CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week7 notes
CRJU 3200: Crime Prevention and Security, week7 notes Crju 3200
Popular in Crime Prevention and Security
verified elite notetaker
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.
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
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'