INSPIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FUTURES
  • ABOUT
    • What is SafeGrowth? >
      • SafeGrowth language
    • What we can do
    • Summits & Search Conferences >
      • 2017 Calgary
      • 2016 New Orleans >
        • Event Photos
      • 2016 Sacramento >
        • Event Photos
      • 2015 Canmore >
        • Event Photos
    • Media & Press Coverage >
      • Video
      • Press
    • Likeminded
    • Friends of SafeGrowth
  • RESOURCES
    • SafeGrowth theory >
      • What makes great neighborhoods?
      • Four tenets
      • Recommended readings
    • SafeGrowth documents & related publications
    • Video
    • TED-Ed tutorials >
      • SafeGrowth - Crime & the 21st Century City
      • Vision-Based Asset Mapping
    • Publications
  • BOOK
  • BLOG
  • ADVOCATES & PRACTITIONERS
  • TOOLKIT (PASSWORD ACCESS)
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS >
      • Notes for SafeGrowth teams
      • RA Categories-Neighborhoods
      • Report guidance >
        • Report structure
        • Sample reports
      • Readings for download
      • Glossary
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REGULATORS >
      • RA Categories-Regulators
  • CONTACT US

SAFEGROWTH® BLOG

ROTO Nasties - the paralysis of analysis

12/2/2009

0 Comments

 
Picture

​I was thinking about what folks have said to these posts (thanks everyone for such great comments!) It brought to mind the LA Times article by J. Q. Wilson about inconclusive poverty/crime research. Yet I still can't shake one nagging question: How does our inability to precisely nail down the cause for crime excuse our inaction? I get that we don't want unintended consequences to our actions. Yes, that makes sense. It does make one wonder; What is state-of-the-art in research? So I did a bit of my own research to find out. Here's what I found. ​

Wilson incidentally is pretty pleased with LAPDs crime mapping and their aggressive policy of searching people on the streets for guns! (No surprise. He's one of the pioneers of the approach in a theory called "broken windows".) That's not such a bad thing, really. Especially if it makes things better! But notice how aggressive policing is so easily used to explain crime reductions, whereas tackling poor neighborhoods needs more study! That sounds like a double standard to me. Is the "science" for aggressive policing and crime mapping better than the science about poverty/crime?
​
Not - pardon the gun-pun - by a long shot.

Read Hsieh and Pugh's 1993 article in Criminal Justice Review, "Poverty and income inequality are each associated to violent crime". Or read Kennedy's 1998 study in Social Science and Medicine. What does he conclude? "Studies have shown that poverty and income are powerful predictors of homicide and violent crime." 

Are we to believe THAT research isn't good enough yet the crime mapping/zero tolerance research IS good enough? 

Then I came across a book by Stan Lieberson from Harvard, Making It Count. Leiberson says that although most social research is non-experimental many researchers treat their data as though it was experimental. Why does it matter? It matters because social science data gets turned into numbers and then chopped and diced and served up as proof of this or that. It is all about counting the numbers. And THAT, Lieberson says, is part of the problem. Just look at J. Q. Wilson's numbers in the LA Times article.

See the LA Times story

For me, Lieberson hits a chord: "There is a double standard used by academics in that evidence supporting an undesirable conclusion or theory is subjected to much tougher standards than evidence supporting other conclusions." 

Bingo!

In other words, it seems convenient to trash the poverty/crime link because stats seem inconclusive. It seems simpler to support a get-tough, broken windows theory with zero tolerance enforcement. To be fair, I know LAPD uses other methods too. I also have seen how competent problem-oriented policing paired with updated training methods does make a big difference. Getting the guns off the streets too will help. I agree we should do more of all those things. They get some good short term results.

But we mustn't stop there. Ultimately we MUST deal with the dysfunctional roots growing in deprived neighborhoods, neighborhoods where gang breeding and violence is cultivated in a bed of broken families and poverty. That's where the REAL "broken windows" exist. 

Social research is always done in a muddy social world where nothing lends itself to clean, experimental, laboratory tests. If we wait for definitive answers we'll wait forever. 

J. Q. Wilson should be applauded for heading up a National Academy of Sciences Committee on Law and Justice to look for more answers. But pleeeeese let's not bury the obvious in yet more academic reports. Doing yet more research on the obvious won't change anything. We DO know what's going on there. Let's get going to help neighbors to change it! 

True, ignoring research findings isn't wise. But so is more ROTO - Research-On-The-Obvious! ROTO has lots of nasties, like the unintended consequence of hold-backs from government funding while we wait for "conclusive" answers. 

Or worse; misdirection of funding onto band aids like zero tolerance enforcement.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    AUTHORS

    Gregory Saville
    Mateja Mihinjac

    Tarah Hodgkinson


    CATEGORIES

    All
    Art
    Bladerunner
    CCTV
    Change Agent
    Civility
    Community Building
    Community Empowerment
    Community Engagement
    Community Safety
    Connectivity
    CPTED
    Creativity
    Criminology
    Culture
    Defensible Space
    Design Out Crime
    Diversity
    Emotional Intelligence
    Ethics
    Evidence Based
    Evidence-based
    Eyes On The Street
    Fear Of Crime
    Graffiti
    HACE
    Health
    Homelessness
    Housing
    Human Scale Design
    Inclusiveness
    Latin America
    Law
    Lighting
    LISC
    Livability
    Livability Academy
    Lovability
    Neighborhood Governance
    Neighborhood Hubs
    Neighborhood Transformation
    Placemaking
    Policing
    Politics
    Problem-based Learning
    Public Health
    Quality Of Life
    Rural Crime
    SafeGrowth
    Safety Audits
    San Romanoway
    Science
    Security
    Sitability
    Social Cohesion
    Social Ecology
    Social Justice
    Space Activation
    Street Walkability
    Suburbs
    Successful Places
    Surveillance
    Sustainability
    Target Hardening
    Technology
    Third Generation CPTED
    Urbanism
    Violence


    ARCHIVES

    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009


SafeGrowth® 2007-2019   SafeGrowth.org. ​
All Rights Reserved
​.


SafeGrowth is a people-based planning method for creating 21st Century neighborhoods of imagination, livability, and safety. It develops new relationships between city government and residents in order to prevent crime and plan for the future. While technology and evidence-based practice plays a role, SafeGrowth is based on community building through annual SafeGrowth plans and neighborhood problem-solving teams networked throughout the city.​

CONTACT US

Submit
  • ABOUT
    • What is SafeGrowth? >
      • SafeGrowth language
    • What we can do
    • Summits & Search Conferences >
      • 2017 Calgary
      • 2016 New Orleans >
        • Event Photos
      • 2016 Sacramento >
        • Event Photos
      • 2015 Canmore >
        • Event Photos
    • Media & Press Coverage >
      • Video
      • Press
    • Likeminded
    • Friends of SafeGrowth
  • RESOURCES
    • SafeGrowth theory >
      • What makes great neighborhoods?
      • Four tenets
      • Recommended readings
    • SafeGrowth documents & related publications
    • Video
    • TED-Ed tutorials >
      • SafeGrowth - Crime & the 21st Century City
      • Vision-Based Asset Mapping
    • Publications
  • BOOK
  • BLOG
  • ADVOCATES & PRACTITIONERS
  • TOOLKIT (PASSWORD ACCESS)
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS >
      • Notes for SafeGrowth teams
      • RA Categories-Neighborhoods
      • Report guidance >
        • Report structure
        • Sample reports
      • Readings for download
      • Glossary
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REGULATORS >
      • RA Categories-Regulators
  • CONTACT US