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 and Robert Parks
City comparable to “ecosystem” (Parks)
How does a city grow and develop?
• Concentric Zones
Industrial zone
Zone in transition
Residential zones
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.
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?
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)
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”
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
Population turnover
Poverty / inequality
Divorce rates / single parents
social control
Street supervision
Collective efficacy
Friendship networks
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
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
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”
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.
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