Foundation Briefs Advanced Level September/October Brief Resolved

The Benefits To Social Cohesion

It is clear from these results, therefore, that there is a significant relationship between social cohesion levels in disadvantaged areas and levels of certain types of crime. The more that an area that is at a disadvantage economically pulls together as a community, the greater its capacity to combat crime. These results have obvious implications for crime prevention strategies. Disadvantaged areas that are socially disorganised according to the ethnic mixing factor should have strategies that aim for the reduction of burglaries, perhaps by introducing programmes that appeal to all ethnic groups and encourage participation by transient residents of the area. This should also help to lower levels of assault and robbery in these areas. Areas that are socially disorganised according to the social control factor should employ strategies that divert juveniles and young adults from anti-social behaviour and crime and programmes that offer support to single-parent families. This should also help to lower incidents of assault and robbery. However, the prevention of sexual offences would have to employ a dual-level approach: one to target offences committed by strangers; and another to target other offences. The authors acknowledge that such strategies are ambitious, but they are probably more realistic than strategies that aim to combat crime through economic revival. The existence of Single Regeneration Budget-funded initiatives aimed at encouraging community participation, demonstrates that such strategies can be realised and leaves us with the optimistic conclusion that steps are being taken to tackle problems directly by focusing on probable causal processes.

The sense of belonging factor also contains aspects of social control. This measures whether respondents know many people in their neighbourhood and whether they feel a sense of belonging to the local area and neighbourhood. This factor is not a strong predictor of lower levels of crime.

Much has been written lately about what might be termed the politics of public happiness. A new stadium may not make a city richer, but it might make its inhabitants happier by improving their quality of life and civic pride, much like clean air, good weather and scenic views. Community self-esteem, status and prestige as a public good may be harder to measure than gross local domestic receipts, but it is just as real. As Art Modell, the owner of the Baltimore Ravens which he relocated from Cleveland, explained: “The pride and the presence of a professional football team is far more important than thirty libraries.” The opposite effect, of course, follows from the loss of a sports franchise. Cleveland, for example, has suffered from a community-wide malaise for decades. The loss of its beloved football franchise impacted on the psyche of inhabitants across the Western Reserve. Much the same happened decades earlier when Brooklynites lost their treasured Dodgers.

Proponents of public subsidies have posited that new construction provides social benefits to members of the community, enhancing self-esteem and social cohesiveness. Not only do people feel better about their city, outsiders do as well. Cities make investments in the “good will” of their communities all the time. Museums, libraries, schools and clean streets enhance the public’s perception and attract outsiders to come and visit or even relocate. Although it may be difficult to monetize these intangible social benefits, no one doubts that they are real.