CJS_SeniorSythesis_HRawl

AN EX-POST FACTO STUDY: CORRELATING CRIME RATES

AND THE DEGRADATION OF URBAN SOCIETY

A senior synthesis paper submitted to the

University of Dayton’s Criminal Justice Studies Program

within the College of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment

for the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree.

By

Hollie N. Rawl

December, 2006

A senior synthesis paper written by

Hollie N. Rawl

B.A., The University of Dayton, 2006

Approved by

Dr. James A. Adamitis, Criminal Justice Studies Program

Preface

Dedicated to the men, women, and children continually

disadvantaged by urban injustice.

Special thanks to Dr. Jim Adamitis and Tim Apolito for their

continual contributions of insight and support.

102

Table of Contents

Section Page

Preface.....................................................................................................101

Table of Contents.....................................................................................103

Introduction.............................................................................................105

An Overview: The Overall Population

And Racial Dissimilarity Indices in Ohio....................................107

An Overview: Poverty in Ohio................................................................109

An Overview: Crime Rates in Ohio........................................................110

A Closer Look: Racial Inequality, Poverty, and Crime Rates

In Cleveland (Cuyahoga County), Ohio......................................113

In Cincinnati (Hamilton County), Ohio.......................................115

In Columbus (Franklin County), Ohio........................................117

In Dayton (Montgomery County),Ohio.......................................118

An Overview: Revisited..........................................................................120

The Investigation: Influential Factors

Promoting Urban Degradation.....................................................121

Further Investigation: Possibilities for Improvement

Of Declining Neighborhoods.......................................................129

Combating Incivilities.................................................................129

Police Force Reorganization........................................................132

Conclusion...............................................................................................137

Future Research Recommendations........................................................139

Bibliography............................................................................................143

103

104

Hollie N. Rawl

Dr. Adamitis

CJS 447, Senior Seminar Criminal Justice Studies

December 2006

AN EX-POST FACTO STUDY: CORRELATING CRIME RATES

AND

THE DEGRADATION OF URBAN SOCIETY

I. INTRODUCTION

Statistics ranging from those gathered in the annual Ohio UCR and

NIBRS charts to the Dayton-San Jose Survey of Victimization all support

one central problem viz., the state’s continually fluctuating crime rates.

For example, Ohio’s homicide rate has leveled out to about 4.5 incidents

per 100,000 people since 2002 after increasing from the 3.7 per 100,000-

person statistic in 1999 (OCJS 2005). Although a relatively small jump,

both Carol Kalish, in her Report on the Dayton-San Jose Survey of

Victimization, and Nancy Marion, in Crime and Criminal Justice in Ohio:

Programs and Agencies, indicate that the average person can sense this

change, noting that fear of victimization has pushed citizens to change

and/or limit their daily activities and routines in order to accommodate

this concern (Kalish 27; Marion 1). However, dissatisfaction and

concern are not the only matters Ohioans are focusing on as a collective

body. The effectiveness of each city’s police force in dealing with

105

criminal matters, suspects, and racial profiling provide further discomfort,

rather than a reassurance of safety. According to Kalish, “One out of

every five black citizens of Dayton felt that the police were doing a poor

job, a rate of dissatisfaction four times that of whites” (27), and Deane

Wiley, in his study dealing with the attitudes and perceptions of police

according to African Americans and Whites, indicates “African

Americans judged the officers as less partial and more prejudice” than

White citizens (Eskridge 43).

Investigating the possible causes and influences on criminal behavior in

urban society proves necessary in order to understand how crime rates,

police control, and community perception can fluctuate drastically in cities

throughout the United States. Studying the growing deprivation in four of

Ohio’s major cities, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton, the

topics of racial segregation and social inequality in relation to such studies

as “The Broken Windows Theory” will be discussed.

Furthermore, as a primary necessity to grasp a greater

understanding of the current correlation between the deprivation of Ohio’s

cities and their crime rates, this discussion preludes with a contextual base

from which to then compare situations and evaluate a level of risk.

106

II. AN OVERVIEW: THE OVERALL POPULATION AND

RACIAL DISSIMILARITY INDICES IN OHIO

Historically a predominantly white (non-Hispanic) state, Table 1, a

compilation of 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2005 Ohio Census Report Statistics,

indicates a constant, though slight, increase of racial and ethnic state

citizenship (CensusScope; USCB). According to the most recent data

collected in a 2005 American Community Survey, not only does the

minority population continue to rise, but data also reports small increase

of .29% in non-Hispanic whites (USCB).

Total Population 1980 1990 2000 2005

(11,155,606) Hispanics 1.11% 1.29% 1.91% 2.275%

Whites 88.24% 87.07% 84.01% 84.3% Black 9.90% 10.58% 11.37% 11.5%

American Indian/Eskimo

0.11% 0.18% 0.19% .2%

Asian 0.44% 0.82% 1.16% 1.45% Hawaiian & PI --- - 0.02% .023733%

Other 0.20% 0.06% 0.12% 1% Two or More

Races --- - 1.21% 1.5%

* Non-Hispanic only; in 1980 and 1990 "Asians" includes Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. (1980-2000 Information from CensusScope; 2005 Information from USCB)

Although Ohio’s minority population is growing, citizens

continually tend to segregate themselves from the other races as evident

from the 2000 Census data used to compile the 2000 Segregation:

Dissimilarity Indices (CensusScope). Of 318 designated Metro Areas in

the United States, Southwest and Northeast Ohio are ranked in the Fifth

107

Table 1: “Hispanic Population and Race Distribution for Non-Hispanic Population in OH”

Quintile, a category reserved for the most segregated cities. On the chart

entitled “US Metro Areas Ranked by White/Black Dissimilarity Index,”

the Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH area ranks at #9 with a 79.7

Dissimilarity Index. This number indicates that in order to evenly

distribute blacks and whites in the given metro area, 79.7% of whites in

that area would need to move to another neighborhood. On the same chart

the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN metro area ranks fourteenth with a 78.0DI and

Dayton-Springfield, OH is ranked #30 with a 73.9DI. Ranked farther

down on the list at #78 showing a 66.9DI, the Columbus, OH metro area

falls into the Fourth Quintile category indicating a slighter degree of

segregation than the previously mentioned cities (CensusScope). More

detailed information comparing the population numbers of these four

metro areas can be found in Table 2.

Table 2: Segregation: Dissimilarity Indices - Black vs. White Population

Rank Metro Area

Black Pop White Pop Total Pop Diss. Index

#9 – Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH

412,782 1,697,660 2,250,871 79.7

#14 –Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

212,452 1,375,267 1,646,395 78.0

#30 – Dayton-Springfield, OH

134,576 776,050 950,558 73.9

#78 – Columbus, OH

204,494 1,238,296 1,540,157 66.9

(Information from CensusScope)

108

III. AN OVERVIEW: POVERTY IN OHIO

Measuring a ten-year span of combined income, family size, and

household structure to determine Ohio’s Poverty Thresholds, the 2000 US

Census reported a decline of persons in poverty from 11.61% in 1990 to

9.69% in 2000 (CensusScope.org). The decrease in poverty levels can

most aptly be attributed to the average increase of household income

between 1990 and 2000. The categories of total annual earned income

ranging from “Less than $9,999” to those earning “$50,000 - $74,000” all

reflect a decreased percentage of Ohio households while the categories

ranging in total earnings from $75,000 to $199,999 all report an increased

percentage of qualified households. Total Income Earnings increased

considerably, prompting a separate category for the 1.71% of Ohioans

earning more than $200,000 a year in the 2000 Census. (CensusScope)

Although a raise in household income can be tabulated, Cincinnati,

Columbus, and Cleveland, Ohio only recorded a 0-2% increase in home

ownership. Dayton’s statistics actually show a decrease in home

ownership. (CensusScope)

109

IV. AN OVERVIEW: CRIME RATES IN OHIO

Through the use of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Ohio’s

annual crime rate statistics report the occurrences of such offenses as:

murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery,

aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, total violent

crime, and combined property crime. Between 1977 and 2004, the

amount of reported criminal incidents in Ohio’s FBI UCR has fluctuated

between a low of 455,668 reported offenses in 2003 (FedStats) and a high

of 587,787 reports in 1981 (Marion 10). Ohio’s inconsistent homicide

rate was greatly responsible for influencing the drastic changes in reports,

regardless of the UCR’s broad coverage of other criminal activity (OCJS

2005). Crime in the United States, an FBI publication highlighting 1977-

2004 data, notes that homicide rates decreased from a rate of 8 per

100,000 Ohioans to 6.5 in 1978 before quickly peaking again at a rate of 8

per 100,000 during the period from 1979 to 1981 (OCJS 2005). The

number of homicides then receded to a rate of about 5.5 in 1984 only to

slowly increase to a rate of 7 per 100,000 persons in 1991 (OCJS 2005).

Ohio witnessed another drastic decrease in homicide reports in 1999 as

rates fell to approximately 3.7 incidents per 100,000 persons (OCJS

2005). In 2002, after another slight increase in homicide cases, the rate

finally leveled out at 4.5, retaining the same rate in both 2003 and 2004

(OCJS 2005). Although Ohio’s homicide rate has greatly fluctuated over

this twenty-plus year time period, its pattern of peaking in the late-1970 –

early-1980 and again in the early 90’s compares to the rates of the other

Mid-Western states, with the exception of Michigan (OCJS 2005). This

influx of homicide offenses can also be similarly patterned against the rest

110

of the United States during this twenty-eight year period with the

exception that Ohio’s statistics portrayed a lower overall homicide rate

pattern (OCJS 2005; Marion 8). However, though homicide rates began

decreasing after 1991, and Ohio’s overall homicide rate pattern was

relatively low compared to the US over the given time period, according

to the 1992 UCR Ohio ranked among the top ten of all states according to

the actual number of reported crimes for each UCR category (11). When

the crime rate 1:100,000 was applied to all categories for all fifty states,

the Ohio Rape rate ranked the highest of Ohio’s categories, placing itself

eleventh overall in the nation; Placed thirty-sixth in the nation, Property

Crime marked the lowest ranking of Ohio’s UCR categories (11).

Providing one example of the fluctuation of reported offenses in all

the Ohio UCR categories, CrimeStats reports information documenting

the increase, or decrease, of reports in each category from 2004 in

comparison to 2003. From 2003 to 2004 violent crime increased 2.4%

while decreases were seen in the murder (1.9%) and rape (0.5%)

categories (Crimestats). Robbery in Ohio increased 3.6% during that year,

aggravated assault 2.0%, and property crime 0.6%. Burglary also

increased, at a rate of 1.8%, while larceny-theft increased .4% (OCJS

2004). Themotor-vehicle theft category reported a .6% decrease in

offenses, however no information exists on record for the difference in

arson statistics for 2003 and 2004 in Ohio (OCJS 2004).

Table 3 maps specific 2000 and 2004 incidents per UCR statistics

for Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, and Montgomery Counties.

111

Table 3: 2000 and 2004 UCR Statistics for 4 Ohio Counties County Year Population

in 1000’s

Murder Forcible

Rape

Aggravated

Assaults

Robberies Larceny Burglaries MV

Theft

Arson

Cuyahoga 2000

2004

1046

1292

80

84

715

659

2688

2704

3484

659

23023

218523

9163

10409

7386

7037

576

533

Franklin 2000

2004

1055

1080

74

99

679

701

2512

2110

3446

701

46972

43863

15939

16989

8048

9585

737

598

Hamilton 2000

2004

783

796

30

82

372

481

1460

1184

1727

481

24239

27564

6742

7856

2761

3844

488

347

Montgomery 2000

2004

447

393

34

39

259

212

946

680

1446

212

15458

12835

5626

5300

4271

3243

299

242

Although not provided a category in the Ohio UCR, juvenile crime

rate statistics from a separate US Department of Justice study in 1996

highlighted a noticeable increase of juvenile offenders in Ohio, compared

to 1994’s reporting of 76,423 juvenile arrests (Marion 17).

112

V. A CLOSER LOOK: RACIAL INEQUALITY, POVERTY, AND

CRIME RATES IN CLEVELAND (CUYAHOGA COUNTY), OHIO

Home to the largest urban citizenship in Ohio, according to the

2000 US Census Report, Cuyahoga County experienced a 1.29% decrease

in population between 1989 and 1999 (CensusScope). Post 2000

population has continued to decline; A 2005 US Census Bureau

Population Estimate calculated that 58,661 persons left Cuyahoga County

within this five year span, leaving the city with a population of 1,335,317

citizens (USCB).

Although the county experiences a yearly population decrease, the

overall poverty level slightly decreased from 13.77% to 13.13% of the

county population living in poverty, as calculated from the 2000 Census

data (CensusScope). The annual household income also showed positive

results, increasing throughout Cuyahoga County between 1989 and 1999

(CensusScope). However, Cleveland still has more people earning less

than $9,999 per year than any of the other four major Ohio cities presented

(CensusScope).

Another topic of importance when discussing the demographics of

Cleveland city includes racial segregation. As previously mentioned,

Ohio is an extremely segregated state, with Cleveland a prime example,

boasting a white/black Dissimilarity Indices of 79.4% in 2000

(CensusScope). According to Exposure Indices which “calculate the

average racial composition of neighborhoods experienced by members of

each racial group,” all Cleveland neighborhoods, with the exception of the

black community, home a white majority (CensusScope). Composed of

69.82% white residents, the Cleveland neighborhood specifically labeled

113

as a “White Neighborhood” reports only 15.4% black residents and 14.8%

of others (Asian, American Indian, Hispanic, etc). Yet, the three other

neighborhoods not labeled as “white” due to higher concentrations of the

Asian, American Indian, or Hispanic ethnicities, still boast a white

majority of 48.6% to 56.8% and a black resident population between

17.2% and 35.1%, providing less than 30% of the living area for the

minority after which the neighborhood is referred (CensusScope).

However, compared to Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton, Cleveland’s

minority neighborhoods are less segregated when it comes to whites

sharing a community with Asians, American Indians, or Hispanics

(CensusScope). For example, the “Asian Neighborhood” of Cincinnati

has a 64.5% white population, 25.2% black population, and an 8.8%

“other population” which includes the Asians along with the other

minorities (“others” does not include blacks); the “Asian Neighborhood”

of Cleveland has a 56.8% white population, 18.0% black population, and a

noticeably higher “other” population of 25.1% (CensusScope). The only

minority neighborhood positively characteristic of its name, the “black

neighborhood” boasts an 11.8%white population, 83.6% black population

majority, and 4.7% of others (CensusScope).

114

VI. A CLOSER LOOK: RACIAL INEQUALITY, POVERTY, AND

CRIME RATES IN CINCINNATI (HAMILTON COUNTY), OHIO

Similar to Cleveland, Cincinnati also suffered a population

decrease from 1990-2000 and then again from 2000 to 2005

(CensusScope; USCB). Over the ten-year period of time the US Census

Report noted a 2.42% decline in population and the 2005 US Census

Bureau Population Estimate approximates Cincinnati’s population is

806,652 persons as opposed to the 845,303 citizens it housed at the time

of the 2000 Census publication (USCB).

Although the population trend follows the same pattern of

decreasing citizens for Cleveland and Cincinnati, Cincinnati’s DI is

considerably less than Cleveland’s at 68.7% (CensusScope). However, an

examination of the segregation factors of each neighborhood according to

the Exposure Indices chart would almost seem to indicate otherwise

(CensusScope). According to the layout of Cincinnati neighborhoods,

even the areas labeled specifically as a minority neighborhood boast less

than 10% of that highlighted minority. For example, in the Hispanic

neighborhood the “other” population category, made up of Asians,

African Americans, and Hispanics represents only 6.4% of the community

(CensusScope). This proves significant because although named the

“Hispanic Neighborhood,” less than 6.4% of the neighborhood residents

are Hispanic.

In regards to Cincinnati’s “Black Neighborhood,” more whites

may reside there than in Cleveland’s, but blacks still represent majority

115

citizenship in their neighborhood with a 69.3% occupancy rate

(CensusScope).

The similarities between the state of Ohio and Cuyahoga County’s

annual income rates are further comparable to Hamilton County, whose

ten-year study period starting in 1989 also deduced marked decrease in

poverty levels and increased household incomes (CensusScope). By

2000, 2.97% of Cincinnati’s residents received an annual household

income of $200,000 and above, the highest percentage for that category

out of the four major cities (CensusScope).

116

VII. A CLOSER LOOK: RACIAL INEQUALITY, POVERTY, AND

CRIME RATES IN COLUMBUS (FRANKLIN COUNTY), OHIO

Of the four counties (Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, and

Montgomery), Franklin is the only one to report population growth

between 1990-2000 (CensusScope) and again between 2000 and 2005

(USCB). Although the other counties decreased at least a full percent to

almost a full three percent, Franklin increased a drastic 11.9%

(CensusScope). The 2005 data estimated that an additional 21,853

persons moved into the county during the period immediately following

the census report’s initial findings (USCB).

Columbus City further boasts a declined poverty rate with the

majority of its citizens entering the $50,000 to $74,000 annual household

income range; covering 20.88% of the city’s households, this is the

highest percentage for that category of the four cities (CensusScope).

Columbus also stands out as having the lowest Dissimilarity Index

with a white/black 61.0DI in 2000 (CensusScope). However, the Exposure

Index for the “White Neighborhood” is: 77.9% whites, 13.6% blacks,

8.5% other; the “Black Neighborhood” EI breaks down to: 37.4% whites,

54.5% blacks, 8.1% other (CensusScope). The most evenly distributed,

non-segregated, neighborhood in Columbus is the “Hispanic

Neighborhood” with a 63.5% white population, 24.5% black population,

and 12% other minority population.

117

VIII. A CLOSER LOOK: RACIAL INEQUALITY,

POVERTY, AND CRIME RATES IN DAYTON

(MONTGOMERY COUNTY), OHIO

A once bustling city, the past fifteen-year population decline has

left Montgomery country with only 547,435 inhabitants (USCB).

According to the 2000 Census Report, the county reported a considerable

2.57% decrease in population (CensusScope) before again dropping from

that 559,062 total persons count during the time between the publication

of the Census Report and the most recent 2005 Estimate (USCB).

The data presenting the annual household income totals shows a

positive decrease for Dayton city, however. Similar to the other cities,

Dayton also experienced a drop in poverty rates as the 2000 Census

reported that only 9.86% of Dayton households remained with a salary of

Less than $9,999 per year rather than the 15.17% rate from the 1989

statistics (CensusScope). The majority of Dayton’s citizens earn between

$35,000 and $49,999 a year; higher than any of the other three cities for

the same bracket , 17.2% of Dayton’s population falls into that income

range (CensusScope).

In terms of the city’s Dissimilarity Index, Dayton ranks second to

Cleveland with a DI of 78.3 (CensusScope). Dayton does, however, have

the highest segregation Exposure Index among white neighborhoods in all

the cities: The neighborhood population composition equals 81.3% whites,

13.7% blacks, and 5% others (CensusScope). The lowest amount of

segregation in a Dayton community can be found in the “American Indian

118

Neighborhood” where 59.5% of the citizens are white, 35.2% are black,

and 5.3% are either Asian, American Indian, or Hispanic (CensusScope).

The photography portfolio: “Visual Documentation of the

Degradation of Dayton, OH: Depicting Causal Factors of Crime per

Kelling & Wilson’s (1982) Broken Windows Theory” can be viewed on

the corresponding CD.

119

IX. AN OVERVIEW: REVISITED

It should be noted that the data of these four cities point to frequent

variance and high instability in areas of population, household income,

and racial equality. These highly comparable cities further boast

impressive crime rates. Taking into consideration these conditions as well

as other correlating causal factors, including physical deterioration, can

provide reason for the presence of excessive criminal behavior. Providing

a foundation in the understanding of the association between urban

degradation and high crime rates in Ohio cities can help provide direction

for solutions to relieve these problems around the nation.

120

X. THE INVESTIGATION: INFLUENTIAL FACTORS

PROMOTING URBAN DEGRADATION

Per the article by Charles R. Tittle entitled “Theoretical

Developments in Criminology: Theories to Explain Variations in Rates of

Crime” as published by the National Institute of Justice in Criminal

Justice 2000, Volume 1, a general consensus among noted scholars implies

“cities and deteriorated, unstable communities not only experience

elevated levels of crime because of weak ability to regulate behavior, but

they also contain unconventional role models (mainly because weak

organization prevents efforts to keep them out) that stimulate criminal

motivation” (70). Several theories reasonably linking the decline of urban

society and rises in crime rates include: Anomie Formulation,

Deprivation-of-law Theory, Routine Activities Theory, Shaming Theory,

Subcultural Theory, and General Strain Theory (71-80).

Originally inspired by the studies of Durkheim, Merton (1938;

1957) developed the Anomie formulation, a theory, as interpreted by

Agnew in 1999, implying “that rates of crime among [cities within anomic

societies] will be greatest where income or socioeconomic inequality is

greatest” (76). A malintegrated or unbalanced location constitutes an

anomic society, according to Merton (75). Based on the previously

presented social inequality, racial segregation, and crime rate research,

Cleveland city, Columbus city, and the downtowns of Cincinnati and

Dayton are prime examples of Merton’s “anomic society.”

In both 1976 and 1983 Black proposed that the “availability of law

for resolving disputes” factored into the level of crime for a given area,

121

suggesting that “without law, inevitable human conflict will produce high

rates of crime as individuals and groups seek to redress their own wrong”

in his Deprivation-of-Law Theory (80). Furthermore, the Routine

Activities approach, first theorized by Cohen and Felson in 1979, followed

up with the help of Land in 1980 and reconsidered by Felson in 1998,

essentially establishes the notion “crime occurs when motivated offenders,

suitable targets, and the absence of guardianship coverage” (73) while the

Shaming Theory, presented by Braithwaite in 1989, further commented on

the presence of governmental influence, stating “even though socially

integrated societies will generally have lower rates of crime than those

that are less cohesive,” the way in which these integrated societies deal

with offenders could also provide reason for variance in levels of crime

(77).

Both of these theories seem to foster from ideas originally

presented by Fischer’s 1975 Subcultural Theory. Contending “that large,

concentrated heterogeneous populations enable those with unconventional

interests to find and interact with one another,” Fischer’s theory states that

such subcultures not only “stimulate motivations for law-breaking

activities,” but if several are present in one given area, a sense of tolerance

is created, thus “leading to a weakened social control” and obviously

higher crime rates” (71).

Developing from the “anomie theory, with integration of theories

of social disorganization and routine activities, among others,” Agnew’s

1999 General Strain Theory considers the various factors correlating

crime rates and urban life and simply concludes, “some social units have

more crime than others [due to] their organization and social, economic,

122

122

and cultural characteristics [that] lead to the presence of large numbers of

strained individuals who are motivated toward crime” (77).

However, the Broken Windows Theory, in conjunction with

studies pertaining to the affect of citizens’ perceived risk of victimization,

is perhaps the more frequently discussed explanation for city degradation

(Skogan; Ethridge; Taub, Taylor, & Dunham), as this 1982 theory by

Wilson and Kelling prompted “the popularity of disorder as a key

predictor in the fear of crime” and explained the hypothetical “impact of

incivilities, particularly as the main contributor to neighborhood

deterioration” (Ethridge 12). Essentially, Wilson and Kelling assess that

uncontrolled social and physical incivilities will ultimately cause an area

to slip into a critical state of decline where crime rates, fear of crime, and

disorder combine to weaken social control and stimulate physical and

psychological deterioration (Ethridge 6 [Skogan 1986:203], 12 [Lavrakas,

1982; Greenberg 1985; Taylor and Hale, 1986; Donnelly, 1988; Dowds

and Ahredt, 1995/1996; Painter, 1996; Taylor and Harrell, 1996; Borooah

and Carach, 1997; Johnston, 2001]; Skogan 51). Indicated by the

“weakening of informal social control mechanisms, a decline in the

organizational and political capacity of the neighborhood, and

deterioration of local business conditions,” as well as a general withdrawal

of citizen participation in community programs, psychological

deterioration is less visible than the physical deterioration generally

associated by gang graffiti, loitering teens, vacant lots, poor maintenance

of homes, boarded-up buildings, vandalism of private and public property,

abandoned or stripped cars, prostitution, begging, public drinking, drug

use, and open gambling (Skogan 48-49, 51).

123

Although psychological deterioration greatly impacts the cycle of

decline, several criminologists arrived at the conclusion that the signs of

disorder, defined as “conditions and events widely interpreted as signaling

a breakdown in the realization of conventional norms and public

behaviour,” not only causes concern and fear, but also “may actually

increase the level of serious crime in a neighborhood,” (48) while further

indicating that this visual perception directly influences a person’s fear of

victimization in a particular area and their assumption on the amount of

crime in that area (Ethridge 11; Skogan 48 [Biderman et al., 1967], 49;

Taub, Taylor, & Dunham 53). Detrimental to urban life, the connection

between the perception of disorder and the perceived risk of victimization

stimulates and accelerates neighborhood decline (Ethridge 6; Skogan

1986:203), causing an increase in gun sales (Ethridge 2), lower investment

satisfaction for private and public residences and businesses (Taub,

Taylor, & Dunham 55), and a lack of respectable persons on the streets,

leading to a decline in the “moral tutelage, reciprocal obligations, and

public humiliations” needed to maintain order in public areas (Skogan 50;

Wilson and Kelling 1982). The apparent tolerance “of social disorder

serves as an invitation to outside troublemakers (Wilson and Kelling

1982)” (50) while misbehavior is continually encouraged as “fear among

people in a neighborhood affects social control and generates perceptions

of the lack of community organization” (Tittle 72 [Skogan 1990; Wilson

and Kelling 1982; Greenberg 1986; Taylor & Covington 2003]). As

findings further reveal few “high-disorder low-crime neighbourhoods”

exist, Skogan “suggests the effect of one condition upon the other is either

124

quite powerful or due to their strong joint association with some other

factor (Skogan 1983)” (50).

A closer study of the physical deterioration problem of dilapidated

buildings, along with some of the psychological deterioration factors of

mobility, racial presence, and economic influence, can provide a better

sense on how disorder affects the cycle of decline. In regard to building

appearance, Taub, Taylor, & Dunham, in their research “Crime, Fear of

Crime, and the Deterioration of Urban Neighborhoods,” provide in-depth

research on how the presence of boarded-up and abandoned houses have

negative consequences on people’s perception of personal safety (58)

while Skogan hints, in this particular case, psychological economic

deterioration essentially promotes the physical disorder because “owners

have few incentives to maintain [unprofitable residential buildings]

adequately or even to pay the real estate and utility bills,” leaving the

buildings boarded up and unattended (52). The reason for this

abandonment of buildings most directly relates back to residents’

perceived risks of victimization and the consequential decline of

investment worth in those feared areas. Since the “measure of crime and

disorder problems are strongly related to residential dissatisfaction and the

desire to move (Karl and Harburg 1972; Droettbom et. al. 1971)” (51),

when such business as “rowdy taverns, sex-oriented paraphernalia shops,

public drinking, [and] prostitution [...] attract street robbers to prey upon

the trade” (50), families move away and big business follows. “Changing

residence offers the hope of a better situation immediately [as] fixing a

bad neighborhood seems hopeless” (Monkkonen 74) and because an

“individual’s market evaluations and investment plans are affected by

125

dissatisfaction with safety, perceived risk of victimisation in the area, and

actual victimisation (53 [Taub, Taylor, & Dunham 1984]), “mounting

levels of crime and disorder may further reduce real estate values (Frisbie

et al. 1977),” making the choice to leave the city ideal (Skogan 53).

Unlike the lower classes, “middle class community resources [...]

bolster the middle class community’s ability to maintain quality in the

face of change” (Taub, Taylor, Dunham 32), yet upon removal of access

to “better quality housing stock [and] governmental and other institutional

resources” (Taub, Taylor, & Dunham 32) when unattached and transient

individuals replace the middle class, (Skogan 51; Frey 1980; Duncan and

Newman 1976), severe progression can be noted in crime rates as the

increased disorder influences thieves’ confidence that “chances of being

identified are low, [and] no one will intervene” (Skogan 50).

Besides the basic socioeconomic equality of the area in regards to

affecting a person’s choice to relocate for residential or commercial

endeavors, racial stability and drug availability are other key components

factored into the perceived investment opportunity of a particular area.

According to Taub, Taylor, and Dunham’s 1982 study, they concluded

that in non-black neighborhoods, “victimization and reactions to crime do

not feed the fears of neighborhood change that provide part of the

justification for thinking that the neighborhood is not a good investment”

(54), which basically indicates that “the perception of racial change (and

social class change in black neighborhoods) plays an important role in

augmenting the consequences of fear of crime” (55). However, though

racial instability may alter perceived area investment worth, their study

does indicate that if the cycle of decline elevates to the point of

126

neighborhood change, then it is class structure, not race, which is

responsible, due to blacks having a history of strong residential stability

(32).

Within recent years drug use has also be cited as a casual factor of

crime. A 1995 study by the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services has

identified drug use as a major influential factor on the UCR reports

indicating, “The number of Ohio residents who abuse illicit drugs and

controlled substances has increased recently, and has been linked to an

increase in criminal behavior” (16). In her research entitled Crime and

Criminal Justice in Ohio: Programs and Agencies, Marion highlights

several other notable scholars who have come to the same conclusion. In

1992, Harrison & Gfroerer state there is a “‘strong correlation between

drug use and criminal involvement,’” as Dawkins’ 1997 research

specifically identifies alcohol as “strongly and consistently associated with

criminal behavior” (16). Between 1990 and 1997 the following

researchers also decisively proclaim a link between drug and alcohol use

and crime rates: Harrison, Inciardi & Pottieger, Kouri et al, Yu &

Williford, and Wieczorek et al (16).

Concluding their observations on the effect of public perception on

neighborhood disorder, Taub, Taylor, and Dunham find “The perception

of stability is crucial for positive attitudes toward investment, and when

things are perceived to be going well, crime seems to be almost irrelevant.

When things are perceived to be going badly, crime is taken as one more

piece of evidence that this is the case” (56), statements that could even

surmise the studies completed by the other criminologists on the topic of

127

urban degradation in relation to the increase of both perceived and actual

crime rates.

128

XI. FURTHER INVESTIGATION:

POSSIBILITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

OF DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Consistently proven as having “a statistically significant impact on

the perceived risk of victimization,” the amount of disorder in any given

city must be reduced for success in reviving the area through decreasing

crime and delinquency rates (Ethridge 11-32). Regardless of the area’s

actual crime rates, if certain physical incivilities are present the perception

of high risks of victimization ultimately affects the amount of public

interest in the city. Lack of interest in turn becomes evident as the amount

of businesses and individuals moving to the area decreases, causing

further increase of economic deficiency and negative perceptions of the

city. Taking into consideration the Broken Windows Theory plus the key

component of the Deprivation of Law theory emphasizing “the greater the

development the law, the lower the rates of crime” (Tittle 80), excellent

solutions to the problem of perceived community disorder could be

conceived. Factors that would need to be addressed include litter,

speeding, graffiti, abandoned buildings, homelessness, public

transportation, and even policing tactics.

Combating Incivilities

In her study “Perceived Risk of Victimization: The Impact of

Neighborhood Incivilities,” Ethridge supports efforts to increase the

number of speed bumps and street lamps on a road and posting lower

speed limits as effective strategies to make people feel safer, or possibly

129

even alleviate most perceived-risks of victimization in the neighborhood

(35). According to the Columbus Satisfaction Survey, 27.7% of

Columbus residents felt unsafe in their neighborhood after dark, while

52.7% felt unsafe downtown at night, indicating that just the installation

of more street lights could prove beneficial in decreasing fear (22).

Taub, Taylor, and Dunham’s study “Crime, Fear of Crime, and the

Deterioration of Urban Neighborhoods,” concentrate heavily on the need

to revamp abandoned buildings and eliminate open spaces in perceived-

high risk communities. As “open spaces on the block reduce investment

satisfaction for those who perceive the neighborhood as unstable,”

especially in those neighborhoods where there is a perception of racial

instability, it is essential to either turn these empty blocks into

neighborhood parks or begin developing them as new business or

residential locations (Taub, Taylor, Dunham 55). However, it should be

noted that “well-meaning efforts to develop small parks in such

neighborhoods as a first step toward development are consequently, likely

to backfire,” unless the residents are able to identify that these areas are

well supervised by security measures (58). Considering the strong

relationship between area investment satisfaction and the presence of

boarded-up buildings while indicating the need to diminish the amount of

empty spaces in a city, Taub, Taylor, and Dunham advise “getting

[abandoned] buildings back into the user stream rather than tearing them

down” or letting them stand vacant will help increase property value,

attract new employers to the area, and prevent businesses from moving

away, all positive influences in decreasing neighborhood fears of crime

(55-58).

130

Greatly affected by “dissatisfaction with safety, perceived risk of

victimisation in the area, and actual victimisation,” market evaluation and

investment plans will show even greater positive increases if such factors

as solicitation, curfews, job training, and an array of other deviant

activities are addressed in addition to the reuse of vacant complexes (53).

Prevalent due to ineffective police control, or simply because the acts are

not necessarily illegal, communities could try limiting the exposure of

such instances of public solicitation for prostitution, begging, public

intoxication, verbal harassment, open gambling and drug use, and the

mingling of teenagers on street corners (Skogan 48) by implementing

and/or enforcing curfews, posting “no solicitation” signs, and opening

homeless shelters. A slight problem may arise, however, in addressing the

problem of youth gangs and the prevention of loitering in specific places.

Esbensen, in his article “Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement” notes

that some Chicago jurisdictions have been confronted with arguments

highlighting possible violations to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and/or 14th

amendment(s) due to their implementation of “civil injunctions and

statues that restrict or prohibit gang members from gathering in particular

places or from engaging in specific acts or wearing certain paraphernalia”

(382). Noting other areas of concern, even increasing and/or improving

public transportation, providing training and jobs for the poor, or

promoting racial integration to eliminate prejudice would drastically help

alleviate signs of neighborhood disorder (Taub, Taylor, Dunham 53-58).

In order to combat the perceived risk of victimization due to both

physical and psychological factors, it is imperative to reflect on the effect

of racial differences in declining neighborhoods. According to their

131

findings, Taub, Taylor, and Dunham “suggest that policing and

community crime prevention activities may be most successful at arresting

deterioration in low crime areas into which the movement of minorities is

likely to occur,” particularly until residents become well integrated and no

longer harbor harmful prejudicial feelings (58). Increasing inter-racial

sporting activities for youths and community organizations for adults are

just a few other tactics the local government agencies should promote in

an attempt to increase pro-social situations and decrease anxieties about

fellow neighbors (58). Using “Salt and Pepper” police units during the

patrols that specifically enter these communities further helps provide a

sense of security and solidarity between the races to minimize any racially

related perceived risks of victimization (58).

Police Force Reorganization

Although more research needs to be completed to determine the

overall effectiveness of community policing, restructuring organization

and reprioritizing needs of police department precincts in perceived-high

risk and high-crime/high-disorder areas to effectively address “real social

disorder and social inequalities underlying crime incidents,” may prove

beneficial in further combating deviant behavior and disorder (Zhao,

Lovrich, Robinson 96).

The practice of Intense Community Supervision (ICS) falls under

this community policing initiative as a way to promote interactions

between residents and foster positive relations. Although originally

implemented to reduce recidivism rates among probationers, parolees, and

boot camp releasees, the positive effects resulting from research after ICS

132

implementation may prove affective if applied in a similar manner to

declining cities. Researchers have not yet found a consistent relationship

between increased supervision and reduced recidivism, however their

studies have “demonstrated with some consistency that offenders in

intensive supervision programs are more likely to enter counseling and

treatment programs to secure employment” (Mackenzie, Brame 317-318).

Program involvement by releasees further shows positive “increased

involvement in prosocial activities such as accepting responsibility for

actions, achieving financial and residential stability, making satisfactory

progress in treatment and education programs, and job stability,” as

evident by results from a 1992 study done by Mackenzie, Shaw and

Souryal and the 1994 follow-up by Mackenzie and Souryal on the effect

of the intensity of supervision (Mackenzie, Brame 317-318). Whereas it

may be difficult to implement the exact ICS program into high-risk cities,

implementing policing tactics that mimic the general theory behind ICS

would be an ideal solution, as perhaps increased supervision of problem

neighborhoods, or at least the perception of greater visibility of police

units in these urban areas, would have a similar affect on the residents as

the actual identified offenders, ultimately causing lower delinquency rates.

Implementing neighborhood watch programs, security systems,

surveillance cameras, and foot or car patrol units would not only provide

residents with a higher perception of safety, but non-residents and

building contractors would view the presence of such safety measures

favorably. With its positive ability to make offenders accept

responsibility for their actions, the ICS correlates with the Shaming

Theory’s main point of the necessesity to promote “efforts to make

133

offenders take responsibility to feel genuine regret for the harm caused by

their delicts” in order to fully integrate societies and generate lower crime

rates (Tittle 77 [Braithwaite 1989]).

Commenting on the effectiveness of neighborhood watch

programs, Taub, Taylor, and Dunham insist that consistent neighborhood

maintenance and development must be the primary goal of any

community crime prevention program to succeed (58). This statement

correlates back to the primary emphasis on the need to decrease the

perception of physical disorder in order for any positive changes to occur

in an otherwise declining community.

The “Communities and Crime Reduction” research by Skogan

further indicates that community policing can be an effective tool for

rejuvenating a declining city as recent experiments “hint that

decentralization [of police units], directed foot patrol, and other efforts to

increase co-operation between the police and neighbourhood residents

may have an impact upon both disorder and fear of crime” (58).

According to Eskridge’s overview of Sherman’s research entitled “Police

Crackdowns,” decentralization can effectively occur through the use of

crackdown targets, which may help police “reduce crime through an

accumulation of residual deterrence at several locations” (Eskridge 87).

Aimed at penetrating the root problems of crime and disorder, crackdowns

require “sharp [increases] in law enforcement recourses applied to the

previously under-enforced laws, with a clear goal of deterring the

misconduct” (Sherman 87). Effective in combating drug use, speeding,

drinking and driving, factors that lead to urban decay and the fear of

victimization, constantly changing targets throughout a problem area has

134

shown more positive results in reducing crime “through accumulation of

residual deterrence than through initial deterrence at a single location”

(Sherman 87). Previously implemented throughout the United States in

New York City, Washington D.C., Nashville, Tennessee, and Lynn,

Massachusetts, among others, community policing crackdown initiatives

show that such tactics decrease disorder and drug and increase community

supervision and perceived-visibility of police while avoiding the waste of

scarce department resources (Sherman 87-88).

However, an evaluation of a special disorder control program

implemented in Newark, New Jersey, specifically designed in accordance

to Wilson and Kelling’s recommendations in their 1982 Broken Windows

Theory, showed that this “Reducing the ‘Signs of Crime’ Effort” had,

unfortunately, “no discernible positive effects” (Skogan 57). Consisting

of tactics involving special task forces to remove groups of young males

from the streets, this program increased foot patrol in residences,

promoted efforts to clean up litter, added more drinking and driving and

traffic speeding checkpoints, and managed control over other minor

delinquency problems (Skogan 57). A later dual attempt by Newark and

Houston, Texas retested Wilson and Kelling’s original argument by only

increasing foot patrol in the community; the concluding evaluation

indicated that the direct foot patrols appeared “to have reduced levels of

perceived disorder and increased satisfaction with the neighbourhood”

(57). This crackdown agenda concentrated on first sending officers

“‘door-to-door’ interviewing residents to gather information on

neighbourhood problems of all kinds” (57). Utilizing this information,

“the teams in both cities [then] acted to solve the problems they identified,

135

either on their own or by mobilizing other city agencies,” doing so in such

a way as to make their efforts “widely known in the target areas” (57).

Correlating the effectiveness of this Houston and Newark program with

the initiatives in other states, while taking into consideration the negative

outcome of the original Newark’s original effort, it should be noted that

police efforts are more likely to prove effective when programs aim

specifically at one offense (such as drug use) in a given area, or only one

method for identifying and combating offenses (such as the direct foot

patrol followed by the mobilization of units to target specific problems) is

employed. This promotes decentralization of police units from their

normal routines, but prevents the increasing ineffectiveness of police

efforts that normally occurs when units are spread out around the city.

136

XII. CONCLUSION

Originally arguing that “social disorder provides a promising

climate in which criminal incidents can flourish” (Zhao, Lovrich,

Robinson 96), Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Window’s theory has

consistently been supported by various new research results finding “there

is [indeed] a strong statistical relationship between the amount of

neighborhood disorder, as resident perceived and researcher recorded

physical and social neighborhood incivilities” (Ethridge 11-12).

Correlating the information it can be assumed that if communal disorder

decreases, so will crime, or vise-versa. To positively enforce this

relationship, Wilson and Kelling argue “local police agencies should

develop new strategies to resolve problems underlying crime rather than

just responding to the actual incident of crime (Goldstein, 1990)” (Zhao,

Lovrich, Robinson 96). The numerous crackdown initiatives in major

urban areas across the United States, as well as the direct foot patrol

programs in Houston and Newark, indicate that urban deterioration can be

combated successfully by following Wilson and Kelling’s argument

assessing the criticality for “the police [to] devise mechanisms for

identifying neighbourhood problems and understanding the sometimes

varying standards of public conduct which communities wish maintained”

(Skogan 57). Further claiming “order maintenance should supplant crime

control as the top priority of police work (Goldstein 1990)” (Zhao

Lovrich, Robinson 96), involving “some variation of a community clean

up or community police patrolling program” would be helpful in both

reducing the fear of crime and increasing crime prevention, if the tactics

were implemented over long periods of time (Ethridge 4). Unless such

137

shorter-term programs as crackdowns are not continually implemented in

a problem neighborhood, or become the only means for crime prevention,

these programs ultimately “fail to alleviate crime or fears long-term and

often have the subsequent adverse effect of increasing both issues (of

perceived risk and actual victimization) in the same and even neighboring

communities (Chevigny 2003)” (4).

Through continual efforts to target such negative societal

influences of physical incivilities as litter, abandoned buildings,

prostitution, graffiti, public intoxication, gangs, and racial segregation in

cities, police departments and community members can begin alleviating

the high perception-risk of victimization and/or high crime rates to

improve and revitalize such deteriorating urban areas as Cleveland,

Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton, Ohio.

138

XIII. FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Concluding their research, Taylor, Taub, and Dunham indicate that

further investigations in this field of study need to concentrate on three

crucial dimensions of neighborhood characteristics: Whether crime rates

are high or low, Whether the neighborhoods are racially stable or

changing, and Whether real estate values are appreciating rapidly or

slowly (58). Although this ex-post facto study provides crime rates, racial

demographics, and economic stability statistics for Cleveland, Columbus,

Cincinnati, and Dayton, a better measurement of the underlying

correlation to increased crime rates in relation to Kelling and Wilson’s

theory would be to physically conduct a case and field experiment in these

cities. Only with current, first hand knowledge of the immediate factors

plaguing these cities can “comprehensive problem-solving strategies that

involve criminal justice agencies, schools, and public health, emergency

medicine, and social service agencies” effectively implement proactive

programs to begin eliminating perceived-risks of victimization (Roth 450-

451), and eventually criminal activity.

Due to the significant amount of resources and funding required to

reverse the pattern of urban degradation in Ohio, another aspect of future

research should be aimed at “developing strategies to help gather these

resources” (Taub, Taylor, Dunham 58). Corresponding data on crime, the

economy, and racial inequality for each city, in combination with the

proper resources, reprioritization of special police task forces, and the

cooperation of area residents during perceived-risk and actual-risk

victimization surveys can aide in identifying ways to implement

139

community programs to effectively and positively revamp problem

communities.

140

141

142

Bibliography

“Cleveland City: Segregation:: Neighborhood Exposure By Race.”

Social Science Data Analysis Network, University of Michigan:

CensusScope. <www.CensusScope.org>. September, 2006.

“Cincinnati City: Segregation: Neighborhood Exposure By Race.”



“Columbus City: Segregation: Neighborhood Exposure By Race.”



“Cuyahoga County: Household Income.”



“Cuyahoga County: Poverty By Age.”



“Dayton City: Segregation: Neighborhood Exposure By Race.”



Ethridge, Brandy La Shawn. Perceived Risk of Victimization:

The Impact of Neighborhood Incivilities. Columbus: OSU, 2003.

Eskridge, Chris W. Criminal Justice: Concepts and Issues. ed. 4.

“Community Policing: Is It Changing the Basic Functions of

Policing? Findings from a Longitudinal study of 200+ Municipal

Police Agencies.” By Jihong Zhao, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and T.

Hank Robinson. LA: Roxbury, 2004. 93 – 105.

143

.Eskridge, Chris W. Criminal Justice: Concepts and Issues. ed. 4.

“Black and White Differences in the Perception of Justice.”

By Deane C. Wiley. LA: Roxbury, 2004. 39 - 43.


“Police Crackdowns.” By Lawrence Sherman.

LA: Roxbury, 2004. 87 – 92.


“Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement.”

By Finn Aage Esbensen. LA: Roxbury, 2004. 371 – 385.


“Understanding and Preventing Violence.” By Jeffrey Roth.

LA: Roxbury, 2004. 441 – 451.

FedStats. “Crimes reported in Ohio: 2000 to 2004.” 24 April 2006.

<http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/crime/state/39000.html>.

September 2006.

“Franklin County: Household Income.”



“Franklin County: Poverty By Age.”



-“Hamilton County: Poverty By Age.”



“Hamilton County: Poverty By Age.”


144


Hope, Tim and Margaret Shaw. Communities and Crime Reduction.

“Disorder, crime, and community decline.” By Wesley G. Skogan.

London: Her Majesty’s, 1988. 48-61.

Kalish, Carol B. et al. NCJISS. Crimes and Victims:

Report on the Dayton-San Jose Survey of Victimization.

NCJISS: Washington D.C., 1974.

Marion, Nancy E. Crime and Criminal Justice in Ohio:

Programs and Agencies. Midwest Press: Akon, 1998.

“Montgomery County: Household Income.”



“Montgomery County: Poverty By Age.”



Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. Crime in the U.S. 2004.

OCJS: Columbus, 2004. “Ohio: Household Income.”



-“Ohio: Population Growth Ranking.”



..Ohio: Povert By Age.”



Taub, Taylor, and Dunham. Crime, Fear of Crime, and the Deterioration

145

of Urban Neighborhoods: Executive Summary. NIJ: 1982.

U.S. Census Bureau. 17 April 2006.

<http://factfinder.census.gov>. September, 2006.

U.S. Dept. of Justice. The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change.

Criminal Justice 2000. Vol. 1.

“Theoretical Developments in Criminology.” By Charles R. Tittle.

WA D.C: NIJ 2000. 51 – 101.

“Year 2000 Maps.” Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. 2005.

<http://www.crimemapping.ohio.gov>. September, 2006.

“Year 2004 Maps.” Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. 2005.

<http://www.crimemapping.ohio.gov>. September, 2006.

-

146

Date post:	03-Aug-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hollie-rawl
View:	14 times
Download:	0 times

CJS_SeniorSythesis_HRawl

Documents