Sixth Blog Response

     Introduce the sources you found after reading Sampson's 9th chapter. Explain how they relate to issues of particular importance to one or both of your emphases and then how you feel they relate to Sampson's methods for testing altruism, cynicism, and other-regarding behavior in Chicago. Be sure to include complete citation information for your sources.
     In Sampson's 9th chapter, he goes into great detail focusing on three main points: social altruism, cynicism, and the "good community." He explains how these things either go towards helping or hurting the collective good of the community, and summarizes by saying that collective efficacy along with an altruistic character help the community wellbeing while moral or legal cynicism harm the community wellbeing. This chapter is focused around a few tests that he examines in order to get a closer look at how the neighbors of Chicago may work. The two tests that he uses are the "lost letter" test and the CPR test, both of which he says will give us greater insight into how these neighborhoods work.
     One of the implications that Sampson points out towards the end of the chapter is that evolutionary biologists have linked altruistic behavior as a key factor in natural selection (230). In an article titled Can natural selection favour altruism between species, the authors Wyatt, West, and Gardner  develop a spatial population genetic model of two interacting species and study whether altruism between different species either helps or hurts one or both species throughout the course of natural selection. While they come to the final conclusion that "natural selection does not favour traits that provide benefits exclusively to individuals of other species," they were attempting to find a link between species that would show benefits from helping one another.
     Another interesting study is one conducted by Swatt, Varano, Uchida, and Solomon, and focuses on crime and collective efficacy in Miami. Titled Fear of crime, incivilities, and collective efficacy in four Miami neighborhoods, this research article attempts to tie in the importance of collective efficacy when focusing on crime. They did this through conducting surveys throughout Miami-Dade county, and then forming models based on these surveys. Through their studies they found that the "relationship between perceptions of collective efficacy and fear of crime exhibit significant heterogeneity between neighborhoods." They focused largely on the effects that incivilities such as physical/social disorder had on collective efficacy, and the effect that this then had on crime.

Works Cited:

Shellie E. Solomon, et al. "Fear Of Crime, Incivilities, And Collective Efficacy In Four Miami Neighborhoods." Journal Of          Criminal Justice 41.1 (2013): 1-11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

Wyatt, G. A. K., S. A. West, and A. Gardner. "Can Natural Selection Favour Altruism Between Species?." Journal Of          Evolutionary Biology 26.9 (2013): 1854-1865. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

Blog Response #5

• What is Collective Efficacy Theory (CET) as Sampson and colleagues define it? What is the evidence that you found in the international (or non-Chicago at least) study that you read? And how would you answer the questions that Sampson gave his respondents, asking about what they thought their neighbors would do in various situations, only with respect to your own neighborhood?

• Sampson lists the importance of two things as part of the concept of his Collective Efficacy Theory. The first thing that is key is the concept of "social cohesion" and the second key part is the "shared expectations for control." Social cohesion refers to the ability of a group to work together either effectively or ineffectively, and how that contributes to collective efficacy. Shared expectations for control outline the length to which the neighborhood or community is able to share the same expectations and goals with which they will build a stronger community.
• He goes through to list other integral factors such as: the capacity of residents to exercise control, social life distinguished by personal ties through networking, and the importance of mutual trust and social cohesion. Key things that influence collective efficacy seem to be things such as socioeconomic status, immigration, residential tenure, and instability. The whole purpose of the study is to pinpoint which of these factors contribute to high crime and poverty rates in a certain area. In a study done by PHDCN, the researchers attempted to determine the negative effects on a neighborhood that could be linked to collective efficacy. The research found that collective efficacy did have certain applications to their study on street crime, but also were able to link it to other health-related dimensions such as asthma, birth weight, self-rated health, and heat-wave deaths.
• Studies done outside of Chicago in the city of Stockholm found that the researchers were correct in determining correlations between collective efficacy and other predictions of violence. In a graph included on page 165, there is a high similarity between the cities of Stockholm and Chicago in their prediction of violence and its relationship to collective efficacy. All of this being said, Sampson comes to the conclusion that, "collective efficacy is relatively stable over time and that it predicts future variations in crime" (177-8). Taking the study beyond the cities of Chicago and Stockholm, researchers such as Mazerolle, Wickes, and McBroom (2010) found that they were also able to predict crime rates using the Collective Efficacy Theory and using it in an Australian context. They were able to find that "collective efficacy is a significant mechanism in explaining the spatial distribution of self-reported violent victimization," including Brisbane as just one more example that collective efficacy is cross-cultural. The information done in this research as well as many other studies attempts to further prove that collective efficacy is a viable theory in determining violence and crime. Community Variations in Violence: The Role of Social Ties and Collective Efficacy in Comparative Context, Lorraine Mazerolle, Rebecca Wickes, and James McBroom.
• In relation to my own neighborhood, I have been very blessed to grow up in a small town where there was very little crime. Up until a few years ago, we hardly had any neighbors and most of the crime in the city of Ivins, Utah could be traced to a few of the same areas (interestingly enough, also areas with the highest percentage of immigrants). As a response to the questions that Sampson poses, if children were skipping school and hanging out on the street corner, I feel like my neighbors would intervene. If children were seen spray painting graffiti on a local building, I feel like my neighbors would intervene. If children were seen showing disrespect to an adult within the community, I feel like they would intervene depending on the situation. If a fight broke out in front of one of my neighbors houses, I feel like they would intervene and take the appropriate action. If the fire station closest to home was threatened by budget cuts, I don't think they would intervene or raise funds/support. Most of the dialogue relating to trust, helpfulness, graffiti, fighting, and violence simply aren't applicable in the area that I grew up in. In contrast to my hometown, I was able to live in California for 2 years, and was able to experience some of the higher rates of crime and violence in the country and have been able to get an interesting view of the two different ways of life. While I haven't known much about collective efficacy before this study of Sampson and his literature, it is interesting to look back and think of these questions that he poses and see a definite correlation between those areas of high and low violence, crime, abuse, and poverty.

Fourth Blog Response

• Use your notes on Sampson's sixth chapter and the article you found that, in your view, either affirms or challenges Sampson's thesis about the appearance of disorder. Describe your reaction to both in specific detail and link the article you chose to your blog entry, so that others in the class can look it up. If possible, describe how you might use this material in a way relevant to one or both of your emphasis disciplines.

The appearance of disorder in many cases led to an overall "feel" of the neighborhood being either high or low-crime areas. Sampson compared a few different points of disorder such as Socially perceived disorder and concurrently observed disorder. The two types of disorder compared looked at how the citizens either living in or outside of, but often working in the city, viewed their neighborhood as either being high or low on the disorder scale. At the same time as the survey, Sampson was comparing the actual rate of disorder that was going on such as the crime rates, poverty level, etc. and making observations between the two. I find it interesting that Sampson points out the importance to remember context when using comparisons between social disorder, and explains how there may be perceived disorder in one area that would not even be noticed in another.

Something that makes me think of Sampson's viewing of social disorder reminds me of the drive to California from St. George. Growing up in St. George, there are many people in the community that take great care of their homes, their yards, and the surrounding areas. It was not commonplace growing up to see a McDonald's bag on the side of the road, or someone's discarded drink container thrown out the window when they were done using it. As you make the trek to Vegas, the feeling of community solidarity and cleanliness changes to a feeling of city life where their is trash and seeming decay everywhere, although those from Las Vegas probably wouldn't give it a second thought. The context of where the decay is, along with the people who are viewing it and how they see it is key when measuring perceived disorder.

In an outside article, authors Catherine E. Ross and John Mirowsky from the Ohio State University develop their own scale for perceived social disorder and find interesting distinctions between physical and social disorder. In both of these articles it seems that there is a correlation between perceived and actual disorder. Often those people living in the neighborhoods that are being viewed know the most about their neighborhoods, whether they are good or bad, high or low crime, etc. And it seems that their perception of the neighborhood, coupled with the perception of outsiders in how they view the area is often fairly accurate when pointing to things such as crime rates, drug use, and poverty.
http://uar.sagepub.com/content/34/3/412.abstract

The two disciplines that I am studying using my Interdisciplinary degree are Biology and Criminal Justice. It is interesting that the concept of profiling in Criminal Justice is very similar to this idea that disorder can be seen through "broken windows" in a neighborhood or area. Often those in the field are taught different techniques for determining situations, and reading criminals so they know how to best assess and successfully command a situation.

• "City life is made possible by an 'ordering' of the urban populace in terms of appearance and spatial location such that those within the city could know a great deal about one another by simply looking," - Lynn Lofland.

Third Blog Response

• After reading Sampson's review of the arguments and evidence for "poverty traps" of urban decay in inner-cities, Chicago in particular, and after reading the NYT article "The Death and Life of Chicago," blog your thoughts on the topic.

     The struggles among those citizens living in Chicago seems a world away from what is happening here in Southern Utah. The crime rates are starkly different, the demographics are not very similar, and the two places may be about as far as two places in the United States could be. Having said that, I have never been to Chicago, but I have been able to experience life in the "inner city" when I was living in San Bernardino, California for about a year. As of the most recent census, San Bernardino has the 5th highest crime rate in California, right behind Compton. The poverty traps that exist in these cities is very real, and many people are caught up in the psycho-graphics that seem to have a very real grip on the inner cities in places like Chicago, New York, and Detroit.

     While I really enjoyed the article about J.R. Fleming attempting to change the demographics of the city by placing people in the vacant homes, I don't know that this is the answer. While this may be one step to the process, it is only a part. There are two possible solutions to the problem that is discussed in the article:

     1: Clean up all of the neighborhoods that have homes in them with the potential to become drug and/or gang homes, and place in them homeless people who have been able to find stable housing due to any number of reasons.

     2: Allow for those homes to remain vacant with the premise that there will be a tighter security kept on them, or that they will be demolished altogether to remove any "blight" that is perceived by the community. Leave this lot vacant as an opportunity to boost the economy when an eligible home-buyer comes along who chooses to build here, and allow the neighborhoods to weed themselves out as those homes that are not able to be paid on remain vacant.

     While I am emotionally unconnected to the project that J.R. Fleming has going on, I can see that there is a great amount of good that he is attempting to accomplish through the Anti-Eviction campaign. That being said, I also believe that those under this system, just as under the welfare system, should be expected to give back and that there should be a guideline for doing so. As discussed in another blog and one of mine previous, there is a government program going on in Ivins, Utah, that gives people the opportunity to help build one another's homes at a government subsidized rate. Programs like this allow the feeling of entitlement to exit the situation and allow people to realize that although there are steps that should be made in helping the poor, there is still a certain extent that people have to go to to help themselves.

     The example of Martha Biggs, who serves on the Anti-Eviction campaign's advisory board is an example of the wrong kind of attitude to have if such an approach is to work. Originally kicked out of the Cabrini housing projects due to drug use, she had a strong hand in finding and subsequently living in the first house broken into and obtained for the campaign to use as an example. There need to be basic outlines such as no drug or alcohol use, you must hold some type of job, you must contribute X amount of time to community projects, etc. for such an endeavor to work. That being said, this campaign could serve to greatly help those people in Chicago who may not be as fortunate as others in obtaining a home, and I believe that no one should ever have to live on the streets or go hungry in the U.S.A. Having your own home is the "American Dream," and those who have worked for it would be cheated if others were to simply receive a hand-out. There are other ways for the government to allow those who have no home to find a place to live. And for those who are willing to work hard and obey the rules, there should be a set of guidelines that may place them on equal ground as other willing and able Americans.