Poor housing and estate design causes crime. Discuss

Firstly, this essay will provide a brief introduction into urban ecology and urbanisation in the USA. The findings of Shaw and McKay’s study on the zone of transition and social disorganisation will then be explored as well as the findings of other ecologists who challenged their approach. This essay will then briefly explore the role and effect the media has played in areas associated with criminality. Finally, this essay will look at the work of Newman and Coleman and their attempts to reduce crime solely by making environmental changes.

Robert Park, a student at the Chicago School in the late 1800s and later its head borrowed the idea of ecology from biology: the idea that in the natural world plants, animals and other lifeforms exist in a pattern with eachother. Some crops grow better when nearer to others, some insects develop in habitats in which others die. The land is seen as a giant set on connections and inter-relationships – an ecological system. (Barter et al, 2000).

An enduring theme in sociological wroting about crime has been the corrupting effect of city life. This view developed particularly strongly during the 19th century when cities were developing rapidly. Environmental criminology examines two main aspects – spacial distribution of offenders and spacial distribution of offences and attempts to discover the relationship between crime and urban locality. It is the study of the interactive relationship between people and their built environment.

The original urban studies were carried out in Chicago by sociologists at the University of Chicago between 1914 and the 1940’s. Shaw and McKay (1942) are famous environmental criminologists of the Chicago School, who based their theories around the idea that big cities could be seen as being divided into concentric zones. Around the outside of a city at the periphery is the outer suburbs, then the middle-class residential suburbs, then the working class housing district and finally the inner city - part of the zone of transition. This label was chosen to reflect the rapid flux of people moving in and out of the central area. Each of the zones they identified had different levels of offenders with the transition zone showing the highest rates. They also found that the relative crime rates remained similar over a long period of time although the population in the transition zone was changing constantly. This showed that zones were linked to crime rates rather than the individuals who lived there. (Moore et al, 2002).

Shaw and McKay argued that that the most important determinant of delinquency and crime rate is poverty and that areas of low economic status generally have high crime rates. They concluded that the major ecological cause of high crime rate areas is the social disorganisation of lower class neighbourhoods. Social disorganisation is the term given where there is a high population turnover preventing the formation of a stable community – the informal mechanisms of a social control that normally hold people back from criminal behaviour are weak or absent.

This is a preview of the whole essay

On the other hand, Morris’s study of Croyden in 1957 challenged the approach of the American ecologists and did not believe that social disorganisation could explain the crime rates in certain areas. He found that the highest rates of crime in Croyden were on particular council housing estates which contained a high proportion of semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers. The council had a policy of segregating the ‘problem’ families – those who didn’t pay their rent or look after their houses – and placing them on the same estates. Morris found little evidence of social disorganisation in these areas and that the council estates often had close-knit communities. (Haralambos & Holborn, 1994). Morris emphasised the importance of council decisions, arguing that the most criminal individuals were ‘dumped’ together by the council. Wilson suggested that councils played a more indirect role in creating criminal areas. He found that housing departments tended to offer ‘problem’ families houses with low rents in order to minimise any losses to the council. Gradually ‘house proud’ and ‘respectable’ tenants started to avoid these areas and as a result the estates began to develop poor reputations which became hard to let. The council had little alternative but to allocate them to families who were in no position to pick and choose. (Haralambos & Holborn, 1994).

In a study of Sheffield in 1976 Baldwin and Bottoms found owner-occupied areas had low crime rates, while council and privately rented areas had similar and high rates of crime. They also found that on council estates the degree of social disorganisation had no significant effect on crime rates. They found no evidence in any of the areas for the theory of social disorganisation as proposed by Shaw and McKay: they found no correlation between a high rate of population turnover and crime. (Haralambos & Holborn, 1994).

Another aspect in the urban criminology of crime is the availability of leisure facilities. Downes claimed that much delinquency could be seen as a form of recreation. Delinquent youths who live in areas that provide few opportunities for the legitimate entertainment deviated as a result of the lack of leisure facilities. (Haralambos & Holborn, 1994).

Media influence can also have a significant impact on areas associated with criminality. The mass media often ensure that the reputations of ‘problem areas’ are highlighted and regularly reinforced. Media attention relating to such areas arguably has detrimental consequences for the residents and for communities more generally. A delinquent area in Liverpool known as ‘Luke Street’ frequently featured in the local newspaper which carried stories with headlines such as ‘Bored Vandals Run Riot in Town’. Owen Gill who attempted to explain the development of this problem area claimed the reputation had important consequences which created some of the deviance. A stereotype of the area as one where residents were dishonest and law and order had broken down developed. This negative stereotype affected its inhabitants blocking opportunities as a Luke Street address did nothing to enhance employment prospects. Some of the residents even altered their self image according to the label given to them from the reputation of the area – they believed they came from the ‘hardest’ street in Liverpool and tried to live up to this reputation. (Haralambos & Holborn, 1994).

Later Shaw and McKay altered the meaning of social disorganisation and the amended approach came to be known as cultural transmission theory. They argued that amongst some groups in the most socially disorganised and poorest zones of the city, crime became culturally acceptable and was passed on through generations as part of the normal socialisation pattern. Successful criminals act as role models for the next generation by demonstrating the criminal behaviour as normal and that a criminal career was possible. (Moore et al, 2002). In response, Sutherland suggested much of deviance can be explained by ‘differential association’ – contact with those who were already criminally active. Young people would learn the ways of crime by involving themselves in the activities of older and established criminals. (Kirby et al, 2000).

The theories of Shaw and McKay can be applied to the study of the ACORN area vulnerability. The results showed that the highest crime rates were in group H – mixed inner metropolitan areas; group G – council estates and group I – high status non-family areas. The main conclusions from the BCS (British Crime Survey) showed that households in urban and poorer areas were most vulnerable to crime and that the area where the household is situated is the strongest indicator of the risk of victimisation. The BCS also concluded that high offender rate areas – where the criminal lives and high offence rate areas – where the crime takes place were similar. Evidence indicates that most offenders are more criminally active in or around their own neighbourhood. However, it should be recognised that there could be different reasons for this and proximity may not be the most significant. For example, houses in poverty may be targeted because of less security and high offence rate areas may evolve due to target proximity.

The built environment is a reflection of a society’s culture. Human beings can manipulate the natural environment to suit their culturally specific needs. Ecological criminologists claim that the built environment can determine the way people behave and their theories have led to attempts being made to reduce crime solely by making environmental changes. Newman (1973) suggested the notion of a defensible space – an area that is clearly defined. It is secure because it appears to belong to someone. This can be achieved by reducing the size of housing projects and only using low-rise structures. Visual surveillance must be achievable from dwellings and by grouping them closely together this can reinforce the associations of mutual benefit. It could be argued that this latter point would be at least likely to lead to neighbouring disputes, such as loud music or barking pets as it would to reduced crime rates.

Alice Coleman (1985) argued that the design of council housing estates is likely to induce anti-social and criminal behaviour due to three main features. The first being the production of anonymity. There is a lack of community and relationships lack depth – they are superficial and impersonal producing a situation of anomie. Secondly, like Newman, Coleman suggested the lack of easy surveillance induced crime and easy escape routes was the last feature. Coleman proposed recommendations to reduce criminal behaviour such as using space more carefully – enclosed gardens rather than open space; councils shouldn’t build flats – criminal acts increase with number of dwellings; overhead walkways shouldn’t be constructed – creates deviance, and finally existing estates should be altered to comply with what she believed. Coleman’s recommendations have been accepted by a number of councils and Coleman was able to claim some success, however in other cases crime reductions have not been noted.

A number of criticisms can be raised. Firstly, great emphasise is placed on social disorganisation but it could be argued that some criminal activities are very organised. The zone of transition does not explain white collar crime, which by definition would not take place in working class areas. Finally, ecological theories are mono-causal ignoring all other social factors. It sees deviant behaviour as produced by forces beyond an individuals control and ignores alternatives which are always available.

In conclusion, evidence presented in this essay indicates that poor housing and estate design can be linked to crime. The BCS concluded that high offender rates and high offence rates were similar and that households in poorer areas were most vulnerable to crime. Newman and Coleman suggested recommendations which they believed would reduce criminal behaviour such as the use of low-rise structures and good visual surveillance. Coleman was able to claim some success but not in all cases. The studies of Shaw and McKay shows that the zone of transition was the most criminally active although their theory of social disorganisation as the cause has been challenged. Morris found little evidence of social disorganisation in his studies and both he and Wilson suggested that councils played an indirect role in creating criminal areas. Although the built environment may influence criminal behaviour, ecological theories fail to see people playing a more active role in shaping their situation rather than simply being shaped by it.