Crime Prevention and Perception

1. Crime Prevention and Perception Camila Alvarado, Cal Burton, Vivey Chen, Jessica Cutler, Sasha Derkacheva, Luciana Debenedetti, Valentina Lopez, Stephanie von Numers Mentors: Charles Wellford, Ph.D. and Lt. Steven Kowa, Ph.D. Librarian: Barbara Lay

2. Agenda • Introduction • Research Overview • Crime Data • Surveys • CPTED Scale • Methodology • Results • Conclusion

3. Introduction

4. Disparity – Risk of Crime On & Off Campus (2006) On Campus Off Campus

5. The Diamondback November 11, 2008 “Incidents of violent and property crime so far this year have fallen well below the six-year averages, but improving statistics have not necessarily translated into a greater perception of safety.” • "Perception can't be discounted even though crime rates are down." • University Police Spokesperson • Paul Dillon

6. The Importance of Perception • Research has shown that fear of crime may lead to: • Negative psychological effects • Avoidance behavior (Liska et al., 1982) • Fear of crime negatively affects neighborhood cohesion • Interpersonal distrust • Leads to greater amount of crime (Garofalo, 1981)

7. Routine Activity Theory

8. Situational Crime Prevention • Reduce opportunities for crime by • Increasing risks • Reducing rewards (Clarke, 1995) • Defensible space to promote security • Process (Clarke et al., 1989) • Collect • Analyze • Study prevention • Implement • Determine

9. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) • CPTED draws a relationship among the environmental factors in an area, the crime rate and perceived feelings of safety—or lack thereof (Cozens et al., 2005) • Based on the following overlapping principles: • Territoriality • Surveillability • Target hardening • Access control • Image/maintenance • Social cohesion/community culture

17. Research Overview

18. Research Questions 1. What is the relationship between a routine activity-based intervention and the rate of property crime and robberies in off-campus student residential areas? 2. What is the relationship between a routine activity-based intervention and students’ perceptions of crime? 3. What is the relationship between crime and the environmental design of properties in the selected area?

19. Sub-Questions 1. Where are the off-campus student residential areas with high incidences of reported crime? 2. What is the specific nature of crime in these hot spots? 3. What are students’ perceptions of crime in the target area, pre-intervention?

20. Hypotheses • Following the implementation of a routine activity-based intervention: • Crime rates will be reduced • Students’ perceptions will reflect a greater sense of safety • Properties with lower levels of CPTED vulnerability will have fewer incidences of crime

21. Study Division

22. Methodology

23. Methodology Overview • Longitudinal case study • Interrupted time series design

24. Target Area Selection

25. Crime Data Collection • Burglaries, larcenies, and robberies • Prince George’s County Police Department • Crimes committed between 01/2008 – 02/2011 • Coding key

26. Questions Sources Format Target population Residents of Old Town Non-resident students of UMD Convenience sampling Facebook Listservs Flyers Door-to-door Perception Survey

27. Perception Survey

28. CPTED Scale • Divided into 7 sections intended to measure the categories of CPTED • Published safety checklists • CPTED training • Designed as a checklist • Each property received a score in each section • Higher score = more CPTED vulnerability • Each characteristic was weighted equally

29. CPTED Scale Lighting __  Street lighting not present within ~25 feet / poor street lighting __ Lighting is inconsistent __ No home exterior lighting __ Yard not illuminated __ Lighting is inadequate (brightness –could you see people far away?) __ Darkness is persistent Yard Maintenance __ Trash is present __ Yard is unkempt __ Bushes obscuring visibility (sight lines / light obstructed) __ Bushes block sight completely __ Unseemly objects beyond trash present Home Exterior Maintenance __ Paint chipping __ Windows broken __ Home seems unkempt / unwelcoming __ Home seems about to die __ Need for major repair Accessibility of Valuables __ Valuables visible secured in yard __ Valuables visible unsecured outside __ Valuables within sight inside __ Door open / cracked __ Windows / open cracked within sight __ Blinds / curtains open Territoriality __ No barrier between yard or sidewalk __ No items that establish ownership (flowerboxes, fences) __ No evidence of human presence (newspapers), place feels abandoned __ No boundary with yard next door Guardianship __ There is no sidewalk present __ There is a narrow sidewalk present __ No blue light in vicinity __ Foot traffic not quantifiable __ Vehicle traffic not present __ No bus stop nearby __ No visible cameras Visibility / Sight Lines __ Hiding places present __ No clear escape route

30. CPTED Scale View completely obscured by foliage Hiding places present

31. CPTED Scale Curtains left open Valuables visible in front yard No separation between yard and sidewalk

32. CCTV Camera Intervention • August 2009 • Recommendations by CP2 helped the city of College Park receive a grant for security cameras • October 2010 • CCTV cameras installed in Old Town

33. Results

34. Crime Data N=169

35. Crime Data

36. Crime Data

37. Crime Data * : omitted January 2010 ** : omitted January 2011 Differences in crime levels are not statistically significant.

38. Crime Data * : omitted January 2010 ** : omitted January 2011 Differences in crime levels are not statistically significant.

39. Crime Data * : omitted January 2010 ** : omitted January 2011 Differences in crime levels are not statistically significant.

40. Sample

41. Sample : Representative X: Unrepresentative

42. Survey * α = 0.10, significant when |t| ≥ 1.29

43. Survey • Non-residents in the post-survey reported being • More worried about crime • More fearful of being a victim • And thought they were more likely to be victimized • “Would you say you feel less safe or safer in your neighborhood than you did 12 months ago?” • Pre-survey vs. post-survey responses

44. Survey • Prominent crimes in fall 2010: • 9/4: Off-campus strong arm robbery • 9/16: Bank robbery on Route 1 • 10/3: On-campus robbery • 10/12: Quadruple stabbing on Route 1 • 11/20: Off-campus strong arm robbery • These highly publicized crimes may have heightened students’ fear of crime on a general level

45. Survey * α = 0.10, significant when |t| ≥ 1.29

46. Survey • In the post-intervention survey, • Residents reported a greater use of home security systems • Non-residents reported feeling safer walking around in Old Town at night

47. CPTED Site Assessments

48. Conclusions 1. Following the implementation of a routine activity-based intervention, crime rates will be reduced 2. Following the implementation of a routine activity-based intervention, students‘ perceptions will reflect a greater sense of safety 3. Residences with lower levels of CPTED vulnerability will have fewer incidences of crime Conclusive evidence was not found to support these hypotheses

49. Limitations • Surveys • Volunteer bias • Generalization of crime perception • CPTED • No weighting • No access to personal property

50. Limitations • Fallibility of CPTED principles on crime • Homogenous area • External factors • Delay of camera implementation