1. Neighborhoods

2. All info from U.S. Census American Fact Finder
Three communities...
Upper income area
Bel Air
Household median income $164,281
Indiv. below poverty line: 4.0%
All info from U.S. Census American Fact Finder
Middle income area
West Garden Grove
Household median income $92,161
Indiv. below poverty line: 4.4%
Lower income area
Willowbrook
Household median income $40,952
Below poverty line: 39.0%

3. Skid row – 554 San Julian St., Los Angeles
...and a fourth
Underclass area
Skid row – 554 San Julian St., Los Angeles

4. Human ecology City as a “superorganism”
Inhabitants have “symbiotic” (interrelated, mutually dependent”) relationships
Within there are “natural areas” inhabited by different groups
Racial and ethnic: Chinatown, Little Italy
Income and occupations: Upper v. Lower Manhattan
Groups can move and expand
Better-off leave poorer areas as immigrants arrive
Cities normally expand from the center in concentric circles called “zones.”
Zone I is the CBD - central business district, with business and industry
Zone II is old residential area, poorer, often taken over by Zone I
Zone III is modest residential, taken over by those fleeing Zone II
Zone IV is most affluent within the city, Zone V is suburbia
In some cities (e.g., New York) “gentrification” has worked in the opposite direction, displacing residents of centrally-located areas

5. Early Chicago research - 1920’s
Shaw and McKay
Delinquents are essentially “normal.” Behavior is likely caused by their “detachment from conventional groups”
Study of Chicago neighborhoods. Areas of highest delinquency:
Poor - many residents on welfare, few homeowners
Disproportionately populated by foreign-born and African-Americans
Located mostly in Zone II (next to Zone I, heavy industry or commerce)
Delinquency rate of a group depends on location
It’s not group membership but location that “causes” delinquency
Detailed life studies of residents
Delinquents are similar to non-delinquents as to intelligence, etc.
Normal social controls absent in areas of high delinquency
High-delinquency areas devoid of educational and job opportunities
Youths acquire values and learn behaviors through exposure and over time
Areas in Zone II are frequently in transition
As newcomers arrive and more affluent move to Zone III interpersonal bonds weaken and neighborhoods and schools suffer (“social disorganization”)

6. Implementing Shaw & McKay in Chicago and Boston
If delinquency is a product of social disorganization, then need to improve the quality of life in affected areas
Chicago Area Project - Shaw
Twenty-two neighborhood centers coordinated resources (churches, schools, labor unions, etc.) to provide recreational, occupational and educational opportunities for disadvantaged youths
Operated for 25 years; effects not formally evaluated
Subsequently thought not to have affected delinquency
1950’s - Boston “Special Youth Program” - Walter B. Miller
Similar program to Chicago, directed specifically at gangs
Careful evaluation revealed that program did provide many opportunities
But there was no measurable effect on delinquency
Kornhauser: social disorganization is a key cause
“Community model”: Poverty, racial/ethnic heterogeneity & residential mobility  delinquency
Bursik and Webb: focus on community stability
Transition between ethnic groups disrupts social controls
Delinquency driven by instability due to “race-based turnovers” in population

7. Two more theories: neighborhood structure; collective efficacy
Stark - structural aspects of urban neighborhoods  crime
High population density, poverty, mixed use (commercial/ industrial/residential), high residential mobility, dilapidation
Attracts “crime-prone” people and causes law-abiding to leave
Sampson - “Collective Efficacy” (neighborhood’s ability to keep order)
Community structures and cultures affect crime
Key factors: Poverty combined with excessive mobility, family disruption, high population density, many loners (no family ties)
Effects
“Low social capital” - widespread anonymity, little socializing and group participation
Residents don’t exercise social controls
Teens have excessive unsupervised time
Criminals operate freely: resulting crime and violence lead to further disintegration
Major observational study in Chicago
Concentrated poverty & mixed land use  Physical and social disorder
Less social cohesion  more crime (inspired “Broken Windows” policing strategy)
5 mis.

8. What to blame: public housing or its neighborhood?
With poverty, minorities, mobility & broken homes, should expect crime?
1970’s - early links to violence
Crime-ridden Pruitt-Igoe projects in St. Louis
Two projects in Brooklyn (across the street from each other)
Low-slung had less crime than high-rise
But high-rise had greater family size, thus less child supervision
Project in D.C. project had far higher crime than national average
But was this caused by its location in a dangerous neighborhood?
1980’s
Crime in St. Louis and Cleveland PH reflects their neighborhoods
L.A. and D.C.: More violent crime but less property crime in PH
1990’s - present
New studies in L.A. and D.C. confirm higher violent crime/ lower property crime in PH
Other studies drew varying conclusions
Leaving PH benefits girls, not boys
Large declines in violent and property crime when projects are demolished
Crime rates, falling everywhere, decreased less in neighborhoods that received former PH residents
But some projects proved safer than living in private homes
2 mis.
2 ½ mis.
3 ½ mis.

9. Other neighborhood effects
Four mechanisms
Social ties & interactions  social capital
Norms & collective efficacy
Seem more important a factor in explaining crime than social ties
Institutional resources (community org’s, etc.)
Not a significant factor in explaining crime
Routine activities
Mixed use, location of schools, transportation, number of bars & liquor stores
Formal social controls
Quantity & quality of policing
Incarceration - can prevent crime and destabilize families
Concentrated disadvantage
Can lead to cynicism about conventional norms (e.g., value of study and work)
Can promote a “street code” that promotes criminal behavior and punishes the law-abiding
2 ½ mis.