Citizen Crime Prevention: Problems and Prospectives in Reducing

Citizen Crime Prevention:

Problems and Prospectives in Reducing Crime

Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. (University of Cincinnati)

Lawrence F. Travis, Ph.D. (University of Cincinnati)

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of

CriminalJustice Sciences, Orlando, Florida, March 1986. This evaluation was conducted

under a contract with the City of Cincinnati. Such support does not necessarily indicate

concurrence of the sponsor with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations con-

tained therein.

Introduction

In August 1983, the City of Cincinnati awarded a grant to the College Hill Forum

for the development and implementation of a crime prevention program. This

program was to be evaluated in hopes that it could serve as a model for other area

communities. The purpose of this article is to describe the College Hill crime preven-

tion project and to present the results of the evaluation.

College Hill is a community within the City of Cincinnati. With a population of

17,327, it is the fifth largest community in the city. The population of College Hill

closely mirrored that of the city as a whole: 33.9 percent black (city 33.8 percent),

27.5 percent under age 18 (city, 26.7 percent), and 23.2 percent retired (city, 24.1 per-

cent).

Community Crime Prevention

There has been increased interest and activity in the area of community crime

prevention in recent years. This rebirth of community involvement in crime control

can be traced to the President's Commission on Crime and Administration of Justice

(1967). The Commission reported that 50 percent or more of crimes committed were

not reported to the nation's law enforcement agencies. In an effort to increase report-

ing, and thereby, the efficiency of crime control, the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration sponsored several programs aimed at increasing citizen involvement

in crime control (Boston, 1977). As Lavarkas and others (1983) noted, "Since the late

1960's, millions of dollars have been spent to promote community crime prevention."

During the initial stages of this movement toward citizen prevention, two distinct

stategies seemed to emerge. On the one hand, there were several studies of citizens'

likelihood to report criminal behavior (Bickman, 1976; Bickman, et al., 1976a,

1976b), and ways to increase citizen reporting of crime. A second thread developed

wherein several studies were conducted to test the effectiveness of "target hardening"

(Jeffery, 1971; Wallace, 1976).

Journal of Security Administration, 1987 10(1) 38

Crime reporting projects took many forms, ranging from education programs for

youth and adults, to the mounting of citizen patrols. With the latter type of programs,

the citizenry are encouraged to serve as the "eyes and ears" of the police. Latessa and

Allen (1980) reported on one such project that employed local citizens to provide

part-time patrol of the neighborhood. This project operated under the assumption

that the patrolling citizens would not only increase the likelihood that crimes would

be discovered and reported to the police, but would also provide a deterrent to

criminal activity in the neighborhood.

Target hardening approaches ranged from residential and commercial security sur-

veys through architectural planning for crime control. Many police departments

provided surveys to residents to detect needed security improvements such as in-

creased lighting and installation of dead-bolt locks. Operation Identification projects

were supported by L.E.A.A. in several communities. In these projects citizens were

encouraged to mark their personal property to reduce the risk that it would be stolen,

and to enhance the probability that the property, if stolen, could be recovered and

returned (Heller, et al. 1975). Perhaps the most most ambitious of the target harden-

ing efforts involved the preparation of building plans and city designs which were in-

tended to reduce crime "through environmental design" (Jeffery, 1971; Newman and

Johnston, 1974; Neiburg, 1974).

Within the general rubric of "target hardening" yet another mode of crime preven-

tion developed — one based on the relatively new study of victimology. Based on the

pioneering work of Von Hentig (1948) and others, criminologists argued that certain

individuals may behave as victims. That is, some persons place themselves in vul-

nerable positions and act in ways that make themselves more likely to become the vic-

tims of crime. The result of this work has led to a crime prevention strategy based on

behavioral alteration. With this approach, people are trained to reduce their risk of

victimization by becoming more aware of possible danger and more cautious in their

everyday lives (Greenback, 1974). '

Since these early efforts at crime prevention in the community, many models and

programs have been adopted throughout the nation. Indeed, the emphasis on com-

munity crime prevention has not diminished. However, most recent community

crime prevention projects include aspects of all of these separate stra'

ies. General-

ly speaking, contemporary community crime prevention projects enlist citizen sup-

port and cooperation in reporting crimes, target hardening, and behavioral altera-

tion. The methods employed to achieve these ends vary with the scope of the project

and the level of resources available.

Evaluation Activities

A part of the overall goal of the Criminal Opportunity Reduction Effort (CORE)

was to test the applicability of this model for other neighborhoods within the city.

Thus, an evaluation of the project was a condition of funding. The evaluation involved

both outcome estimation (effects of the project on crime and fear of crime) and

process evaluation (analysis of organization and implementation of the project). The

Edward Latessa & Lawrence Travis, 1987, JSA, 10(1) 39

following sections describe project activities and assess the overall administration of

the program.

Activities of C.O.R.E.

October 1984 eight mass meetings were held at neighborhood churches and Town

Hall to explain the projects to residents of College Hill, and to recruit block-watch

captains. A total of twenty block- watch meetiongs were also held to organize and

implement block-watch groups throughout the community. In this first year alone,

the block-watch program was presented to over 1,000 residents in the meetings.

Through the community newsletter, the Journal, information about the project was

sent to 7,000 College Hill addresses each quarter. Forum and the project staff also

concentrated on securing coverage of the project in the news media, with great suc-

cess.

Target hardening activities proceeded along several lines. As a result of educa-

tional efforts at the various meetings, scores of home security surveys were conducted

by the Police Division's community affairs officer. Project identification engraving

tools were secured and circulated throughout the community. Block-watch stickers,

emergency telephone number stickers, and leaflets were printed and distributed

throughout the community. Neighborhood watch street signs were ordered and plans

made to erect them. Finally, efforts were begun to provide increased lighting and

improved fencing for a community parking lot which had been identified as a major

site of criminal activity in the community.

Through 1985, these activities continued. The signs were erected, lighting of the

parking lot was completed, and the neighborhood block-watch meetings and or-

ganization was expanded. In addition, the project staff increased their efforts at

public education and general crime prevention consciousness-raising.

With the target hardening activities in place and a nucleus of neighborhood block-

watch, the attention of the project staff was devoted to education and public aware-

ness through 1985. A two tiered strategy to increase public awareness was adopted.

Project staff, in cooperation with the Police Division, stepped-up efforts at public

education in College Hill. In addition, staff became involved in the national crime

prevention movement, beginning in mid-1984 and continuing through 1985.

Project staff secured printed matter on crime prevention and child safety from in-

surance companies, other corporate sponsors, and the publication of its own

materials. Staff then obtained a "McGruff" costume (the national community crime

prevention spokesman/symbol). Project staff, in costume, would visit schools or chur-

ches with a Cincinnati police officer to distribute literature. McGruff appeared in

the "College Hill Days" parade, and at other affairs which drew large attendance.

On a national level, the project served as the local coordinators for the greater Cin-

cinnati area for "National Night Out" in both 1984 and 1985. Through these efforts,

the increasing cooperation of the media, the project disseminated crime prevention

Journal of Security Administration, 1987 10(1) 40

information to the College Hill Community and beyond. The participation in "Na-

tional Night Out" resulted in national media coverage and publicity for the project.

Delays in securing agreements to parking lot leases and environmental protection

agency approval for the installation of improved fencing at the parking lot hampered

completion of the project. The fencing was expected to be completed in June 1986,

and the project has been granted a continuance until that time.

Problems in Project Administration

As is to be expected in any large scale effort of this type, where the control of the

project is divided among several levels and the success of the project depends upon

the voluntary cooperation of many different people and organizations, administrative

difficulties hampered the attainment of project goals. In addition to the normal

operational problems expected in an effort such as this, the City of Cincinnati ex-

perienced a budget deficit during this time period which resulted, among other things,

in a reduction of police staffing and a decrease in the ability of the Police Division to

support the efforts of the project. While the Cincinnati Division of Police did not

have a crime prevention unit per se, the duties normally associated with such a unit

were assigned to a community assistance officer. In response to budget reductions

these officers were temporarily reassigned to other duties.

Interviews with key staff revealed the need for Police Division representation at

block-watch and public meetings. Police attendance was necessary to provide

legitimacy and credibility to the program, as well as to insure expert, professional ad-

vice about crime prevention to those in attendance who raised questions. Similar con-

cerns were voiced in quarterly progress reports from the project to the City. Further-

more, volunteers did not feel qualified to conduct home security surveys and were

concerned that their suggestions for improvements to residents were not viewed as

being as credible as were those of a police officer. »

On the administrative side, throughout the life of the project, staff were hampered

by the absence of a single contact person within the Department of Safety who was

familiar with the project and its operation. Over the two year span the staff were re-

quired to continually educate and re-educate Safety Department personnel charged

with oversight of the project.

Another limiting factor identified by the staff was the difficulty they encountered

in taking quick action. Sub-contracts for the lighting and fencing work, purchase or-

ders for street signs and printing and the like were processed through the City, with

considerable delay. Further, as a result of City regulations, staff were not able to

leverage their resources through "sweat equity" or competitive bids. For example, the

City required that the Highway Maintenance Division install the signs at a cost of

$25.00 each. The design and colors of the signs were controlled by prior City policy

decisions, and sign-making was required to be done through the City sign shop. On

a positive note, this cooperation with the City proved beneficial to other communities.

The project purchased large quantities of signs and printed materials which allowed

substantial economies of scale. The cheaper excess of material was then available for

sale or distribution to other communities. It should be noted however, that there was

some resentment that funds were required to subsidize other efforts at the expense

of possible greater efforts in the project area.

A final set of administrative problems surrounded the project, and although they

did not effect the overall success of the project, they did cause a great deal of frustra-

tion for the volunteer staff. For example, the staff experienced difficulties with some

area businesses which leased the affected parking lot. Businessmen who held leases

with the parking lot were initially suspicious of the plan to improve lighting and fenc-

ing. It was difficult to convince many of them that the improvements would not result

in increased rental fees or costs to their businesses. Thus, what was expected to be a

quick and pro-forma amendment to existing leases required a level of discussion and

brokering that took its toll on the volunteer staff.

Another problem that arose was that Block-Watch captains were not always will-

ing to hold meetings in their homes during winter months, reducing the length of

time during which the recruitment of block watchers could be conducted. Understan-

dably, most interested persons were not able to accommodate meeting of twenty to

thirty residents inside their homes and preferred to schedule meetings for the sum-

mer months when they could be conducted out-of-doors. Not only did this reduce the

recruitment period, it also hampered efforts to disseminate information, provide con-

tinued education to block-watchers, and otherwise limited the block watch program.

This required the community relations officer to "bunch" his activities into the warmer

months, thereby creating a "bulge" in his workload.

A final problem relates to on-site administration of this sort of project. As a result

of the nature of the criteria for the award, those most likely to secure the project are

citizens who already devote a significant amount of time to voluntary community ser-

vice on a community council. Due to contract restrictions, the CORE project was not

allowed to hire any support staff for the project. The net result was that the project

represented an added workload to the existing volunteer staff. When coupled with

the above mentioned difficulties with city bureaucracy, the stress resulted in several

of the early supporters experiencing "burn out".

Outcome Estimation

The difficulty ofdetermining the impact of a project of this type stems in part from

the multiple objectives of the project. On the one hand, the project seeks to increase

citizen/police cooperation and thereby encourage the reporting of crime. On the

other hand, it seeks to reduce crime as reflected in crime known to the police through

deterrence and crime prevention techniques. To achieve one objective is to frustrate

the other. Thus, multiple measures of project performance have been included in this

evaluation.

Performance Measures

This project had multiple objectives, and therefore, no single measure of project

performance was sufficient to evaluate the project's impact on the community. A

series of measures were utilized to measure the effectiveness of the project.

Measures of project outcome effectiveness included:

1. The proportional change in selected crime in the project area.

2. The change in the number and types of victimization of individuals residing

in the project area over the life of the project.

3. The attitudes of project area residents regarding the effectiveness of the

project and its potential impact on the police, the community and crime.

Data for each of these measures were generally available. Selected crime data were

provided by the Cincinnati Police Division. These data were available for the project

area beginning with the year prior to the project's implementation, and for the two

years of actual operation. Similar data were available for the city as a whole. The

crime data presented in this report reflect crime rates as reported to the police begin-

ning January 1,1983 through December 31,1985. It should be noted that because of

the size and boundaries of the project area, a contiguous area could not be developed

to measure spillover.

Data on the rates of victimization of project area residents were gathered through

a survey. This survey was administered on two occasions to randomly selected

households and businesses in the College Hill area. Telephone numbers were ran-

domly selected from address listings obtained through the telephone company. Using

a random starting point, a systematic sample was taken from this listing. The pre-test

included 189 respondents and the post-test was conducted with a sample of 199. Con-

currently with the victimization survey, an attitudinal scale was administered. This

scale was designed to assess the level of perceived fear of crime in the neighborhood,

receptivity to the project, response to the concept of neighborhood crime programs,

and attitudes toward the police.

Victimization and attitudinal data were collected prior to the initiation of the

project for a pre-test, and just following conclusion of the two years of the project's

operation.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the data pertaining to the changes in crime rates was relatively

straightforward. The percentage changes were calculated for the project area and for

the city as a whole for the first year of project operation and for the two year period.

Differences were tested for statistical significance using the difference between

proportions test.

Edward Latessa & Lawrence Travis, 1987, JSA, 10(1) 43

The victimization and attitudinal data were analyzed by comparing the pre-test

results with the post-test results. The chi-square statistic was used to determine if the

differences were significant.

Crime Data Analysis

Data for crimes known to the police play a critical role in this evaluation. The data

for the period January 1983 through December 1983 were compared to a similar time

frame from 1984 and 1985 for the project area and the city as a whole. These data

should be viewed in light of similar studies which have indicated that reported crime

trends may be among the least useful measures of program effectiveness (Latessa and

Allen, 1980; Reiss, 1980; Sparks, 1980). Even the direction of change in reported

crime may prove to be misleading. As mentioned previously, if the project's efforts

improve police and community relations the tendency of citizens to report crime may

be increased, which will produce an apparent increase in crime as a result of the

project's success. With this caveat in mind, Tables 1 and 2 present trends in selected

reported crime data.

Table 1 is a summary table presenting selected crime data for the treatment area

(College Hill) and the entire city during the first year of program operation. The per-

centage changes listed in Table 1 and 2 were derived from raw crime figures provided

by the Police Division. In some cases they are based on a very small total number of

incidents which leads to rather large percentage changes associated with small chan-

ges in the actual number of incidents.

As seen in Table 1, the College Hill area reported a drop in burglary, larceny, auto

theft and the total crimes reported during the first year of program operation. These

crime categories are considered amenable to citizen crime prevention projects, par-

ticularly burglary and auto theft. The treatment area did report a large increase in

aggravated assaults, and a slight increase in robberies. Four of the six areas resulted

in a significant difference between the treatment area and the city as a whole. Per-

haps the most surprising difference was for auto theft, with the College Hill area

reporting a 55 percent drop, while the city reported a 3 percent increase.

Table 2 presents the results of the crime data over the two years of program opera-

tion (1983-85). These results are even more dramatic, with the treatment area report-

ing crime reductions in all but one category: aggravated assault. Again, the College

Hill area reported a reduction in burglary, larceny, auto theft and the total. Over the

two year period they also showed a drop in rape and robbery. The city also reported

an overall reduction in reported crimes, however, there were significant differences

in the amount of reduction, and once again the percentage of auto thefts rose for the

city.

The category which exhibits a clear trend toward decreasing crime only in the

project area was auto theft. This is a crime which can be prevented through the ef-

forts of a citizens' crime reporting project.

Table 1

Percentage Changes in Reported Crimes for College Hitl and City

January 1983 Through December 1983 & January 1984 Through December 1984

Criiei

Rape

Robbery

Aggravated Assault*

Burglary*

Larceny*

Auto Theft*

Total*

College Hill

•41

+551

-111

-121

-551

-HZ

City

+16.51

-51

+61

-21

-41

+31

-31

Table 2

(Differences were significant at .05.

Percentage Changes in Reported Crimes for College Hill and City

January 1983 Through December 1983 and January 1984 Through December 1985

Crises

Rape

Robbery

Aggravated Assault*

Burglary*

.arceny*

Auto Theft*

Total»

College Hill

-331

-191

+441

-281

-241

-sei

-261

City

;

+141

-III

•21

-131

-31

*3I

-51

(Differences were significant at .05.

Victimization Survey

The victimization survey for this study was conducted as part of the previously men-

tioned survey. The victimization survey instrument consisted of two short stand-

ardized questionnaires, with the majority of the questions requiring only a "yes" or

"no" or an "agree" or "disagree" answer. The first survey was a pre-test administered

before the implementation of the project. One hundred and eighty nine respondents

were surveyed, each a resident or commercial establishment within the boundaries of

College Hill. The post-test was administered to 199 respondents upon completion of

the project.

The data from this survey are presented in Table 3. These data indicated that there

was little difference in the number of victims between the pre-test and the post-test,

however, a significantly lower number of respondents indicated that they had filed a

report with the police between the pre- and post- tests. It should be noted that the

actual number of victims was very small and therefore the results are somewhat un-

reliable. This survey also found that a significantly higher percentage of residents had

heard of a crime being committed in their neighborhood between the two periods.

Since the reported crime data did not indicate an increase in overall crime, it is pos-

sible that this difference was due to the efforts of the project in making citizens more

aware of crime. There was no difference in the number of crimes witnessed, and these

data are consistent with other simitar projects that find that few crimes are actually

witnessed.

Table 3

Victimization Survey

Statement

Have you heen a victi» in

the past 12 lonths?

Yes

Total

Has a Police Report filed

by victia?

Yes

Total

Hive you heard of a criae

in your neighborhood?

Yes

Total

lave you witnessed a criie

in your neighborhood?

Yss

Total

Fre-Iest

January 19B3

167

189

129

1B9

IBZ

189

11.6X

BB.4X

100.01

77.21

22.82

100.02

31.71

6B.32

100.01

3.71

96.31

100.01

Post-Test

January

167

197

101

193

197

I9BG

15.21

84.81

100.01

67.81

32.

ioToi

49.01

51.01

100.01

2.01

_9B.«

looTox

Statistical

Significance

N.S,

.05

N.S.

Edward Latessa & Lawrence Travis, 1987, JSA, 10(1) 45

Journal of Security Administration, 1987 10(1) 46

Attitude Survey

The attitudes of the community are an important element in programs such as this

one. Feelings about the safety and security of the community by its residents may well

be as important as actual conditions. The attitudes of the residents toward the project

may affect their behavior and ultimately the success of the project. Also, it can be ar-

gued that the major element in many crime prevention strategies is a favorable at-

titude regarding crime prevention. Citizen attitude regarding crime, the police and

the project were measured through the use of a survey instrument which was ad-

ministered as a pre-test and post-test in conjunction with the victimization survey.

Community attitudes toward the project were deemed critical, since the program

was based on citizen involvement in crime prevention. If citizens hold strong nega-

tive attitudes toward the project, success is unlikely. Citizen responses to selected

questions are presented in Table 4, comparing the pre-test and post-test results.

The attitude survey revealed that several significant shifts have occurred. These

data indicated that the majority of residents do not feel that their neighborhood is

dangerous, or that crime is on the increase. One of the significant shifts regarded

knowledge of the project. The pre-test results found that slightly more than half of

the respondents had heard of the project compared to over 70 percent two years later.

Overall, the community presented a very positive attitude toward the project from the

very beginning, and therefore no dramatic change occurred. There was almost unan-

imous agreement that the project would not interfere with the police, 86 percent pre-

test to 89 percent post-test. The one additional significant difference that emerged

concerned the perception of police success in reducing crime in the neighborhood,

with 74 percent agreeing that the police were successful during the pre-test compared

to 60 percent at the end of the project.

These findings reinforce the contention that the project/enjoyed widespread sup-

port from the community. The vast majority of residents were aware of the project

and supported it. Similarly, most felt their neighborhood was safe. The majority of

residents liked the police, and although fewer felt that the police were successful in

reducing crime, this was not a majority view.

Summary and Conclusions

The College Hill/CORE began in late 1983 and operated through 1985 with a core

staff comprised of volunteer community leaders. The project organized a neighbor-

hood block-watch program in College Hill and succeeded in instituting several tar-

get-hardening practices including residential security surveys, property identifica-

tion, and environmental alterations to a high crime incidence location (parking lot).

Although always one goal of the project, public education and commuity conscious-

ness-raising received increased attention from project staff beginning in late 1984.

As a result of project efforts, several thousand pieces of mail were distributed

throughout the community, over 1,000 residents attended neighborhood meetings,

and the College Hill Crime Prevention Project received substantial media coverage

and publicity, both locally and nationally.

Administrative problems with type of project were identified as existing in three

areas. First, as a result of not having a single identified contact within the City Safety

Department, it was difficult for project staff to maintain communication and relations

with Safety Department oversight of the project. The relatively "informal nature" of

the citizen or community crime prevention project is not well suited to the require-

ments of municipal regulations and bureaucracy. Quick, decisive action was inhibited

and staff of the project frequently felt that they were not in control, since they were

required to abide by City regulations. Finally, the voluntary nature of the involve-

ment of all parties in the project produced substantial management and organization-

al problems which heightened the stress experiences by project staff.

The outcome evaluation employed multiple measures to assess the effectiveness

of the crime prevention project. Pre-test data were gathered including information

about the distribution and number of offenses in College Hill and the city as a whole,

as well as baseline survey data from individuals and business in College Hill. Respon-

dents to the survey were contacted in random telephone interviews and asked a series

of questions on their feelings about the safety of the community, the nature of the

project, their relationships with the police, and their experiences as either witnesses

or victims of crime.

Crime data provided by the Cincinnati Police Division revealed that the College

Hill project area generally experiences a decrease in the amount of crime between

1983 (the year before the project began) and over the course of 1984-1985 (the project

time period). With the exception of aggravated assault, the project area experiences

reductions in crime in all measured categories. The most significant finding was the

drop in auto thefts in the project area, while the city as a whole experienced a net in-

crease in the number of auto thefts. The project area also experienced a significant

decline in the numbers of burglaries and larcenies as well.

The survey of residents and businesses revealed little difference in the number of

victims over the course of the project. The most notable differences were attitudinal.

Post-test respondents were much more likely to report being aware of the crime

prevention program, and having heard of a crime occurring in their neighborhood

than were pre-test respondents. Both pre-test and post-test respndents reported that

the majority of residents did not view their neighborhood as being unsafe, and that

most residents did not believe that crime was on the increase. Moreover, there was

almost unanimous agreement that the crime prevention project would not hamper

the police, although fewer respondents felt that the police were successful in reduc-

ing crime.

Edward Latessa & Lawrence Travis, 1987, JSA, 10(1) 47

Journal of Security Administration, 1987 10(1) 48

Table 4

Citizen Attitude Survey

Statement

re-Test

January

yorry about *i things

being stolen.

Agree

Disagree

UnsurE

total

This is i dangerous

neighborhood to live in.

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

Total

trite in this neighbor-

hood is on the increase.

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

Total

Have you heard o! the

trite reporting project?

Yes

Total

Do you believe the project

uill be successful?

agree

Disagree

Unsure

Total

Ifl?

lib

IBS

183

149

187

1033

4UI

50.81

2.U

100.01

6.31

87.31

5.SI

100.01

13.01

61.41

13.61

100.01

54.11

45.91

100.01

n.n

i. u

18.21

IO0.01

Post-Test

January

! 107

: i:

i 133

;

: n

: i7i

: n

; m

•

i 10

it:3

; 36

;139

;

143

1 53

1138

[

: 157

1 9

! 33

1139

im i

40.21 i

53,87. 1

6.01 '

100.07. i

B.51

B3.9I

5.51

100.01

70.

St. BI

1B.U

100.01

72.11

IT. n

100.OX

78.31

4.51

16.61

100.01

Statistical Statement

Signi 'kanct

Do you osiieve the project

U.S.

H.S.

U.S.

.00

;

M.S.

vill interfere with polic

in criae prevention?

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

Total

Co you beliefs the project

is a good idea?

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

Total

Mould you bi willing to

work on the project?

Yes

Total

Police are successful in

reducing criae in this

neighborhood.

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

Total

Overall 1 HVt the police

in this neighborhood.

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

Total

Pre-Test

anuar)

162

183

178

IBS

LOO

LBS

133

188

IS?

IBS

159

86.

10.

100

! Post-Test i

tJinuar;

:i :

II i

a ;

0.51

100

83.51

100

.81

~oi

177

133

192

139

118

197

193

156

139

[m \

I !

2.01 i

88.91 I

9,01 1

00.0! i

96.51

0.51 '

3.01

100.01

59.

40.11

100.01

60.31

14,61

25.11

100.01

78.41

2.01

19.61

iSbToi

Statistical

Significant

U.S.

.oo

IN.

Edward Utessa & Lawrence Travis, 1987, JSA, 10(1) 49

There are several possible interpretations of the results of tms siuay. unc cApiai™-

tion is that crime simply "spilled over" into contiguous areas. This implies that the

project had a deterrent effect on would be criminals. Unfortunately, it was not pos-

sible to develop a control area due to the boundary restriction of the area under study.

Another possibility is that these crime reductions are simply part of an overall trend

developing in the city, and this certainly seems true with some crime categories.

Finally, it is quite possible that the project made citizens more aware of crime preven-

tion and thus, the results were due to the success of the project in meeting its goals.

Note

By City ordinance, neighborhood watch signs erected within the City of Cincinnati

must conform to the selected design and can only be installed after the Division of

Police verifies at least fifty percent resident participation in a block-watch program.

References

Bickman, L. (1976) "Attitude Toward an Authority and the Reporting of Crime",

Sociometry 39 (1): 76-82.

Bickman, L. (1976a) National Evaluation Program - Phase I Report - Citizen Crime

Reporting Projects, Final Report. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).

Bickman, L., et al. (1976b) Citizen Crime Reporting Projects - National Evaluation

Program - Phase I, Summary Report. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Of-

fice).

Boston, G. B. (1977) Community Crime Prevention: A Selected Bibliography.

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Greenback, A. (1974) Survival in the City (New York: Harper and Row).

Heller, N. B., et al. (1975) Operation Identification Projects: Assessment of Effec-

tiveness, National Evaluation Program - Phase I Summary Report. (Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office).

Jeffery, C. R. (1971) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. (Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage).

Latessa, E. J. and Allen, H. E. (1980) "Using Citizents to Prevent Crime: An Example of

Deterrence and Community Involvement", Journal of Police Science and Administra-

tion, 8(1): 69-74.

Lavrakas, P. J., et al. (1983) "Transmitting Information about Crime and Crime Preven-

tion to Citizens: The Evanston Newsletter Quasi-Experiment", Journal of Police Science

and Administration, 11 (4): 463-73.

Neiburg, H. L. (1974) "Crime Prevention by Urban Design", Society, 12 (1): 41- 47.

Journal of Security Administration, 1987 10(1) 50

Newman, O. and Johnston, S. (1974) Model Security Code for Residential Areas,

(New York: Institute for Community Design Analysis).

President's Commission on Crime and Administration of Justice (1967) The Chal-

lenge of Crime in a Free Society. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).

Reiss, A. J. (1980) "Understanding Changes in Crime Rates" in S. E. Fienberg and A. J.

Reiss (eds.) Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office): 11-17.

Sparks, R. F. (1980) "Criminal Opportunities and Crime Rates" in S. E. Fienberg and

A. J. Reiss (eds.) Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office): 18-28.

von Hentig, E. (1948) The Criminal and His Victim. (New Haven: Yale University

Press).

Wallace, W. D. (1976) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design-An-

notated Bibliography. (Arlington, VA: Westinghouse Electric Corporation).

Edward Latessa & Lawrence Travis, 1987, JSA, 10(1) 51