Week 6 - Neighbourhoods and Crime Flashcards
Sociological Criminology
Connection with Emile Durkheim: Influenced Chicago School and Shaw & McKay.
Key Concepts:
Social structure
Environment
Macro theory
Neighborhoods and Crime
Key Theories
Theory of Human Ecology
Social Disorganization
Rodney Stark’s Theory of the Ecology of Crime
Bursik and Grasmick’s Theory of Community Control
Sampson’s Theory of Collective Efficacy
Chicago in the Late 1800s/Early 1900s
Fastest growing city in US history.
70% of citizens were foreign born.
No formal social agencies.
Chicago School of Sociology
Overview: Major body of sociology in the 1920s/30s.
Focus: Urban sociology, using a positivist and deductive approach.
Ecological Perspective: Examines the environment’s influence on human behavior.
Microcosm: The city as a small-scale representation of larger social dynamics.
Social Disorganization Theory
Foundational Theories
Theory of Human Ecology (Robert Park)
Theory of Concentric Circles (Ernest Burgess)
Concentric Zone Theory (Shaw and McKay)
Assumptions of Social Disorganization Theory
Behavior is Shaped by Environment: Tabula rasa (blank slate).
Deterministic View: Behavior determined by social factors; individual traits not emphasized.
Scientific Approach: City as a social laboratory, based on naturalism and social ecology.
Theory of Human Ecology (Robert Park)
Natural Areas: Cities grow according to natural patterns.
Complex Organisms: Cities have a sense of unity with identifiable clusters (e.g., Little Italy) - race, ethnicity, income, occupation.
Urban Sprawl
Impact: Business and factories invade residential neighborhoods.
Consequences: Disruption of informal control, increased crime, and population transitions.
Concentric Zone Theory (Ernest Burgess)
Central Business District: Core economic area.
Transitional Zone: Immigrants, deteriorated housing, factories.
Working-Class Zone: Single-family tenements.
Residential Zone: Single-family homes with yards.
Commuter Zone: Suburbs.
Violence in Chicago and Disinvestment
Closure of businesses → fewer middle-class jobs.
Abandoned buildings → lack of investment and opportunities.
Resulting in increased crime and victimization.
Social Disorganization and Deviant Subcultures
Key Factors: Poverty, social disorganization → gang formation.
Cultural Transmission: Norms of criminality passed onto youth.
Stability of Deviant Places: Areas remain deviant despite population changes.
Revival of Social Ecology School (1970s)
Focus: Effects of community deterioration on criminality.
Factors:
High unemployment and community fear - Siege mentality – mistrust of key social institutions – nobody cares
idea – responsible for own life and safety
Transitions in communities and poverty concentration - Population turnover and community change
Weak social controls - both formal and informal
lack of social altruism
Rodney Stark’s Deviant Places Theory
Key Aspects:
Density, poverty, mixed-use areas, transience, dilapidation.
Moral Cynicism: an attitude of distrust toward claimed ethical and social values
o Increased opportunities
o Increase motivation
o Diminished social control
Theory of Community Control (Bursik & Grasmick)
Sources of Control:
Private Control: Friends and family.
Parochial Control: Schools and churches.
Public Control: Institutions beyond the neighborhood.
Collective Efficacy (Robert Sampson)
Concept: Community cohesion leading to effective social control.
Outcome: Neighborhoods can collectively prevent and respond to crime.
Poverty Alone: Does not correlate with crime; must consider mobility, family disruption, and density.
Social Relationships: Vital for community participation and crime control.
Collective Efficacy: Neighbors’ ability to maintain order defined by shared norms and expectations.
Legacy of Shaw and McKay
Strengths:
Crime results from ecological conditions, not ethnic identity.
Criminality as a normal response to adverse conditions.
Advocacy for community-based treatment programs.
Critique
Confusing definitions and lack of measurement.
Macro focus neglects individual motivations for crime.
Ecological fallacy—group data cannot predict individual behavior.
Policies and Local Focus
Program Location: Services should be in low-income neighborhoods
.
Chicago Area Project: Social programs aiming to involve local citizens in community planning - recreational activities, camps, workshops, and community projects.
Boston Project:
Fostered relationships with local gangs, organized recreational activities.
Slight decrease in illegal behavior, but major offenses increased.
Shaw and Delinquency
Detachment: From conventional groups, not rooted in biology or psychology.
Findings:
Physical Status: Higher delinquency near industrial areas.
Economic Status: Stable delinquency in lowest SES, regardless of economic changes.
Population Composition: High delinquency rates among foreign-born and African American families, despite shifts.
Life Histories of Delinquents (Shaw)
Similarities in intelligence, physical condition, and personality with peers.
Breakdown of conventional social control in delinquent areas.
Opportunities for Crime: High in neighborhoods.
Early delinquency fostered through street play; older boys teaching younger ones.
Delinquents eventually adopt criminal values.
Delinquency and Urban Dynamics (Shaw)
Connection: Juvenile delinquency linked to urban growth patterns and population shifts.
Impact of Rapid Changes: Loss of neighborhood identity.
High Mobility: Residents lack connections with each other, creating a sense of instability.
Kornhauser’s View on Delinquency
Origin: Delinquency emerges in neighborhoods with deteriorating social relationships and institutions.
Development of deviant subcultures with shared values and norms.
Social Disorganization: Primary cause of delinquency.
Community Control Model (Kornhauser)
Hindrances: Poverty, racial and ethnic diversity, high mobility hinder normal social relationships.
Resulting in high crime and delinquency.
Bursik and Webb’s Findings
Social Disorganization: Primary explanation for neighborhood delinquency.
Residential Succession: Neighborhoods maintain crime despite population turnover.
Historical context of transition zones leading to social disorganization and elevated delinquency.
Stark’s Integrated Propositions
Key Factors:
Density, poverty, mixed land use, residential mobility, dilapidation.
Outcome: Leads to moral cynicism—distrust in ethical and social values.
Testing Collective Efficacy
Physical and Social Disorder: Linked to poverty and mixed land use.
Correlation: Higher social cohesion leads to lower crime rates.
Broken Windows Theory (Wilson & Kelling)
Visible disorder leads to more serious crime
Disorder → Fear of crime → Reduced collective efficacy → Increased crime
Public Housing and Crime
Characteristics: High poverty, racial minorities, residential mobility, female-headed families.
Narratives: Early studies linked crime to architectural differences.
Findings (1980s-90s): Higher violent crime in public housing; property crime lower.
Routine Activities Theory: Higher vulnerability to violent crime due to guardianship dynamics.
Social Disorganization in Rural Areas
Osgood and Chambers: Examined hypotheses on residential instability, ethnic heterogeneity, family disruption, etc.
Findings:
Positive correlations with instability and disruption.
High density had minimal effects beyond modest levels.
Poverty had no correlation; rural areas may have stronger support networks.
Methodological issues
o Focus only on structural factors, rely on official crime data, difficulty
measures communities in rural contexts
Neighborhood Social Processes
o Social ties and interaction that results in social capital
o Norms and collective efficacy – more significant
o Institutional resources – less significant
o Routine activities – mixed use, locations, density
Formal social control
o Police involvement – quality policing can enhance informal control by
fostering resident organization
o Incarceration – tipping point – leads to decreased crime until there is
excessive incarceration
