The Chicago School
Emphasis on “ecology of crime”
The root of control / social learning
Social Disorganization Theory
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
Earnest Burgess
How does a city growth and develop?
• Concentric Zones
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay
Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas
– Mapped addresses of delinquents (court records)
– Zone in transition stable and high delinquency rates
• Even through occupied by different waves of immigrants!!
– Therefore, not “feeble minded” immigrants
• Something about this area causes delinquency
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. Social Disorganization
• Roots of control theories (micro) and modern social disorganization (macro)
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
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 variables
– “Chicago Specific”
Modern S.D. Theory
Interest rekindled in the 1980s (continues today).
Sampson and Groves (1989)
– Social disorganization as a social control theory
– Ecological characteristics social control
Population turnover Street supervision
Poverty / inequality Collective efficacy
Divorce rates / single parents Friendship networks
Sampson and Groves
Brittish Crime Survey Data (BCS)
– Survey done based on neighborhood, so neighborhood measures of:
1. Poverty, Family disruption, Residential Mobility
AND
2. Supervision of street corners, friendship networks,
participation in community organizations
Sampson (1997)
Replicated results in Chicago
– In areas with “concentrated poverty,” communities lack “collective efficacy”
– Lack of collective efficacy increases crime rates
• How cities grow not that important
• Racial barriers disrupted “natural flow”
• Rekindle “delinquent culture” ideas
Macro (Ecological) level Theory
Neighborhood level theory
– Explains why certain neighborhoods have high crime rates
– NOT an individual level theory
• Avoid “Ecological Fallacy”
Policy Implications?
Build neighborhood “collective efficacy”
– How do you do this?
Address ecological characteristics that ruin collective efficacy
– Family disruption, concentrated poverty, residential mobility
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