anti-social for Middle-class Black communities.

Warner & Wilcox Rountree (1999) - men and women do not experience social ties the same way.

Question 17

What did the following find with regard to the Systemic Model? Did they support or refute?

Bellair, P. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology, 35(4): 677-703.

Answer 17

-Direct theory test.
-Measured frequency of interaction (daily to once a year or less).
-even infrequent interactions contribute to crime control.

Question 18

What was the importance of Sampson and colleagues (1997) ?

Answer 18

Coined Collective Efficacy which developed on the role of informal social control in the explanation of neighborhood variation in crime.

Using a survey of Chicago residents across 343 neighborhoods, they found that collective efficacy was an important intervening mechanism that linked structural conditions—concentrated disadvantage, immigration concentration, and residential stability—to crime.

Question 19

What is the definition of Collective Efficacy?

Answer 19

social cohesion +social action/efficacy

Social cohesion: specific social ties built on working trust and mutual support

Efficacy: “culturally tinged dimension” of willingness to intervene and contribute to a shared expectation for social control

*social ties are not synonymous with shared expectations for control

Question 20

What did the following find with regard to the Collective Efficacy Theory? Did they support or refute?

Morenoff and colleagues (2001)

Answer 20

Found that while dense social ties were not associated with lower crime rates, it was directly associated to higher community collective efficacy.
-Supports Collective Efficacy Theory.

Question 21

What did the following find with regard to the Collective Efficacy Theory? Did they support or refute?

Mazerolle and colleagues (2010)

Answer 21

Mazerolle and colleagues (2010) found support for collective efficacy’s association with the spatial distribution of self-reported violent victimization in Australia