Los Angeles Times: Graffiti study bolsters 'broken windows' theory

I came across an interesting article that adds newfound support to the "Broken Windows" theory of law enforcement. In all reality, while some local activists argue otherwise, the Denver Police Department practices a multi-pronged aproach in Cole that at best loosely borrows select elements from Broken Windows (CompStat resource allocation and an emphasis on graffiti abatement, for example).

Where I think the article is most relevant to Cole, is in illustrating what I have said all along--Basically, that disorder (trash, graffiti, public drunkenness, unkempt businesses and properties) breeds disorder, by reducing the instinct to "act in a socially responsible manner" as they put it--I think many residents look around at the trash and graffiti in our neighborhood and think "No one else cares about this neighborhood, why should I?" Keeping our neighborhood free of trash and graffiti just makes sense.

I also find the comment by Bernard Harcourt, a long-time critic of Broken Windows, downright shocking in how it minimizes the severity of such crimes as vandalism and theft. While Harcourt suggests we "don't care about those kinds of trivial... acts," I for one do care about them, and will do whatever is in my power to reduce their occurrence in Cole--Whether one believes in the tie-in between disorder and more serious crimes like assault and murder or not, I would hope they would agree with me on that point at least.

But enough from me, here is the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a series of real-world experiments, people exposed to graffiti, litter and other cues of lawlessness were more likely to commit small crimes, according to a study published today that bolsters the controversial "broken windows" theory of policing.The idea is that low-level offenses like vandalism and panhandling create an environment that breeds bigger crimes. According to the theory, authorities can help head off serious violence by keeping minor infractions in check.
Dutch researchers tested the psychological underpinnings of the theory and found that signs of social disorder damped people's impulse to act for the good of the community, allowing selfish and greedy instincts to take over. The results appear in the journal Science.Community policing strategies based on the "broken windows" theory have taken root in cities across the U.S. and around the world since it was proposed in 1982. Most famously, New York City saw a 50% reduction in crime in the 1990s after then-Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and then-Police Commissioner William J. Bratton -- now head of the Los Angeles Police Department -- cracked down on squeegee-wielding panhandlers and the like. They credited the "broken windows" approach for their success.
An array of social scientists examined the city's crime statistics, and many of them concluded that factors like the booming economy and decline of crack cocaine were actually responsible for the dramatic improvement.Kees Keizer, a graduate student at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, thought psychology and sociology could add to the debate. Human behavior is influenced by three competing instincts: to act in a socially appropriate manner, to do what feels good in the moment and to maximize one's resources. Keizer predicted that when there's less motivation to be socially appropriate, the other two impulses would take over.To test this, he attached fliers for a fake sportswear store to the handlebars of bicycles parked in a shopping area. With no trash can nearby, shoppers returning to their bikes could either take the fliers with them or litter.A wall near the bicycles had a sign indicating that graffiti was forbidden. When the wall was indeed graffiti-free, 33% of people left the fliers on the ground or attached them to other bikes. After Keizer painted graffiti on the wall, the percentage of litterers rose to 69%. Keizer said littering jumped because the socially appropriate instinct -- to deposit the flier in a trash can -- was overtaken by the feel-good instinct to let someone else throw it away.In other experiments, the presence of four shopping carts strewn about a parking lot in violation of posted signs boosted the percentage of people who littered to 58%, from 30%. The sound of illegal fireworks increased the percentage of litterbugs near a busy train station to 80%, from 52%.To see whether social disorder would induce citizens to steal, Keizer left an envelope containing 5 euros (about $6.26) hanging conspicuously from a mailbox. When the mailbox was clean, 13% of passersby stole the envelope. When the mailbox was surrounded by trash, the percentage jumped to 25%, and when the mailbox was covered in graffiti, it rose to 27%. "It is quite shocking that the mere presence of litter resulted in a doubling of the number of people stealing," Keizer said. James Q. Wilson, the political scientist who developed the "broken windows" theory with George L. Kelling, said the Netherlands experiments bolstered his hypothesis."If public authorities worry about order, it affects the way people behave," said Wilson, now the Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University in Malibu. But Bernard Harcourt, a professor of law and criminology at the University of Chicago who has done studies debunking "broken windows," said Keizer's scenarios were too quaint to take seriously."We don't care about those kinds of trivial, manipulated delinquent acts," he said. "What we care about is violence."

See the article in its entirety here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-graffiti21-2008nov21,0,3090727.story

Just what we need... another homeless shelter...

Anyone else out there think Cole, Whittier, Five Points, Curtis Park, etc., have done our share in terms of hosting social services facilities? Anyone else think it's time they start building these facilities, though important, somewhere else in Denver?

Anyone out there aware of the Bo Matthews Center project to build a large residential facility for the homeless and ex-cons in our neighborhood?

You're likely not, because they (and the city) have been working on this project since last summer, without actively involving those that will be affected most by the project--The residents.

While it's true that the Bo Matthews Center is already operating social services at the site, (ex-con transition programs, I think, and transitional residences, I think) and they claim they will just be able to better house and serve the existing "customers" but won't be increasing the scope of their operations, in my opinion building a fancy new facility will just mean they'll be here forever--When I am hoping to see facilities like this begin to disappear as the neighborhood continues to change.

It's still a bit fuzzy what exactly happened--But it sounds like The Matthews Center was awarded approval for city funding last summer to build a 28- to 30-unit residential facility for the homeless and ex-cons, where their current center is at 3030 Downing. The facility currently has housing for veterans and recent releases from the department of corrections. This project allows them to build a proposed three story building at Downing and MLK--And better yet, with $$$ from the city!!!

How is this going to affect the revitalization of the Downing corridor? Think it will attract new businesses and residents? Yeah, right.

I attended a public meeting with the organization this past Saturday, and it was quite heated. Why? Because the vast majority of the folks in the room seem clear that nothing short of a net decrease in these types of facilities will be progress in the area. This are has long been the "dumping ground" for social services, and I have to say, I was excited to hear that I wasn't the only one that says ENOUGH.

The good news is that it sounds like they need to get a signed neighborhood agreement in order to obtain the city funding--Which at this point I don't know if they'll get. Additionally, I'm happy to say that it appears that our city Councilwoman Carla Madison didn't initially sign the approval for this property when it came up for discussion. Additionally, she has made it clear that she too opposes any new social services coming to her district.

Why we didn't hear about this sooner is still a mystery...

Want more information on the project?

matthewscenter@msn.com

And be sure to voice your opinion on the topic to our City Councilwoman, Carla Madison:

carla.madison@denvergov.org

And finally, be sure to contact the leaders of your neighborhood association to be involved in any future meetings...