Neighborhood Crime Prevention Programs - Research Paper Example

Neighborhood Crime Prevention Programs: Prevalence and Citizen Perceptions of Their Effectiveness in Preventing Victim Facilitation and Improving Crime Deterrence Name University Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Review of the Literature 3 Hypotheses 8 Plan for Conducting the Study 9 Plan for Evaluating the Data 9 References 10 Appendices 12 Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 12 Appendix B: Sample Survey Questions 16 Introduction 3 Review of the Literature 4 Hypotheses 9 Plan for Conducting the Study 10 Plan for Evaluating the Data 10 References 12 Appendices 14 Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 14 Appendix B: Sample Survey Questions 19 Neighborhood Crime Prevention Programs: Prevalence and Citizen Perceptions of Their Effectiveness in Preventing Victim Facilitation and Improving Crime Deterrence Introduction One of the aims of victimology is to understand the relationships among victims, offenders, and their circumstances, including determining why some people are more prone to victimization than others and what conditions increase victim susceptibility, so that researchers can recommend evidence-based crime reduction strategies and programs that center on both victims and their environments (Ferguson & Turvey, 2013, p. 2). Victim facilitation is also an emerging concern for law enforcement agencies because it puts some blame or responsibility on the victims for their victimization (Eigenberg & Garland, 2008, p. 24). Victim facilitation takes place when victims unwittingly contribute to crime through their carelessness and other actions (Eigenberg & Garland, 2008, p. 24). The implications of victim facilitation are that it can be prevented more than other forms of victimology where victims increased their protections against crimes, and that the community and the police can work together in eradicating victim facilitation. Among the various solutions to crimes, neighborhood crime prevention programs are widespread where community initiatives and political funding and support for them are present (Hennig, 1984). Crime prevention refers to efforts to reduce victimization and to deter criminals from conducting their illegal activities. Neighborhood crime prevention programs are established to decrease crime rates and fear of crimes (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012, p. 94). Several examples of these programs are: (1) Neighborhood/block watch; (2) Neighborhood/Crime/Citizen Patrols; (3) Information sharing activities; (4) Anti-Drug programs; (5) Court watch program; (6) Security escort programs; and (7) Other target-specific programs (i.e. youth and education). These programs have differences in their particular objectives and activities, as well as their level of interactions with the police, but they all intend to encourage neighborhood participation in addressing crimes, to establish and strengthen strong police-community relationships; and to promote neighborhood cohesion (Hollander et al., 1979). Ever since different neighborhood crime prevention programs were implemented, various assessment reports from the 1970s onwards showed mixed results in terms of crime deterrence effects, community cohesion, and safety-perception levels. The paper intends to understand how civilian community members now perceive their existing or future neighborhood prevention programs. The research question is: Can the implementation of crime prevention community programs with intensity and resources prevent victim facilitation and improve the ability of the police in catching criminals? The research design is a mixed-methods design that determines the prevalence of crime prevention efforts and perceptions on their effectiveness from the perspective of civilians from different communities through survey and interview. Review of the Literature Before describing the literature on victim facilitation and neighborhood crime prevention programs, the paper provides a definition of terms first. The police refer to different law enforcement agencies, including the police department in a city for instance and federal law enforcement agencies (Wadman, 2009, p. 4). The representatives of the people to the government have the power to make criminal laws (Wadman, 2009, p. 7). When people report criminal law violations, the government reacts through the police first, and then the courts and corrections next, if the accused are proven to be guilty of their crimes (Wadman, 2009, p. 7). Citizens generally expect the police to be professionals in handling crime reports and suspects. The following are definitions of police innovations. Community policing is hard to define. It is one of the recent innovations that continue to flourish for the past three decades. It means that police do not have to rely on themselves only in reducing crime. They can rely on community-based crime control measures on understanding and resolving crimes (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 46). Hot-spots policing is a new approach that describes the level of focus of police efforts (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 46). It refers to the police determining particular places where crime is concentrated and focusing resources on these locations (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 46). Hot-spots policing can be more effective than traditional police mobile and foot patrol because the former targets specific places and increases the probability of catching criminals (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 46). Problem-oriented policing is more diverse than hot-spots policing in diversity of approach (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 46). It requires focus on particular problems and fitting police strategies to the former (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 46). It is different from standard policing because it is more customized to community needs and its toolbox includes community resources and tapping the functions of other government law enforcement agencies (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 46). Besides defining police innovations, the prevailing theory in the criminal justice system should also be discussed, which is the deterrence theory. Deterrence theory is one of the most influential theories on the development and evolution of the American criminal justice system. It believes that people are deterred from committing crimes because of knowledge of and fear for punishment (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012, p. 9). Its roots are the ideas of Beccaria and Bentham, penologists of the eighteenth century, who both assert that criminals are usually rational beings who calculate the costs and benefits of their criminal actions (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012, p. 9). In addition, deterrence theory underscores that increasing punishment increases crime deterrence too (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012, p. 9), which gave birth to capital punishment. Research on deterrence theory increasingly questioned the effect of increasing punishment on crime reduction, especially because of the high incarceration rates in the U.S. today, although crime rates are much lower than before the 1990s (United States Census Bureau, 2012). Some researchers noted that the certainty of apprehension may be more effective in deterring crimes than intensity of punishment (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012, p. 267). Neighborhood crime prevention programs can increase the certainty of apprehension if they are active enough to monitor suspicious behaviors and to report them to the police, and if the police are known to act fast enough to capture criminals (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012, p. 455). These programs can deter crimes, although its effects on crime deterrence and social cohesion are largely untested (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012, p. 246). Studies on the effects of neighborhood crime prevention programs on crime rates and social cohesion show mixed results, where, on the one hand, some learned that they were not prevalent in high-crime-rate areas with low socioeconomic status and that they were not highly effective in deterring crime than control groups without them. See Appendix A for the annotated bibliography. Henning (1984) examined if the neighborhood watch program in a police district in Washington, D.C. in 1981 affected the drops in crime rates in 1982 to 1983. Their evaluation lasted for one semester only because of funds limitations. Findings showed that watches were formed in more prosperous areas with more white citizens and that these communities had more active and organized watches; a minority of these watches was no longer active; and participating blocks did not have lower crime rates or faster drops in crime rates than non-participating blocks. This study shows that watches are lacking in low SES communities that may need them the most. It also underscores the poor effectiveness of neighborhood watches in decreasing crimes. Weisburd and Eck (2004) reviewed police actions against crime, fear, and chaos in the context of recent policing innovations. They used a typology with two dimensions, diversity of means and focus levels. Findings showed that standard policing did not affect crime, fear, and chaos; police innovations that are more tailored and focused on community needs are more effective than traditional police methods; community policing is ineffective without problem-oriented policing; and diverse police practices and approaches are implemented across the nation without sufficient systematic studies done on them. These studies underscore that having community policing is not an assurance of crime deterrence. Community policing methods are also insufficient if they are not based on problem-oriented policing and lack genuine and lasting community support. Other factors also impact their effectiveness in attaining their objectives. Other studies, however, find neighborhood crime prevention programs as effective in reducing some crimes and fears and increasing social cohesion. Hollander et al. (1979) examined the effects of the Hartford Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program on burglary, street robbery, and fear for the said crimes among urban community members. It is the first experimental approach of its kind that combines physical environment design and a community-based crime prevention approach. The program was implemented in 1976 and it had three components: (1) closing and making streets narrower to reduce outsider traffic into the neighborhood; (2) establishing a neighborhood police unit with close neighborhood ties; and (3) promoting area organizations to cooperate with the police and to enhance neighborhood crime prevention initiatives. Findings showed that the rate of burglary decreased, the increasing trend of robbery stopped, and perceptions regarding crime improved. All of the mentioned crime components contributed to the said outcomes, where the most important was the better efforts of the neighborhood to control outsider movements. The study shows that community policing can be effective if mixed with environmental design. It shows how situational policing can include environmental design factors for better crime deterrence effectiveness. Smith and Scott (2013) described the history of law enforcement crime prevention programs. They included early prevention programs, such as random motor patrol and rapid response and foot patrol, and modern prevention programs, such as community policing that includes neighborhood watches, citizen patrols, and information sharing. They learned that other neighborhood crime prevention programs are not effective in reducing crimes and increasing social cohesion, although citizen patrols had some deterrent effect on burglary and car theft in some communities. These studies note the difficulties and limitations in measuring the success of said programs with limited funds and timeframes. They agree that some neighborhood crime prevention approaches may be more successful than others depending on other human and physical community design factors too. As for victimization, it is a social interaction process. Von Hentig studied the susceptibility of people to victimization using psychological, social, and biological factors, including gender, age, mental ability, and race (Ferguson & Turvey, 2013, p. 15). He noted that, though some victims are less culpable of being victims than others, victims are more active than passive subjects in their victimization (Eigenberg & Garland, 2008, p. 22). Mendelsohn continued the study of victimology and is often called the father of victimology. He made six categories of crime: “(1) completely innocent victims; (2) victims with minor guilt; (3) victims guilty as the offender; (4) victims more guilty than offenders; (5) most guilty victims; and (6) imaginary victims” (Eigenberg & Garland, 2008, p. 24). Innocent victims are those who did what they can to prevent crime. Victim facilitation takes place when victims unwittingly contributed to the crime through their carelessness and other actions. Victim precipitation happens when victims greatly contributed to the crime. Victim provocation occurs when victims are more blameworthy for the crimes than their offenders. Fully-responsible victims are not victims at all but they still file complaints. These categories underscore that victims are, in way or another, accountable for their victimization because crime is a social interaction process between criminals and their victims. They impose the blame on victims and indicate that many crimes are preventable. These studies suggest the gap in the study of neighborhood crime prevention programs’ effectiveness in attaining crime deterrence and social cohesion. Some studies also focus on only one kind of program. There is a lack of studies on understanding current perceptions of these programs too and their connection to the ability of the police to apprehend criminals. Scholars have also yet to understand how people also feel for these programs that are not existent in their communities. Future studies should consider these perceptions because they express how civilians feel about neighborhood crime prevention programs, whether they are existing or not. Hypotheses The effectiveness and perceptions of effectiveness of neighborhood crime prevention programs are important topics because they can aid current and future crime deterrence programs. Weisburd and Eck (2004) underscored that a standard police approach is not enough in reducing crimes. The standard approach is a one-size-fits-all approach that is more reactive than proactive and is still predominant in the U.S. (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 44). They learned from their review of literature that community policing is effective when combined with problem-oriented policing and hot spots policing because they are more focused and have diverse approaches (Weisburd & Eck, 2004, p. 45). They emphasized the importance of intensity and tailored approaches to successful neighborhood crime prevention programs. The hypotheses are based on the belief that increasing the intensity and customization of these programs through problem-oriented policing can improve their effectiveness in boosting social cohesion and crime-reduction effects. Hypothesis 1: The greater the intensity of community participation, the more customized the approach to neighborhood crime prevention program will be than the traditional police approach. Hypothesis 2: The more tailored the approach is to neighborhood crime prevention, the more effective it will be in reducing crime rates than the traditional police approach. Hypothesis 3: A more tailored and intense neighborhood crime prevention program is more effective than the traditional police approach in improving social cohesion against crime. Hypothesis 4: A more tailored and intense neighborhood crime prevention program is more effective than the traditional police approach in improving criminal prevention awareness. Hypothesis 5: A more tailored and intense neighborhood crime prevention program is more effective in decreasing victim facilitation than the traditional police approach. Hypothesis 6: A more tailored and intense neighborhood crime prevention program is more effective in improving perceptions about the ability of the police in catching criminals than the traditional police approach. Plan for Conducting the Study The research is a mixed-method study. A mixed methods approach is essential in understanding diverse perspectives and in validating self-reported questionnaires (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007, p.113). The interview will be for the police to determine crime rate changes after neighborhood crime prevention programs are implemented. Three police departments will be chosen. The survey will assess how citizens feel about the programs in their communities. See Appendix B for sample survey questions. Plan for Evaluating the Data To evaluate the data, descriptive analysis will be done. Results will be categorized according to themes and to answers to the hypotheses. Statistical analysis will help understand the data more in determining correlations between neighborhood criminal prevention programs and social cohesion, crime reduction, and police apprehension of criminals. References Eigenberg, H., & Garland, T. (2008). Victim blaming. In L.J. Moriarty (Ed.), Controversies in victimology (pp.21-36). Ohio: Matthew Bender & Company. Ferguson, C., & Turvey, B. (2013). Victimology: A brief history with an introduction to forensic victimology. In B. Turvey (Ed.), Forensic victimology: Examining violent crime victims in investigative and legal contexts (pp.1-32). Retrieved from http://booksite.elsevier.com/samplechapters/9780123740892/Sample_Chapters/02~Chapter_1.pdf Hennig, J.R. (1984). Citizens against crime: An assessment of the neighborhood watch program in Washington, D.C. Occasional Paper No. 2. Center for Washington Area Studies. George Washington University. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/85-Henig.pdf Hess, K., Orthmann, C.H., & Cho, H. (2012). Introduction to law enforcement and criminal justice(10th ed.). Connecticut: Cengage. Hollander, B., Hartmann, F.X., Brown, R.R., & Wiles, R. (1979). Reducing residential crime and fear: The Hartford Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/88-Hollander_et_al.pdf Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. Retrieved from http://drupal.coe.unt.edu/sites/default/files/24/59/Johnson,%20Burke%20Mixed%20Methods%20Research.pdf Maxfield, M.G., & Babbie, E.R. (2012). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology. California: Wadsworth. Smith, T.R., & Scott, J. (2013). Policing and crime prevention. In D.A. Mackey & K. Levan (Eds.), Crime prevention (pp.61-92). Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett. United States Census Bureau. (2012). Law enforcement, courts, & prisons: Crimes and crime rates. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html Wadman, R.C. (2009). Police theory in America: Old traditions and new opportunities. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J.E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42-65. Retrieved from JSTOR. Appendices Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography Eigenberg, H., & Garland, T. (2008). Victim blaming. In L.J. Moriarty (Ed.), Controversies in victimology (pp.21-36). Ohio: Matthew Bender & Company. The authors tackled the history of studies on victim blaming, including victim precipitation. They gave the categories of victimology according to different researchers. They noted that victims may have different degrees of responsibility, although some had no responsibility for their crimes, if they decreased their risks to them as much as possible. The authors are credible because Dr. Eigenberg is a Professor of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University, while Garland is an Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator and Acting Department Head of Criminal Justice in the same university. The reference is important in exploring the implications of victim blaming to criminal justice. Ferguson, C., & Turvey, B. (2013). Victimology: A brief history with an introduction to forensic victimology. In B. Turvey (Ed.), Forensic victimology: Examining violent crime victims in investigative and legal contexts (pp.1-32). Retrieved from http://booksite.elsevier.com/samplechapters/9780123740892/Sample_Chapters/02~Chapter_1.pdf The authors summarized the history of forensic victimology. They determined influential personalities who started victimology studies. They noted the lack of scientific approach in victimology research. The authors are credible because they are both experienced forensic criminologists. This reference is important in understanding the history and trends in victimology. It helps the researcher understand the context and methods of of victimology studies. Hennig, J.R. (1984). Citizens against crime: An assessment of the neighborhood watch program in Washington, D.C. Occasional Paper No. 2. Center for Washington Area Studies. George Washington University. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/85-Henig.pdf Henning (1984) examined if the neighborhood watch program in a police district in Washington, D.C. in 1981 affected the drops in crime rates in 1982 to 1983. Their evaluation lasted for one semester only. Findings showed that watches were formed in more prosperous areas with more white citizens and that these communities had more active and organized watches; a minority of these watches was no longer active; and participating blocks did not have lower crime rates or faster drops in crime rates than non-participating blocks. The author is credible because of his high educational and professional background. This reference is important in showing that: during the early 1980s, neighborhood watches favored prosperous areas and that crime rates were not connected to their existence. Hess, K., Orthmann, C.H., & Cho, H. (2012). Introduction to law enforcement and criminal justice(10th ed.). Connecticut: Cengage. This book provides sufficient information on the different agencies concerned in law enforcement and criminal justice. It offers additional information on contemporary law enforcement and challenges to law enforcement and criminal justice that Wadman (20096) did not touch upon in his discussions. The authors are credible because of their work experiences and educational background. Kären Matison Hess served as an instructor at Normandale Community College. She had written a number of textbooks in the law enforcement and criminal justice. Christine Hess Orthmann has been writing and doing research on different aspects of criminal justice for more than two decades. Henry Lim Cho has an M.A. in Human Services from Concordia University, St. Paul, Minnesota. He also served as private security and community service officer for more than a decade. This resource is important in providing definitions to terminologies and describing evolving issues and trends in the fields of law enforcement and criminal justice. Hollander, B., Hartmann, F.X., Brown, R.R., & Wiles, R. (1979). Reducing residential crime and fear: The Hartford Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/88-Hollander_et_al.pdf Hollander et al. (1979) examined the effects of the Hartford Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program on burglary, street robbery, and fear for the said crimes among urban community members. It is the first experimental approach of its kind that combines physical environment design and a community-based crime prevention approach. The program was implemented in 1976 and it had three components: (1) closing and making streets narrower to reduce outsider traffic into the neighborhood; (2) establishing a neighborhood police unit with close neighborhood ties; and (3) promoting area organizations to cooperate with the police and to enhance neighborhood crime prevention initiatives. Findings showed that the rate of burglary decreased, the increasing trend of robbery stopped, and perceptions regarding crime improved. All of the mentioned crime components contributed to the said outcomes, where the most important was the better efforts of the neighborhood to control outsider movements. The authors are credible because of their affiliation with Harvard University and respective education and professional backgrounds that are related to criminal justice. This reference is important in showing the pioneering efforts of the police in community crime prevention. Maxfield, M.G., & Babbie, E.R. (2012). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology. California: Wadsworth. This book provides definitions of important policing and criminology concepts. It also describes several crime prevention programs at community levels. Furthermore, it explains research methods and sampling strategies and their pros and cons. These authors are credible because they are notable professors in their respective fields, Babbie in sociology and Maxfield in criminal justice. This resource is essential in definitions of terms and as a guideline for research. Smith, T.R., & Scott, J. (2013). Policing and crime prevention. In D.A. Mackey & K. Levan (Eds.), Crime prevention (pp.61-92). Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett. Smith and Scott (2013) described the history of law enforcement crime prevention programs. They included early prevention programs, such as random motor patrol and rapid response and foot patrol, and modern prevention programs, such as community policing that includes neighborhood watches, citizen patrols, and information sharing. The authors are credible because they are both Associate Professors in the Department of Criminal Justice at the Rochester Institute of Technology. This reference is important because it provides evaluations of mentioned crime prevention programs. United States Census Bureau. (2012). Law enforcement, courts, & prisons: Crimes and crime rates. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html This webpage includes 1990 to 2010 census statistics. It contains crime statistics for different crimes. The website is credible because it comes from a trusted government agency. This information will help provide statistics and determine trends in community crimes. Wadman, R.C. (2009). Police theory in America: Old traditions and new opportunities. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. This book provides information about the history of law enforcement in America. It includes the functions of the police and information on crime deterrence theory research. It also describes the weaknesses of crime deterrence and the importance of crime prevention, which Wadman (2009) stressed is under-utilized and under-measured. The author is credible because he is a Professor in the Criminal Justice Department of the Weber State University and has been teaching for more than a decade. He also served as Chief of Police in three different communities. This resource is important in providing background material on law enforcement and related concepts of police functions, police theory, and crime prevention. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J.E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42-65. Retrieved from JSTOR. The authors reviewed police actions against crime, fear, and chaos in the context of recent policing innovations. They use a typology with two dimensions, diversity of means and focus levels. Findings showed that standard policing did not affect crime, fear, and chaos; that police innovations that are more tailored and focused on community needs are more effective than traditional methods; that community policing is ineffective without problem-oriented policing; and that diverse police practices and approaches are implemented across the nation without sufficient systematic studies done on them. The authors are credible because Weisburd is a Professor of Criminology at the Hebrew University Law School and Eck is a Professor in Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. This reference is important in its evaluation of police innovations. It provides a partial explanation why neighborhood prevention programs may not always be effective in reducing crime and decreasing fears for crimes. Appendix B: Sample Survey Questions 1) Does your community have a neighborhood crime prevention program? Yes ___ No___ Not sure__ 2) What kind of program is it? Check all that applies Neighborhood watch__ Citizen patrol__ Escort Security services__ 3) Are you a member of this program? Yes ___ No___ 4) Do you think that the community actively participates in the program? Yes ___ No___ Not sure__ 5) Do you think that the program is customized to particular community problems (i.e. burglary, car theft, etc.)? Strongly Agree__ Agree__ Neither Disagree or Agree__ Disagree__ Strongly Disagree__ Read More