Solving the Graffiti Problem in Chicago - Case Study Example

Solving the Graffiti Problem in Chicago Introduction Communities have spent a lot in trying to fight community problems that affect them. The police have been on the forefront in helping the people in finding better ways to tackle problems which not only include crimes but also other problems that generally affect the well-being of the members of a given community. In doing so the police have come up with various strategies that they use in fighting crime and these are dependent upon a given problem and the area where the problem occurred. Not all techniques can be used across all problems because individual behavior is complex to understand and people are different in terms of thinking and what they do. So a given technique may apply to one section of the community and not the other. This paper will look at the problem of graffiti in Chicago and how the police have tried to combat it. It will describe the problem, provide statistical evidence, the situation on the ground and how it is being dealt with and what can be done to prevent the problem from occurring. The graffiti Problem Fennelly (2012) defines a problem as “A group of related incidents or an ongoing situation that concerns a significant portion of those who live or work in a particular area. A problem is a persistent and more than likely will not be solved without some type of intervention, particularly between law enforcement and the community. Not all problems are serious criminal matters, but the police should respond to community concerns” (p. 126). Therefore community problems are many and do not necessarily need to be matters criminal in nature. Community problems are not only matters of concern to the law enforcers but also to the community and they should be differentiated from incidents. A problem can be identified by the characteristic of the victim, the location of occurrence, the behavior of the offender, the condition of the victim or the time of the day/week or month in relation to a special event. The problem of graffiti in Chicago has been persistent for quite a long period of time. Graffiti cannot be singled out as a crime as such but is a society menace. It is defined as a variety of markings, etchings and drawing which in their nature spoil public or private property (Battle, 2006). Graffiti is a form of communication used by gangs; it is used to mark territory, and often will list the names and nicknames of the gang members, project gangster attitudes and talk of current events in a given society. Scholars in the area of crime prevention have identified a number of categories in which to classify various kinds of paintings and drawings believed to be graffiti. The categorization is based on two issues: motivation and sophistication. The former includes gang, tagger, ideological and conventional while the latter basic, throw-up and master piece. Gang graffiti is a form of publicity used by gangs to mark and identify territory and recruit new members. Most of the time it employs gang identities such as names and gang colors. ODeane (2012) says that “In many ways, gang graffiti is a code, and like most codes, it is susceptible to analysis if you take the time and effort to do so” (p. 527). In this case investigations are easier because these codes are used to mark territories and identify gangs, motives, plans and accomplishments. Tagger graffiti are sort of individual signatures. The individuals often choose pseudonyms which they use to sign on buildings in a process referred to as getting up where the aim is to ensure that the sign is seen by as many people as possible. The difference between tagger and gang graffiti is that in tagger graffiti it is aimed at defacing structures while gang graffiti is used to promote the criminal activities of gangs. Ideological graffiti is used to pass some form of opinion which may range from a recognized political speech to hate speech use by supremacist groups. Conventional graffiti is one that is found in schools, public bathrooms or parks. It is considered less problematic as most of the time it is an isolated incidence as opposed to the ones mentioned earlier which are systematic and repeated (Birzer, 2011). Graffiti in Chicago According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics graffiti is identified as the most common type of property vandalism accounting for about 35%. Graffiti cleanup is said to consume a big percentage of most municipal budgets. Quick facts show that Phoenix, AZ is the biggest spender on graffiti spending about $6 million annually. The city of San Jose is quoted to spend about $2 Million, Las Vegas $3 million while the city of Chicago spent the highest about $6.5 million in the year 2006 and the following two years consecutively (Sherwin-Williams, 2012). These are very high figures that could as well help improve the economy of these cities. I see this as a waste of money that would have otherwise helped in improving the city infrastructure helping the poor in the society. If you take a walk along the streets of Chicago you will see some of these markings spread in the city. This is especially true for areas which are known to have gangs. The areas with a majority of the black population are prone to this menace. Apart from the drawings and markings that you can easily identify as graffiti, you will also see rehabilitation efforts and other intervention measures being employed by the city of Chicago to stop the problem. I think that a better part of the low income areas are the worst hit by this problem and this is attributed to the fact that poverty causes the emergence of issues such as crime leading to establishment of gangs and other groups. The city of Chicago is helping fight this crime and you will find this message on their website, “Graffiti is vandalism, it scars the community, hurts property values and diminishes our quality of life” (CC, 2012). In my opinion, the problem at hand is being fueled or helped in many ways by the city council. I believe that the city council is rather reactive on the issue rather than being active in identifying the root cause of the problem. They have come up with programs and these are aimed at removing the graffiti. This is not a solution to the problem as the council needs to identify the causes of the problem and deal with them instead of reacting when the problem has already occurred. I remember one morning last month on 29th, I was visiting a friend and I happened to pass by the Anshe Emet synagogue and I was shocked by what I saw. I saw a bold message on the wall of the synagogue that said, “Kill and Rape Jews.” It was horrifying. A group of people had gathered to witness this and they did not feel good about it. Luckily for the graffitist, his or her message got home because many people use the side walk meaning that it was seen by many people. I later heard in the news that it was removed by the graffiti busters. Techniques used in solving the problem: The SARA Model The graffiti problem is a community problem and various people have been involved in the whole process of ensuring that the problem is solved. Though the city of Chicago does not provide a clear picture of the graffiti problem in the area other sources such as newspapers and magazines tend to give information about this problem. It is commendable that the city of Chicago is working round the clock to solve this problem and this is evident through the collaboration with the police and other departments that help in solving the problem. I believe that community problems are better solved as a collective than individually. There are various techniques that are used in problem solving especially by law enforcers. The most common type of model used is the SARA model. A Law enforcement scholar Fennelly (2012) supports this problem solving approach saying that “the model is commonly used to formulate the problem solving process in law enforcement agencies because of its discipline and structure…” (p. 127). The technique is good because it easily divides the project into separate stages that can easily be followed and review carried out on them to measure progress. The SARA model proposes a four stage approach to tackling community problems. These include: Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment. Scanning involves identifying and selecting a particular problem that affects the community. The problems are listed in ascending order and prioritized in terms of magnitude or effect that the problem has on the community and it recurrence rates. The problems higher in the rank are the ones that are given close attention and a majority of the resources in order to help in combating the problem (Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2010). Scanning follows the first two steps in the decision making process that include: defining the problem and gathering all evidence available about the problem. In scanning the police generally have to ask questions such as who is affected, why, how, when and where. Analysis is the second stage and this involves researching about the problem in order to find out the causal factors of the problem. This stage examines the identified problem’s causes, scope and effect. Here the law enforcers collaborate with the community in trying to gather data as concerns the problem by looking at how the problem occur, how long it has been occurring and the conditions that appear to perpetuate the problem. The community and other partners are involved because of the effect the problem has on the population and because they understand the problem and are affected by the problem and therefore know the primary causes of the problem. Once the problem is identified then resources are also identified that will help in solving the mentioned problem. These resources will include both finances and personnel that will be used or help in solving the problem. This stage incorporates the third fourth and fifth steps of the seven-step process: generate alternatives, analyze and select the best alternative (Arrington, 2006). The third stage is response and here the law enforcers design and implement a plan aimed at solving the problem. They try out the alternative solution identified in the second stage. This is often done in consultation with other communities that have tried out the solution as well as finding research that has been done on the area (Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2010). This stage entails the use of focus groups for brainstorming possible interventions and the use of experts. Interventions are prioritized based on costs and difficulty and goals are refined before the interventions are implemented (Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2010). The last stage is the assessment stage and this involves evaluating the success of the response initiated to solve the problem. Was it successful? If not, why? Evaluation should be continuous and should gather qualitative and quantitative data that looks at the quality of the response and the amount of change respectively (Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2010). Fennelly (2012) states that, “… partnerships between the police departments and the communities they service are essential for implementing a successful program in community policing” (p. 127). In my opinion the SARA model is the best model in problem solving. This is because the model does not fail but it is the generated responses that do not provide the desired goal. However I believe that when this happens, it is important that a review of the results is done so that a different approach is taken. Other techniques in problem solving include: the standard crime analysis technique that involves collection, analysis, dissemination and feedback; community coalition and teams; the weed and seed initiative; and the DOC model aimed at fusing problem solving and morality (Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2010). Preventing Graffiti The old adage goes prevention is better than cure. The Chicago city council is basically reactive to the whole issue of graffiti as we have seen. They have designed programs that are aimed at minimizing the impact of the graffiti on the population. However I tend to disagree with their approach to this problem. In my view it is in the best interests to solve the root causes of a problem than to react once a problem has occurred. Addressing root causes of an issue means that the cause is being dealt with and hence recurrence is limited. Through the SARA model identified above Chicago police can use it to solve the graffiti problem but preventive measures are still necessary. Burger (2010) notes that, “Primary prevention programs are geared to help people learn how to deal successfully with their problems and stress… A greater number of prevention programs could make possible a greater reduction in both human and societal costs” (p. 310). Therefore prevention strategies in the fight against graffiti should be aimed at looking at the causative elements and making sure they are stopped from happening. The first and most effective way of prevention is landscaping. This may involve strategies such as use of vines, trellises, planters or thorny bushes along the outside of buildings. These prevent graffiti in three ways: it makes the wall space inaccessible, it hides the wall from passersby and therefore there is limited publicity and lastly it makes the wall space unusable especially if climbing plants are used. The graffiti I saw could have been easily prevented by this method. If the wall was landscaped the graffitists would not have managed to deface it with those cruel words. Another good prevention strategy is to provide additional lighting in dark areas especially through the use of motion sensor lights which startle and scare aware graffitists. Lighting serves the purpose of decreasing the likeliness of incidents as these incidents happen at night in the dark where the people cannot be seen. The synagogue had only one light at the gate entrance that I saw the remaining space would be dark at night and this promotes the vice. I believe the incident would not have happened if adequate lighting was availed. The third prevention strategy is the use of murals and this has been used in many cities. The problem with it is that it is quite expensive and may take a long time to complete. Nowadays it is easy to see murals on large buildings that offer space that graffitists find good for their work. If this is done chances are very little that they will spray the mural with their paint. Lastly I think that preventative construction can also help prevent the problem. Buildings should be constructed in such a way as to prevent the graffitists from finding attractive spots to paint. If buildings are made with windows to break up space, privacy fences and rough walls that do not encourage painting the graffitists will find it hard to paint (Ashton & Mirakian, 2001). Conclusion “Graffiti sends the signal that nobody cares, attracting other forms of crime and street delinquency to the neighborhood. It drains tax dollars. Funds for development are used for graffiti cleanup (OPP, 2006, p.2). I have a negative perception of the graffitists. Why should they do this? Are they happy seeing a lot of funds go to waste? Don’t they think of the repercussions if they are caught in the act? It is costly to remove their mess and the words and images imprinted on the walls make our communities unsafe, instills fear in us and kills development. Graffitists should be made to pay for the cost of cleanup; they should serve high sentences for scaring people and spoiling our properties. The police and the community must not support this people at all costs. They must come up with preventive measures as explained above and use them effectively to stop the vice. References Arrington, R. (2006). Crime Prevention: The law Enforcement Officers Practical Guide. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Ashton, C., & Mirakian, J. (2001). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 31(4) 21-22. Battle, M. A. (2006, May). Gangs. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from US Department of Justice: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5403.pdf Birzer, M. (2011). Introduction to Criminal Investigation. Broken Sound Parkway, NW: Taylor & Francis Group. CC. (2012). Request Graffiti Removal from Graffiti Blasters. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from City of Chicago: http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/streets/provdrs/graffiti_blasters/svcs/mayor_daley_s_graffitiblasters.html Fennelly, L. J. (2012). Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime prevention. Waltham, MA: Elservier. Miller, L. S., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2010). Community Policing: Partnerships for problem solving. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. ODeane, M. D. (2012). Gang injunctions and abatement: using civil Remedies to curb gang related crimes. Broken Sound Parkway, NW: Taylor and Francis Group. OPP. (2006). Graffiti Prevention and Control. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from Ontario Provincial Police: http://www.opp.ca/ecms/files/250363914.6.pdf Sherwin-Williams. (2012). Graffiti Hurts: Fast facts about graffiti. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from Graffiti Hurts: http://www.graffitihurts.org/getfacts/fastfacts.jsp Read More