New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week7 notes

by: Alison Carr

CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week7 notes Crju 3200

Marketplace > Bowling Green State University > Criminal Justice > Crju 3200 > CRJU 3200 Crime Prevention and Security week7 notes
Alison Carr
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover the lectures or week 7.
Crime Prevention and Security
Dr. Lab
Class Notes
Criminal Justice
25 ?




Popular in Crime Prevention and Security

Popular in Criminal Justice

This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Alison Carr on Sunday February 28, 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 12 views. For similar materials see Crime Prevention and Security in Criminal Justice at Bowling Green State University.

Similar to Crju 3200 at BGSU

Popular in Criminal Justice


Reviews for CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week7 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: 02/28/16
CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, Spring Semester 2016 Week 7 Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Program  Manchester, England  2,000 homes in 1 housing estate  Burglary rates were 2 times the national average  Burglars would take money from pre-paid gas meters  Improved physical security devices (gates, locks, etc.)  Community teams go around for security surveys  Cocoon neighborhood watch: o Tried to take homes and people and put themselves in small groups (3-4 homes) o One home would watch another home o Used self-report data and official data  Burglary fell by 50% in 7 months  Long term follow up (4 years after the program)  Burglary fell by 75% in that 4 years o More of an impact over time  25% drop in burglary in parts of the town  Cocoon was the most important part o Made the most difference  Increased participation of people, more got involved  Increased preventative measures Neighborhood watch (in general) is to build the intervening factors  Social cohesion no clear evidence that it builds social cohesion  Crime: generally, a positive impact  Reporting of crime: increase in reporting, decrease in crime  Fear of crime: decreases only for the participants  KEY: implementation of the program and participation of the people Community Anti-Drug Programs:  White House backed up this program  Poor and limited evaluations  Very mixed results on social cohesion  Drug violence turns into violent crimes  Decrease in participations because of the fear of retaliation Citizen Patrol:  Basic requirements/expectations o 1. Surveillance operation (to look and not intervene) o 2. Safety oriented, not enforced oriented (to build safety, not enforce the law) o 3. Citizen administered  You decide when you patrol  Residential areas, not commercial areas  Evaluations: o 1970: Yin  found citizen patrol across the country  Most last 4-5 years (some 10 years) o Effect:  Low to middle income areas  Usually volunteers  Upper class places have paid volunteers  Fear of crime is greatly reduced  No impact on crime  Police/citizen relationship is highly improved o Negatives:  Vigilante behavior happens  Citizen complaints about patrols  Invasion of privacy Guardian Angels (most recognized citizen patrol):  1979 New York City: Curtis Slywla subways  1983: o 48 different chapters of Guardian Angels o Can find most of them in big cities o To deter violent crime  Assault, rape, robbery o Know martial arts o Knows how to deal with citizen issues o Has enforcement-type training o Recognizable because of a jacket and a red beret o Uses no weapons  Evaluations: o Most from surveys o New York City o Police observation: in general, they support it  70% said they act appropriately  Helps make arrests, intervene, identify suspects, and resolve citizen issues o Impact on crime: bigger drops in crime in areas without Guardian Angels  Based on violent crime offenses o Their areas do have bigger drops in property crimes  Presence is stopping property crime offenses o Feelings of safety: citizens love Guardian Angels  60% feel safer  Females feel the safest Evaluations:  Lavrakas and Herz o Survey of Chicago area o Telephone survey o Asked questions about neighborhood watch o Where do they operate more?  Higher crime areas  More densely populated areas  Lower income areas  More inside the city, not in the suburbs o 90% of the people do not participate  Don’t have time  Other commitments  20-25% don’t care o Who are the people that don’t participate?  Women  Older people  Lower educated people  Whites o Who are the people that do participate?  People who have a much stronger territorial attitude  People who think it is their and the public’s responsibility to stop crime  Joiners (people who are involved in a lot of things) Divergent findings:  Tend to think crime prevention is 1 thing and uni-dimensional o Each study focuses on different things Study: Lavrakas and Lewis  Data based on surveys and questions about crime prevention o Do you use locks, alarms, lights, neighborhood watch?  Factor analysis all the data  Found that there are 2 categories of crime prevention domain: o 1. Avoidance domain  I don’t go here, I don’t go out at night, I don’t get involved o 2. Access control  more locks, target hardening, limit access to your home  Problems: o Didn’t try to find out who and what type of people fall into each category Study: 1990 Lab  Used NCVS  Factor analysis  Modeled after Lavrakas and Lewis  Found 5 categories of crime prevention domain: o 1. Avoidance o 2. Access control o 3. Target hardening o 4. Surveillance o 5. Personal security  Who fits into each domain? o Some have more males/ females, white/non-white, older/younger UK British Crime Prevention: 5 Domains  1. Neighborhood watch  2. Evening precautions  3. Technology security  4. Self defense  5. Fortress security o A group does each category How do you get people involved?  Package the right things in neighborhood watch programs o Find out what they want and target it  Find a good, indigenous leader  Newletters  Have regular meetings and make them relevant  Cannot just be a neighborhood watch group o Have more than 1 issue to target


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.