CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week 6 notes
CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week 6 notes Crju 3200
Popular in Crime Prevention and Security
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Criminal Justice
verified elite notetaker
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Alison Carr on Friday February 19, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Crju 3200 at Bowling Green State University taught by Dr. Lab in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 16 views. For similar materials see Crime Prevention and Security in Criminal Justice at Bowling Green State University.
Reviews for CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week 6 notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/19/16
CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, Spring Semester 2016 Week 6 Community Anti-Drug Programs: Started in the early 1990s and still persistent Promoted by the White House Neighborhood watch geared at drug problems Recognized that drugs were rampant in society in the 1990s Implemented in high crime neighborhoods Tried to get the citizens involved About 2,000 of these programs in the United States Citizen Patrols: Citizens go out and patrol their own neighborhoods Increasing surveillance = more eyes on the street Usually foot patrol Operate only at night time Mostly volunteer workers Variations: o Whistle-stop- blow a whistle when something bad is happening Citizen patrols are not supposed to get involved, just call the police o Radio watch- call the police on your radio when you see something bad happening Approach: o Guardian Angels Basis for guardian angels: Routine Activities Theory: o In order to have crime occur, you need 3 things: Motivated offender Suitable target Lack of guardian Need to build back the guardianship Reynold: Everyone is a potential guardian, but level? o 1. Invisible guardian- you pay no attention to the crime whatsoever o 2. Available guardian- being present, and recognized as being present, but still paying no attention; you see it, but do nothing about it o 3. Capable guardian- clearly visible, people know you are watching and monitoring the area, but that does not mean that you are going to do anything if something bad happens o 4. Intervening guardian- visible, monitoring, and will take action if something happens Where we want all citizens to be Highest level of guardianship Do these programs work/make a difference? Neighborhood watch: o Basic design- to be proactive: stop crime before it happens But usually reactive work is happening; neighborhood watch programs do not start until there is already a problem with crime o Types of neighborhoods that have neighborhood watch programs: Stable neighborhoods Homogeneous neighborhoods Middle to upper class neighborhoods Low crime neighborhoods Neighborhoods that do not need the program o Where neighborhood watch programs should be: Areas with crime problems Low income neighborhoods High crime neighborhoods Minority neighborhoods o This program is welcomed by the police since the citizens are basically unpaid officers o Very cheap to run this program Evaluation of neighborhood watch programs: 1970s Chicago: Northwest Neighborhood Federation o Included 6 neighborhood groups: Redlined neighborhoods Very high crime Clear deterioration Neighborhood Citizen Patrol o Neighborhood watch is a major part o Included target hardening (mostly buildings) o Operation identification (marking your products) Harder to sell and dispose of products Easier to identify property and get it back o Put together a phone chain in all houses involved o Self-repot data: 12% reduction in victimization 22% reduction in perception of rising crime 26% reduction in fear of burglary 26% increase in feelings that residents can make a difference 26% increase in the belief of neighborhood crime control o Issues: No control group Couldn’t compare results ZERO cooperation with the police Neighbors and police hated each other Seattle Community Crime Prevention Program: Seattle had a burglary problem o Most were entering through unlocked doors and windows o Taking unmarked property o Most offenses committed during the day Set up: o Target hardening (locking up) o Property marking o Block watches o Promoted awareness Findings: o Significant reduction in burglary o Had control neighborhoods: no change o Increase in crime reporting; decrease in crime (very good) o Lasted 1 year and results stayed for 14-17 months o Leveled off at 17 months
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'