Crime Prevention, Disorder and Community Safety: Control Theory

“At the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked in a kind of development sequence. Social psychologist and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is left broken and left unrepaired, all of the rest of the widows will soon be broken. This is true in nice neighbourhoods as rundown ones” (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

This essay will begin by defining control theory where the concept of broken window’s derived from. Jacobs (1961) and Newman (1971) concept of the environment as an important attribute that affects human behaviour was also influential in the development of Wilson and Kelling (1982) thesis. The concept gave birth to policies in New York City (NYC) that have been accredited for the dramatic downturn in crime and disorder. The essay will look at the evidence to see whether the hypothesis could be applied to neighbourhoods considered stable.

Control Theory looks at the reason most people conform and do not commit crime; therefore, does not focus on deviance or the explanations of the causes of crime (Hirsch, 1969). The hypothesis states crime is not a normal occurrence, it only happens in the absence of ineffective controls and believe everyone is predisposed to crime (Reiss, 1951).

There are similarities with control theory rational and Durkhiem’s (1938) concept of greater punishment and regulation; for Durkhiem (1938) social solidarity was the product of two forces, firstly integration which is the shared values that bring people together, secondly regulation which is the constraint that limits individual behaviour. Hirsch (1969) argued that social influences are important because delinquency occurs when individuals bond to society is weak or broken. He also believed immorality varies from person to person; therefore, some people think it is an important attribute other might not, and this could explain delinquency.

There are some important element to social bond theory that might explain why some people conform; 1) Attachment, refers to a person who considers and care about the the wishes of others, therefore bounded to the norms and values of the group, 2) Commitment, this states that if you have invested time and effort into the conventional social order, you are unlikely to do things that goes against the norm;3) Involvement refers to being involve with the conventional non-deviant activities, these activities will stop people committing crimes;4) Belief, this refers to the strength of conviction you hold.

Hirsch (1969) maintains there is a common belief system in society, although there can be variations in the extent in how people think they should conform to the law. In addition, if a person does not accept the rules it is more likely they will break it. Hirsch (1969) argues that social bond begins early in life and the family was the key factor in the process. He viewed the loss of control by institutions such as school, family and religious groups as variables that contributes to crime. He also states that movements such as the civil rights and the culture of drugs encourages individuals to breakdown ties with old institutions (Hirsch, 1969).

Jacobs (1961) Eye on the Streets was also influential in the broken window philosophy; she believed her ideas are the starting point for real crime control because they gave the mechanism that could keep the streets and public space safe. In terms of architecture, buildings should have windows that allow surveillance of the streets. Newman (1972) like Jacob (1961) encompasses ideas about crime prevention and neighbourhood safety; he conducted a study and found that high rise buildings had higher crime rates than low rise buildings. He concluded, this was because there were so many people, residents did not have control over personal space, and as a form of crime prevention residents should reclaim their defensible space.

Crime prevention and neighbourhood safety has been on the top of academics, politicians, and the public agenda; the initiatives that emerged from such discourse sought to reduce the opportunity of crime by designing landscape that does not allow offender to hide. The theory prescribes highly visible policing, and zero tolerance for low misdemeanours. 

The arrangements of space and how it affects people’s behaviour originates from the Chicago School of Sociology . They found there were dramatic differences in crime rates across neighbourhoods that had the same social problems, such as high unemployment and poverty. Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) argues that some communities may have more crimes because, more people are likely to participate in criminal activity live there, although this cannot be proven. Another explanation of the difference in crime rate could be increase disorderliness and lack of informal social control. Shaw and Mackay (2006) stated informal social control provide the linkage of cohesion and shared expectation that supports community social control.

Wilson and Kelling (1982) thesis looks at the relationship between disorder and crime; there rational was, if you leave a window unrepaired it is a sign that the residents do not care and this may lead to more windows being broken. Similarly, any minor disorderly conduct such as public drinking, prostitution, vandalism and graffiti that is ignored will lead to more serious crime such as rape, burglary or murder. These problems increase fear and concern about disorder amongst residents, which in turn influence them to take precautionary measures; based on there perceived fear residents will withdraw to gated communities and leave behind, the marginalised in neighbourhoods overtaken by drugs and street crimes. This will reinforce the ideas that the community and police tolerates disorder and will result in urban decay (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

The first experiment to test broken window’s theory was carried out by Zimbardo (1969) who arranged two cars to be parked, one in the Bronx, New York and the other in Palo Alto California. In the Bronx he found that within 10 minutes the car window was broken and the radio and battery stolen; then they began to destroy all the windows in the car. In contrast the car in California was not damaged for a week. Zimbardo (1969) had to break a window in the car then everyone joined in and started to destroy the car. Zimbardo (1969) purposed that unattended properties can cause people to act deviant; he states the nature of life in the Bronx and the amount of time the car was left abandoned, left an impression no one cares and enabled the vandalism of the car begin so quickly. However, it seems vandalism can occur anywhere because when Zimabardo (1969) broke the window in California passer-by got involved and this was a good neighbourhood.

Wilson and Kelling (1982) used broken window and Zimbardo (1969) car as a metaphor for unintended behaviour that could lead to a break-down in social controls. He noted, serious crime strives in neighbourhoods that minor crime goes unchecked. The objective of preventions of street crimes is to prevent the first window from being broken.

The Newark Foot Patrol experiment (1981) exemplified to Wilson and Kelling (1982) the effect foot patrol would have against crime and disorder. The experiment took officers out of their patrol car, and back on the beat. The results suggested foot patrol does not reduce crime, however it reduced the fear of crime, and as what Crawford (2003) noted, crime and fear have occupied a new salience of everyday life. When residents feel safe in their neighbourhoods, they feel the police are performing effectively.

The study reinforces the idea the public respond to informal contact with the police on regular basis positively. This contact provides information that allows them to conduct their job efficiently, thus maintain crime control and order. Therefore, foot patrol, although discredited have an indirect impact crime; it gives an impression that public safety and social order has increased. The public will then think the police are being efficient, in reducing crime and the fear of crime. In addition, community policing has raised the expectation of police in addressing the fear of crime; the fear of crime first emerged in the 1960’s victim rights movement and criminal justice research, which influence many police department to view the fear of crime as a serious problem (Lee, 2007).

Broken window’s theory have influence many policies, a famous example is the “Quality of Life” experiment otherwise known as Zero Tolerance Policing (ZTP). The key elements of Quality of Life policing were to prescribe a forceful response to minor disorder.  The policy advocated the use of civil action against those who are deemed vulnerable to criminal activity. The local police and managers were held accountable and aggressive policing against street crime were used. Additionally, the media were seen as a tool to enforce the new approach (Newburn,2007)

The initiatives were undertaken in New York City, to put this in context the, in the 1980s the city had suffered a severe economic downturn following the stock market crash of 1987. The crack epidemic was its highest and violent crime and homicide increased dramatically; Time Square was plagued by drug dealing, prostitution and squeegee beggars (Newburn, 2007). However, 15 years later everything had changed; Mayor Giuliani reasoned, they disrupted the chain of low-level crime so it could not lead to serious crime. Bratton and Knobler (1998:228) stated that they were reclaiming the public space of New York City; statistic showed during the period of 1990-1998 homicide was down by 72%, motor vehicle offence down by 70%, burglary down by 62%. The decline was so dramatic and it was referred to as the “miracle” (newburn,2007).

In the United Kingdom (UK) a few areas adopted ZTP style of policing; the results showed similar findings in Hartlepool and Cleveland, overall crime reduced by 27% in the same period (Burke, 1998).

The Zero Tolerance Policy emerged as a result of the broken window’s philosophy and is a concept that is used by politicians and the media. It is used to describe proactive, confident and assertive policing strategies; critics of ZTP believe there is lack of evidence regarding the decline in crime figures. Also this type of policy signified a move to a more militarised style policing that has proven to be a failure from evidence of the Metropolitan Police force “Swamp 81” that led to riots across the UK including Brixton. The operation conducted in London resulted in over 1,000 predominantly black youths being stopped and search to detect street crimes, which fewer than 100 were actually charged with a criminal offence (Burke, 1998). Wilson and Bolan (1978) conducted a research on the effects of aggressive policing, such as increased use of stop and search and found this process is an effective deterrent of crime. The results of their experiment showed that an increased number of traffic tickets were related to the decline in serious crime.

Warral (2002) also supports Wilson and Kelling, he indicated that an increase arrest of minor crimes can be associated with a downturn in serious crime. However, Fagan and Davies (2000) carried out a study to determine whether Quality of Life policing in NYC led to the reduction in serious violence in the 1990’s; they found stop and search were not directly linked to murder arrest.

Statistics regarding ZTP should be treated with caution because there could be other factors that could explain the reduction in crime such as displacement and demographic changes such as the decline in the younger population. Also the war on drugs saw the introduction of mandatory prison sentence that kept many off the streets (Burke, 1998). Moreover, the increased in the number of police and the end of the crack epidemic that began in the 80’s is recognised as a variable in the decline. Levitt (2004) also contributed the decrease to the changes in abortion laws in the 1970’s; Harcourt (2001) found there was no statistical evidence to support the relationship between disorder and physical assault, burglary or rape and disputes broken window’s thesis. Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) argued that disorder and crime were moderately linked; nevertheless, disorder may have an indirect affect on migration pattern, business investment, house prices and neighbourhood stability. Therefore, disorder does not directly cause crime but is the product of crime.

A unique experiment was conducted to test Wilson and Kelling (1982) hypothesis by the Department of Housing Development (HUD) known as Moving to Opportunity (MTO) project. The experiment took place in the 3 largest cities in the United States of America including NYC that had adopted broken window’s policing (Harcourt and Ludwig, 2006). Low income families that live in high crime and social disorder neighbourhoods were randomly moved to a more prosperous area. The results showed, that moving to better communities does not lead to a reduction in the crime committed by residents, as Wilson and Kelling theory suggested.

Kinsey, Lea and Young (1986) reasoned that the police role should be controlling crime, not low level civilities. They also state that police performance should be measured on crime control not social problems. Mathews (1992) reject any claim there is a causal relationship between crime and incivilities, because of the limited evidence available to support it.

Levitt (2004) suggest police practice may not be able to account for the dramatic crime drop in New York City because nationwide crime was on the decline even in places where broken window policing was not implemented. Lea and Young (1984) believed the reductions in crime could be the result of assertive policing. As a consequence, some individuals that feel harassed by the police might not want to report a crime. They argued, the style of policing can make the police be considered as an enemy of the community when offenders are given a sanction. This kind of militarised style of policing can be counterproductive according to Burke, (1998) it can also act as an extension of labelling process that labels whole communities. In addition, police order maintenance by its vey nature, is highly discretionary. According to Reiner (2000) police occupational culture which is how (the police see the social world) could influence who get arrested especially with low level incivilities.

The police are primary gatekeepers of the criminal justice system (CJS), whether it is crime control or due process model. It has been noted that police targeting of crime prone neighbourhoods can appear racist because there is a large proportion of ethnic minority that reside in area’s considered crime prone. Fagan and Davies (2000) suggested policies that focuses on the marginalised in poor areas concentrate on people not disorder.

ZTP seems to focus on those considered dangerous, this will surely exasperate the problem of social exclusion. A rise in surveillance (CCTV) and an increase in private security seems to be taking the disciplinary gaze that emerged in Foucault’s panoptic prison to the wider society (Foucalt, 1975); but is CCTV looking at a particular group? Such as those that are identified as dangerous. Advances in technology may have given the citizens, a part of that gaze, as exemplified in the Rodney King trial. It seems reordering of the city is inextricably connected to disorder, as there has always been a disciplinary gaze in society.

ZTP has been hailed as a panacea for crime control but it’s not clear whether it reduces crime as it only concentrates on the poor. Although Bratton and Knobler (1998) argued fixing windows is not a panacea for the crime problem, but is a step forward.

Greene (1997) indicated that lawsuits and alleged misconduct by the police had increased during the Quality of Life experiment. Amnesty International has also reported that police brutality and the unjustifiable use of force was widespread in New York City. Complaint against the police had increased by 60% between 1992 and 1996 (Amnesty International, 1996). It should be noted Wilson and Kelling (1982) did express concerns about the possibilities of the police service abusing their powers. Kinsey and Young (1986) argued the Criminal Justice System is losing their fight against the crime problem, the police and prison service is thought to be ineffective because of the rising prison population. 

Crime impacts on the vulnerable and it is this section of the population that suffer the most from police harassment. However recent research suggests minorities appreciate this approach because it reduces the fear of crime (Bratton and Knobler, 1998).

The Golden Age of Modernity in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which had high employment, stable family structure with material and ontological security, suggest crime was caused by social inequalities such as racism, poverty and social injustice ( Young, 2001). The state was there to control social problems, reduce poverty and inequalities. Criminologist maintains to reduce social inequalities, you need to look at the wider context not just the Criminal Justice System; from the 1970’s crime began to rise and social problems such as sub-ordinate housing, education and unemployment escalated; it was a period of uncertainty. Politician and the media began to attack the welfare benefits and parental responsibility.

The period of late modernity saw the emergence of the risk society, increasingly widespread environmental issues and a destabilised economy, family, health was all part of the fear; the community not only saw the fear but calculated how to get rid of the risk (Young,1999).

The rise of a neo conservative government saw Thatcher and Reagan blame the economic crisis on the breakdown in traditional family structure and the rise of the underclass with no moral compass who had become dependent on welfare hand-outs. They both reasoned previous state involvement project to reduce crime had failed; from 1970-1990 there were shift from situational, social crime prevention to disorder and community safety. The rise in crime and reoffending rates exemplified the 1980’s failure to design out a range of crimes. This stands as an indicator to the limits of situational perspective, there was no evidence that rehabilitation works and they had lost faith in the science and pathological model to predict behaviour (Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999).

According to Garland (2001), recent changes in the criminal justice system can be attributed to the changing nature of the social and economic relationship and associated changes in social control. The state is no longer concerned with individual acts of deviants. The focus is on security and control of certain population deemed as dangerous. He identifies several areas that have changed in connection to the new culture of control; Firstly, is the decline in rehabilitation for offenders, which goes against the assumption that underpins the CJS that everyone can be reformed, this ideology had changed by the 1970’s. Secondly, the emergence of the victim; Victim’s rights are usually used to justify more punitive laws and legislation (Megan’s Law). The victims are used as a metaphor for growing concern about crime and disorder. 

Garland (2001) also asserts there seems to be an urgency to protect the public, and the prison is the main tool used to incapacitate, not rehabilitate. There was also a growing debate that “prison works” and this have influenced mass building of prison complex and the dramatic rise in incarceration rate in the USA. The discourse of the risk society as bought with it new modes of inclusion and exclusion (Young, 1999). The emergence of gated communities and residential segregation are clear signs of guarding the perceived risk.

Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) rejected the core assumption that signs of disorder contributes to increasing rates of crime and social deterioration; they disputed the notion disorder is sequential and systemic, stating if every child that breaks a window becomes a murderer the world would be a different place. Furthermore, it is their opinion broken window’s philosophy is mistaking the symptoms for the causes of crime and disorder.

Broken window’s theory claims, at the community level disorder is linked; Zimbardo’s experiment supports this claim that a single broken window that goes unfixed can start a spiral that lead to serious crimes. The results showed although the experiment had to initiate the destruction of the car, people still got involved in California which was considered a good neighbourhood. The Newark foot patrol also illustrated how officers on the beat could have a positive impact on the fear of crime. Moreover, evidence from New York’s “miracle” crime decline exemplifies how ZTP is influential in crime reduction. However, evidence from MTO project showed eliminating certain socio-economic problems does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the amount of crime committed by residents.

Critics have argued, aggressive policing of minor crimes does not directly reduce crime. In addition, crime rates were already on the downturn worldwide and in other cities that did not use ZTP. Changes in legislation and the end of the crack epidemic are thought to be contributors to the crime decrease. Burke (1998) also suggested this kind of policing can lead to urban disorder and a breakdown of relation between the police and the community. Ironically, informal contact with residents have been found to build confidence between the police and residents. However, to what extent can the CJS manage disorder that will truly benefit the whole community?

Police discretion, civil liberties and social exclusion and “othering” are all important elements that should be addressed in achieving an effective crime control model. It seems, Quality of Life policing exasperates certain conditions for certain groups. In addition, it has been recognised that from the 1980’s that effective crime prevention was the responsibility of the whole community not just the state. Garland (2001) has linked these changes in the CJS to the emergence of late modernity. 

This was a period where society was no longer concerned about rehabilitation of the offender, it’s a period where exclusion have become the norm; Fear has become part of everyday life and the discourse advocates punitive punishment. If broken window’s philosophy is true, then it is clear from the evidence that if a window was left broken in a good neighbourhood the same chain of events would occur but in different time period. However, there is a large amount of evidence to dispute how effective the theory and the policies (ZTP) that emerged were. There are good points to the broken window’s policing such as the total transformation of Time Square from Gotham City to Haven.

Author : Keithia Grant

#ExtinctionRebellionJamaica