Can Community Organizing Stop Crime?

Submitted by Ben Waxman on Tue, 07/24/2007 - 10:26am.

Everyone knows that there is a connection between poverty, crime, and violence. It’s no surprise that the vast majority of murders occur in poor neighborhoods and that most of the people doing the killing and being killed are from impoverished backgrounds. Clearly, the long-term solutions to these problems are more educational and economic opportunities for all Philadelphians. In the short term, it’s vital that we pass meaningful gun control and provide more resources to violence prevention efforts like after school programs.

Still, I can’t help feel that there is more that could be done to empower communities to break free from the violence plaguing Philadelphia. I started researching policy alternatives and stumbled across an article from The American Prospect that claimed old fashioned community organizing is the best way to fight crime and poverty. I found the article very interesting and thought I would share it with the YPP community.

Click “Read more” for the rest of “Can Community Organizing Stop Crime?”

The article, written by Eyal Press and published in the May issue, examines the work of several sociologists who argue that the most important factor in preventing crime is the interaction between individuals at the neighborhood level. Here is the key paragraph from the article:

For several decades, the debate over the myriad problems of America's inner cities has been dominated by two schools of thought: on one side, liberals who have emphasized the structural factors (racism, poverty) at their root; on the other, conservatives who've stressed the behavioral pathologies (out-of-wedlock birth, criminality) they believe are to blame. Yet over the past decade, a new theory has emerged to explain why some areas fare better than others even when their residents face similarly daunting odds. It stresses neither jobs nor personal behavior but something at once more elementary and more difficult to capture: the nature of the social interactions taking place among neighbors, and the degree to which they foster a shared capacity to solve problems and enforce collective norms. These qualities appear to have a powerful effect on everything from the level of violence in a community to the conduct of adolescent youth to the likelihood that a neighborhood will remain poor, which is perhaps why a growing number of scholars and policy-makers are interested in teasing out what exactly fosters such traits.

Academics call this phenomenon “Collective Efficacy” and gauge it by measuring how empowered residents in communities feel to make their neighborhood a better place to live. Researchers started by examining areas with the same level of poverty but very different levels of crime. They found that areas with strong community organizations tended to be much safer. Basically, when people known their neighbors and talk regularly about the problems on their block, people feel more empowered to enforce basic standards and even talk with police.

I get frustrated by the debate around crime and poverty because so often the solutions are from the top down instead of the bottom up. I was excited to find this article because it seems to be offering an alternative model that doesn’t force us to wait for the politicians to make something happen. It also provides a real solution that actually empowers people at the local level. The question is, what can we do help build collective efficacy in neighborhoods under siege from drug dealers and other criminals? Any ideas?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

before I sold my soul...

Submitted by DeWitt on Tue, 07/24/2007 - 11:17am.

I worked at a program in the Department of Justice that did community crime prevention and economic development. The program was unique in that it employed the bottom-up approach that you prefer and sought to engage and empower the community to allow it to have the strength to pull itself up.

What is often missed by such community empowerment programs is that a certain level of safety must be first guaranteed. You can do all the community organizing you like but unless the government can't guarantee the basic safety of residents, no program will ever work. Residents will still be unwilling to venture outside their homes and, inevitably, any work that is done to empower residents will ultimately be co-opted by the bad guys.
______________________________
Phillyville

Not to re-hash old arguments

Submitted by D.E. II on Tue, 07/24/2007 - 8:25pm.

but I can't help but think that a stop-and-frisk policy, particularly depending on how it is implemented, is basically antithetical to the ideas you're talking about in this post.

But even if I'm wrong, and there isn't anything necessarily incompatable between stop-and-frisk and collective efficacy, it is clear that the way a stop-and-frisk policy is implemented will greatly affect whether it is effectively seen as a bottom-up or top-down approach.

Man I really want to talk about it

Submitted by jennifer on Tue, 07/24/2007 - 9:04pm.

But I am pretty sure I don't have the mental energy for a topic with even the faintest risk of bringing up stop-and-frisk arguments until after the bar exam and probably some (a lot) of post bar exam drunkenness...

I think what I'll want to talk about, though, is questioning what this approach can tell us about the 'why' of the empowerment they see in some communities. I think that there are longstanding ties between attempts at structural change and community building/organizing--many approaches "from the left" would see the latter as philosophically and practically necessary for the former--but the important question if you are going to try to work from the bottom up is why is this working here and not there.

Actually DeWitt's point, which is both reasonably accurate but--as DE II recognizes and god I am veering into stop-and-frisk territory--dangerously fatalistic, gets at this. The presence of strong community institutions is both evidence and cause of the lower crime rates. Though I'm not trashing or commenting on an article I haven't read, recognition of this was trendy in criminology starting a decent number of years ago. It's at least partially behind the logic in remaking public housing in a mixed-income mold (gets at WJW-style "social isolation") and attempts to put new low-income construction back in the traditional front-stoop mode that Jane Jacobs claimed permitted social interaction and made blocks safer.

But looking at these attempts to engineer physical and social space to help promote community, you do butt up against the problem DeWitt recognizes. Sam and I were talking about how the new public housing with the Jane Jacobs-disapproved big yards and community-discouraging "defensible space" up where Richard Allen Homes was are (now at least) safer and more popular than the townhouses in the Jacobs mold down around 13th below South.

This isn't to blame the buildings or discredit attempts to open up spaces for community building--I think both are essential--but they seem to be only able to do so much and I think it is an important project to find out what are the actual structural predicates for successful community-building.

But I agree that there are probably effective very-bottom-up interventions that are possible. Even just compare Clarke's baby-step but still empowering idea for dealing with witness intimidation with Street/Abraham/Johnson's 'stop stop snitching' chorus:

And right there in the meeting, Clarke had an idea. Thinking aloud, he wondered if the city-owned Philadelphia Water Department could include in monthly bills a stamped, pre-addressed form to allow people to anonymously report crime in their neighborhoods. Clarke also considered whether the Philadelphia Gas Works and Peco Energy would cooperate in such a program.

"Let me work on that," he said.

Yeah I think this is both a frustrating and potentially very constructive conversation, just like its subject.

Jacobs Vindicated & The More Useful Solutions the Better

Submitted by Sam Durso on Tue, 07/31/2007 - 2:50pm.

Two quick comments before I dash off to buy a present for my mom. It's her birthday.

1. RE: my discussion with Jennifer about the little yellow houses that have sprung up on the small streets off the 400 block of Wharton. I think they're ugly, but they're obviously popular, and my friend Donald who lives nearby says they've become a safe, peaceful part of a neighborhood that has some real street crime problems very nearby.

I'd compared that development to the far more aesthetically-pleasing (at least streetside) 13th Street development south of Bainbridge. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, that devo has yet to have a similarly salutary effect on its neighborhood's streetlife.

The issue is simply not an aesthetic one, I think, but one of density, one of Jane Jacobs' favorite topics. Hate'em or love 'em, those little yellow houses are SQUEEZED together because of their highly uncharacteristic urban driveways, right in front of the houses. The sight of those cars parked on those urban blocks adds to the feeling of chaos too, another favorite Jacobs topic. As long as kids are skipping around them as they walk or bike down the street, there is a touch of vibrant urban chaos to those otherwise suburban-looking blocks.

A key is that there isn't a lot of secret space where people can congregate. Such spaces, from this layman's perspective, can be problematic when you're trying to encourage streetlife and discourage street crime.

Those half-fenced-in spaces abound by the 13th Street devo both because of underdevelopment and what I'd consider some bad design choices. While Jacobs may have liked the fronts of those buildings, the vast spaces behind and around them would appall her, I think.

Someone simply needs to build something on the unused lots nearby. Street crime will likely always be a problem while those lots are empty.

So: Jacobs vindicated, I think.

2. I liked Press' article, and I think such community organizing is one of many solutions, both bottom-up and top-down, long-term and temporary, that the city and its residents should pursue in fighting the current gun violence epidemic.

We are in a desperate time right now. The more useful solutions that we can come up with and afford, the better.

The most unconscionable thing is the status quo.

So I do, with some trepidation, support using stop-and-frisk also, as long as there is reasonable scrutiny and continual reasonable dialogue about its application and efficacy. I've said before that I am relieved by the thoughtful vocal criticism of the program. I believe its critics will help scrutinize it for infringement on rights. I am very optimistic that Michael will keep communication lines open. It is critical that, as a city, we discuss how much invasion of privacy we can afford.

In general, I don't think it's useful to have either/or arguments regarding the city's possible responses to the current gun violence situation, as though there is one single answer. We are going to need many answers, immediate and over time. Fight guns on the street AND fight poverty. I think individual responses should be argued on merits (merit #1 = possible efficacy) and costs, rather than pitted against each other. It doesn't make sense if the responses can possibly coexist.

Fighting gun violence requires solutions both for today and for 20 years from today. I repeat: the more solutions the better.

This is interesting, thank you for sharing!

Submitted by Bread and Roses on Thu, 07/26/2007 - 3:28pm.

There's an article in the City Paper about one of our grantees, Reconstruction, which is a group of ex-offenders doing organizing to build stronger communities, echoing the ideas put forth in this study.

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2007/07/19/and-stay-out

It's Not Clear That "Meaningful Gun Control" Will Do Anything

Submitted by Gadfly on Tue, 07/31/2007 - 2:17am.

I don't believe that prohibition ever works. Gun control is just a false dream.

One thing that is clear is that there are too many shootings. Until the community starts talking to the cops about who's doing this stuff, nothing's going to change. It turns out that most of the violent crime is committed by only a few bad guys. If you take those punks off the street, most murders will cease.

Stop and Frisk will be a disaster. I predict that some cops will be killed. in retaliation.

The local communities must stand up to the bad actors. As long as the locals tollerate this stuff, they will continue to suffer. It is clear that some who stand up will be injured, or even killed, but that's happening anyway.

This is a tragedy.

Gun control can have an impact

Submitted by Ben Waxman on Tue, 07/31/2007 - 9:09am.

First, I am not arguing for prohibition. I am arguing for the strict regulation of a consumer product that is designed to kill people.

Second, if gun control is a "false dream", why do just a large number of criminals in New Jersey and New York, states that have stronger gun laws than Pennsylvania, use guns purchased in Pa.? I'll tell you why-- our current laws make it very easy for people to legally purchase guns and then sell them on the black market.

---
Check out my blog!

Ben, what do you mean by gun

Submitted by Gaetano P. on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 10:00am.

Ben, what do you mean by gun control? Do you mean handguns or handguns and long runs, like rifles and shotguns?

This is an important distinction for me. I support stricter handgun controls because it can be argued the proliferation of handguns is difficult to control, they are able to be easily concealed and are the weapon of choice for criminals.

Now, rifles and shotguns on the other hand, are not. One does not see a typical criminal using a muzzle-loader or bird shot to commit crime. Why should I, one who uses such firearms, be punished when these firearms are not the problem.

Also, you say it is a consumer product designed to kill people. Many people will disagree with that. Guns, including handguns, have legitimate, lawful uses. My shotgun, for instance, was designed to shoot birds, not kill humans. I suppose it could be used for that purpose, but it would not be practical.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

Gaetano, I am talking about

Submitted by Ben Waxman on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 11:10am.

Gaetano, I am talking about handguns. Rifles and shotguns are not really being used to kill people on the streets of Philadelphia.

As for you being punished, are people being punished when they have to get a license for a car? Are they being punished when they have to follow all kinds of regulations that govern other commercial products? No. I think the gun control debate is so out of whack because the NRA and their hardcore supporters reject any form of gun control, which is really a idiotic position.

---
Check out my blog!

Point: if rifles and

Submitted by Gaetano P. on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 11:36am.

Point: if rifles and shotguns are not used in crime as significantly as handguns, they shouldn't be subject to stricter control.

Your reply: "I'm talking about handguns. Rifles and shotguns are not really being used to kill people on the streets of Philadelphia."

Disagreement: none, provided that you're not advocating for gun control relative to rifles and shot guns. Relative to handguns, I agree.

But, you should note that driving is a privilege, not a right. Under Pennsylvania Law, the ownership of firearms is a constitutional right. Under the US Constitution, the language is a bit less clear.

PA Constitution:

"Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Look, I am pro-one gun a month relative to handguns. So, to some extent, your preaching to the choir. But, I want people to be clear on long guns.

You're not in the choir - You're not in the same church

Submitted by AJThomson on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 12:35pm.

Pardon the reaction to your post, Gaetano, but I'd like to use your statement that we're preaching to the choir, because you support one-gun-a-month legislation for handguns. Dude, you're not in the choir, you're barely in the last pew at the back of church.

I'm sure many of us who want to see common-sense gun laws would include stricter regulation of rifles and shotguns, as they are used in crimes to a lesser extent.
While I'm sure that any regulation of these weapons would be different from regulations for handguns, they still should be regulated. You should need a license to own one. Many gun-control advocates acknowledge that gun people need these rifles and shotguns to hunt. Thus, we say, "hey, keep your rifles and shotguns, but please let us regulate your handguns" We also have other important policies regarding guns, but we know that there has to be some common ground. So, we'll start with handguns, which do nothing but kill or horribly-injure people. It only makes sense...

To which, gun-people respond either one of two ways:

1) "It's my Constitutional right to own as many guns as I can afford to buy," which is flawed for many reasons, as the time-frame for the establishment of this right is clearly antiquated, and "You can not regulate any of it." This stance allows for no debate and no common ground, because the gun-people will scare legislators whose consciences likely lean toward some gun control but can't because of massive dollars used to influence any legislation that threaens guns.

2) "Maybe I could support one hangun a month." This is sometimes even worse than the constitution-holding defense, because: why should this be the starting point? These folks say, "Ok you can regulate guns. I'm going to sacrifice my rights here. I'm only allowed to buy 12 guns a year, but you can't do anything else to infringe on my rights."

This is the biggest cop out on both sides and the major problem with the gun control debate. Sure, I'd support one-gun-a-month legislation, because even the 8th-level of hell is better than the 9th, but what does such a pathetic piece of legislation accomplish. It's a foot in the door to meaningful gun control, but it trivializes more-important reforms. However, if we have to hope to convince people that the best we can do is a piece of paper that says Tommy Gun can only buy 12 glocks a year, whoop-de-do. We often let leaders slide, if they say they're for one-gun-a-month or give some other lip service. It trivializes gun control and doesn't move the ball in the debate.

So, the requirment for being in the common-sense gun control choir is not "the oh, I'm in favor of one-gun-a-month" patronizing. It's a little more than that.

www.whatever-it-takes.net

What are you saying, AJ.

Submitted by Gaetano P. on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 12:47pm.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you propose related to the proliferation of handguns, other than bitching and moaning about arguments you do not like. On this site and in my own dealings, within the last year I have supported:

One hand gun a month;
Increased background checking;
Waiting periods;
Requiring the reporting of lost and stolen handguns, under penalty of law;
Shutting down straw purchasers; and
Have considered handgun registration

I've never said handguns (or long guns) couldn't be regulated. In fact, reasonable regulation is lawful. But, a license or permit to own, rather than to carry conealed, may be illegal. Remember, AJ, we live by a system of laws. AJ's whim is not law or precedent.

So, aside from insulting other folks, what exactly are you proposing, AJ?

I have a suggestion: reading, it's fundamental.

Just two to back it up a bit.

Submitted by Gaetano P. on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 12:54pm.

http://youngphillypolitics.com/irresponsible_stalemating_when_will_the_l...

http://youngphillypolitics.com/things_we_already_know_and_cowardly_polit...

So, what are your ideas? Let's talk substance--not trash.

Insulting?

Submitted by AJThomson on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 1:01pm.

I apologize if you think that I was insulting.

I wasn't trying to insult you. I was merely using your previous post, including the constitutional rights part of your post, as an example of what happens often in these discussions. Someone suggests regulating handguns and all of a sudden the constitution is brought up and rights are discussed, regardless of whether those rights are right. Sometimes, people who have less of a reform-minded approach to gun control than you have hold onto support for one-gun-a-month as a b.s. credential for "supporting gun-control." My problem was saying that "YOU" weren't in the same choir, Gaetano. What I meant was those who say they support gun control because they support one-gun-a-month legislation but little else. They were the "YOU" that I meant.

In re-reading my post, I guess it does seem like I'm singling you out. I wasn't trying to do that. As you've acknowledged reading is fundamental, and I did not read each and every post you've ever made to find your gun control positions. I shouldn't have to either. What I was commenting on was the nature of the debate over gun control and the debate in the moment and how you responded to Ben's post.

Clearly, I'd support the examples you've cited for gun control and others that go a bit further. I'm a bit more radical on the subject than most and my proposals as far as guns are as whacky as the current state of non-regulation, so I try to keep them to myself.

Again, I'm sorry for offending you, but I'll continue to bitch and moan about the debate on guns, so long as it's not based in reality and continues to be influenced by forces that keep the will of a vast majority from being put in place.

Also, my whim is law.

www.whatever-it-takes.net

Guns aren't made to kill people?

Submitted by AJThomson on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 11:23am.

"Also, you say it is a consumer product designed to kill people. Many people will disagree with that. Guns, including handguns, have legitimate, lawful uses."

We've had this debate before, but can people really disagree with that statement Ben made, "that guns are designed to kill people," and be taken seriously? It may be perfectly "lawful" to kill someone in self defense, but that can't obscure the fact that the gun was made to kill someone. (Oh, wait, it could be made to kill a duck or other sport-approved animal that someone had already shot but didn't kill. Is that what a handgun was designed to do?)

This is a tangent that I can't understand from pro-gun argument-makers. I know guns don't kill people, people kill people, but can we at least agree that guns are designed to enable people to kill people fairly efficiently?

I could agree with that.

Submitted by Gaetano P. on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 11:44am.

I could agree with that. But, acknowledging the lawful uses of guns, even handguns, is something even you have done.

Although, have you seen a bird-shot spray. It is pretty tough to kill someone in such a manner. Just ask Dick Cheney!

hear hear AJ!

Submitted by Ray Murphy on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 11:26am.

well said comment above. this is really the joke of discussions about gun violence in Philadelphia. we have created weapons to use to kill one another and then are surprised when people do?

Wrong

Submitted by Carter on Tue, 07/31/2007 - 12:24pm.

The data & studies done show a high correlation between gun control & reductions in gun crimes. Till recently, given the strict gun control laws in NY & NJ, shady gun dealers went down to Virginia ( a lax gun control state) for serious gun purchasers. Those gun running for petty criminals & neighborhood thugs couldn't get the guns within their state.

Also, Canada & western Europe all have really tight gun control laws & they all have a small fraction of gun crimes we have in the US. I know some people refuse to recognize we're not in the wild west anymore. But wake up, we're now in the 21st Century.

What studies on gun control show its effectiveness?

Submitted by Marc Stier on Wed, 08/01/2007 - 9:53am.

It has been about ten years since I looked closely at the social science literature on the subject. But, back then, there was no evidence that gun control had any effect on crime rates. Any such evidence disappeared when one looked at the effects of differences in culture, economic equality, and racial discrimination on crime.

Could you point to data and studies that make the case for gun control?

More Guns, Less Crime

Submitted by Gadfly on Sat, 08/04/2007 - 2:31am.

I had posted this earlier:

"Let's Ban Guns! That will work.

Eighty Seven percent of all murders were committed by convicted felons. These felons are not only not allowed to buy guns, they're not even allowed to own guns. Try reading John Lott's book "More Guns - Less Crime". When honest citizens have guns, the bad guys cut down on violent crime - 5% for agrevated assault to 8% for rape. On the other hand, Auto Thefts and Burglaries do go up. The choice is yours.

I have another gripe - There's no such thing as an "illegal gun"! However, there are people who carry guns illegally.

The way I see it, there are two problems: The first problem is witness intimidation. Lots of folks (including the cops) know who carries guns, illegally or who has committed murder. Unfortunately, people are afraid to talk, so crimes are committed with impunity. The second problem is that the community tolerates those who carry firearms illegally - although it might have something to do with with the first problem."

There are folks who feel that England and Canada have great systems, because they have increasingly tougher gun control. Consider that England never had a "gun problem" although the more they add tough gun control, the more problems they're having. Many police officers now are carrying firearms where that was unthinkable 40 years ago. Canadian Provinces which border the US have more gun problems than the US states that they border. This is similarly true with Mexico (which has far stricter laws than the US. In Switzerland, every male over the age of 18 is required to carry a machine gun (usually in the trunks of their cars). They don't have gun problems at all.

When the people in their communities say enough, and are willing to pay the price for saying enough, then and only then, will this problem cease. I don't want to blame the victims, but it's long past the time for people to say enough. There are 280 million handguns in the US and disarming good citizens isn't going make us safer. There are only a few preditors who make our lives miserable.

One thing that I haven't mentioned yet, are the economic and social conditions that create the feelings of hopelessness, Further folks "know" that they are disenfrachised, so they have no reason to cooperate with the system. To many the only way to get ahead is to use the same kind of power that is used against them. Most shootings are prompted by the perception of not being respected.

We need a better educational system, which would lead to jobs. All guntrol does is prevent good citizens from defending themselves against preditors.

RKBA

Young Philly Politics

Recent blog posts

Current jobs

Who's online

Online users

Contact Us