Vandalism

1. Vandalism Sofia Pereira Jason Perez

2. Downsizing Deviance • This is the indifference to lower levels of a given transgressive behaviour as higher levels of such behaviour become more frequent and, hence, more significant. • “Catch it low to prevent it high.” This is the idea that if one successfully seeks to diminish the occurrence of low-level aggressive enactment, then higher levels of aggression also become less likely

3. Monetary Costs • Accurate estimates of monetary costs are hard to locate for the same reasons that reliable vandalism incidence data are difficult to obtain. • However, many studies have shown that the incidence and cost of vandalism are high and rising.

4. Social Costs • Vestermark and Blauvelt state: • The impact of a 79 cent can of spray paint, used to paint racial epithets on a hallway wall, far exceeds the monetary cost of removing the paint. A racial confrontation could result, which might force the closing of the school for an indefinite period • Reilly asserts: • The victim of vandalism experiences a sense of having been singled out by an unkind fate, a heightened sense of vulnerability, of not being safe even on his own grounds; there is a sense of impotent rage and a desire for revenge.... The victim of vandalism becomes more alienated from his neighbours...more fearful.... and more hostile and suspicious of strangers...

5. Social Costs Social Costs -      The presence of vandalism gives rise to concern that more of the same will follow. Research has shown that incivility leads to more incivility and that litter, broken windows, abandoned buildings, and the like create a sense of disorder and decline which may lower the inhibition level of both residents and passersby and thus permit and in a sense encourage further such deteriorative behavior. -         In the school setting, Vestermark and Blauvelt suggested that the social cost of vandalism is the summation of three components: 1)its impact on the school’s educational program; 2)its psychological impact on both students and adults; 3)its degree of disruptiveness of group or intergroup relations.

6. Social Costs Vestermark and Blauvelt created four types of vandalism in terms of monetary and social costs: -Type I Vandalism – incidents having both a high monetary cost as well as a high social cost -Type II Vandalism – incidents having a high monetary cost but a low social cost. -Type III Vandalism – incidents having a low monetary cost but a high social cost. -Type IV Vandalism – incidents having both a low monetary cost as well as a low socialcost.

7. Prevalence of vandalism • A survey conducted by the Ontario Task Force on Vandalism to gauge public opinion regarding contemporary vandalism found that 37% of the Toronto residents and 56% residing outside Toronto, indicated that they thought vandalism was a problem and 67% of the Toronto residents polled believed that vandalism had increased over the previous five years. • According to Wiesenthal: • -In another survey of Ontario secondary school students, only about half described vandalism as either quite or very serious. Overall in this group, vandalism was regarded as less serious than either shoplifting or breaking and entering.

8. Prevalence of Vandalism • According to Chepynoha and Parwicki: • - Toronto high school students indicated that a substantial number of both male and female high school students did not consider many kinds of vandalism serious (ie. writing on desks or walls). The importance of this survey is that acts which are most likely seen as serious by most of the community, are not consistently seen that way by the high school students who may be the very perpetrators of such acts.

9. Measuring the incidence of Vandalism • - It is difficult to estimate the extent of vandalism due to the various definitions regarding what in fact constitutes a vandalistic act. • - Firm approximations are not easily arrived at, and when they are, they are likely to be serious underestimations. • -The method of assessing conviction on vandalism charges is not practical since only a very small proportion of offenses are even brought to court. • - Police data are also suspect, since small offenses may not be reported. -Many victims elect not to report vandalistic acts because they believe that little will follow from their act or reporting. Only an estimated 3%-4% of vandalistic acts lead to prosecution

10. The Ontario Task Force on Vandalism: Vandalism Self-Report Study (1980) • Purpose • Method • Procedure • Design of Questionnaire • Part A • Part B • Part C • Part D

11. Results • Discussion • Conclusion

12. Vandalism vs. Depreciative Behaviour       a path worn in a campus lawn by students creating and repeatedly taking a shortcut. • a chipped corner to a hallway wall, banged time and again by workers pushing loaded carts. • Park playground equipment broken as a result of long and often overly energetic use.

13. Vandalism vs. Depreciative Behaviour • Depreciative behaviour differs from vandalism in: Intent Awareness Responsibility

14. Defining Vandalism • There are a variety of definitions of vandalism. Though varying in inclusiveness, these several definitions as a group highlight: Intentionality Destructiveness Property Ownership

15. Cohen’s typology of vandalism • Vandalism as institutional rule-breaking • Ritualism • Protection • Play • Writing-Off • Walling-In

16. Cohen’s typology of vandalism • Ideological vandalism • A rule is broken as a means toward some explicit and conscious ideological end. an example would be the spraying of ‘War’ on a series of ‘Stop’ signs or the destruction of highway billboards by environmental groups. • There is no consensus over the content of the rule which is being broken and, more particularly, the content of the rule is being explicitly and consciously challenged. An example of this class of behaviour would be embassy bombings and attacks.

17. Cohen’s typology of vandalism • Conventional vandalism • Acquisitive vandalism • Tactical vandalism • Vindictive vandalism • Play vandalism. • Malicious vandalism

18. Motivational Typologies • Martin offered: • Predatory vandalism • Vindictive vandalism • Wanton vandalism • Thaw described: • Hostility-directed acts • Acts of thoughtlessness • Acts of carelessness

19. Hypothesized causes of vandalism • Social Decay • Inadequate parenting • Lenient Courts • Boredom • Conformity pressure • Developmental causation • Environmental factors • Aesthetic causation • Enjoyment theory • Inequity theory

20. Who is the Vandal?

21. Where do frequent acts of vandalism occur? • Schools • Libraries • Museums • Trains • Buses • Stations

22. The Person-Environment Duet • In Krupat’s (1985) view: • -The relationship of person to environment is dynamic rather than static. It’s a reciprocal relationship in which our environment shapes the people and the people shape the environment. • We then use this relationship to look at vandalistic behaviour. The physical and social environment determines this vandalistic behaviour, thus, we must change the environment to reduce vandalistic acts. • Also, we must assess the responsibility of the person committing the crime.

23. Ways to change the vandal • Rather than changing the environment, here the intervention target is the vandal. • Cohen suggested 3 person-oriented strategies: • 1-Education • 2-Deterrence and retribution • 3-Deflection

24. Intervention Strategies • The following interventions focus on the physical and social environment and also at directly or indirectly at changing the vandal. • All these strategies have been used for a defence against vandalism. • Although all these strategies are used to reduce vandalism, they are also considered an enjoyable challenge for the vandals, which may increase the vandals behaviour ( Wise, 1982)

25. Interventions • 1. TARGET HARDENING -toughened glass -steel framed bus seats -reinforced phone or meter coins • Wise termed ‘de-opportunizing design’

26. Interventions • 2. ACCESS CONTROL -locked gates, doors, windows -use of guard dogs -reduced number of building entrances • 3.DEFLECTING OFFENDER -graffiti boards and mural programs -steering of pathway circulation (paving shortcuts) -interesting wallpaper

27. Interventions • 4.CONTROLLING FACILITATORS -having control over the sales of spray paint -placing bus stops, public phones in no isolated locations -placing fire alarms and light switches from reach or ‘hangout’ areas • 5.EXIT-ENTRY SCREENING -closed-circuit TV -detectors (metal, motion) -library book tags

28. Interventions • 6.FORMAL SURVEILLANCE This is surveillance done by police, guards, monitors, citizen groups, or other paid or volunteer security personnel • 7.NATURAL SURVEILLANCE  -community after-school use -use of store aisle mirrors -low trimming of shrubbery and plants

29. Interventions 8.TARGET REMOVAL -removal of bus seats that are hidden from the drivers view -removing ground level windows -removing of outside plant bulbs 9.IDENTIFYING PROPERTY -property marking with business logo, school district ID, or social security number

30. Interventions • 10. REMOVING INDUCEMENTS -rapid repair of damaged property -rapid removal of graffiti -removal of bars over toiletstalldoorways • 11. RULE SETTING • 12.EDUCATION -vandalism awareness walks -anti vandalism films/games -vandalism education programs

31. Interventions • 13.PUBLICITY -anti vandalism advertising • 14.PUNISHMENT -suspension from schools -fines -restitution

32. Interventions • 15.Counseling • 16.Involvement

33. Intervention Evaluation Lindsley suggested there exist three-intervention evaluations: ) Rigorless magician 2 Rigor Mortician 3 Rigorous clinician • We must also look at each intervention with regards to its relevance to the real world.

34. Supplementary Information • Taking the Train: How graffiti art became an urban crisis in New York City – By JoeAustin

35. Supplementary Information • Article: “Graffiti magic in a parking lot” (Toronto Star – Sept. 14, 2003).