Neighborhoods

All info from U.S. Census American Fact Finder Three communities... Upper income area Bel Air - 90077 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 - 92845 Household median income $92,161 Indiv. below poverty line: 4.4% Lower income area Willowbrook - 90059 Household median income $40,952 Below poverty line: 39.0%

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

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

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”)

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 1932 - 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

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) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-w6vi4Q0oM 5 mis.

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O30Q7_AjfLE 2 mis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBpN0oRwVbU 2 ½ mis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtAA3OhX89k 3 ½ mis.

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BSKEqJkqy8 2 ½ mis.