Crime Prevention Exam 1

Front 1

Definition of crime prevention according to Lab

Back 1

crime prevention entails any action designed to reduce the actual level of crime and/of the perceived fear of crime

Front 2

Primary crime prevention (What is it? What are some examples?)

Back 2

avoiding the initial development. Health education, environmental design

Front 3

Secondary crime prevention (What is it? What are some examples?

Back 3

ocuses on the individual and the situation. Case findings, neighborhood programs.

Front 4

Tertiary crime prevention (What is it? What are some examples?)

Back 4

avoiding recidivism rehabilitation, punishment

Front 5

Public health paradigm v. criminological paradigm prevention models (Developed by whom?)

Back 5

brantingham & faust

Front 6

Alternative crime prevention models

Back 6

Van Dijk and De Waard (victim oriented approaches, community oriented approaches, offender oriented approaches) Crawford (social approaches, situational approaches) Tonry and Farrington (developmental prevention, community pevention, situational prevention)

Front 7

How to measure the problem of crime in society

Back 7

official measures of crime, victimization surveys, self report data

Front 8

Official measures of crime (especially the UCR)

Back 8

criminal court filings, conviction records, jail populations, uniform crime reports (index crimes- violent crimes, property crime. Validity issues- are police records and reports unbiased?)

Front 9

Victimization surveys

Back 9

1967 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of justice. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reveal more crime than do official measures. Provides the dark figure

Front 10

Self-report data

Back 10

may be official or unofficial, provides a broader picture, helps uncover disparities, may be validated, problems of under-reporting or over-reporting

Front 11

Costs of victimization

Back 11

monetary losses, physical injuries, individual victims, societal impact of crime.

Front 12

How do you measure fear of crime?

Back 12

most measures reflect risk or assessment of crime level rather than emotional response

Front 13

Ferraro and LaGrange study

Back 13

judgements, values, emotions

Front 14

Fear levels

Back 14

level of fear exceeds actual level of crime

Front 15

Demographics and fear

Back 15

fear-victimization relationship is mainly a problem in urban areas, age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, community.

Front 16

Consequences of fear

Back 16

harmful psychological effects, efforts to reduce fear, efforts to avoid victimization, efforts to protect oneself.

Front 17

Vicarious victimization

Back 17

hearing about another persons victimization. Perceived risk. incivility

Front 18

Pertinent explanatory variables in fear studies

Back 18

crime rates, interracial crime, racial composition, population size

Front 19

Code of Hammurabi (lex talionis)

Back 19

what kind of justice committed against you

Front 20

Watch and ward/Hue and cry

Back 20

snitch/ neighborhood watch

Front 21

Statutes of Winchester

Back 21

assize of arms, constable- warden of guards

Front 22

Early prevention approaches

Back 22

physical design (walls, gates), surveillance, restriction of weapon ownership.

Front 23

Thief takers

Back 23

voluntary bounty hunters, former criminals, no rules

Front 24

The Metropolitan Police (People involved in its beginnings. Key ideas.

Back 24

formed in London 1829. Sir Robert Peel and Charles Rayman (commissioner). Key idea was crime prevention (proactive)

Front 25

Early American crime prevention (Vigilante movement. Juvenile courts. Chicago Area Project.)

Back 25

Vigilante movement (based on watch and ward, hue and cry). Juvenile courts 1899 (Parens Patraie, children not prosecuted as adults. Chicago Area Project 1931- Shaw and McKay, little social control in poor areas, transient, broken window theory.

Front 26

retribution

Back 26

like for like, backward locking, no justice without social justice

Front 27

consequentialism

Back 27

the enlightenment (science), utility (ruled by laws that affect other people, sum of human happiness, forward-looking

Front 28

Stages in the preventive process

Back 28

1. obtaining information on the crime problems 2. crime analysis- summarizing the info on offenses and trying to discover patterings, interpretation of the pattern of offending 3. devising preventive strategies 4. implementation- fixed ideas dont always work. 5. evaluation

Front 29

crime science

Back 29

emerging area in crime prevention. Laycock 2005- crime science is the application of the methods of science to crime and disorder

Front 30

interdisciplinary approach

Back 30

criminality disciplines.

Front 31

Goals of evaluations

Back 31

implementation of the intervention, impact of the initiative

Front 32

Impact/outcome evaluations

Back 32

focus on what changes occur after the introduction of a policy, intervention, or program.

Front 33

obstacles

Back 33

crime prevention initiatives rarely rely on a single intervention, the unit of analysis for evaluation is usually a neighborhood or other geographic area

Front 34

Process evaluations

Back 34

considers the implementation of a program or initiative and involves determining the procedures used to implement a specific program. Also examines the contexts in which the initiative operates, offers a detailed account of the program and its implementation, advocates say that the resulting info is pivotal in answering questions about the context of an intervention and what actually took place in the initiative.

Front 35

Cost-benefit evaluations

Back 35

seeks to ***** whether the costs of the intervention are justified by the benefits or outcomes that result from it. Requires an impact evaluation be conducted at the same time. Difficulties- setting a monetary value on things that are difficult to enumerate, making sure that all of the costs involved in the program are counted.

Front 36

Theoretical concerns associated with evaluations (i.e. theoretical vacuum and outcome myopia)

Back 36

research in a vacuum- fail to tell us why a program is or is not successful, many investigations may be unnecessary, there is no context. Atheoretical evaluations- outcome myopia, program administrators “know” what works, many programs are the result of grassroots efforts.

Front 37

Measurement issues associated with evaluations

Back 37

measuring key outcome variables when the intervention is geographically based, the use of official crime data, gathering data and operationalizing key concepts can be difficult, competing influences on the project may mask the outsomes.

Front 38

Experimental design (the “gold standard”); (Sherman et al. and the Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods; associated problems)

Back 38

strengths- increase the likelihood that the groups being compared are equivalent, control over the evaluation groups, factors that could influence the outcome can be controlled. Problems- generalizability of the results, threats to external validity, replicating findings, methodology rather than theory drives the projec

Front 39

Other types of evaluations

Back 39

randomized experiment, nonrandomized experiment, quasi-experiment

Front 40

Key evaluation issues

Back 40

complex v. simple prevention programs. Displacement and diffusion of benefits, long term evaluations, boundary conditions, crime rate fluctuations

Front 41

Evaluation considerations

Back 41

form of the analysis (methodology), completeness of the information, overall effectiveness of the measures, effectiveness against specific crimes

Front 42

Why evaluations fail

Back 42

measurement failure, theory failure, implementation / program failure

Front 43

Potential to affect crime through modifying the physical environment-

Back 43

changes make it difficult to commit a crime. Risk of being seen and caught is enhanced. Physical design changes may prompt residents to change their behavior.

Front 44

Defensible space (including elements)

Back 44

physical characteristics of an area can influence the behavior of both residents and potential offenders (territoriality, natural surveillance, image, milieu)

Front 45

CPTED (including intermediate goals)

Back 45

rests on the assumption that potential offenders are influenced by the costs and benefits inherent in any action. Access control, surveillance, activity support, motivation reinforcement

Front 46

access control

Back 46

seeks to allow only those persons who have legitimate business in an area to enter.

Front 47

target hardening

Back 47

personal efforts, neighborhood efforts, indirect efforts.

Front 48

surveillance

Back 48

involves any action that increases the chance that offenders will be observed I.e windows, doors, pathways, lights, outdoor activity/ pedestrian traffic

Front 49

Activity support and Motivation reinforcement

Back 49

related to the building of a community atmosphere- indirectly through activities, direct recruitment, appearance and design of an area, impact of access control and surveillance.

Front 50

Implementation of environmental design

Back 50

Secured by Design and Crime and Disorder Act. Core principes- integrated approach, environmental quality and sense of ownership, natural surveillance, access and footpaths, open space provision and management, lighting.

Front 51

SBD

Back 51

emphasizes and promotes the inclusion of safety and security measures in new and existing buildings.

Front 52

Lighting

Back 52

increased outdoor activit and thus greater surveillance. Increased ability to detect a crime in progress or identify an offender. Deterrent potential, allows potential victims to see their surroundings and may lead them to avoid less well lit locations. Research on lighting has had mixed results.

Front 53

Painter and Farrington 1997

Back 53

The best-designed previous evaluation of the effect of improved street lighting on crime was the Dudley project

Front 54

variety of methodological problems with lighting

Back 54

measurement of lighting, lack of information on control areas, most analyses use short follow-up period

Front 55

surveillability

Back 55

fisher and nasar 1992- prospect, refuge, escape. Should alter both fear and victimization levels.

Front 56

Property marking

Back 56

few people participate, few programs report significant changes in reported burglary. None found impacts on arrests or convictions. Car marking

Front 57

alarms

Back 57

studies have shown the positive effects of alarms- cedar rapids, iowa. Interviews with offenders also reveal the impact of alarms.

Front 58

risk cues

Back 58

occupancy cues, surveillability cues, accessibility cues

Front 59

Street layout and traffic; Alley gating

Back 59

the design of streets impacts crime through level of accessibility potential offenders have to an area. A variety of types of streets can be compared.
Newman and wayne, alley gating

Front 60

Challenge to defensible space (Merry)

Back 60

“good defensible space design neither guarantees that a space will appear safe nor that it will become part of a territory which residents defend effectively” . Failure due to a lack of social cohesion and community identity. An area may be defensible with no one to defend it.

Front 61

Rings of protection

Back 61

Bennett- deterring, detecting, delaying, respond

Front 62

Product design; Products and misdeeds

Back 62

Hot products are concealable removable available valuable enjoyable disposable (CRAVED).

Front 63

it is possible to secure products

Back 63

make products inherently secure, incorporate prevention/security devices within the product, restrict offender access.

Front 64

However it can be difficult

Back 64

designers are not trained in crime prevention, features must be user friendly, changes should adhere to aesthetic features, legal and ethical questions need addressing, increased costs.

Front 65

Misappropriated-

Back 65

theft of the product itself

Front 66

mistreated

Back 66

vandalism or destruction of items

Front 67

mishandled-

Back 67

returning of stolen goods, use of counterfeit currency, use of fake documents

Front 68

misbehaved with

Back 68

contamination of products, the ability to set off false alarms without being observed.

Front 69

Incivility, disorder, and crime; James Q. Wilson’s “broken windows” theory

Back 69

physical and social disorder signal an area is not protected and open to criminal activity. Physical disorder may contribute to the growth of social disorder. Part of newman's “image”. The relationship between disorder and fear.

Front 70

Types of neighborhood crime prevention approaches

Back 70

Neighborhood/Block watch; Community anti drug programs; Citizen patrols; Police-community involvement

Front 71

neighborhood block watch-

Back 71

discuss mutual problems in the neighborhood, work to increase the feelings of community, promote joint action to address their common problems. Proactive in nature, should provide informal social control in the community.

Front 72

community anti-drug programs

Back 72

residents come together with each other the police and various agencies and organizations. Goal is to attack drug use, drug sales, and related problems. Success should be enhanced by increased levels of social cohesion. Seeks to encourage citizen participation. Findings have been positive

Front 73

Citizen patrols-

Back 73

represent an active role in surveillance efforts, on foot or mobile. Volunteer or paid individuals. Guardian Angels. Most studies show positive impacts.

Front 74

Police-community involvement

Back 74

police play a big role in many community crime prevention activities and organizations. Initiators or leaders of neighborhood programs, provide expertise, make arrests, coordinate efforts of experts or residents. Take action needing official sanctions or force of the law.

Front 75

Evaluation of neighborhood crime prevention

Back 75

involves two measures of effectiveness 1. effects on community cohesion 2 effects on crime and the fear of crime. Outcome intensity.

Front 76

Effects on community cohesion

Back 76

simple documentation of existing groups and number of participants. Statement about the quality of individual involvement. Typically report positive results. Show that watch participants have positive attitudes of the police. Various studies attempt to directly assess changes in community cohesion and communal support (results are mixed)

Front 77

Effects on crime

Back 77

crime prevention is aimed primarily at the property offenses, official records reveal positive impacts of neighborhood watch programs reducing burglary initiative.

Front 78

Victimization measures assess the impact of crime prevention

Back 78

through personal reports of crime and generally show positive results

Front 79

neighborhood crime prevention and fear of crime

Back 79

generally explored using victimization surveys
reported reductions may be dramatic

Front 80

Ferraro 1995

Back 80

impressions of overall crime in the community
feelings about whether citizens have an effect on crime and neighborhood problems
general feelings toward the components of the cj system
reported reductions may be dramatic

Front 81

environmental factors related to crime

Back 81

The built environment
Territorial markers
incivilities
The _subjective__ experience of the environment

Front 82

neighborhood instability

Back 82

Disinvestment
Demolition and Construction
_demagoguery_
Deindustrialization

Front 83

the effects of neighborhood decline on fear

Back 83

Victimization and Fear
_secondhand_ Information
Deterioration and Disorder
_the built environment_
Group Conflict

Front 84

effect of fear on community life

Back 84

Withdrawal
_informal_ Control
Organizational Life
Delinquency and Disorder
_commercial decline_
Collapse

Front 85

evaluation issues

Back 85

Participation in crime prevention programs may engender _more fear_
Impact of increased surveillance
Varying definitions of fear
Varying definitions of _neighborhood_
Using diverse subjects in follow-up surveys
Focus on high _crime_, high fear areas
_short_ follow-up times
Crime prevention programs are not implemented in isolation
Failure to adequately assess the program’s _implementation_

Front 86

citizen participation and support

Back 86

Many findings are presented as _generalizable__
May not be applicable to all subgroups
Some studies find changes only for _participants_
Some studies have looked at participant demographics
Crime prevention is often a _secondary extension_ of other groups activities

Front 87

dimensions of crime prevention behavior

Back 87

Lab (1990)
Surveillance
_______________
Target Hardening
Personal Security
Access Control
Lab and Hope (1998)
take evening precautions
Neighborhood Watch
Technological Security Measures
Fortress-type Security Measures
self-defense activities

Front 88

obstacles to neighborhood organization

Back 88

few opportunities to participate
program initiation due to existing problem
inability to organize in areas that need the most help

Front 89

Rosenbaum's problematic assumptions underlying neighborhood watch

Back 89

can easily be implemented on a large scale
most citizens would become involved regardless of individual characteristics
interaction and discussion at block watch meetings will have immediate effects
neighborhood watch organizers invest in the activity with the belief that it will be sustained

Front 90

social control input

Back 90

private control
parochial control
public control