Chapter 4: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND URBAN AREAS by Clifford R. Shaw & Henry D. McKay

What was the 1900-1906 Juvenile Court Series in Shaw and McKay's study?

It was the third dataset analyzed, covering 8,056 male delinquents from Chicago who appeared before the Cook County Juvenile Court during its first seven years (1900-1906).

Why was the 1900-1906 series compared to later series (1917-23, 1927-33)?

To see how delinquency rates changed over time and whether those changes related to physical or social changes in Chicago neighborhoods.

What were the key differences in age distribution between the 1900-06 and later series?

- The upper age limit was 15 (not 16).

- 6.1% of boys were under 10 years old.

- Most frequent ages: 13-15.

What was different about offense types in the early series?

Many boys were charged with less serious offenses that would not lead to petitions in later years, indicating higher case counts relative to population.

Where were most delinquents from in 1900-1906?

Near central business and industrial areas, including the Chicago River, Back of the Yards, and South Chicago.

How did the 1900-06 delinquency distribution differ from later ones?

1. More restricted and closer to industrial and business centers.

2. Few delinquents lived east of State Street, south of the Loop, unlike in later periods.

Why were 1900-06 delinquency concentrations closer to downtown?

Because later urban expansion and industrial growth depopulated older residential areas, shifting populations outward.

How were delinquency rates calculated for 1900-1906?

Using 106 square-mile areas created from 1900 enumeration districts and 1910 census tracts, with population estimates based on males aged 10-15.

What were the overall delinquency rate statistics for 1900-1906?

Range: 0.6 - 29.8

Median: 4.9

Citywide rate: 8.4

How many areas had high delinquency rates?

4 areas ≥ 20.0

7 areas ≥ 15.0

12 areas ≥ 12.0

Low-rate areas: 3 below 1.0, and 12 below 2.0.

Where were high and low delinquency areas located?

High-rate: Near the Loop, Stock Yards, South Chicago.

Low-rate: On the city's periphery.

What did Shaw & McKay notice about high-rate areas over time?

In 1900-06, they were more tightly concentrated near the city center, particularly south from the Loop and east of State Street.

What three methods were used to compare delinquency across time periods?

1. Comparisons by zones

2. Area comparisons and correlations

3. Extent of concentration analysis.

How were zones defined for analysis?

Five concentric zones at 2-mile intervals from the city center (the Loop).

What was the purpose of analyzing delinquency by zones?

To show general trends of delinquency rates by distance from the center — higher near the center, lower outward.

Did Shaw & McKay view the zones as rigid boundaries?

No — they represented continuous variation in delinquency, not sharp divisions.

Why are zone rates important theoretically?

They smooth out local fluctuations, revealing underlying spatial patterns in urban delinquency.

What did Maps A, B, and C (Figure 1) show?

Zone-based delinquency rates for the 1927-33, 1917-23, and 1900-06 series, plus north/south halves of Chicago and critical ratios confirming statistical significance.

What did the critical ratios demonstrate?

That differences between inner and outer zones were too large to be due to chance, confirming consistent urban delinquency gradients.

How consistent were high-delinquency areas over time?

Very consistent — the same neighborhoods tended to have high rates across decades.

How much overlap existed between top delinquent areas in 1927-33 and 1917-23?

20 of 24 highest-rate areas overlapped.

What was the correlation between 1927-33 and 1917-23 series?

r = 0.70 ± .02

How did the 1900-06 series align with later ones?

9 of 12 highest-rate areas in 1900-06 remained among the 12 highest in 1927-33.

3 of 5 new high-rate areas in 1927-33 also appeared as high-rate in 1917-23.

What was the overlap among the 25 highest-rate areas across all series?

19 of 25 (1900-06 vs. 1917-23)

18 of 25 (1900-06 vs. 1927-33)

What were the correlation coefficients between series?

1900-06 vs. 1917-23 → 0.85 ± .04

1900-06 vs. 1927-33 → 0.61 ± .04

What did these correlations indicate?

High stability — areas with high delinquency around 1900 remained high-rate decades later, despite changes in population composition.

What did Shaw & McKay mean by "general processes of distribution and segregation"?

Persistent social and spatial organization in the city maintained patterns of disadvantage that fostered delinquency over time.

How did Shaw & McKay measure the extent of concentration of delinquents?

By dividing the male population (ages 10-16) into four quartiles based on delinquency rates and comparing delinquent counts and city area for each quartile.

What proportion of the city's population produced about half of all delinquents?

The top 25% of the population (by rate) produced ~50% of delinquents in all three time periods.

What percentage of city area did the top delinquent quartile occupy?

1927-33: 19.2%

1917-23: 17.8%

1900-06: 13.1%

What does this spatial concentration indicate?

Delinquency was highly localized, confined to small, socially disorganized urban areas.

What did Table 7 analyze?

It ranked delinquents into four quartiles by rate and compared each quartile's percentage of total population and city area.

What percentages did the upper (highest-rate) quartile represent?

Population: 7.7% (1927-33), 10.9% (1917-23), 10.6% (1900-06)

City area: 5.5%, 6.0%, and 3.7%, respectively.

What percentages did the lower (lowest-rate) quartile represent?

Population: 54.2% (1927-33), 48% (1917-23), 48.7% (1900-06)

City area: 63.9%, 55.5%, 68.4%, respectively.

What conclusion did Shaw & McKay draw from Tables 6 and 7?

That half of all delinquents came from one-quarter of the population living in small, inner-city areas, showing a persistent concentration of delinquency.

What did the persistence of delinquency patterns suggest?

That environmental and community conditions, not individual or ethnic factors, were key to explaining delinquency distribution.

How did changes in neighborhood population affect delinquency rates?

Even when the ethnic composition changed, delinquency levels remained stable, showing that location, not demographics, was decisive.

What overarching urban process did Shaw & McKay identify?

The operation of social disorganization, where poverty, population turnover, and weak institutions perpetuate delinquent behavior geographically.

What is the main takeaway from the 1900-1906 Juvenile Court analysis?

Delinquency is geographically patterned and persistent over time, concentrated in inner-city transitional zones regardless of who lives there.

How does this support Social Disorganization Theory?

It empirically shows that structural features of neighborhoods, not individual traits, determine delinquency patterns — confirming that community context matters most.