First Published 2003, ISBN 1-904860-00-1

I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!

It wasn’t until I began working in the field of local environmental quality, that I heard of the Broken Window Theory. As the titile suggests it rests on the premise that if a window is broken in a neighbourhood, it can be the start of a downward spiral in environmental quality, which in turn invites residents or visitors to carry out other crimes or anti-social behaviour. Just that one act, leads to another and then another and then another - the beginning of a chain of events. I recently researched this theory in more detail and it reminded me so much of my views on reality tv shows. Big Brother and I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here! are living proof that Broken Windows is not a theory but a proven reality.

I didn’t watch the first Big Brother with real people, but I did watch the one with the ‘celebrities’, (although I think there is room for the invention of another word that properly describes people that are stuck in the wilderness between anonymity and real fame). I like to think that I was incapacitated at the time with a dislocated hip and ten broken fingers so that I couldn’t use the remote and change channels, but of course this is not true. I intended to watch it just for five minutes so that I could engage my children in (albeit) one topic we could actually chat about using the same vocabulary – they not being interested in my world and me not understanding the mysteries of rap music and hair extensions. I was appalled that I found the celebrity situation compulsive viewing. I wondered if I had a previously unsurfaced sadist streak delighting in the creeping tensions that led to relationship breakdown and destructive behaviour. Or had I just wandered into senile dementia early, happy to let dumbed down, cheaply produced television wash over me? I found it fascinating and just had to watch the whole series.

How embarrassing. I resolved never to reveal this to my friends or neighbours, in case it decreased my social standing. I knew my addiction had taken hold when I secretly looked forward to the rival version set in the Australian jungle. I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!; an ironic title when those involved had clearly instructed their agents “I’m A Celebrity Get Me In There!” Hard cash and promises of a phoenix-like rebirth of their careers too tempting to reject.

But why was I so hooked on being an armchair voyeur? The main reason is my overwhelming feeling of superiority when I’m watching it, because I know that eventually the dark side of their characters will come seeping through, however hard they try. It’s the dead certain knowledge that despite their wealth, beauty or fame, they all go in there convinced they can maintain their carefully orchestrated public persona, no matter what the external circumstances. Well they can’t. This makes me feel so good, because I think I can. But could I in the same circumstances? Those circumstances meaning the external environment, that is to say, the behaviour of your peers and the actual physical environment in combination. It takes an incredibly special person to remain unaffected by that double whammy. You just know that the rebellion against the total environment – behaviour and surroundings - is going to surface spectacularly at some point. Witness the eventual emergence of reactional behaviour; arguments, resentment, underlying aggression and tit-for-tat tactics. No one’s in charge, and there is no social fabric to hang on to. My God in that jungle environment I swear there is a chance of grievous celebrity harm. Not only that, examine how they look before they go in. They’re used to making a real effort. It’s their livelihood. How do they look when they come out? Their beauty regimes are habitual, but you can see personal pride beginning to slip as the programme progresses. The external environment affects their behaviour towards others and their respect for themselves.   

To illustrate this point. Take the most properly brought up people in the land; the inhabitants of the royal House of Windsor. We could get them to inhabit the Australian jungle instead of celebrities. Make them carry out inane tasks (they’re used to that), and call it I’m A Majesty Get Me Out of Here! Even Edward could sell the TV rights to that. There wouldn’t be one person in the country that wouldn’t watch it. We could add a bit of spice by saying the length of stay in the jungle determines the level of their civil list income. Can you imagine dropping Fergie into a swamp and getting Phil to wade through crocodiles to stuff her bikini with ugli fruit, or Madge in a sleeping bag and Princess Michael without make-up and tiara? No matter how well trained and experienced at putting on a public face, it wouldn’t be long before the ermine would fly. I bet that even the Princess Royal would take to eating horses if the environment demanded it. Such environmental pressure would change even experienced royal personas: From pomp to circumstance.

Litter as an invitation to Men Behaving Badly

This ridiculous flight of fancy, led me to understand the Broken Window Theory, the brainchild of the criminologists James Q Wilson and George Kelling. They argued some time ago that if a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Inevitably more windows will be broken, and the sense of lawlessness will spread from that building onto the street, sending a community message that anything goes. They believed that in a city, relatively minor problems like graffiti, flyposting, litter, public disorder, are all the equivalent of broken windows. That is to say invitations to more serious crimes:

“Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions. If the neighbourhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler (beggar) from annoying passers-by, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place.”

This is an epidemic theory of anti-social behaviour; something that is catching and contagious. It can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community. The epidemic aspect of this disease is not like gonorrhoea, transmitted through actual physical contact with a physical visual manifestation you can see, it is more like SARS. Anti-social behaviour, they insinuate, is transmitted through the air, infecting you without realising, secretly invading your body. You can come down with the anti-social behaviour virus both literally and socially. But the catalyst for the epidemic is not how you were bought up, it is environmental. The logical conclusion of the argument therefore is that, in general, local environment is the starting point for anti-social behaviour not the person themselves. Litter as an invitation to men (and women) behaving badly. Could this be true?

Kelling was asked to put his Broken Windows Theory to the test by the New York Transit Authority (NYTA), the organisation that runs the city’s subway system. At the time it was believed that the subway system was at the point of collapse, all the trains were covered in graffiti, fare-dodging was rife, trains didn’t run on time and there was serious crime on a daily basis. Surely this meant that NYTA should concentrate on the big things, like serious crime and train reliability to stand any chance of success. But Kelling along with David Gunn, the director responsible for rebuilding the subway system, decided to focus on the small things instead. Gunn insisted that the immediate environment of the train carriage was a key determinant of the whole system as the public saw it, and a factor in their subsequent behaviour. Against all advice he strongly felt that graffiti in particular signalled the wrong environmental messages, and was the start of a “broken window chain”. He believed that if he were to rebuild the organisation and staff and public morale, he had to win the battle against graffiti. Without winning that battle, all the management reforms and physical changes would be short-lived, and he wanted long term sustainable improvement.

Gunn set up a cleaning station. If a carriage came in with any graffiti it was removed during its changeover period and cleaned. Every night carriages were examined and cleaned before they were back in service the next morning. How annoying is that to a tagger who has put themselves in danger of being caught, only to see that the next day their artwork does not exist? At the same time William Bratton head of the American version of the British Transport Police in New York, used the same approach, even though serious crime was at an all time high. He decided to tackle fare dodging. An estimated 170,000 people a day were entering the subway system without paying. Kids just jumped over the gates, other people leant back on the turnstiles and forced their way through. Once people were so obviously cheating the system, others that would not normally consider it, joined in. They reasoned that if kids and others weren’t going to pay why should they. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that the fares averaged just $1.25 so the transit police didn’t think it was worth pursuing, particularly as there was so much serious crime that they barely had time to deal with.

Bratton first picked stations where fare dodging was at its worst, and put as many as ten plain clothed transit police at the turnstiles. The team would nab fare dodgers one by one, handcuff them (to show how serious the offence was), and make them stand in a line on the concourse until they had enough to fill a bus and take them to the police station. This gave an unequivocal message to all transit users that the police were now serious about cracking down on crime. The transit police also found that one in seven of those arrested had outstanding warrants for previous crimes, and one in twenty were carrying a weapon. The number of ejections for drunken or improper behaviour from the subway system tripled within the first three months, again it was signalled that such behaviour would not be tolerated.

Bratton was later to be employed by Rudolph Giulliani, the Mayor of New York, to do the same on the streets. Again he used similar strategies cracking down hard on quality of life crimes – graffiti, public urination, minor damage to property, littering.

How can we “sex-up” bin men?

Much has been written about the reasons for criminal behaviour; criminals are the victims of a complex set of socio-economic circumstances – social injustice, economic inequity, lack of status, unemployment, racism, institutional neglect and so on. Having been bought up in such a world, this argument has its merits, but I don’t entirely buy it. Not all people living in inner cities where the quality of the local environment is low, are naturally criminally inclined or deprived or have had an unsupportive upbringing. I think that there are professional criminals - hardened bastards that the police know in every town in the country, almost beyond redemption, systematically lawless, but they constitute a small percentage. Criminal acts, especially anti-social low level ones are often carried out because of the context of the local environment. You just don’t feel you have much worth if you step outside your front door and where you live is full of litter, dog crap, graffiti, flyposting and the odd broken window. You know that no one in authority cares about you or your family, and that no one is in charge. If the kids down the road break a car window and no one bothers, you might as well nick something out of the local shop or scrawl some graffiti, and of course it certainly won’t matter if you drop litter.

If you’re still not persuaded and think that just applies to deprived areas and the people who populate them, and you think environment has no bearing on how you feel and act, consider this: Would you feel, behave and act the same if you were in a church, or in a football crowd, or in the bosses office, or the pub, or in a beautiful country garden or in a really rough inner city street with youths hanging around with nothing to do. We are all incredibly responsive to the local environment, our research shows that if you are at a huge public event you will drop litter because you know hordes of people will be there to clear up when everyone’s gone home, but you wouldn’t do that if you were with your Mum or outside your own house. You will be hushed and respectful in a church even if you are an ardent non-believer; you wouldn’t feel comfortable in clothes that weren’t smart either it would somehow feel disrespectful. In a pub you would be much louder, more likely to laugh and certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable wearing a suit. If I found myself on business somewhere in inner city London strewn with litter and graffiti, I would hold on to my briefcase and cover up my watch and jewellery. I would even exaggerate my cockney accent in the vain hope that anyone dodgy might think I was a local girl made good, all the less likely to smack me in the mouth and nick my handbag. I certainly change my behaviour depending on the environment. Which brings me back to where I started - I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!

It seems hard to believe but I am persuaded that by tackling environment first, you will eventually have less crime and probably better educational attainment too, maybe even better health because your self-worth is restored. Perhaps local transport is less likely to be damaged, or the new playground the council has just installed at incredible expense won’t be mutilated. I don’t believe in the over-the-top, much quoted Robocop, zero tolerance approach, but there must be a softer version of that, which is practical and sends out the right messages.

So where does all the local money go? It is prioritised towards education (education, education), even though only one third of residents have any contact with schools. Towards public transport, even though the majority never uses it. Towards hospitals even though we only use them sporadically, (please God, if we’re lucky). And towards policing and social services. It is an indication of priority that of the 201 Best Value Performance Indicators that councils have to file to central government every year, that just one, (and that was only introduced this year), is devoted to local environment. When you look at it from a Council Chief’s point of view, environment just isn’t glamorous. Think health and you think George Clooney in ER or nurses in sexy uniforms, think police and you’ve got thrusting car chases and gritty crime dramas. Think local environment and you’ve got bin men with bum cleavage. I guess there’s no competition in the hearts, minds and genitalia of decision-makers. Perhaps we need a Campbell to ‘soup up’ the profession so that we can influence local councillors’ decisions on funding allocations. He must be looking for a job at the moment. Let’s sex up bin men, (not literally you understand).

The public consistently rates the quality of their local environment as their Number One priority. It’s the thing they notice most if the service isn’t right. You’d know within a day, maybe hours, if your wheelie bin or bin bags weren’t collected. Within days if your street wasn’t swept. Research by ENCAMS shows that litter, neighbourhood noise, graffiti, flytipping, abandoned vehicles, discarded syringes and dog fouling is ‘top of mind’ for local residents. MPs and government Ministers will all testify to the number of letters they get in their postbags on local environment. How many do they get on the relative merits of grammar schools versus comprehensives, or the length of the waiting list at the local hospital? A fair few, and these are very important issues of course, but they are dwarfed by what people think as they open their front door and encounter the street where they live. And everyone has a view on this. Everyone. If we do any radio or tv interviews on litter and dog fouling, we know that it will generate more debate, phone-ins and letters for that radio or tv station than any other issue they might cover in the next six months.

I think it is the Number One voting issue, because I wouldn’t know if social services got any better where I live, because I don’t engage with it. To be honest I wouldn’t know if our local hospital or local transport got better, I don’t currently use them, and I’m lucky not to engage with the police either, except for speeding fines. The prevalence of litter and dogfouling say far more about where I live, ergo about my community and my social status, than my local school’s SATS results, or how many buses run on time. It influences my mood, my behaviour, my self worth and my house price. What a vote winner if you could get the quality of the street right. Not only would no one expect you to do this, they would notice immediately! My personal thoughts are that a political party could get voted into power on that single issue, and the corresponding benefits would spill into the other key areas. This is validated by some MORI research that found the public expected hospitals and education to get better in the next few years, but they were expecting the quality of their streets to get significantly worse. How terrible. The electorate resigned to being ignored by the elected on their most important priority. No point in voting if that is the case.

Environmental equality for all (except on Sundays)

Yes I know, I can be accused of working my way into the boring middle-classes and not needing those other services much, and aren’t I lucky, but our work shows that if anything, local environment is even more important in deprived areas. In March 2003 ENCAMS conducted some research into environmental quality in a deprived area of one of the UK’s biggest cities. It was an awful time, some youths had been shot, presumably by accident, over the Christmas period, and a community used to terrible events was in shock. We spoke to a representative range of local residents and were overcome by their real sense of community spirit. Support for each other, no matter what race or religion, was overwhelming. Comments such as “there is a fantastic spirit here and it should be nurtured”, and “the community is brilliant, we’re solid and we stand together” were typical.

However the contrast between community spirit and the actual state of the local environment was truly shocking. Much work had been done on schools and amenities, and even young people agreed that they had a good school, sports centre and youth club. But they were resigned to living in a tip. In group discussions we held, validated by photographs we took from the area, the majority of negative comments were to do with local environment: “People just throw rubbish everywhere”. “You get mattresses, settees, televisions, fridges, tyres, beds and all kinds of stuff outside your house and up against your front door”. “When I wake up in the morning and look out of my house, it’s an eyesore”. “People dump stuff outside my house and it makes me look bad when it’s not my fault”. The residents felt strongly that where they lived had developed a bad reputation and lack of respect from people living outside their area, and this had added to the environmental problems. When outsiders travelled through or visited they assumed bad behaviour was OK, and threw litter and dumped rubbish, when they probably wouldn’t do it on their own doorstep. The main road is well known for being the city’s dustbin. Try getting a job, bank loan or insurance if you have the name of that road on your personal details - can’t help when you’re trying to chat up members of the opposite sex either.

It was plainly evident that the relationship between the council and the local residents had completely broken down. There was obviously an impasse between the two sides. Residents said they had complained dozens of times, but were shunned, pleas keep falling on deaf ears: “We’re fed up of it, it’s been highlighted time and time again and the Council just doesn’t listen to us”. “There have been two (abandoned) vehicles near us for months and I’ve reported them but no one has collected them”. “One man has been ringing the council for four weeks to move some rubbish and nothing has happened”. I know it’s not easy engaging a community that is multi-cultural and multi-lingual, with historic, religious and cultural practices that are alien to local authority managers. But can’t they take it more seriously? Try a bit harder? Everyone has a right to good local environmental quality, in fact environmental equality should start to take greater precedence in every council hierarchy. Again during our research, the Broken Window Theory was being articulated even though residents had never heard of George Kelling: “If there is rubbish in one particular area people think they can add to it without making a huge difference, then graffiti and fly-tipping adds up, then the area becomes run down”. Councillors and council chiefs must give environment more attention, but of course they will claim this requires extra funds from government – but that’s not true . . . 

In the posh street in which I live there are around 6 houses to a postcode. No one drops litter during the week, but it’s a route back from town on a Friday and Saturday night and gets its fair share of chip wrappers and Stella cans in the early hours. In council flats there can be up to sixty dwellings to a postcode, maybe even a hundred. Surely the area around the council flats needs sweeping and looking after at ten times the rate. My street gets swept every day except on Sunday, but it doesn’t need it (except on Sunday). I know because we analyse litter deposits at ENCAMS all the time. Why does the council waste its time and money doing this every day when it’s not needed? There are probably two reasons; political expediency and the simplistic one-size-fits-all mentality. I suspect there is political motivation regarding my street as councillors live there, so it makes the Chief Executive look good to have big boys toys humming away at six every morning (except on Sunday) without fail. My street needs sweeping three times a week no more, but a council area should be done maybe three times a day every day. I’m not being an armchair socialist, this is looking at it from a pure dispassionate business perspective. Please clean my street less because there will be no difference to its appearance. With the money and effort saved please go round the corner and look after the areas where it would make a real difference and where they really need it. Same amount of money just using it differently. And when a council started to do this, could they benchmark their crime, schools and health stats from that date and see if there is a positive move in the right direction on those too.

Get tough on the street

An uncared-for street can set off a whole chain of events. It gives a hint of lawlessness and shouts out that no one cares. I’m not suggesting that a littering offence will cause someone to spiral headlong out of control, to eventually become a chain saw murderer or chronic drug abuser, (although interestingly Fred West’s first offence was for littering). But I’m sure it affects our mood and our self-esteem and over time leads us to behave in a different, more destructive way. If we put more effort and focus on litter, dog fouling, graffiti, flyposting and general street cleanliness, surely people will react and behave differently towards their local surroundings. If it is prioritised, will it not mean less crime? Environment undoubtedly affects our behaviour and may lead some, who would not consider it in other circumstances to commit low level crimes. No one wants to live on a street that everyone else knows is a tip – it says something about you. If government made councils get tough on the street, the police woudn’t need to.

To make that commitment, areas that are run down must have more regular services than other areas. I know this isn’t one-size-fits-all, and could lead to a council being accused of inequality on a ‘per metre of street’ basis. But it would be equal on a population basis. More people are squeezed into inner cities so their servicing should be equal to the number of residents. We should measure the state of the nice tree-lined suburban area, and make it our priority that the same standard is upheld in every other part of the borough. This would be environmental justice, with the output being environmental equality.

The huge majority of the population is clearly unhappy with the state of their street, and rates this as their highest local priority. They don’t expect it to get better and are resigned to the stark political reality that no party is going to do anything about it. Ironically this is at a time when our political parties are in turmoil, have lost touch with the populace and are searching for vote-winning strategies. I can’t really put a cigarette paper between Tories, New Labour and Lib-Dems now, I don’t know what they stand for – not in one sentence anyway. New Labour appears to be more Tory than Tories. Tories want to be New Labour and the Liberals are just glad if someone mentions them in the same breath as the other two. If a party stood up and really committed itself to cleaning up the UK within the next three years, so our streets sparkled and our parks and buildings were clear of graffiti and flyposting, I’d vote for that and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

REFERENCES

Wilson, James Q; Kelling, George L. (1982): “Broken Windows; The Police and Neigborhood Safety “  The Atlantic Monthly Volume 249, No.3; pages 29-38

Gladwell, Malcolm (2000) “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Big Difference”  Little Brown and Company

Dennis, Norman (Ed); Mallon, Ray; Bratton, William; Pollard, Charles; Orr, John; Griffiths, William (1998) “Zero Tolerance: Policing a Free Society”
 

ENCAMS (2001) “ Public Behavioural Survey into Littering” – available at www.encams.org

ENCAMS (2003) “ Local Environmental Quality Geodemographics Research 2003 – What residents think of street services”

ENCAMS (2003) “ Local Environmental Quality Geodemographics Research 2003 – How householders perceive the local environment”

ENCAMS (2003) “ Lozells Road, Birmingham Clean-up Research Findings”

Sue Nelson 2003