Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory

Home , Broken windows theory

Fundamentals of Criminology Bassim Hamadeh, CEO and Publisher John Remington, Senior Field Acquisitions Editor Gem Rabanera, Project Editor Christian Berk, Associate Production Editor Miguel Macias, Senior Graphic Designer Trey Soto, Licensing Coordinator Don Kesner, Interior Designer Natalie Piccotti, Director of Marketing Kassie Graves, Vice President of Editorial Jamie Giganti, Director of Academic Publishing

Copyright © 2019 by Cognella, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of Cognella, Inc. For inquiries regarding permis- sions, translations, foreign rights, audio rights, and any other forms of reproduction, please contact the Cognella Licensing Department at [email protected].

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN: 978-1-5165-1132-7 (pbk) / 978-1-5165-1133-4 (br) / 978-1-5165-4697-8 (al) Fundamentals of Criminology

First Edition

Written and edited by Divya Sharma Western Connecticut State University TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ��ix Acknowledgments ��xi Introduction ��xiii Chapter 1 Criminology, Penology, and Victimology ��1 Introduction ��1 Crime and Criminology ��2 What Is a Theory? ��4 Theory, Research, and Practice ��7 Research Ethics ��8 Penology ��12 Cost of Crime ��18 Victimology ��19 Key Terms and Concepts ��22 Discussion Questions ��22 References ��22 Suggested Readings ��24 Figure Credits ��24 Chapter 2 Sources of Crime Data ��25 Introduction ��25 Sources of Crime Data ��26 Uniform Crime Reporting Program ��27 Strengths and Limitations of the UCR Program ��34 Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted ��36 National Incident-Based Reporting System ��37 Strengths and Limitations of the NIBRS ��38 National Crime Victimization Survey ��39 Strengths and Limitations of the NCVS ��40 Other Sources of Crime Data ��41 Social Media and Open Sources ��42 Southern Poverty Law Center ��43 Global Terrorism Database ��44 Human Trafficking Data ��44 Key Terms and Concepts ��45 Discussion Questions ��45 References ��46 Suggested Readings ��48 Figure Credits ��48 Chapter 3 The Classical School of Thought ��49 Introduction ��49 Development of Classical Thought ��50 Utilitarian Thought, Purpose of Punishment, and Rational Choice ��51 vi | Fundamentals of Criminology

Key Principles of the Deterrence Theory ��51 Impact on Criminal Justice Policy ��54 Mandatory Sentencing ��55 Evaluation of Classical Thought ��57 Neoclassical Criminological Thought ��58 Routine Activities Theory ��58 Key Principles ��59 Impact on Criminal Justice Policy ��61 Rational Choice Perspective ��63 Key Principles ��63 Impact of the Rational Choice Perspective ��69 Evaluation of Neoclassical Thought ��69 Key Terms and Concepts ��71 Discussion Questions ��72 References ��72 Suggested Readings ��73 Figure Credits ��73 Chapter 4 The Positivist School of Thought: Trait Theories By Kim Marino ��74 Introduction ��74 Positivism ��75 Biological Determinism ��76 Modern Trait Theory ��78 Biological Trait Theories ��80 Neurophysiological Conditions ��83 Brain Chemistry ��84 Arousal Theory ��85 Genetics and Criminality ��86 Psychological Trait View ��87 Intelligence and Crime ��88 Personality and Crime ��89 Crime and Mental Illness ��89 Social Positivism ��90 Social Learning Theory ��91 Attachment Theory ��93 Cognitive Theory ��94 Insanity Defenses ��95 Evaluation of Positivist ThoughT ��97 Impact on Criminal Justice Policy ��97 Key Terms and Concepts ��97 Discussion Questions ��98 References ��98 Image Credits ��99 Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory ��100 IIntroduction ��100 Urban Sociology and Ecology of Crime ��101 Concentric Zone Theory ��101 Social Disorganization Theory ��103 Key Principles and Concepts ��104 Table of Contents | vii

Impact on Criminal Justice Policy ��108 Evaluation of the Chicago School ��109 Broken Windows Theory ��110 New Jersey’s Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Program, and Community Policing ��110 Regulars and Strangers ��111 Social Psychology of Fear and Anxiety ��112 Urban Decay, Residential Movement, and Police Function ��113 Evaluation of the Broken Windows Theory ��116 Key Terms and Concepts ��120 Discussion Questions ��120 References ��121 Suggested Readings ��123 Figure Credits ��123 Chapter 6 Social Structure Theories: Strain and Cultural Deviance Theories ��124 Introduction ��124 Anomie ��125 Social Structure and Theory of Anomie ��126 Modes of Individual Adaptation ��128 Institutional-Anomie Theory ��129 General Strain Theory ��132 Differential Opportunity Theory ��134 Impact and Evaluation of Social Structure Theories ��136 Key Terms and Concepts ��140 Discussion Questions ��140 References ��140 Suggested Readings ��142 Figure Credits ��142 Chapter 7 Theories of Social Learning and Social Reaction�� 143 Introduction ��143 Differential Association Theory ��144 Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory ��147 Social Learning Theory ��148 Miller’s Focal Concerns ��150 Neutralization Theory ��154 Labeling Theory ��157 Concluding Thought ��160 Key Terms and Concepts ��160 Discussion Questions ��161 References ��161 Suggested Readings ��162 Figure Credits ��162 Chapter 8 General Discussion: Critical Criminology, Reintegrative Shaming, and Restorative Justice ��163 Introduction ��163 Marxist Criminology ��164 Power Control Theory ��166 Feminist Criminology ��167 Reintegrative Shaming and Restorative Justice ��171 viii | Fundamentals of Criminology

Concluding Thought ��174 Key Terms and Concepts ��175 Discussion Questions ��175 References ��175 Suggested Readings ��177 Figure Credits ��177 Chapter 9 In Focus: White-Collar Crime and Terrorism ��178 Introduction ��178 Part I: White-Collar Crime ��179 Differential Implementation of the Law ��179 Explaining White-Collar Crime ��186 Part II: TERRORISM ��189 Terror Motivation ��191 James Piazza: Social Cleavage Theory and Terrorism ��197 Barbara Franz: Popjihadism ��198 Suicide Terrorism ��200 Terrorism by the Numbers ��201 Concluding Thought ��202 Key Terms and Concepts ��202 Discussion Questions ��202 References ��203 Suggested Readings ��205 Figure Credits ��206 Chapter 10 Concluding Thoughts ��207 Glossary Terms ��211 Index ��225 FOREWORD

When Divya Sharma traveled continents to Temple University, Philadelphia to begin her graduate studies in criminology and criminal justice she was already an accomplished and well-travelled scholar. Her intellectual curiosity prompted her to come to the United States to apply and enhance her theoretical sociological training in her native India within the more applied field of American criminal justice. She came with a deep and lifelong interest in pedagogy and the art of teaching. This textbook, Fundamentals of Criminology, is the culmination of that journey. It reflects the rich interdisciplinary paradigm characterizing her work and demonstrates her understanding of undergraduate student learning honed by developing and teaching criminology courses in-person and online. The textbook is replete with references and examples that take us beyond the United States and remind us of the complexity of criminology across different cultures. Fundamentals of Criminology is characterized by several features that will interest all instructors and students. First, it provides a thorough and compre- hensive review of classical and contemporary criminological theory, including discussions of the theoretical underpinnings of critical emerging issues such as contemporary white-collar crime, terrorism, computer crime and mass shootings. Second, the textbook continually examines the nexus between theory and policy, explaining how different theoretical perspectives lead to competing policy responses with varying levels of implementation cost and difficulty. Third, the textbook remains grounded in ‘learning’, never losing sight of the fact that its primary goal is to help students understand the evolving theoretical discussion and its role in shaping their own criminological paradigm. The textbook uses multiple methods to engage or pique the interest of the reader. Each chapter is prefaced by an outline of learning goals, complemented by a rich array of illustrative and mostly contemporary examples, and provides thoughtful use of charts and tables as empirical support for the points discussed. Each chapter closes with effective vocabulary strategies featuring a review of key terms/concepts, reflectively focused discussion questions and suggested readings that encourage students to “read to learn” by delving more deeply into a topic of their choice. Fundamentals of Criminology is organized more by communality of theme than chronology of theory. Chapter 1 grounds students by defining theory, and clarifying the distinctions between criminology, penology and victimology. Chapter 2 reviews the different sources of crime data and explains how these fundamentally shape—and distort—public perspectives on what constitutes

ix x | Fundamentals of Criminology

crime, who commits crime (the lower-class myopia of much criminal justice research and theorizing first appears here but resonates throughout the text), and why crimes are committed. Recognizing the importance of continuity in criminological theory Chapter 3 explores the common thread of rationality and choice from the classical theories of Beccaria and Bentham through contemporary neoclassical theories such as Cohen and Felson’s Rational Choice Theory and Cornish and Clarke’s Rational Choice perspective. Chapter 4 presents the ‘trait’ theories of the positivist school from early biological theories through modern theories of genetics, intelligence and personality. Chapters 5 and 6 examine various social structure theories, from the early work of the Chicago School through to the current debate around Broken Windows Theory (Chapter 5) and Strain and Cultural Deviance Theories (Chapter 6). Chapter 7 describes Social Learning theories such as Differential Association and Labeling Theory, emphasizing their importance for explaining crimes across all social classes. Chapter 8 has a contemporary focus, examining issues such as Marxist and Feminist theories of crime, as well as the theoretical underpinnings of concepts such as Restorative Justice and Reintegrative Shaming. Chapter 9 changes the perspective, focusing on two increasingly visible crimes—terrorism and white-collar crime – and posing the question of whether these can be understood in terms of existing theory or require the development of new perspectives on criminal motivation such as Social Cleavage Theory or Popjihadism. The call for a more integrative theoretical approach to understanding such crimes repeats a central proposition of the textbook – that we are not on a quest for a unified or ‘best’ theory of crime, rather an understanding that differing paradigms generate multiple theoretical perspectives that seek to complement rather than compete in our understanding of crime. One of the unique features of this textbook is its implicit understanding that students of criminological theory often ask two basic questions – first, how to organize and make sense of the ever-growing multitude of criminological theories, and second, ‘so what?’ Sharma’s Fundamentals of Criminology reflects her lifelong understanding of pedagogy and successfully addresses both questions. First, by classifying theories thematically and demonstrating the continuity of branches of contemporary theory with their antecedent roots in classical thought. Second, by repeatedly connecting the discussion of theory with related policy implications and contemporary examples drawn from the United States and across the world. I encourage the reader to enjoy this intellectual journey as one better understands the different classes of criminological theory, learns to integrate theory and practice, and recognizes the classical roots of contemporary criminological thought.

Peter R. Jones Professor, Temple University, Philadelphia. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first of all like to thank Professor Peter Jones (Temple University, Phil- adelphia, USA). I would not have taken any meaningful step in my professional journey without his mentoring and guidance. I first met him in September 2000, and since then his generous support and encouragement have guided me. I am also grateful to Professor Rajesh Gill (Panjab University, Chandigarh, India) for guiding me through graduate school in India and giving me a strong foundation to build upon. I would like to thank all the scholars, academics, investigators, social workers, and respondents in India, Kenya, and the United States who have helped me to conduct research and refine my understanding of various theories and topics of crime and justice. I am also appreciative of my students; because of them, I learn every day that I teach. Lastly, but certainly not the least, I am profoundly grateful to my sister Apara Sharma and mom Santosh Sharma for encouraging and supporting me throughout the many phases of writing and developing this textbook. My father Lakshmi Narayan Sharma’s memory inspires me, and his blessings, integrity, and mantra of happiness continue to guide me.

xi INTRODUCTION

his textbook provides an overview of the key theories in criminology without overwhelming one by re-introducing everything from the T introductory courses in criminal justice and corrections. As opposed to a general textbook that could be used in a variety of courses, this book is developed specifically to teach courses in criminology. It focuses on the key theories of crime and deviance that a student of criminology should know in an introductory course. While introducing these theories, the dominant concepts, propositions, strengths, and limitations are explained in adequate detail to engage students in critical thinking. The onus is on the student to truly evaluate various ideas with reference to current events, context, and sociocultural dynamics. Chapter one provides a general overview of crime, criminology, criminal justice system, and criminological research. It discusses the purpose of theories in relation to explaining behavior and their impact on policymaking. It introduces students to common errors in reasoning, concerns about invalid findings, helicopter researchers, and ethics in research. With increased efforts to study behavior in international, transnational, cross-cultural, and multicultural settings, one needs to guard against convenient ideas rooted in orientalism and ethnocentrism. As criminologists try to understand vulnerable populations in unequal settings, it is all the more important to protect human subjects. The chapter concludes with a discussion on victimology and penology, including the main sentencing philosophies of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restorative justice. The chapter also explains how the theories have been classified in this textbook. Chapter two explains the key sources of crime data. Many criminology textbooks also contain detailed discussions on crimes such as murder, rape, hate crimes, robbery, human trafficking, and so on. Instead of including specific chapters on each crime, they are briefly introduced in Chapter two, while leaving it up to the instructor and students to explore and discuss them further with reference to data and theories. Though this chapter is placed before the chapters on specific theories, the instructor may want to discuss the topics in this chapter after explaining critical theories. It introduces students to the Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, National Inci- dent-Based Reporting System, National Crime Victimization Survey, Self-Report Surveys, Southern Poverty Law Center, Global Terrorism Database, and Human Trafficking Data Source. As students read about theories to understand the

xiii xiv | Fundamentals of Criminology

etiology and nature of crime, they would benefit from knowing crime data, trends, and patterns. Chapter three explains the classical school of thought with reference to the theory of deterrence by Bentham and Beccaria. It explains the types and elements of deterrence, and its impact on criminal justice policy, including mandatory and determinate sentencing. The chapter then discusses the neoclassical thought by explaining Cohen and Felson’s routine activities theory and Cornish and Clarke’s rational choice perspective. The routine activities theory addresses the risk of victimization for certain individuals, property, and places. The chapter also explains its impact on criminal justice policy—in particular, how certain victimizations could be reduced through target hardening. The rational choice perspective builds on the ideas of rationality, free will, and risk and benefit presented in the classical thought. This chapter discusses the six principles that explain the role of rational choice at the core of decision-making. The chapter concludes with an evaluation of the neoclassical thought. Chapter four provides an overview of the positivist school of thought. It identifies the basic premise of trait theories and describes the influence of bio- chemical and neurophysiological conditions on human behavior. It provides an overview of Lombroso’s theory of atavism, Sheldon’s somatotypes, and explains the key developments in the trait theory, including moving away from strict biological determinism. It introduces students to neurophysiological factors and draws from current events, including the discussion surrounding chronic traumatic encephalopathy among football players. The chapter also explains the arousal theory, genetics and crime, psychological trait view, personality, intelligence, and mental illness. In terms of policy implication, this chapter discusses the history and use of the insanity defenses. The positivist thought is a vast field, and this chapter guides students to grasp the key ideas. Chapters five and six explain social structure theories that explore stratification based on socioeconomic status, power, and wealth, and suggest that people in the lower strata struggle to fulfill their basic needs. This results in anger and frustration that lead to crime. Chapter five explains Park and Burgess’s concentric zone theory and Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory. These theories look for an explanation of deviance not within an individual but in the surrounding environment and investigate how social factors and physical environment shape human behavior. These theories discuss concepts that impact social and physical aspects of a neighborhood, such as heterogeneity, migration, poverty, and mobility. The chapter reviews Kelling and Wilson’s broken windows theory that discusses the somewhat-ignored issue of public disorder and the need to address it in order to reduce anxiety and fear. It also explores the topic of interaction between police and public. The chapter five concludes with an evaluation of the broken windows theory. Introduction | xv

Chapter six reviews Merton’s theory of anomie in relation to the concepts of the American Dream, cultural goals and means, and modes of individual adaptation. It provides a brief overview of Messner and Rosenfeld’s theory of institutional anomie. It also discusses Agnew’s general strain theory and explains how men and women experience and process strain. The chapter explains criminal, conflict, and retreatist subcultures as discussed in Cloward and Ohlin’s differential opportunity theory. Overall, social structure theories in chapters five and six introduce theories that explain the role of culture, social stratification, strain, and subcultures. As a result, the policy implications of social structure theories include reducing poverty-related strain, redeveloping and rebuilding neighborhoods, and crime-prevention techniques at the community level. Chapter seven explains formal and informal interactions that shape human behavior. It begins with a discussion of differential association theory that treats criminal behavior as any other learned behavior. It discusses the nine principles of differential association by Sutherland and Cressey. The chapter then explains the importance of positive and negative reinforcement that impacts future behavior. The chapter provides an overview of Akers’s social structure learning model with reference to differential reinforcement, imitation, definitions, and differential association. The chapter explains Miller’s focal concerns that explore the lower-class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Continuing with the theme of learning, interaction, and behavior, the chapter discusses Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization that delinquents use to rationalize their behavior and counteract any guilt or moral dilemmas. The chapter concludes with an overview of Becker’s labeling theory, Lemert’s explanation of primary and secondary deviance, and Gusfield’s deviant labels. Chapter eight contains general discussion on Marxist criminology, power-control theory, feminist criminology, reintegtative shaming, and restorative justice. It provides an overview of the thought processes that shape cultural, social, and political dialogue and influence various institutions. It explains power differentials in society not only with reference to class, but also gender. Most of the theories discussed in criminology are developed by men, and often have male subjects. This chapter introduces the role, purpose, and need for feminist criminology, while also recognizing that feminism is not a monolithic concept. It concludes with a discussion on reintegrative shaming and restorative justice, while giving examples of these approaches in different cultures. Chapter nine is divided into two distinct parts: white-collar crime, and terrorism. Since the 1990s, there has been increased focus on these categories of crimes, but that does not necessarily mean that new theories need to be developed. The chapter explains Sutherland’s concept of differential implementation of law in the case of white-collar criminals. It draws from the theories discussed in the previous chapters to explain factors contributing to white-collar crimes. One of the challenges in the case of terrorism is to actually understand its nature xvi | Fundamentals of Criminology

and scope in tangible manner, rather than abstract or vague terms. The chapter explains the key terror motivations, and draws from existing theories to explore them. It also explains some of the most common threads about terrorism in relation to radicalization in the online and physical spaces, sociocultural and religious factors, as well as concepts of alienation, social disengagement, and exposure to prolonged violence in conflict zones. The chapter explains Piazza’s social cleavage theory, and briefly discusses suicide terrorism. The chapter concludes with a discussion of terrorism by numbers; that is, the number of terrorist attacks and victims around the world. Lastly, chapter ten presents concluding thoughts, including some of the topics of crime and victimization that may continue to interest and challenge criminologists. 5

Social Structure Theories

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY AND BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY

AFTER READING CHAPTER 5, STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO DO THE FOLLOWING

• Understand macro-level explanations of crime with reference to social structure • Describe social disorganization and crime in urban areas • Describe the key assumptions about crime and disorder in the broken windows theory • Describe poverty, crime, and policing in low-income neighborhoods • Understand community policing, trust, and crime prevention

INTRODUCTION

ocial structure theories suggest that socioeconomic factors influence the likelihood of committing a crime. Social stratification is a char- S acteristic of every society where some people are ranked higher and some are ranked lower. Social structure theorists explore stratification based on economic status, power, and wealth, and suggest that people in the lower strata struggle to fulfill their basic needs. It results in anger and frustration that lead to crime. The economic status also largely determines where people will live, where they will go to school or work, how and where they will social- ize, or what interactions they will have in the immediate environment. Most

100 Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 101 people in the lower socioeconomic strata end up living in poorly maintained neighborhoods that have a high risk of crime and victimization. These areas are often defined by the breakdown of social control. Social structure theorists also study the subcultural values that develop in high-risk neighborhoods and impact perceptions that people have of themselves and the community. These are macro-level explanations of crime and deviance.

URBAN SOCIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF CRIME

Early ethnographic fieldwork in Chicago led to the development of the ecological school of criminology in the 1920s. It is also referred to as the Chicago school of thought. Though many researchers have contributed to this school, the two theories discussed in this chapter are the concentric zone theory by Robert E. Park and Ernest Burgess, and the social disorganization theory by Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay. These theories look for an explanation of deviance not within an individual but in the surrounding environment, and investigate how social factors and physical environment shape human behavior. They study the influence of social factors such as poverty, population density, and residential instability on an individual’s propensity to commit crime. In a later work, Simmel (1969) studied psychological and social outcomes of living in a city and argued that social interaction in the city is more impersonal and stressful. The risk of crime is higher in cities that grow rapidly without any plan to accommodate its population or to maintain its infrastructure. The broken windows theory by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson (1982) discussed later in this chapter also explains crime with reference to disorder within neighborhoods and weak social control. The theory postulates that a neighborhood that has signs of social disorder, is physically dilapidated or suffers from deterioration such as abandoned and boarded up houses, is seen as an easy target by criminals. It signals that no one cares about the area and it soon becomes a hub for drug dealers, prostitutes, and gangs. It is characterized by a poor quality of life and heightened fear which only increases over time. The theory thus proposes that addressing early signs of social and physical deterioration could protect neighborhoods from falling apart in the long run. This theory led to the concept of ‘broken windows policing’ that is often criticized for overpolicing of minority communities.

CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY

The City is a collection of essays authored by Park, Burgess, and McKenzie (1925). It and contains some of Park’s most influential work including the essays “The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment”; “Community Organization and Juvenile Delinquency”; and 102 | Fundamentals of Criminology

FIG. 5.1 The concentric zone 1. Central business district theory is based on Chicago’s • Commercial hub; houses most businesses layout and explained ecological • Usually very small residential population 2. Transition zone distribution of social groups. • Recent immigrant groups, cheaper and It explains the correlation deteriorating housing between socioeconomic status • Abandoned buildings and factories • Least desirable part of the city and the distance from the • High residential mobility central business district. • Higher percentage of renters in this zone 3. Working class zone Source: Park, Robert E., Ernest • Working class families W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie. 12345 • Usually second generation immigrants 1925. The City: Suggestions for • Mostly old homes but in modest condition Investigation of Human Behavior in 4. Residential zone the Urban Environment. Chicago: • Middle class zone University of Chicago Press. • Single family homes with yards and garages • Greater number of homeownership • Usually well-educated 5. Commuter zone • e suburbs • Inhabitants are mostly the upper class • Commute to other zones for work and entertainment

“Magic, Mentality, and City Life,” among others. Burgess’s (1925) essay, “The Growth of the City,” explains city’s demography, residential mobility and its impact on social structure. It also contains the concentric zone model that explains social organization and disorganization, and mobility and crime. The concentric zone theory is a combination of these works. The concentric zone theory proposes that a city expands radially from its central business district (Park et al. 1925). It is based on Chicago’s layout, explores the ecological distribution of social groups, and explains the correlation between socioeconomic status and the distance from the central business district. As one moves toward the outer zones, there is less population density and less crime. Park was influenced by the principle of natural selection and argued that the struggle for space enables some people to move away from high crime areas to more suburban areas, while those who cannot afford to move are left in the zone of transition. Burgess also argued that the spatial layout of a city is a result of ecological competition for territory. That is, within each zone, there are groups that may have common ethnic identity, occupation, or economic status. These shared traits assist in exercising social control. As people or groups of people move in and out of these areas, the ecological patterns are redesigned. Park and Burgess observe competition as a natural occurrence and fundamental form of social interaction. They explain the change in ecological patterns with reference to a concept borrowed from plant ecology, namely, invasion, domination, and succession. It implies that when new immigrants move into a neighborhood, the original residents move out and the new residents become established. This is not always harmful as the domination reflects the ability of original residents to Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 103 move out to better neighborhoods. However, it is also accompanied by conflict, crime, and growth of urban poor. Just as in the plant and animal kingdom, those with more resilience and survival instinct get the best areas (Park et al. 1925). According to the concentric zone theory, the central business district (CBD) is the commercial hub of the city and houses most businesses. It usually has a very small residential population. The transition zone inhabits recent immigrant groups, and is characterized by cheaper and deteriorating housing, abandoned buildings and factories. It is considered the least desirable part of the city. People move out of this zone as soon as they can, which contributes to high residential mobility. This results in less natural surveillance and social control, and high crime. There are a higher percentage of renters in this zone. The third zone is the working-class zone that inhabits the working-class families and usually the second generation immigrants. Most of the homes are old but in modest condition. The fourth zone is called the middle class or theresidential zone. It has mostly single family homes with yards and garages and occupied by homeowners. The greater number of homeownership brings residential stability, familiarity, stronger networks and social control. The inhabitants in this zone are typically well educated. The theory identifies the last zone as the commuter zone or the suburbs. Its inhabitants are mostly the upper class people who can afford to commute to other zones for work and entertainment. The concentric zone theory recognizes that crime is not equally distributed across a city; rather, it tends to concentrate in areas of urban decay, high poverty, low income, and high residential mobility. It proposes that as the CBD expands outward, the residential property in the area is left to deteriorate. In the later years, this part of the CBD came to be commonly referred to as the inner city. The deterioration leads to social disorganization which is central to the study of delinquency by Shaw and McKay.

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay’s (1942) main research was published as a book, Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. In their theory of social disorganization, Shaw and McKay (Shaw and McKay 1931; Shaw et al. 1929) were interested in studying the impact of the changing urban environment and ecological factors on the probability of crime. It explores how social disorganization erodes the ability of the neighborhood to prevent crime. Using fifty-six thousand juvenile court records from 1900 to 1933, Shaw and McKay mapped addresses of delinquents and found that certain characteristics of the zone two, also known as the zone in transition, resulted in high delinquency rates. These characteristics include population heterogeneity, residential mobility, physical decay, and high poverty rate. Collectively, these factors make an area susceptible to crime. Shaw and McKay drew concentric zones at one-mile intervals from 104 | Fundamentals of Criminology

the city center and plotted data on maps of Chicago as follows (Snodgrass 1976):

• The spot maps showed actual residential distribution by using one spot per delinquency case. Image omitted due to copyright restrictions. • The rate maps showed the number of offenders per one hundred thousand. • The radial maps showed delinquency rate along the major axes from the city center. • Zone maps showed delinquency rates in each concentric zone.

KEY PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

Mobility, Physical Decay, and Poverty According to Shaw and McKay the constant population turnover and self-segregation of ethnic and racial groups erode social cohesion. This is accompanied by a breakdown of social institutions such as school, marriage, family, and church or religion. The social institutions assist people in identifying shared FIG. 5.2 Shaw and McKay’s values and goals, which enable them to work toward concentric zones, rate of a common interest. They help in keeping order and social control but due to male juvenile delinquency, lack of resources, social institutions are weakened in this zone. For example, map of Chicago. there are fewer resources available for teachers and students in a school in zone Source: Siegel, Larry. 2015. two as compared to a school in a suburban area. Due to poor social cohesion, Criminology: The Core. 5th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage, 144. parents (generally away to work for long hours due to low paying jobs) would struggle to find anyone to keep a watch on their child. With limited money available for after school programs, adolescents, teenagers, and young adults may be left to their own measures. Many after school programs are run by religious institutions but if community leaders do not have any ability to exert social control, it may become difficult to engage with young people and provide the necessary support, structure, and guidance. If socially organized communities are at one end of the spectrum, the socially disorganized communities are at the other end. The former are characterized by stability, cohesion, and solidarity; the traits that are missing or weak in the latter. The weakening of these traits indicates that there are fewer means of social control, and the residents lack the ability to address common problems. Social control refers to regulating behavior by norms, rules, and regulations which Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 105 help to maintain social order. As there is higher population turnover, there is little time for people to get to know each other, build networks or develop trust. Thus, weaker social control reduces the natural ability of the neighborhood to provide surveillance and guardianship. It results in more formal social control such as policing. The following section contains a brief discussion of the key characteristics of socially disorganized neighborhoods. These characteristics overlap and interact with each other. It would also show the influence of Park and Burgess’ work on Shaw and McKay’s theory.

Population Heterogeneity Shaw and McKay observed that the zone in transition was characterized by a high mix of residents from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Generally, people are more trusting of those who are “similar” to them. This, coupled with scant resources and high poverty, inhibits people’s ability to work together to identify and rectify common problems, including those related to deviance and crime. Shaw and McKay did not find any particular ethnic or racial group associated with crime, instead it is the weak sense of community, lack of familiarity and trust, poverty and poor social control that result in crime. They found that crime rates were stable over time irrespective of which ethnic or racial group occupied the neighborhood.

Residential Mobility Most people living in the zone of transition do not plan to live there for a long time and hope to move out as soon as they can. This high population turnover weakens collective efficacy: interpersonal ties and mutual trust. It inhibits them from building long-term relations or investing (socially and financially) in the neighborhood. They are also less likely to complain about the deteriorating conditions including crime as they do not see themselves as stakeholders in that area. As a result, this zone is often inhabited by the poorest of the poor who have little option to move out, and thus fall prey to crime and victimization.

Physical Decay According to Shaw and McKay, the physical decay in zone two is due to high level or poverty and mixed land use. As most residents in this zone do not see themselves living there in the long run, they are unwilling or unable (on account of extreme poverty) to contribute toward the betterment of community or neighborhood. The mixed land use means that the area has both residential and commercial land use. The residential buildings are often mixed in with commercial establishments such as convenient stores, liquor stores, fast food joints, and so on. As a result, there are many nonresidents in the area which makes it difficult to regulate the neighborhood. 106 | Fundamentals of Criminology

Poverty, Unemployment, Gang Formation Zone two has the cheapest housing and easy access to public transportation. As a result, it attracts and inhabits the poor. Shaw and McKay observed that this zone provided very limited legitimate job opportunities. This makes criminal and deviant opportunities the only way to survive or even get out of poverty. Often criminals would become the reference point for young men as only they would have power, money, and access compared to others in the area. For example, during Prohibition (1920–1933), many young men in poor neighborhoods became involved in bootlegging and other activities as that’s how they could make money. Similar observations have been made about many organized crime groups, including Pablo Escobar’s Medellín Cartel (Colombia), Dawood Ibrahim’s D-Company (South Asia), and so on. Criminals do not just share techniques, but also values and rationales for their criminal acts that result in the development of criminal subcultures. According to the social disorganization theory, the older criminals (juveniles and adults) often interact with the younger people and transmit crime and its norms and beliefs. Shaw and McKay note that in zone two, many young men see organized criminals as role models, and in the socially disorganized environment, crime is seen as a normal response. High crime and often brazen gang or criminal activity increase fear and further deteriorate the neighborhood. Many residents in this zone develop a siege mentality: it refers to the paranoid attitude that one is surrounded by enemies, is in constant danger, and therefore, becomes very defensive. Generally, the underclass is also characterized by low social capital. There is no set definition of social capital as it could be defined by its purpose and context. Here it refers to status, networks or social relations that one has in a society. These social relations can protect an individual in processing strain, while also assist in moving up the social ladder. It could improve an individual’s stature, create a feeling of self-worth, and encourage others (people and institutions) to trust the individual and view as a valued member of the society. Those who live in poor neighborhoods have limited or no opportunity to build social capital. In fact, social disorganization results in a cumulative disadvantage over a person’s lifetime including being affected more severely by the economic bias in the criminal justice system. The economic bias in the criminal justice system is explained with reference to it functioning as a funnel with discretion at almost every stage. That is, not everyone is arrested for an offense; among those who are arrested, not everyone is charged with a crime; among those who are charged with a crime, not everyone goes to a trial; among those who go to trial, not everyone is convicted; among those who are convicted, not everyone is sentenced to prison time; and, not everyone even serves the same length of time. If everyone were to be processed through each step, the system will come to a standstill. Therefore, discretion, or the space between rules and regulations keeps the system moving. Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 107

However, those who have higher socioeconomic status are quickly weeded out of the system or are able to get a better deal than those coming from socially disorganized areas. A poor person is more likely to be arrested and charged than a middle or upper-class person (Reiman 1995; Erickson 1973). Studies also support that those who are able to make bail are more likely to be acquitted than those who cannot (Reiman 1995). James Fyfe (1982) was a criminologist and a member of the New York Police Department (NYPD) who served in various capacities including New York City police lieutenant, Deputy Commissioner for Training, and so on. He wrote extensively on topics of police training, fleeing felon rule and use of excessive and deadly force. Using data (1969–1974) from Memphis, Tennessee, he found that black Memphians not armed with guns were five times more likely than whites to have been killed by police. As this topic has continued to dominate the news, it is important to look at more recent data and study how the numbers may have changed over time. In 2015 the Washington Post started compiling data on people who were fatally shot by police in the line of duty (“Fatal Force” n.d.). Kindy and Elliot (2015) describe six important takeaways from the 2015 data:

• Mental illness played a role in one-quarter of incidents. • One-quarter of fatal shootings involved a fleeing suspect. • Indictments of police officers tripled in 2015, compared with previous years. • Six percent of the killings were captured by bodycams. • In three-quarters of the fatal shootings, police were either under attack or protecting someone who was. • Nine percent of fatal shootings involved unarmed victim. The population-adjusted rates show that unarmed black men were seven times more likely to die in police shooting.

This is just a snapshot of the findings. As a student of criminology and criminal justice, one is encouraged to access and analyze data over the years while keeping in mind factors such as the type of circumstances, weapons, immediate risk, and so on. Criminologists and practitioners also need to address stress and fatigue that police officers experience. As there is higher incidence of poverty among racial minorities, they are more likely to inhabit zone two. As a result, race becomes a significant part of analysis about bias in the criminal justice system. On the one hand, there is a high rate of violent crimes in socially disorganized neighborhoods and on the other hand, there are concerns about overpolicing. This is further explained in the section on the broken windows theory. Overall, it contributes to the cycle of crime, distrust and siege mentality. 108 | Fundamentals of Criminology IMPACT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

The theory of social disorganization explains crime as an outcome of social, structural and demographic factors. It explains that crime is not evenly distributed across areas and the choices that people make are often rooted in their surrounding environment. From the policy perspective, an obvious challenge is to acknowledge that individuals cannot always understand risk factors that they are exposed to just by virtue of living in a low-income neighborhood. Even when people recognize risk factors, they do not have the ability to pack up and move to safer and stable neighborhoods. Therefore, to a large extent, the onus is on the policymakers to reduce poverty, increase legitimate employment opportunities, improve public schools, and provide support to individuals at risk including low-income single-parent families. Understanding and explaining crime at the socio-structural level also means that the criminal justice system alone cannot address it. It requires strengthening community networks and community organizations, providing social services, and improving police-public relations. It does not negate the role of human agency as there will always be individuals who do not get involved in crime even while living in high-risk neighborhoods. There are many people who manage to stay in school, find legitimate work and get out of poverty. The focus is clearly on those who cannot break this cycle on their own. In that regard, the criminal justice system can, and does, play an important role. Since the 1990s, concepts of community justice, community policing and community corrections have found increasingly relevant space in criminal justice policy. It involves proactive approach of building partnerships and bridges with people living in a neighborhood, overseeing and supervising offenders in a community setting outside of jail or prison, and investing in programs behind bars. Though the criminal justice system cannot reduce poverty but given the high rate of recidivism, investing in programs behind bars would be a useful approach. The prisoner or offender reentry programs realize that most inmates will be released back into the society and it would be beneficial if the offender is trained to not reoffend (“Offender Reentry” 2015). If neither the causes of crime are removed nor an individual is taught different coping mechanisms, the outcome (crime) will remain the same. Ideally, the prisoner reentry program should begin on the day that a convict enters the prison. It may include counseling, vocational skills, job training, communication skills, anger management, rehabilitation, educational opportunities and so on. However, simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution. These programs need to be carried out in a well-planned manner with tangible goals and constant evaluation. Addi- tional training or staff may be required to meet certain goals. Studies show that inmates who participate in educational programs have lower recidivism rate, and a higher chance of getting legitimate work opportunities (Chappell 2004; Nuttall et al. 2003). Many prisoner reentry programs involve group-mentoring Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 109 that allows inmates to learn from one another in an informal setting (Leufgen et al. 2012). Nonetheless, every inmate would not be automatically motivated to avail every opportunity. Social learning theories discussed later in the book will further explain the process, source, and tools of learning. But the social structure theories have explained that an individual’s choices, perceptions, and attitudes are shaped by the environment. It does not mechanically change the moment when someone is sent to prison. The prisoner reentry programs need to address perceptions and attitudes, as much as they need to address the more tangible needs of education, job training, and counseling. A couple of unique programs mentioned in chapter 1 are the Bard Prison Initiative and Shakespeare behind Bars. The Bard Prison Initiative (n.d.) is aimed at providing educational opportunities to incarcerated men and women. The Shakespeare behind Bars (n.d.) offers inmates the opportunity to read, write and take part in plays. It enhances their literacy skills and allows them to confront, acknowledge and process their own emotions including rage, anger, jealousy, suspicion, and guilt. It hopes to make inmates responsible members of the community upon release. Even those who may never be released begin to develop empathy, compassion, and tolerance. Another innovative program, Weed and Seed, was started in 1991. It is a federally funded program aimed at weeding out problems of drug use and trafficking, gang activity, and violent crime in targeted areas. The second half of the program is about seeding the community with something constructive or positive. For example, an abandoned warehouse may be replaced by a recreational center for the local community. This neighborhood revitalizing effort requires coordination among various agencies and residents (“National Weed and Seed” n.d.). This program is discussed in more detail in chapter 6.

EVALUATION OF THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

Theconcentric zone theory has been criticized in recent years with the evidence of cities where the wealthy class is moving closer to the city, while poorer class is moving away from it. The social disorganization theory was a dominant thought until the early 1960s, and numerous studies have found support for family disruption and weakening social ties that could lead to deviance (Barnett and Mencken 2002; Sampson et al. 1999). However, it is not a direct causal explanation. For example, family disruption is often explained in terms of a divorce, but it may be equally harmful for a spouse to stay in an abusive marriage, or raise a child in an unhealthy family environment. There has been mixed evidence for residential mobility as well. Sampson et al. (1997) found that residential mobility negatively affects social control, but Osgood and Chambers (2000) found that the relation between the two is nonsignificant. It does not imply that one or the other study is more relevant, but that there are multiple factors that contribute 110 | Fundamentals of Criminology

to social disorganization. With changing times, the sensibilities and perceptions surrounding behaviors also change. For example, divorce does not carry the same stigma that it did in the 1940s or 1950s. Similarly, since the 1960s in particular, racial diversity and heterogeneity have become the norm in most center city areas. Nonetheless, the strain associated with blocked economic opportunities and extreme poverty remains crucial predictor of crime and victimization. The increased rigidity in social structure and inability of people to move up the socioeconomic ladder also leads to frustration and anger. Studies (Putnam 2000; Sampson and Groves 1989) show that strong community relations, social capital, and collective efficacy contribute to better informal social controls and can be a buffer against risk factors. There have been some criticism about operationalization, conceptualization, and measurement of the concept of social disorganization (Bursik 1988), and even some of the mediating concepts such as social control, social ties, social capital, among others. On the whole, the Chicago school explained crime and deviance well in the times when this thought was first developed and continued to dominate till the 1960s. Since then, there has been a shift in criminology and criminal justice system to address and explain individual choice and behavior even within the larger broken or disorganized environment. It is important to keep testing various concepts in the Chicago school as cities evolve and change.

BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY

The broken windows theory, developed by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson, proposes that structural and social breakdown of neighborhood sub- sequently results in crime. The theory notes that neighborhoods characterized by physical and social incivilities have weak social control, poor quality of life, and heightened fear. The physical dilapidation inhibits people from socializing in these areas. Just as Shaw and McKay found in their theory of social disorganization, the broken windows theory also notes that physical deterioration of a neighborhood symbolizes that no one cares about that place and makes it an easy target for drug dealers, gangs, prostitution, and other deviant and criminal activities. The theory argues that addressing the early signs of structural and behavioral deterioration will help in reducing crime. The following discussion presents key arguments and concepts from Kelling and Wilson’s work, “Broken Windows,” as first published in 1982. It is available online on the Atlantic website.

NEW JERSEY’S SAFE AND CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM, AND COMMUNITY POLICING

Kelling and Wilson begin with a discussion on the New Jersey’s Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Program in the mid-1970s. This program that was aimed at Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 111 increasing police foot patrols in twenty-eight cities with the objective of improving community life. As in any other case of community policing, the motivation was to improve community relations and trust between police and public. However, Kelling and Wilson note that many police officers did not like the idea of being out in the rain and cold. The police chiefs were concerned about police mobility on foot, delay in responding to crime, and increased risk to police officers. Many academics at the time also doubted the positive impact of foot patrols on crime. Nonetheless, it is suggested that as the state was paying for it, the local authorities went ahead with it. According to Kelling and Wilson, after five years the Police Foundation in Washington, D.C., published an evaluation of the program based on its own experiment in Newark. It observed that though the foot patrols did not reduce crime rates, there were some interesting findings about the perceptions and morale (Kelling and Wilson 1982):

• Residents felt safer in the neighborhoods that had police foot patrolling as compared those living in other areas. • Residents took fewer steps to protect themselves in the areas where they felt safer. • Residents in foot-patrolled neighborhoods had more favorable view of police officers. • Police officers involved in the foot patrols also had more favorable view of people in the neighborhoods where they patrolled. • Police officers involved in the foot patrols got more job satisfaction and had higher morale.

Kelling and Wilson note that critics would argue that feeling safer at a time when there is no actual drop in crime rate is akin to fooling the public. How- ever, they observe that people are not afraid of violent crime only, but also of disorderly people such as “panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed” (Kelling and Wilson 1982, para. 5). They suggest that the foot patrols enhanced public order and added to the sense of safety, just as the lack of it contributed to heightened fear.

REGULARS AND STRANGERS

As part of the experiment and evaluation by the Police Foundation, Kelling observed how police officers went about defining and maintaining order. One such beat that Kelling and Wilson explain was in a typical run-down area in Newark characterized by abandoned buildings, small shops, train station, bus stops, and many people commuting to work and home from there. Most people 112 | Fundamentals of Criminology

in the area were black, while the foot-patrol officer was white. Having spent time in the community, the officer knew the regulars from strangers. Kelling and Wilson explain the regulars as people who lived or worked in the area, commuted regularly, and included even “disreputable regulars” or drunks. The police officer knew them and they knew him. They observed informal rules for their area, which may be different from rules in other areas. For example, “People could drink on side streets, but not on the main intersection. Bottles had to be in paper bags,” panhandling and bothering people at bus stops was forbidden, noisy or rowdy people were asked to keep quiet, and so on (Kelling and Wilson 1982, para. 8). According to Kelling and Wilson, those who broke these informal rules could be (and were) arrested for vagrancy. They further add that some of the violations were considered more serious than others, for example, bothering someone at the bus stop was most likely to result in an arrest. If anyone violated these rules, the regulars would contact the police officer. While explaining this, Kelling and Wilson also recognize that some of the extralegal means through which the police officer maintained public order, may not withstand a legal challenge though. The above discussion mirrors many elements of community policing including, trust and cooperation, informal social control, and tailored approach to an area. It shows that the police can get people to cooperate in preventing or reducing crime, if they know and trust the police officer. It also shows that different areas may present different challenges and problems, and one policy or approach may not work for every place. The above discussion reflects that informal rules would vary from one area to another depending on its needs and objectives. Community policing also relies on informal means of social control and surveillance which cannot succeed without the trust and cooperation between the public and police. It signifies and builds collective efficacy where people in an area begin to see themselves as stakeholders and want to protect it.

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF FEAR AND ANXIETY

As noted earlier, Kelling and Wilson observed that the fear of crime is not always associated with falling victim to a violent crime. There are many environmental and behavioral factors that amplify fear. Some of these factors include public disorder such as the presence of panhandlers, addicts, and prostitutes. There- fore, having a police officer in the vicinity lowers the anxiety and fear, and gives the impression that the area is protected. That is, disorder and crime are often intertwined. Social psychologists and police officers believe that ignoring early signs of breakdown may lead to large-scale breakdown. Kelling and Wilson explain it with reference to Phil Zimbardo’s experiment (1969) on vandalism. Zimbardo “arranged to have an automobile without license plates parked with its hood up on a street in the Bronx and a comparable automobile on a street Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 113 in Palo Alto, California” (Kelling and Wilson 1982, para. 12). The automobile in the Bronx was vandalized within ten minutes, and everything of value was removed from the vehicle within twenty-four hours. The automobile in Palo Alto was not targeted for more than one week. Zimbardo damaged a part of it with a sledgehammer and soon it was fully destroyed by vandals. In both instances the vandals were whites and relatively well-dressed (Kelling and Wilson 1982). Thebroken windows theory uses Zimbardo’s experiment to demonstrate how property, area or community that appears to be uncared for or neglected, could be an easy target. The physical incivilities gradually increase social incivilities and weaken community controls. Kelling and Wilson propose that in a neighborhood that has high criminal activity, people are less willing to intervene and help anyone. These areas become more vulnerable to long-term criminal activity and usually involve young males. Those who can afford to move out, shift to other places while there are many, such as the elderly, who may not have many options available to them. Kelling and Wilson further note though the elderly are less likely to be victimized, but their defenselessness against a young adult heightens their fear of victimization even more. As a result, they are more likely to stay indoors which further weakens social control and natural surveillance.

URBAN DECAY, RESIDENTIAL MOVEMENT, AND POLICE FUNCTION

Urban decay is a process whereby a city, or a part of it, gradually falls into dis- repair and disorder. It is not a new phenomenon, but Kelling and Wilson see two key differences in urban decay with regard to mobility and policing. Firstly, they note that earlier it was not easy for city dwellers to leave the neighborhood. Even when there were problems, they stayed due to their familial, church and other connections. Additionally,

when movement did occur, it tended to be along public–transit routes. Now mobility has become exceptionally easy for all but the poorest or those who are blocked by racial prejudice. Earlier crime waves had a kind of built-in self-correcting mechanism: the determination of a neighborhood or community to reassert control over its turf. Areas in Chicago, New York, and Boston would experience crime and gang wars, and then normalcy would return, as the families for whom no alternative residences were possible reclaimed their authority over the streets. (Kelling and Wilson 1982, para. 20)

Secondly, the policing function has evolved over time. According to Kelling and Wilson, the role of police used to be that of a watchman: to keep an eye 114 | Fundamentals of Criminology

on the neighborhood, and maintain order. This often included “roughing up” troublemakers and asserting authority, sometimes even through extralegal means. This has changed over time and instead of maintaining order, the police role has shifted to fighting crime. Kelling and Wilson attribute this shift in part, to increase in crime in the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, instead of working on community relations to maintain order, the police officers were expected to make arrests, gather better evidence and solve crime. It was assumed that reducing crime this way would assuage the public fear of crime. As in case of any policy, more money is set aside for whichever approach becomes more acceptable. Therefore, Kelling and Wilson argue that more police officers started to be trained as crime fighters and the link between maintaining order and preventing or reducing crime was somewhat overlooked. They observe that this link is similar to any other normal reaction that people have to a broken environment or impolite and indecorous behavior. People make assumptions about neighborhoods and residents based on the exterior: drunk people, rowdy teenagers, boarded-up houses, broken windows and poor lighting. Kelling and Wilson note that police interaction with people is significantly different when they are on foot-patrol as compared to when they arrive in a car. There is greater scope for the officer to learn about the individuals when he interacts with them while patrolling on foot, as compared to trying to talk from a car window. According to Kelling and Wilson, people are more likely to approach a police officer who is on foot, share information and even complain about what bothers them in the neighborhood. This helps reinforce informal control mechanisms that would vary from one area to another and the police officers would need to use a lot more discretion. Kelling and Wilson argue that shifting from order maintenance to crime fighting changed this significantly where formal rules, regulations and the law takes precedence over informal controls. As a result, police officers have to be mindful of legal restrictions, media complaints, court decisions and departmen- tal orders. They argue that earlier maintaining order, however ambiguous or subjective the term may be, was the end goal and the residents and the police knew it when they saw it. However, with the crime-fighting model, arresting the suspect, while taking into account procedures and rights, became the primary function. As per this approach, Kelling and Wilson argue that the arrest becomes a means to an end, and the charges and conviction are decided later by the courts. It also challenges the criminal justice system to define disorder. That is, a police officer could not arrest a vagrant or drunk unless such conduct is criminalized and the officer has the legal or formal power to make an arrest. The concern about the unjust use of discretion, therefore, is replaced by either overcriminalizing certain behaviors that were earlier resolved at the community level or decriminalizing certain behaviors that are seemingly harmless. However, from the broken windows perspective, these seemingly harmless Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 115 behaviors could symbolize disorder that eventually leads to fear and crime (Kelling and Wilson 1982). Kelling and Wilson acknowledge that other agencies could respond to drunks and mentally ill, but deinstitutionalization took away that option. They also recognize the ethical concern about equality. That is, one behavior may be construed as more disorderly or problematic than the other. The theory posits if such difference is rooted in racial, ethnic or any other form of bigotry, the police may become agents of the same bigotry. It cautions, therefore, it is important to recognize when the general consensus in the neighborhood reflects public opinion and when it simply represents the majority (numerical or status) opinion. It suggests that though it is not possible to identify or remove all biases, this issue can be largely addressed through better selection, training, and supervision of police officers. Kelling and Wilson suggest that an arrest does not necessarily conciliate fear in the community as actual crime is the culmination of large scale disorder that remains unattended. The efforts to strengthen informal social controls are further impacted by individualistic terms in which people think of the law. “The law defines my rights, punishes his behavior, and is applied by that officer because of this harm” (Kelling and Wilson 1982, para. 40). According to the broken windows theory, such thinking may work in case what is good for an individual is also good for the community, but it does not help the community when many disorderly behaviors may be acceptable to some but not to others. It may result in indifference toward disorder unless it affects every individual personally. Kelling and Wilson further note that stronger sense of community and greater emphasis on collective good may be the reason why smaller communities were more satisfied by their police as compared to larger communities, even when the rate of victimization was the same. The communities with stronger social control mechanisms can resolve many problems without involving police, or requiring heavy police presence. For example, according to Kelling and Wilson, teenagers may like to hangout in a particular street corner and the adults may be able to negotiate how many people can hangout, where and when. Such communities have a deeper sense of shared space and make it easy for residents to parley for the common good. Kelling and Wilson suggest that if no such understanding is reached, citizen patrols could be used to enhance civic mindedness and collective responsibility to maintain order. They explain the two traditional models namely, community watchers and vigilante. The community watchers are highly trained volunteer watchers who patrol their neighborhoods. Their presence either deters any disorder or informs the community about it. They do not take the law into their own hands. The Guardian Angels of New York is an example of community watchers and has chapters across the United States and around the world. Unlike community watchers, Kelling and Wilson note that vigilantes took the law into 116 | Fundamentals of Criminology

their own hands. They would approach anyone who looked suspicious or was an outsider and questioned them. The primary concern about the vigilantes had been the abuse of power. Kelling and Wilson concede that there has been limited research on the effectiveness of such programs. Additionally, they argue that not all neighborhoods may be capable of maintaining order by themselves and police remains the key to doing the work. It may be due to high levels of crime, apathy and general unconcern. For the police, it is not an easy decision to increase foot patrols especially due to shortage of staff. Police departments have to allocate resources as per the gravest needs and challenges. Foot-patrols require more officers that need to be assigned to a designated area for a substantial period of time. Like any other community policing approach, the police need to identify areas that are not beyond repair; not every neighborhood can benefit from foot patrols. In order for community policing to work, the neighborhood must be salvageable and not unreclaimable. Kelling and Wilson suggest that the police officers must be trained to see order-maintenance as a key part of their job, but not independent of responding to other calls about various crimes. They conclude with an analogy from healthcare where instead of only treating the illness, there is increased emphasis on promoting good health. According to Kelling and Wilson, for the police, responding to violent crime remains an essential function, but it should also respond to early signs of community disorder in order to reduce violent crime.

EVALUATION OF THE BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY

The broken windows theory has been one of the highly debated theories in criminology especially the way it came to define policing in New York in 1990s. Under the umbrella of zero-tolerance policing, it led to crackdowns, sweeps, and aggressive policing. The crackdowns refer to a sudden and significant increase in police presence, sanctions, arrests and threats of arrests. The increased police presence includes both uniformed and undercover officers. The crackdowns can be successful in the short term and offer a swift, quick and firm response to crime and disorder. There may also be residual deterrence and diffusion of benefits outside the target area. The sweeps and aggressive policing also reflect a get-tough approach presaged by more police powers, including protective sweep doctrine, which is an exception to warrants under the Fourth Amendment. In order to be successful in the long term, these police tactics should be used in combination with other responses, including educating residents and improving overall management of the neighborhood. However, these tactics are criticized for specifically lacking long-term vision. There is great potential for abuse of power and adverse impact on community-police relations. It could also lead to crime displacement especially in the absence of positive community-police interactions. Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 117

Stop and Frisk in New York is showcased as an example of what is wrong with broken windows policing. Though the two are not the same, it is argued that they share the same philosophy. There are conflicting reports on the success of Stop and Frisk and it is largely due to the nature of data. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Floyd v. City of New York 2013) FIG. 5.3 While discussing racial and ethnic factors, recognized the inherent problem in individually analyzing the 4.4 million stops it is important to take into made by the NYPD. It also noted that the database is incomplete as not every consideration the economic officer prepared a UF-250; a form that a police officer files after a stop and frisk factors. There is a greater encounter on the street. The court also observed that the UF-250 is one-sided incidence of poverty among and records officers’ version only. racial minorities in the The court did not rule that the Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional policing United States. In part, the economic bias in the practice or that the police officers could never use it. Instead, it ruled that the criminal justice system manner in which the NYPD conducted stops and frisks from 2005 to 2013 was translates into racial bias. unconstitutional and racially discriminatory. It found that the decision was not Note: Black poverty rate data from based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but based on a person’s race. The 1960 to 1965 are not available. court also instructed the NYPD to institute a pilot project for one year. During this The line shown connects the 1959 project, the police officers would wear bodycams in one precinct per borough, and rate of 55.1 percent to the 1966 rate of 41.8 percent and is included the precinct should be the one that had the highest number of stops during 2012. to represent the trend but not to While discussing racial and ethnic factors, it is important to take into con- imply specific numerical data. sideration the economic factors. There is a greater incidence of poverty among [Source: “Who Is Poor?” n.d. racial minorities in the United States. Institute for Research on Poverty. University of Wisconsin–Madison.]

60 Black

2015 30

Percent Rates Hispanic Overall Rate 24.1 21.4 20 Asian White 13.5 11.6 10 11.4 9.1 Non-Hispanic White

1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Overall Rate White Non-Hispanic White Black AsianHispanic 118 | Fundamentals of Criminology

Poverty exposes people to many risk factors related to crime and victimization. As police departments allocate resources keeping in mind highest rate of violent crimes, they end up targeting poor neighborhoods more severely than others. As there is a higher rate of poverty among minorities, often the economic decision, and economic bias in general, translates into racial bias. There is a greater risk of abuse of power and discretion if police officers are not adequately trained in research and logic, or sensitized about identifying implicit and explicit biases. Many argue that the poor neighborhoods with high criminal activity often complained the most about the police not doing enough, but when the police took action, they complained of the abuse of power and use of excessive force. However, ethically and professionally, the argument cannot be that either people have to put up crime or face abuse by the police. Often these topics are hijacked by those who have preset and absolutist notions about the public and police. One must guard against attributing every fatal shooting to racism or personal prejudice, or blindly defending all police action. In 2014, after the fatal shooting of an eighteen-year-old black man, Michael Brown, by a white police officer, protests and riots broke out in Ferguson, Mis- souri. The racial tensions were such that many people debating it on television channels deviated from the facts of the case and started to take positions for or against the topic based on their general belief about the police. However, beyond the media coverage of the shooting and the riots that followed, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted an investigation into police practices of the Ferguson Police Department. Some of the key findings of the report are as follows (“Investigation of the Ferguson” 2015):

• Several employees exchanged e-mails containing racist jokes about Presi- dent Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, African-Americans and stereotypes about their familial and economic circumstances, and Muslims. • “A June 2011 e-mail described a man seeking to obtain ‘welfare’ for his dogs because they are ‘mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are’” (72). • About 67 percent of Ferguson is made up African-Americans. From 2012 to 2014, African-Americans were involved in 85 percent of vehicle stops; 90 percent of those who received citations; and 93 percent of arrests. • Eighty-eight percent of cases in which police officer used force involved African-Americans. • From 2012 to 2014, black drivers were twice as likely to be stopped as compared to white drivers but 26 percent less likely to be in possession of contraband. Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 119

It must be noted that these findings are not typical of police practices across the United States. It also does not indicate that the police officer who shot Michael Brown was driven by bias. Based on the evidence, the DOJ declined to bring charges against him. But it points to the presence of bias among certain employees of the Ferguson police department. It is reasonable to extrapolate that these biases affected police-community relations over a period of time, and the Michael Brown shooting was perceived to be an extension of the same. As previously explained, Kelling and Wilson note that though it is not possible to identify or remove all biases, it could be addressed through better selection, training, and supervision of police officers. The failure to acknowledge bias is problematic especially if the department intends to reduce disorder by building partnerships with the people living in the area. Many also argue that police officers have to make a split-second decision about whether to shoot or not, and that any layperson would do the same when placed in similar circumstances. That may be true in some cases, but for the most part such arguments undermine the police training that is supposed to equip police officers with better decision-making skills than a layperson. Correll et al. (2002) conducted an experiment on the police officer’s dilemma about whether to shoot or not. It included four studies involving African-Amer- ican and white targets (computer generated images/video games) and the participants were instructed to shoot only the armed suspects. They found that the white participants correctly (required to shoot armed suspects) shot armed African-American targets as compared to armed white targets. The participants were also quick to decide not to shoot an unarmed white target as compared to an unarmed African-American target. The experiment found that magnitude of bias was also impacted by cultural stereotypes and level of contact. Correll et al. conclude, “On the basis of our data, though, bias does not seem to simply reflect prejudice toward African-Americans, and there is reason to believe the effect is present simply as a function of stereotypic associations that exist in our culture. That these associations can have such potentially profound consequences for members of stigmatized groups is a finding worthy of great concern” (1328). They also recognize the limited generalizability of their study and suggest that more research is needed to completely understand bias and prejudice. Like many other studies, it also concludes that adequate training could reduce bias in police shootings. In another study, Fryer (2016) found that police officers treated black men and women differently. The blacks were more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground, pepper-sprayed, but there was no racial bias in police shootings. The paper examined data from more than one thousand shootings in ten major police departments in three states (California, Florida, and Texas). Similar to Correll et al., Fryer also recognizes that more data are required to study these issues further. 120 | Fundamentals of Criminology

Many blame the media for demonizing the police force, while others argue that the media tends to focus only on problematic cases. The reaction to such cases in the society is emblematic of racial tensions. The concern about bias, real and perceived, at the community level needs to be addressed, not dismissed. The media, in any case, is more likely to report on instances that are not the norm as compared to when people are doing their job that they are required to do. That is why when police officers help a family with groceries, play hoops with the neighborhood kids, help set up surprise marriage proposals, and so on, it also ends up on the news. The bottom line is that the police and the public need to communicate better. If both are digging heels on the extreme ends of a socio-legal spectrum, it would be difficult to break barriers and informal social control would continue to weaken. As previously noted, while addressing police training, the police departments also need to take into account issues of stress, fatigue, health, and quality of life among police officers as it also impacts their quality of work. In 1954 Gordon W. Allport developed the contact hypothesis, which is also known as intergroup contact theory. It postulates that prejudices, stereotypes, and discrimination between groups can be reduced through more interaction and interpersonal contact. It proposes that positive interactions can reduce explicit and implicit prejudices. It reduces the us-versus-them mindset between the police and the public, and they are able to identify common goals and work toward them. Effective community policing can have a positive impact on both the police and the public. It can help police officers to identify their own prejudices, stereotypes, and reduce overgeneralizations. It can also make communities less defensive and less aggressive when they come in contact with police. KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Broken windows theory, central business district, citizen patrols, collective efficacy, community watchers, commuter zone, concentric zone theory, contact hypothesis, crackdowns, deinstitutionalization, ecology of crime, heterogeneity, mixed land use, Phil Zimbardo’s experiment on vandalism, physical decay, police function, population heterogeneity, regulars and strangers, residential mobility, residential zone, residual deterrence, siege mentality, social capital, social control, social disorganization theory, social institutions, stop and frisk, urban decay, vigilante, working-class zone, zone in transition DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Explain the breakdown of social institutions such as family, marriage, church/religion, and education as being predictors of crime and deviance. If it takes a village to raise a child, how would you suggest repairing the socially disorganized village? Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 121

2. How does the broken windows theory explain crime and deviance? In your essay clearly explain how the theory was developed, what are its key propositions, and how it influences policing? 3. How do aggressive policies aimed at addressing crime in low-income neighborhoods translate into racially biased policies? Explain the causes, nature and impact of shifting responses rooted in community policing to zero-tolerance policing. 4. Should police activity on the street be shaped by standards of the neighborhood, or rules of the state?

REFERENCES

Bard Prison Initiative. n.d. Home page. http://bpi.bard.edu. Barnett C., and F. C. Mencken. 2002. “Social Disorganization Theory and the Contextual Nature of Crime in Nonmetropolitan Counties.” Rural Sociology 67 (3): 372–93. Burgess, Ernest W. (1925) 1967. “The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project.” In The City, edited by Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess 47–62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bursik, R. J. 1988. “Social Disorganization: Problems and Prospects.” Criminology 26: 137–67. Chappell, C. A. 2004. “Post-Secondary Correctional Education and Recidivism: A Meta-analysis of Research Conducted 1990–1999.” Journal of Correctional Education 55 (2): 148–69. Correll, Joshua, Bernadette Park, and Charles M. Judd. 2002. “The Police Officer’s Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (6): 1314–29. Erickson, Maynard L. 1973. “Group Violations, Socioeconomic Status and Official Delinquency.” Social Forces 52 (1): 41–52. “Fatal Force.” n.d. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/ police-shootings-2016. Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540. 2013. US District Court for the Southern District of New York. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show. php?db=special&id=317. Fryer, Roland G., Jr. 2016. “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force.” Working Paper 22399, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf. Fyfe, James J. 1982. “Blind Justice: Police Shootings in Memphis.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73 (2):707–22. “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department.” 2015. US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, March 4. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-re- leases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf. Kelling, George L., and James Q. Wilson. 1982. “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.” Atlantic, March. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465. 122 | Fundamentals of Criminology

Kindy, Kimberly, and Kennedy Elliott. 2015. “2015 Police Shootings Investigation.” Washington Post, December 26. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/ police-shootings-year-end. Leufgen, Jillianne, Charles Lea, Brandon Nicholson, Anna Rubin, and Kate Dunham. 2012. “The Evaluation of the Newark Prisoner Re-entry Initiative Replication.” Final Report, Social Policy Research Associates, Oakland, CA. https://wdr.doleta.gov/ research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP-2014-04-NPRIR-Final-Report.pdf. “National Weed and Seed Program.” n.d. Executive Office for Weed and Seed, US Department of Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect08-e.html. Nuttall, J., L. Hollmen, and E. Staley. 2003. “The Effect of Earning a GED on Recidivism Rates.” Journal of Correctional Education 54 (3): 90–94. “Offender Reentry.” 2015. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. http:// www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/reentry/pages/welcome.aspx. Osgood, D. W., and J. M. Chambers. 2000. “Social Disorganization Outside the Metrop- olis: An Analysis of Rural Youth Violence.” Criminology 38 (1): 81–116. Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie. 1925. The City: Suggestions for Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Reiman, Jeffrey H. 1995.Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. Fourth ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon Criminal Justice. Ridgeway, Greg. 2007. “Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department’s Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices.” RAND Safety and Justice. http://www.nyc.gov/ html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/TR534_FINALCompiled.pdf. Sampson R. J., and W. B. Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94 (4): 774–802. Sampson, R. J., J. D. Morenoff, and F. Earls. 1999. “Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynam- ics of Collective Efficacy.” American Sociological Review 64: 633–60. Sampson, R. J., S. W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277: 918–24. Shakespeare behind Bars. n.d. Home page. http://www.shakespearebehindbars.org. Shaw, C. R., and H. D. McKay. 1931. “Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency.” Report of the Causes of Crime, Vol. 2, National Commission of Law Observance and Enforce- ment. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Shaw, C. R., and H. D. McKay. (eds.). 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, C. R., F. M. Zorbaugh, H. D. McKay, and L. S. Cottrell. 1929. Delinquency Areas: A Study of the Geographic Distribution of School Truants, Juvenile Delinquents, and Adult Offenders in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Siegel, Larry. 2015. Criminology: The Core. 5th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage. Simmel, Georg. 1969. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” In Classic Essays on The Culture of Cities, edited by Richard Sennett, 47–60. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Snodgrass, Jon. 1976. “Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay: Chicago Criminologists.” British Journal of Criminology 16 (1): 1–19. “Who Is Poor?” n.d. Institute for Research on Poverty. University of Wisconsin–Madison Chapter 5 Social Structure Theories: Social Disorganization Theory and Broken Windows Theory | 123