4, 111731 iffé;
" ‘5’:

:- é~é<r>§guu

—\ "q f???

":1 - 'J:$"..' “ 1.33 :: ~5 ’1; 3f“ :;:.:.1' ,.,

- x
:19 3:3le I

.- . fa Jan 3- ”‘4”. "1'";

2
"' 'gr'x ,
mi

:3

3‘?

. 3L;

15mg:

K5333};E§
nui-
“.41

' , ”'3

w
.
v
f. , '7'
.4”
éfla.r’

2.1""

P.~._

3.3.. max firm}?
i“ "s; ' ' ‘ “‘24,: *efifi, 3:533”
IV '~ r ~45 ,. ‘ .. w'
m 5 2‘ . é“? .13,“ w- A "e: #JER “law
34’“? ' . 3...‘ . _
A! ~.&

‘ I.
’11?" 4
3391:;

 

1“
2:7» :rgfifibfi
7' ‘3” $322113“

J

I .

6'11?»

-1“ ”a: 3. '7‘”
. It .3

. .. .
"'"Ku.
o'- H '

 

martyr-'-

.4“ ‘4h'fip‘7

r-‘\

4
u:

m “3
IV 1‘-

"fire-'1 "
nrw :5? :—
'1: ‘1”

it‘d-z. ._'

. 3,: m
:u 2.," 1mm, 3., _, ,m‘my
«1'4“ 4‘“ _-"‘-’{'*.'

133: mm m \ o'ifi'n « uJ

-.'\-I....

~I
s It
‘:‘tv' .-
,nv « o5
. —\~l ,
. $34.; r
Nu , ..

-r v

31:35:: 2.2;

 

r
p“.
'52. "5.,- ’. r"
w, v. .
”'7‘,“ v‘

two-'2'-

'ré.‘l**"'" in. r:
;:.

I ‘ ‘ C . *-
I " ~ , > ‘ ‘ ' " - ' b ' 'v‘lfi ’ " " - u‘ ‘ 2’ :1". .n" L‘me‘s‘ltt'
4 -~ , -, _ ._ g- , 6,. s.‘ 3, ‘2; 3-55‘... :3.
"'“  p-z' 'Ter‘m...“
-L'J'T.~

     

.3.-

 

Ml HIGAN TATE UNI

l llllllll

I!

 

 

llwllllll

5 5936

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

"An Examination of Nonprofit Community-
Based Crime Prevention Strategies"

presented by

Timothy Alan Akers

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice-Urban
Studies

 

 

Charles J. Corley Ph.D.

M

' r professor

Date August 84 1991

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

r“ ’ \
LIBRARY
Michigan State

University I

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I. An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity lnstltmion
cMma-DJ

AN EXAMINATION OF NONPROFIT COMMUNITY-BASED
CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGIES

BY
Timothy Alan Akers

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Criminal Justice-Urban Studies

College of Social Science, School of Criminal Justice,
and Urban Affairs Programs

1991

ABSTRACT

AN EXAMINATION OF NONPROFIT COMMUNITY-BASED
CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGIES

BY
Timothy Alan Akers

The purpose of this study was to identify community and
community-based.organizational (CBO) characteristics that may
distinguish between CBOs that do and do not initiate crime
prevention projects. This study further examines how
community and CEO characteristics may influence the initiation
of various types of crime prevention strategies. Primary,
secondary, and comprehensive crime prevention strategies were
the dependent variables examined.

Data from 132 projects were collected. The collection
methodology consisted of a content analysis of grant
application files and a survey questionnaire.

The major findings of this study indicate that certain
community and C30 variables as: 1) geographical area, 2)
perceptions of crime, 3) race of the community, 4) number of
full-time paid staff, 5) number of volunteers, 6) year the CBO
was established, and 7) type of CEO were not statistically
significant in terms of their relationship to the types of

strategies initiated by CBOs.

This thesis is dedicated to my parents,

Patton and Willa Mae Akers

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful completion of this thesis can be
attributable to the support and cooperation of the School of
Criminal Justice and Urban Affairs Programs at Michigan State
University.

First, my sincere gratitude is expressed to Dr. Charles
Corley, my graduate committee chairperson, for his enduring
patience and tolerance in advising, editing, and reviewing
every step of this study. This study would have been
virtually impossible without his insight. Secondly, I am
deeply greatful to Dr. Dennis Payne. Dr. Payne's
sophisticated knowledge of the criminal justice system has
expanded my perception of the system through his valuable
insight. Lastly, I owe special thanks to Dr. John Schweitzer,
a friend and mentor, to whom I owe a tremendous debt of thanks
which can never be repaid. Thank you Dr. Schweitzer for
sharing with me your optimism, encouragement, and genuine
kindness.

I further extend a sincere thank you to my brother,
Thomas Patton Akers, and my friends and colleagues, Bob
Meesig, Tim Collardy, Gina Cambone, and Lynn Anderson for
their optimism and support when the pressure was high.

1V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES...........................................VII
LIST OF APPENDIX...........................................X
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM......1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................6

Theoretical Implications.....................7
Primary Prevention...........................9
Secondary Prevention........................10
Comprehensive Community Crime Prevention....1l
Implications for the Study of

Community Crime Prevention................22

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND “THOWWY. O O O O O O O O O O O O O .24

Brief History of the Program................24
Methodology of Data Collection..............25
Sampling Procedure........................25
Content Analysis Method...................28
Telephone Survey Method...................29
Operationalization of Variables.............31
Crime Prevention Strategies...............31
Causes of Crime (Primary) Strategies......32
Opportunity Reduction Strategies..........32
Comprehensive Strategy....................33
Crime Prev. as a Major Part of project....33
Crime Prev. as a Minor Part of Project....34
Community.................................34
Community-Based Organizations.............35
Limitations...............................36

IV. ANAIJYSIS 0F DATAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.0....37

Crime Prevention and Non-crime
Prevention Projects.......................38
Community Characteristics.................45
Community-Based Organization
Characteristics.........................50
v

Chapter Page

Community Crime Prevention Strategies:
Primary, Secondary, and Comprehensive.....59
Community Characteristics.................62
Community-Based Organization

Characteristics.........................68
canalusionOO00.00.00.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.80

V. SUMY AND CONCLUSIONSOOOOOO0.00.0.0...0.0.0.81

Introduction................................81
Literature Review...........................82
Methodology.................................85
Major Findings..............................86

Part I....................................86

Part II...................................91
Conclusions.................................94

APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: CONTENT ANALYSIS SHEET............96

BIBLIOGRAPHY...eeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeoeeoeeeeeeo00.098

vi

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Characteristics of Communities
under Study.ooeeoeeeeeeeeoeoeeeooe00000000000039

Characteristics of the Geographical
Area servedCOCCOOOOOOCOCOOOOOCOOOOOOO0......0.41

Characteristics of Community-Based
Organizations Under Study.....................44

Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention

and Non-Crime Prevention Projects by
Geographical Area Served......................46

Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention

and Non-Crime Prevention Projects by

Perception of Crime...........................47

Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime

Prevention and Non-Crime Prevention

Projects by Race..............................48

Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention

and Non-Crime Prevention Projects by

Number of Full-Time Paid Staff................51

Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention

and Non-Crime Prevention Projects by

Number of Volunteers..........................52

Cross-tabulation of the Year the

Community-Based Organization was

Established by Crime and Non-crime

Prevention Projects...........................54

vii

Table

10:

11:

12:

13:

14:

15:

16:

17:

18:

19:

20:

21:

22:

Page
Cross-tabulation of the Type of
Community-Based Organization by Crime
and Non-crime Prevention Projects.............55

F test of the Discriminant Function

Analysis for Predicted Group Membership

between Crime Prevention and Non-crime
Prevention Projects...........................57

Prediction Results of the Confirmatory
Discriminant Analysis using Crime

Prevention and Non-crime Prevention
Projects......................................58

Crime Prevention Strategies Initiated
by Community-Based Organizations..............60

Cross-Tabulation of Geographic Area
by served by Project Classification...........63

Cross-Tabulation of Perception of Crime
by Project Classification.....................65

Cross-Tabulation of Racial Composition
of the Community by Project
Classification.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.067

Cross-Tabulation of Full-Time Paid
Staff by Project Classification...............69

Cross-Tabulation of Number of Volunteers
by Project Classification.....................70

Cross-Tabulation of Year of
Organization's Establishment
by Project Classification.....................72

Cross-Tabulation of Type of Organization
by PIOject ClassificationCOOOOCOCO0.0...O0.00.73

F test of the Discriminant Function for
Predicted Group Membership between

Primary and Secondary Crime Prevention
Strategies....................................76

Prediction Results of the Confirmatory
Discriminant Function Analysis using

Primary and Secondary Crime Prevention
Strategies....................................77

viii

Table

23

24

Page
F test of the Discriminant Function for
Predicted Group Membership between
Primary, Secondary, and Comprehensive
Crime Prevention Strategies...................78

Prediction Results of the Confirmatory
Discriminant Function Analysis using

Primary, Secondary, and Comprehensive

Crime Prevention Strategies...................79

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

Appendix A: Content Analysis Sheet.............96

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

For the past twenty years community-based crime
prevention programs have been increasing. Several community-
based crime prevention strategies have been implemented over
the years in order to offset the level of crime in various
communities. In general, strategies initiated by community-
based organizations (CBOs) to circumvent neighborhood crime
include anticrime activities such as neighborhood watch,
dispersal of dead-bolt locks to neighborhood residents,
increased street lighting, drug prevention and delinquency
prevention programs, tutorial mentorship programs, educational
programs , neighborhood clean-up and beautification
initiatives, and other programs designed to reduce
neighborhood crime and residents ' fear of perceived crime
(Bennett and Lavrakas, 1989; Skogan, 1989; Lavrakas and
Bennett, 1988a; Podolefsky & Dubow, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1987).

These diverse community-based crime prevention strategies
need to be studied in terms of their level of prevention (Lab,
1988; Lavrakas and Bennett, 1988a). More specifically, the

collective responses to crime by CBOs fall into two broad

2
categories: 1) a causes of crime approach (primary) and 2) an
opportunity reduction approach (secondary). Aside from the
two separate responses, which will be discussed more fully
later, there exists a third, more comprehensive approach that
includes elements of both types of approaches (Podolefsky &
Dubow, 1981).

When strategies incorporate elements of both primary and
secondary approaches, this is commonly considered a
comprehensive crime prevention strategy. Usually, this
comprehensive model is a collective response by CBOs to attack
the ”root causes” of crime as well as increase residential
involvement in crime reduction related projects, and to reduce
opportunity through environmental design projects, just to
mention a few.

Each of the preventative approaches (primary, secondary,
and comprehensive) respond to the crime problem at different
stages of development, either prior to the commission of a
criminal act or after the occurrence of criminal behavior
(Lab, 1988; Lavrakas and Bennett, 1988a). However, for our
purposes, rather than collapse the various anticrime
activities, it is more appropriate to identify the qualitative
differences between strategies and their methods used to avert
criminal behavior or victimization.

For example, many CBOs approach their collective
anticrime activities under the assumption that criminal

behavior is caused by "social problems" such as unemployment,

3

poverty, homelessness, and lack of education (Podolefsky &
Dubow, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1988). The obvious outcomes of the
"causes of crime" strategies are activities that address a
variety of social problems or ”root causes" of crime. For
instance, primary prevention measures initiated by both C303
and individual citizens consist of drug and delinquency
prevention, educational and recreation/sports, neighborhood
beautification, and other programs targeted at the origins of
crime. These specific strategies are designed to intervene
prior to the onset of some threatening situation so.as to keep
the potential for trouble from even developing (Lavrakas and
Bennett, 1988a).

On the other hand, opportunity reduction strategies are
measures aimed at reducing or minimizing the likelihood that
some specific target--person, home, or community--will be
victimized” More specifically, the ‘various opportunity
reduction approaches include neighborhood/block. 'watch
programs, security lighting around a neighborhood or
community, security locks on homes and businesses, citizen
patrols, and other initiatives focusing on aberrant behavior
(Johnson, 1987; Lab, 1988; Lavrakas & Bennett, 1988a, p. 223;
Troyer & wright, 1985).

Generally, primary, secondary, and comprehensive
strategies originate from a wide variety of CBOs (i.e. , human
service organizations, neighborhood associations, community

action agencies, community'development.corporations, business

4

associations, and other multipurpose CBOs that have ”crime" as
one of many objectives) (Lewis, Grant, & Rosenbaum, 1988;
Podolefsky, 1983; Rosenbaum, 1988; Shernock, 1986). That is,
CBOs vary not only in terms of the type of C80 and their
particular organizational characteristics (i.e. , number of
volunteers, age of the organization, number of full-time paid
staff), but also in the type of crime prevention strategy
initiated (i.e., causes of crime, opportunity reduction, or a
combination). However, one real commonality is that CBOs
typically undertake a primary or secondary approach, with
limited specificity and research identifying the type of
strategy initiated (Lewis, Grant, & Rosenbaum, 1988;
Rosenbaum, 1988).

Aside from the different types of C303 and their
organizational structure, distinctions may be observed
concerning the specific crime prevention strategy initiated
and community demographical characteristics. For example, the
racial composition of an area, the geographical boundaries
served by CBOs, and the perception of crime in a community may
dictate the specific type of community crime prevention
strategy initiated. More specifically, minority communities
(primarily, the African American community) tend to utilize
secondary approaches more readily than other diverse racial
communities (Lavrakas 8 Berz, 1982). The purpose of this
research is to initially identify the community and C80

characteristics that may distinguish between those CBOs that

 

5
do and do not initiate a crime prevention project. Secondly,
this study focuses on CBOs that initiate various crime
prevention strategies. More specifically, the various types
of crime prevention strategies will be analyzed in terms of
community and CBO characteristics.

The community characteristics include: 1) the size of the
geographical area served by C808, 2) perceptions of crime by
the community, and 3) race/ethnicity. The identifying of
community characteristics will help determine if a particular
type of crime prevention activity depends on certain community
attributes.

In addition, CBO characteristics will also be identified.
The CBO characteristics include: 1) the number of full-time
paid staff, 2) number of volunteers, 3) year the CBO was
established, and 4) the type of CEO (e.g., community action
agency, neighborhood association, community development
corporation, or others). In short, this study seeks tolassess
whether the type of crime prevention strategy initiated by
funded CBOs are based on certain community and organizational

characteristics.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Prior to the last twenty years, the responsibility was
placed on the federal, state, and local government to attack
such social ills as poverty and crime. These problems were
flourishing throughout communities in the United States
(National Crime Prevention Council, 1986) . In response to
public demand, crime prevention strategies were employed by
the core criminal justice system (e.g., police, courts, and
corrections) that expanded the means of formal social control
(e.g., stiffer prison sentences, more arrests). However, even
with more emphasis on lengthier prison terms and more arrests,
the result has been a very limited effect on community crime
rate (Lurigio & Rosenbaum, 1986; Rosenbaum, 1988, p. 323).

Since the late 1960's and early 1970's, there has existed
a consistent, though somewhat conservative movement, to
emphasize the need for citizen involvement in the criminal
justice system. The degree of citizen involvement is directed
at the community level. What develops is that community crime
prevention places less dependence on formal means of social

control to an increased reliance on community oriented,

7
informal social control (Lurigio & Rosenbaum, 1986; Lavrakas
and Bennett, 1988a; Podolefsky & Dubow, 1981; Rosenbaum,
1988). That is, the theoretical model of informal social
control reflects a partial shift of crime prevention
responsibility from the formal, core criminal justice system
towards less formal, more peripheral involvement by
communities to control their crime problem. Whatever the
case, there has been an increased involvement in communities

to control their own crime problems (Rosenbaum, 1988) .

Theoretical Implications

The theoretical import of informal social control theory
posits that in order for communities to control crime, great
emphasis is placed on individuals and citizens groups to form
voluntary associations. What develops is that voluntary CBOs
become the primary means to exercise informal social control
over the community (Rosenbaum, 1988) . This normally consists
of controlling citizens behavior by encouraging conformity
through community educational programs, the development of
neighborhood associations, or through such means as
surveillance, warnings, and/or other methods used by the
community to persuade conformity and community solidarity
(Rosenbaum, 1988).

Although this study is not an attempt to test social
control theory, we find that when viewed historically, the

informal social control paradigm is quite germane to the topic

8

of community crime prevention. For example, the informal
social control paradigm had its origins from the works of
Travis Hirschi's theory of social control (Bartol & Bartol,
1989). Hirschi's social control theory posits that juvenile
delinquency is the result of a bond formed between the
individual and society (Siegel & Senna, 1988) . Hirschi
maintains that when the bond is broken or becomes extremely
tenuous, that, the constraints 'which. were jplaced on. the
individual by society (such as attachment, commitment,
involvement, and belief) are no longer enforceable and the
individual is free to violate the law.

Such violations, when extending beyond the network of
family control, begin to permeate the entire rubric of the
community. In other words, unless the community begins to
take some action to control aberrant behavior, it risks the.
possibility' of losing its cohesiveness” To offset the
potential lack of cohesiveness, the community becomes actively
involved in controlling behavior which has traditionally been
a familial responsibility of informal social control.

For example, the element of 'involvement' from Hirschi's
model may be apparent when viewed within the context of
community activism. That is, the extent of citizen
involvement in community crime prevention has ranged from
simply being active in reporting suspicious or actual offenses
to the more proactive, community role of community-based crime

prevention (Latessa & Allen, 1980; National Crime Prevention

Council, 1986, p. 9).

Aside from the fact that only a small minority of
citizens are active in CBOs, citizens have proposed a wide
variety of community crime prevention strategies (Rosenbaum,
1986) . Two specific crime prevention strategies which this
study focuses on are commonly referred to as primary and
secondary preventative approaches to community crime (Lab,
1988, p. 11). In addition, we have further included
discussion of a joint, comprehensive approach to community-

based crime prevention .

Primary Prevention

Primary community-based crime prevention programs
approach their collective anticrime activities on the belief
that criminal behavior is caused by "social problems" (e.g. ,
unemployment, poverty, homelessness, lack of education)
(Rosenbaum, 1988). The apparent effect of the ”causes of
crime" strategies (or what is referred to as primary
prevention) are activities that address a variety of social
problems or ”root causes" of crime. For example, primary
prevention measures initiated by both C803 and individual
citizens consist of drug and delinquency prevention programs,
recreation / sports programs , and educational and
tutoring/mentorship programs, skills training, neighborhood
beautification, and others programs designed to divert future

criminal behavior (Lavrakas and Bennett, 1988a; Lewis, Grant,

10
8 Rosenbaum, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1988).

Lavrakas 8 Bennett (1988a) state that the primary
approach attempts to address macro-structural forces such as
population demographics, the economy, educational opportunity,
employment, and various moral, religious, and cultural mores,
that play a significant role in the level of criminality
expected in a society (Currie, 1985) . Moreover, micro-
structural forces must also take into account the level of the
individual and family which must be considered when analyzing
crime prevention and criminality. These primary preventive
measures are primarily directed at the plight of low-income,
minority youth (Johnson, 1987; Lab, 1988; Lavrakas 8 Bennett,

1988a, p. 223).

Secondary Prevention

In contrast, the secondary preventive strategies (or more
commonly referred to as opportunity reduction) incorporated
throughout communities, or by individuals specifically, are
measures aimed at reducing or minimizing the likelihood that
some specific target--person, home, or community--will be
victimized. The various opportunity reduction strategies
include: neighborhood/ block watch programs, security lighting
around a neighborhood or community, security locks on homes
and businesses, and citizen patrols, just to mention a few
(Johnson, 1987; Lab, 1988; Lavrakas 8 Bennett, 1988a, p. 223;

Troyer 8 Wright, 1985) . These strategies are widely known as

11
"target hardening” because they are designed to eliminate the
opportunity of criminals to commit criminal acts, thereby
reducing the perceived threat of criminals and criminal
activity (Bell 8 Bell, 1987, p. 47).

The need to reduce the opportunity to commit crime
through control and design of the physical environment is an
important part of community crime prevention. Moreover, this
particular approach treats crime not as a symptom of other
factors that must be corrected (such as an increase in
educational programs, mentorship programs, and a
redistribution of resources (e.g., economic and social)), but
as an act that must be prevented. In other words, the
environment needs to be structured so that the individual
contemplating a criminal act begins to think that there is a

good chance of being observed.

Comprehensive Community Crime Prevention

The fact that the two traditional strategies were
mentioned separately should not be a testament to their mutual
exclusivity. Rather, the National Crime Prevention Council
(NCPC, 1989) states that community-based crime prevention
organizations, throughout the US (and Michigan specifically
(NCPC, 1986)), initiate various community crime prevention
strategies which incorporate the. qualities of both the primary

and secondary approaches.

Further, the NCPC (1989) indicates that community crime

12

prevention evaluations have produced evaluative evidence
showing that opportunity reduction strategies reduce crime
rate, lessen the fear of crime, and build stronger, more
socially' cohesive neighborhoods. .Although. comprehensive
programs include both primary and secondary crime prevention
strategies, the comprehensive approach has not been widely
praised or initiated throughout communities and CBOs (NCPC,
1989). For example, the infrequent social.problems (or causes
of crime) approach may be due to the fact that few evaluations
have produced little evidence as to the effectiveness of these
types of community-based, causes of crime strategies
(Rosenbaum, 1988, p. 352). Hence, the essence of the NCPC's
thesis indicates that there exists many strategies to reduce
crime and improve communities. While reduction of
opportunities for crime is vital. and essential, many
communities, especially low-income, minority areas, are
neglecting to move beyond immediate opportunity reduction
approaches to strengthen their ability to deal with the
problems that underlie the crime issue (NCPC, 1989).

Each of the three crime prevention approaches are
developed and exhibited within a community surrounding
(Johnson, 1987; Weiss, 1987; Podolefsky, 1983). Since the
community is not the central unit of analysis in this study,
we ‘will briefly' discuss the theoretical imports in the
defining of community brought out by authors in their analyses

of community crime prevention.

13

Attempts to clearly define community have plagued
researchers dating as far back as the nineteenth century
(Podolefsky, 1983). Contemporary researchers, through their
inquiry into an operational meaning of community as it relates
to community crime prevention, have pursued the defining of
community under various dimensions. For example, community
has been defined in terms of geographic dimensions, community
as a social service delivery system. (e.g., used as an
intermediary between the family and the state bureaucratic
structure), and through informal controls (e.g., a sense of
solidarity derived from common culture and common social
experiences) (Johnson, 1987). In other words, researchers
tend to be consistent in the dimensions they examine. Various
dimensions in the meaning of comunity are similar in the
context that they focus on physical boundaries and group
solidarity (weiss, 1987), and continue to be characterized
based on geographic locales, networks of social relationships,
and a sense of solidarity (e.g., shared values and a
collective conscience) (Podolefsky, 1983, p. 9). That is,
communities may be viewed on a continuum, ranging from the
simple geographical area to the more vast group solidarity
(Weiss, 1987, p. 115).

Each of these dimensions of community is important in
understanding the relationship between community crime
prevention and the type of strategy initiated (Podolefsky,

1983). Community has been defined by various authors to try

l4
and determine what motivates a person, or a community, in
mooning active in crime prevention programs. Is it fear of
crime? Or is it the type of strategy being implemented?
Whatever the reason, the literature is inconsistent in its
determination of what motivates a community to become active
in crime prevention.

For example, Lavrakas and Herz (1982) , and Skogan and
Maxfield (1981) state that the motivational dynamics to become
active in anticrime activities are not because of fear of
crime, but rather to extend their community-based
volunteerism. Moreover, the participation in community crime
prevention activities at the neighborhood level is rarely
based on fear of crime, but moreso from a desire to improve
the quality of life in their neighborhoods (Lavrakas, 1985).
However, in contrast to the above authors, Shernock (1986)
states that communities have traditionally become active in
crime prevention under a perception that the community is in
fear of crime, thereby becoming more active in immediate
secondary prevention.

Our focus, however, is not on the fear of crime issue,
but rather the types of strategies initiated and whether
citizens--the conmunity--become more involved with specific
types of strategies (Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982) . In other words,
regardless of the way we define community, the fact remains
that certain communities initiate particular types of crime

prevention strategies. These varying strategies may result in

15
an uneven implementation of crime initiatives which may not
take into account the dimensional differences between
communities (Yin, 1986).

Trojanowicz, Trojanowicz, 8 Moss (1975, p. 127) suggest
that the nature and character of the community must be
examined in order to understand community crime prevention
activity’ and 'the level. of citizen involvement in. CBOs.
Additionally, Roehl and Cook (1984) further indicate that the
level of community involvement is also related to
characteristics of the community. Specifically, in moderate
income communities, citizens were more likely to participate
in.community activities (p. 12). However, the inverse is that
in deteriorating and low-income communities the level of
community participation in crime prevention activities is
significantly less (Shernock, 1986, p. 216).

The differences in communities and the type of crime
prevention strategies employed do not necessarily suggest
there exists some inequity. Rather, the differences in both
the former and the latter simply require an analysis to focus
on why there is variation (Podolefsky, 1983). For example,
residents, especially in high crime areas may, at times, tend
to assume that crime is an unavoidable condition of urban
living thereby simply developing secondary prevention measures
(e.g. , opportunity reduction) to attack a crime problem
(Lavrakas 8 Bennett, 1989). In other words, if the community

agenda centers around opportunity reduction strategies other

16
crime prevention approaches will not be implemented (Johnson,
1987, p. 13). When, in reality, the community and C808 may
need to actually address some "root causes” of their
respective crime problem--such as, skills training, tutoring,
educational programs, and other programs targeted at the ”root
causes" of crime.

The community as a whole, and individual citizens
specifically, have traditionally rallied around issues that
either directly or indirectly affected their life situation.
However, particular emphasis is placed on crime (Rosenbaum,
1988). Take for example, incidences where a community has a
high rate of burglaries. Lindsay and McGillis' (1986)
research indicates that more citizens are concerned about
becoming victims of burglary as opposed to any other crime.
This may explain, in part, why people are actively involved in
opportunity reduction strategies (e.g., target hardening) as
previously mentioned.

What results from such fears is that citizens come
together to develop voluntary associations such as
neighborhood watch programs and block clubs, to react and
offset the increase and continuation of crime. Moreover, the
collective responses initiated by CBOs are ordinarily targeted
at a community with clearly defined geographical boundaries
such as a residential area encompassing a block or
neighborhood (Rosenbaum, 1988) . However, regardless of the

geographical specificity, research indicates that neighborhood

17
watch programs are not well adapted to high crime
neighborhoods (Bennett 8 Lavrakas, 1989).

Other factors which. may influence the community to
implementing certain types of community crime prevention
strategies, if at all, or refrain from.establishing a CEO may
be attributable to a community's scarce resources (e.g., no
community facility, funding, or volunteers) (Lavrakas 8
Bennett, 1989). Research suggests that high crime and low-
income areas (predominately minority communities) typically
have fewer CBOs and lower participation in organizations
(Bennett. 8 Lavrakas, 1989; Skogan, 1989, p. 438). In
addition, lower participation tends to occur in communities
that are racially and ethnically heterogeneous (Bennett 8
Lavrakas, 1989).

The economic and social inequality (e.g.,
disproportionately fewer resources) between communities is one
way to initially begin identifying the extent of community
crime and community-based crime prevention problems. For
example, the 'resource poor' are typically those who suffer
most from crime and are the least able, or are the least °
motivated, to 'resist' criminal victimization (Lavrakas 8
Bennett, 1989). Hence, this lack of motivation may, in part,
explain why these types of communities are more frequently
active in target hardening strategies (p. 222).

Opportunity reduction strategies are generally less

expensive, less complex, and require few resources. That is,

18

when fewer resources exists in a community, residents are less
likely to participate in community crime prevention functions.
It is extremely difficult to bring people together when there
is no place, no facility, where people can effectively
congregate (Lavrakas 8 Bennett, 1989) . Moreover, Shernock
(1986, p. 216) also indicates the extraordinary difficulty of
organizing and maintaining the involvement of low income
groups in community crime prevention as opposed to middle
income groups, particularly if the area is public housing or
renters communities (Roehl 8 Cook, 1984, p. 8). Shernock
further adds that economic differences are more salient than
racial ones in terms of arousing community interest in crime
prevention.

Skogan and Maxfield's (1981, p. 236) study found that
blacks are more likely than others to report being active in
crime prevention organizations when controlling for a rural or
urban setting. However, in contrast, Shernock's (1986, pp.
215-216) findings indicate that whites are more involved in
crime prevention activities in comparison to non-whites.
Shernock explains the disparity in results between the two
studies because he was studying a small town/rural area as
opposed to an urban area studied by Skogan and Maxfield, where
the rates of participation among blacks might be expected to
be higher. Overall, the research has been contradictory when

examining race as a factor in voluntary association with CBOs

(Shernock, 1986, p. 218).

19

The problem of low-income, high crime communities not
having'a proportional number of CBOs, or being less active and
participatory in community crime prevention, may be explained,
in part, through the issue of the symbolic nature of space.
In short, a community-based facility symbolizes a sense of
permanence and ownership in the community and is paramount in
getting people actively involved in community crime
prevention--especially youth (Lavrakas 8 Bennett, 1989).

When communities have been organized around community
issues such as crime, unemployment, plant closures, community
and economic development, there is considerable evidence that
many ongoing CBOs have crime prevention as a major purpose
(Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982). Yet it is postulated that most of
these organizations were not originally formed for crime
prevention reasons (Rosenbaum, 1988). Rather, neighborhood
and community revitalization and stabilization are the general
goals of CBOs as well. However, the exception is that
"predominately black neighborhoods were somewhat more
organized around crime than their counterpart" (Skogan, 1989,
p. 453).

Generally speaking, most citizens have never participated
in any form of organized, community-based crime prevention
effort (Lavrakas 8 IHerz, 1982; Rosenbaum, 1986). More
specifically, it appears that only about 10 percent of the
populace has actually participated in a formal crime

prevention program (Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982, p. 494). However,

20
this 10 percent figure should not be considered low, because
a vast majority of communities are perceived to be rather safe
and secure (p. 494).

The level of community participation may be based on the
type of community-based crime prevention strategies initiated.
For example, Bennett and Lavrakas (1989) conducted an
evaluation of ten CBOs throughout 10 cities. Three of the 10
CBOs that focused almost exclusively on causes of crime
strategies (specifically those involving youth) were found to
have very low community participation (p. 355) .

In contrast, opportunity reduction programs tended to
have a higher level of participation than programs with an
even emphasis on opportunity reduction and causes of crime
strategies (p. 359) . Yet, it is acknowledged that greater
resources, both financial and human, may be necessary if CBOs
are to implement effective comprehensive crime prevention
strategies (Rosenbaum, Lewis, 8 Grant, 1986) .

Some of the problems surrounding and influencing the
selection of communities and community-based crime prevention
organizations have been examined. However, there are specific
manifestations that may affect various types of opportunity
reduction strategies initiated. For example, Marx (1989)
cautions that opportunity reduction strategies such as
neighborhood watch, citizen patrols, and the like, may
manifest an unintended and inherent suspicion towards one' s

neighbors with the potential of bringing about racial and

21
ethnic conflict. Podolefsky 8 Dubow (1981) warn that certain
types of anticrime programs may even affect perceptions of
crime in the community. For instance, Lavrakas 8 Herz (1982)
state that community crime prevention activities develop into
a CBOs' agenda, based on the perception of crime in a
neighborhood.

Another factor that may need to be contemplated when
considering community-based crime prevention strategies
involves the issue of evaluation. The vast majority of crime
prevention programs have not been subjected to any evaluation
beyond simple description of the process used in establishing
the intervention, IFurthermore, the success of that.process is
measured in terms of the number of meetings held and.the level
I'of attendance (Lab, 1988; Lurigio 8 Rosenbaum, 1986;
.Podolefsky 8 Dubow, 1981). Many studies in the area of
citizen and community crime prevention have not found strong
evidence that the community crime prevention efforts achieved
their intended goals (i.e., reduced crime and fear of crime,
changed attitudes) (Lavrakas 8 Bennett, 1988a, p. 222;
National Crime Prevention. Council, 1989, p. 488) . Often,
strategies which have been more comprehensive and ”social
problem" oriented, have been viewed as being less effective
despite minor evidence to the contrary, and consequently
reducing community involvement (Lab, 1988).

Some research suggests that 'when initiating 'various

community crime prevention strategies, policy-makers and

22
practitioners may negligently fail to consider the resident
opinions on priorities (Bell 8 Bell, 1987, p. 47; Lavrakas 8
Bennett, 1988a, p. 231). Hence, attempting to apply previous
crime prevention models from other communities, possibly
communities totally dissimilar, may result in the residents
becoming critical and resentful, thereby resulting in either
non-participation or an altering of the intended intervention

(Lavrakas 8 Bennett, 1988a, p. 231).

Implications for the Study of Community Crime Prevention

At the present, we must ask ourselves what are some of
the immediate and ultimate concerns that need to be addressed
when communities and CBOs approach crime prevention. Thus, we
have previously indicated that the neighborhoods which need
crime prevention most are the ones most resistant to the
implementation of crime prevention.

These ”transitional" neighborhoods are not difficult to
identify. There are many indicators of community and
neighborhood deterioration--reduced/abandoned economic
development initiatives, declining property' values, both
residential and commercial, commercial disinvestment (shutting
down and/or closing various retail establishments), an
increase in the number of abandoned buildings, a decrease in
permanent home-owning families--and a rise in crime, just to
mention a few (Roehl 8 Cook, 1984, p. 14). Each of these may

have both immediate or delayed impact. The National Crime

23
Prevention Council (1989) states that unless we view crime
prevention as a community-wide problem, rather than simply
focusing on the immediate reduction of opportunity with the
root causes remaining unresolved, there will be little long-
term change.

In short, unless communities are provided external
support from either public or private sources, the type of
strategies initiated, if at all, may result in the uneven
distribution of strategies (Lewis, Grant, 8 Rosenbaum, 1988;
Roehl 8 Cook, 1984). Consider, for example, the
disproportionate number of low-income communities that
initiate opportunity reduction strategies in comparison to
more affluent and middle income communities which implement
more causes of crime (social problem) strategies. Hagan
(1985) states that ”the social location and distribution of
different types of crime, and the strategies used in their
control, can reveal a great deal about how a society is
organized, and about whose interests its mode of organization
serves” (p. 4).

Until the various levels of government or private
foundations provide long-term resources (e.g. , financial,
technical assistance, and human), communities and C808 may
simply rely on ineffective self-help, resource depleted
initiatives, which may only lead to enhancing community
suspicion (Bennett 8 Lavrakas, 1989, p. 355; Lavrakas, 1985;

Marx, 1939; more, 1989, p. 439).

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research design and
methodology used to organize and analyze data in this study.
Topics to be discussed consist of 1) brief history of the
program under study, 2) the purpose of the research, 3)
research questions under study, and 4) methodology of data

collection.

Brief History of the Program

In 1988, Governor James Blanchard proposed in his "State
of the State Address” the establishment of the Neighborhood
Builders Alliance Program. This program was designed to
provide support to self-help, CBOs throughout the State of
Michigan. The primary purpose of the Neighborhood Builders
Alliance Program (NBA) was to provide general funds to
community-based, self-help organizations to undertake
initiatives to improve the quality of life in their respective
communities. The CBOs would be responsible for initiating
various programs to improve community-based.crime prevention,

housing and neighborhood rehabilitation, employment and

24

25
training opportunities for chronically unemployed.youths, and
other initiatives designed to improve conditions in Michigan
communities.

The organizational structure of the NBA. is towards
providing CBOs funds for existing and continuing programs or
new and innovative programs, provided that the organizations
have established track records (e.g., established over one
year and previous success in past projects). Additionally,
the procedures in applying for these grants are based on a
competitive grant application process. CBOs are required to
complete a two step application process: 1) pre-application

and 2) general grant application.

Methodology of Data Collection
ngpligg Procedure

The data for this study were derived from all
organizations that were funded by the Neighborhood Builders
Alliance (NBA) in 1988 (N-132). Of the 132 organizations
funded, a total of 155 individual projects were initiated.
These projects were classified into 1) basic and advanced
housing development, 2) social services, 3) general physical
neighborhood improvement, and 4) community crime prevention.
However, the specific area this research addresses is
community-based crime prevention. The other areas were
collapsed into a non-crime prevention variable for comparative

purposes.

26

Data for this study were derived from the total
population of community-based organizations (CBOs) throughout
Michigan that specifically applied and were funded to initiate
community-based.projects. .Moreover, these organizations were
required to be community-based, non-profit organizations prior
to application.

‘While the sample of CBOs initiated a diversity of
projects, it becomes extremely difficult to specifically
isolate CBOs that are formed only for the purpose of crime
prevention (Lavrakas & Herz, 1982; Rosenbaum, 1988; Skogan,
1989); nonetheless, for purposes of this research, we
specifically identified projects which were considered to be
primarily community crime prevention oriented.

This study required a multistage data collection
strategy. First, a content analysis of the NBA files was
conducted in order to extract antecedent responses by the CBO
grant applicants concerning the type of crime prevention
strategy initiated, if any. Secondly, a survey questionnaire
was administered in order to extract data from CBO
representatives who had the most knowledge of their particular
project(s). Each of these methods will be discussed relative
to the community crime prevention projects.

The data for this study were gathered from mid September
of 1990 until late July of 1991. A survey questionnaire was
used to gather information about the CBOs, the geographical

area served, and the project. Out of the total of 132 CBOs

27

funded, 126 (95.4%) were successfully contacted (via telephone
and mail). From the 126 that were contacted, 109 (82.5%)
interviews were conducted and the respondents subsequently
completed the survey questionnaires. However, the remaining
17 questionnaires that were not completed can be attributed to
the following reasons: 1) 10 were not completed, 2) 2 refused
to participate, 3) 3 were unable to be contacted, and 4) 2
subsequently became ineligible to apply for the grant.

In addition to the survey questionnaire, the 132 NBA
grant application files were content analyzed. The 132 grant
applications had 155 projects that were funded. The number of
CBOs that specifically focused on community crime prevention
was 51 (38.6%).

Since the unit of analysis was the project, this enabled
the projects to increase to 58, because 4 out of the 51
organizations had two or three crime prevention projects that
were funded. Aside from the 58 crime prevention projects
under study, there were an additional 64 non-crime prevention
projects that were funded within the total 109 valid CBOs
studiedn This brings the total number of projects under study
to 122. Therefore, within the sample of projects, crime
prevention accounts for 47.5 percent, whereas the percentage

of valid non-crime prevention projects is 52.5 percent.

28
Content Analysis Method

Content analysis as a methodological tool for the present
study was quite germane, due to the fact that this study's
recording units were words, paragraphs, and items located in
NBA grant application files (Nachmias 8 Nachmias, 1981, p.
261). Specifically, the content analysis method has provided
a systematic analysis in classifying large volumes of
communication into a more operational package (Babbie, 1989;
Hagan, 1989).

Once it was determined that.a project was community crime
prevention oriented, as defined throughout the literature
(Bennett and. Lavrakas, 1989; Skogan, 1989; Lavrakas and
Bennett, 1988a; Podolefsky 8 Dubow, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1987),
the actual text of the files was then analyzed based on the
specific words, paragraphs, and items used by the author of
the Grant Application. When it was determined that the author
intended the project(s) to be anticrime related, another
determination was made to assess whether crime prevention was
a major or minor part of the project.

In fact, the systematic analysis of the contents of the
NBA files required that the files be objectively analyzed in
terms of the type of project(s) that was focusing on community
crime prevention. Therefore, the unit of analysis for this
study is the community crime prevention project. Community
crime prevention was conceptualized in terms of whether the

project was considered a primary or secondary strategy.

29

The determination as to whether a project was community
crime prevention oriented and, if so, was it a major or minor
part of the project required that data only be extricated from
the files that assured the greatest amount of information
about a project. This was necessary because of the large
number of grant application files located at the NBA. The
three primary documents examined were Grant Agreements, Pre-
Applications, and Grant Applications. Bach document was
divided into smaller, more manageable sections. In the case
of Grant Agreements, data were collected as identified in 1)
the number of projects funded, 2) the title of the project(s) ,
and 3) the project work plan, specifically delineating project
goals and objectives. The second document examined was the
Pre-Application. This document provided information on the
proposed project(s) . The CBO grantee was required to briefly
describe what the project(s) was to accomplish as well as how
the project will affect the neighborhood.

The third document consisted of the Grant Application.
This document was particularly pertinent to determining if a
project addressed community crime prevention. Two subsections
of the Grant Application were analyzed. First, the section
titled "Project Profile" because it specifically cross
referenced the project title(s) with the Grant Agreement and
Pre-Application. This cross referencing was critical to
assure that the correct number of projects were identified,

and that the correct title corresponded to the ”Project

30

Description" section. Secondly, the “Project Description"
section of the Grant Application provided the most valuable
information. This section specifically required that the
applicant give a descriptive project title as well as a
detailed explanation of the project. In other words, this
section further required that the applicant clearly indicate
how the proposed project would affect the community.

After examining each of these grant application
documents, a determination was made as to which category the
project(s) would be classified under. That is, a unique sheet
focusing on specific categories of crime prevention activities
was designed, Then, the researcher would determine the crime
prevention activities to be checked, if applicable (see
Appendix A).

In summary, each project was first categorized as to
whether community crime prevention was a major part, a minor
part, or no part of the project. Those projects identified as
community crime prevention projects (major or minor) were then
further categorized as to whether the crime prevention used a
causes of crime approach, an opportunity reduction approach,

or a comprehensive (both methods) approach.

Telephone Survey Method

In general, the survey component for this study focused
on project type as well as community and organizational

characteristics. In February, 1991, 12 CBOs (9%) were asked

31

to participate in a pretest interview. The purpose of this
pretest was to assess questionnaire clarity. The respondents
indicated strengths and weaknesses in the questionnaire which
helped clarify questions for the final survey questionnaire.

Data extracted from both the telephone survey
questionnaire and the content analysis of the grant
applications were entered into SPSS/PC+ Information Analysis
Computer System for analysis. The chi-square and discriminant
analysis were the bivariate and multivariate statistical

procedures utilized in this study.

Qperationalization of variables
Crime Prevention Strategies

A crime prevention initiative is defined as any project
implemented by a community-based organization in order to
develop community cohesion and reduce the community crime rate
and fear of crime. The list of crime prevention projects may
include the following: 1) Neighborhood/house clean-up and
beautification 2) Tutoring/Mentorship 3) Educational programs
4) Recreational area/Sports programs 5) Skills
training/Employment (Job Placement) 6) Leadership training 7)
Neighborhood Watch.Programs 8) Drug abuse prevention programe
9) Security lighting (Street lighting) 10) Security locks 11)
Community organizing (Block Club) 12) Delinquency Prevention.

These types of projects were specifically identified

based on the literature on community-based crime prevention.

32
Each of the specific anticrime activities can be categorized
as a primary, secondary, or comprehensive strategy. The
following operational definitions will more clearly categorize

where a particular strategy belongs.

Causes of Crime (Primary) Strategies

Causes of crime strategies may also be referred to as
primary prevention strategies. This may be defined as being
"proactive and.preventive.... It occurs prior to the onset of
threat and strives to keep the potential for trouble from even
developing" (Lavrakas and Bennett, 1988a). This strategy may
consist of educational programs, delinquency prevention
programm, skills training and employment (job placement), and
other programs designed to target a potential person, group,
or community prior to actual offenses occurring. A particular
strategy initiated by a CBO was assessed as to which category
the strategy belongs (Bennett and Lavrakas, 1989; Lab, 1988;
Podolefsky, 1983). This was accomplished through a content

analysis of the available NBA records.

Qpportunity Reduction (Secogdary) Strategies

Opportunity reduction strategies may also be referred to
as secondary prevention. These were defined as ”proactive
measures that prevent specific instances of, or opportunity
for, potential threat from developing into instances of actual

victimization. At this level of prevention the problem

33
already exists and measures are taken to strengthen the
'resistance' of certain individuals or targets from falling
victim” (Lavrakas and Bennett, 1988a) . This approach may
consist of such measures as developing neighborhood watch
programs, installing neighborhood security lighting and
security locks, community organizing, citizen patrols, and

other similar activities.

Cgmprehensive Strategy

Comprehensive strategies include jprojects ‘which. have
crime prevention strategies from both causes of crime and
opportunity reduction approaches. This consists of projects
specifically identified from the content analysis as having

both types of strategies.

grime Prevegtion as a Major Pgrt of Prgject

Specifically, when particular words such as "crime
prevention” or "anticrime” were used, as well as terminology
which would indicate that a project was designated as a crime
prevention approach to the community, this would be considered
a major part of the project. Such phrases as ”we need to
reduce crime in our community” would suffice to qualify as

major.

34

Crime Prevention as a Minor Part of Project

When the text of the grant application did not clearly
define its purpose as crime prevention. That is, when phrases
such as "crime is a problem in the community" or "there are
crack houses throughout our community. " These were considered
minor due to the fact that the specific purpose of the
project(s) did not indicate say it was attempting to reduce

crime in the community.

Communit

The community was defined in terms of the predictor
(independent) variables under study such as geographical area
served, perceptions of crime, and racial composition of the
community. These variables were operationalized based on the
responses provided by the respondent to the survey
questionnaire.

The geographical area served by CBOs consisted of 1)
county or larger region; 2) area smaller than a county but
larger than a municipality or other local government; 3) whole
city, township or village; 4) city sub-area with more than
25,000 people; 5) city sub-area with fewer than 25 ,000 people
but more than 5,000; and 6) city sub-area with fewer than
5,000). Perceptions of crime throughout the community are
based on a 6 point scale where respondents indicated whether
crime in the community was 1) extremely high; 2) high; 3)

slightly above average; 4) about average; 5) slightly below

35
average; or 6) low. The third community variable asks for the
highest racial group in the community. The responses
consisted of 1) White; 2) African American; 3) Native

American; 4) Hispanic; 5) Asian; 6) other.

Community-Based Organizations

The variables used to identify community-based
organizational characteristics were obtained from the survey
questionnaire. The questions asked for the number of full-
time paid staff, the number of volunteers actively
participating in projects the organization sponsors, the year
the organization was established, and the type of organization
initiating the project(s). The first three predictor
variables were open-ended, thereby simply requiring a
numerical response. However, the variable focusing on the
organizational type required that the respondent indicate one
of the following responses: 1) ambulance/fire or some other
municipal organization; 2) business association; 3) community
action agency; 4) community development corporation; 5)
historic preservation organization; 6) housing development
corporation; 7) human service agency; 8) Native American
tribe; 9) neighborhood association; 10) religious

organization; and 11) other.

36

Limitations

The major limitation of this study was that it only
identified those CBOs that were funded for the first year of
the NBA grant program. If this study could have examined the
funded CBOs over a second or third year period, we would be
more likely to identify project variance between CBOs with
crime and non-crime prevention projects as well as CBOs with
the various types of crime prevention strategies. Another
limitation consists of the nonrepresentative sample of CBOs.
If the sample was randomly selected, the inferences made would
be more representative of the population of CBOs initiating
community crime prevention projects. Finally, this study was
a one-shot attempt at measuring certain variables differently.
It is necessary to continue further research in this area in
order to identify specific community and CBO characteristics
that.may influence the type of crime prevention projects that

are initiated.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Presented in this chapter are the principal findings of
the data from this study, which addresses two aspects of
community crime prevention. The first examines the
differences between community-based organizations (CBOs)
initiating crime prevention and non-crime prevention projects.
The distinctions between these projects was measured by
examining the characteristics of the community and of the CBO
respectively. Community characteristics such as the
geographical area served by CBOs, perceptions of crime, and
race are analyzed. In addition, characteristics of the CBOs
included such measures as the number of full-time paid staff,
number of volunteers, year the organization was established,
and the specific organization type.

The second.part, and though somewhat more critical aspect
of this study, examines the relationship between the community
and organizational variables, as mentioned, to the specific
type of crime prevention strategy initiated. More
specifically, this study examines whether community and CBO

characteristics have a significant influence on a particular

37

38
type of crime prevention strategy. Both parts of this study
measure community and organizational characteristics through
the use of descriptive, cross-tabulation, chi-square (x2) test
of significance, and confirmatory discriminant analysis
statistics. Furthermore, the statistical significance level

was set at p < 0.05 for this study.

Crime Prevention and Non-crime Prevention Projects

Table 1 presents the variables for the community
characteristics under study. The community variables consists
of 1) race, 2) geographical area served by CBOs, and 3)

perceptions of crime by the community.

39

Table 1: Characteristics of Communities Under Study

 

 

CKHMUIJNTIKHE
CHARACTERISTICS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
BAKHB
Caucasian 68 55.7 56.2
African American 47 38.5 95.0
Native American 1 .8 95.9
Hispanic 4 3.3 99.2
other 1 .8 100.0
QEOGRAPHIC AREA SERVED
County or Larger Region 33 27.0 27.0
Area Smaller than a
County but Larger
than a Municipality 9 7.4 34.4
or other Local
Government
Whole City, Township, or
Village 30 24.6 59.0
City Sub-area with
25,000 or More 17 13.9 73.0

People

City Sub-area with
Fewer than 25,000
People but with at 21 17.2 90.2
Least 5,000 People

City Sub-area with Fewer

than 5,000 People 12 9.8 100.0
PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME
Extremely High 13 10.7 11.0
High 37 30.3 42.4
slightly Above 23 23.0 66.1
Average
About Average 18 14.8 81.4
slightly Below 9 7.4 89.0
Average

LOW 13 10.7 100.0

40

The specific values associated with the variables, as
indicated in Table 1, were collapsed to smaller, more
manageable clusters. In short, the data were collapsed to
assure that the responses were not disproportionately skewed.

For example, race was dichotomized into caucasian and
minority categories, the latter being a collapsed category
including African.American, Native American, Hispanic, Asian,
and other. In terms of the racial composition of the
communities, the responses indicate that the valid.percentage
consists of 56.2 percent (N=68) being caucasian and 43.4
percent (N-53) being minority communities.

In addition to the variable of race being dichotomized,
the responses to the geographical area and the perceptions of
crime variables were further collapsed. For instance, the
first two responses to the geographical variable consisted of
1) county or larger region and 2) area smaller than a county
but larger than a municipality or other local government.
These specific values were categorized as an area larger than
a municipality. The combined percentages indicate that
thirty-four percent (N-42) of the CBOs served a geographical
area larger than a municipality (see Table 2).

The third category under geographical area consisted of
3) whole city, township, or village. This category was not
redefined. The responses to this category denoted that
approximately twenty-five percent (N-30) of the CBOs provide

service to a community the size of a whole city, township, or

41

village (see Table 2).

The three remaining geographic categories are defined as
4) city sub-area with more than 25,000 people, 5) city sub-
area with fewer than 25 ,000 people but more than 5 ,000, and 6)
city sub-area with fewer than 5,000 people. These last three
categories were collapsed and redefined as a city sub-area.
Interestingly, although not surprising, forty-one percent
(N850) of the CBO respondents indicated that the geographical
area served is a city sub-area. This was to be expected since
CBOs are traditionally formed to serve smaller communities and

neighborhood areas.

Table 2: Characteristics of the Geographical Area Served

 

 

Cumulative
Geographical Area Frequency Percentage Percentage
Area Larger than
A Municipality 42 34.4 34.4
Whole City, Township,
or Village 30 24.6 59.0
City Sub-Area 50 41.0 100.0

 

Note: Number of projects (N) equal 122.

42

Before comparing and distinguishing between crime
prevention and non-crime prevention projects, we must further
identify the CBO characteristics. The four CBO variables
consists of 1) the number of full-time paid staff, 2) the
number of volunteers, 3) year the CBO was established, and 4)
the specific type of CBO.

Table 3 identifies the specific categories and ranges of
each CBO variable. However, the fourth variable (e.g., type
of CBO) has been collapsed into five categories: 1) Community
Action Agency, 2) Community Development Corporation, 3) Human
Service Agency, 4) Neighborhood Association/Block Club, and 5)
Other. The category defined as 'other' consists of such CBOs
as Municipal Service Organizations (e.g., ambulance, fire,
etc.) , Business Associations, Historical Preservation
Organization, Housing Development Corporations, Native
American Tribes, and Religious Organizations. The responses
to such CBOs that were categorized as other were unequally
dispersed and represented such small samples, thereby creating
the need to collapse them into the category of other.

In brief, some findings of this section represent only a
small part of the overall CBO characteristics. For instance,
the greatest number of projects, consisting of both crime
prevention and non-crime prevention, have no full-time paid
staff. More specifically, 36 out of the 122 projects account
for 29.5 percent of the projects that maintain no full-time

paid staff, whereas the largest number of full-time paid

43

staff, ranging from 25 to 250, consists of 15 projects or 12.3
percent (see Table 3). However, the 29.5 percent of CBOs with
no full-time paid staff should not be surprising. Since CBOs
are more oriented towards local neighborhood needs (e.g. ,
beautification), their main economic sustenance lies in the
area of grants and donations. No hard, permanent funds are
consistent enough to afford paying full-time staff. Hence, it
is no wonder that the greatest percentage of projects CBOs
initiate have no full-time paid staff.

In viewing the data on the number of volunteers, we can
acknowledge that the numbers are relatively equally
distributed with no apparent significant differences (see
Table 3) . Moreover, the frequency data appears to also
reflect a rather consistent proportionality between such CBO
variables as the year the CBO was established and the type of
CBO. However, the only real noticeable difference between the
type of CBO is brought out when comparing human service CBOs
to their respective counterparts. .Aside from the category of
'other' which holds 34.4 percent of various CBOs, the human
service classification exhibits the next highest with 21.3

percent (N=26) within this category (see Table 3).

44

Table 3: Characteristics of Community-Based Organizations
Under Study

 

 

CUMULATIVE
CHARACTERISTICS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
FULL-TIME PAID STAFF
0 36 29.5 29.5
1-2 25 20.5 50.0
3-7 27 22.1 72.1
8-19 19 15.6 87.7
25-250 15 12.3 100.0
NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS*
2-20 32 26.2 26.7
22-50 28 23.0 50.0
55-200 29 23.8 74.2
207-3492 31 25.4 100.0
YEAR ORGANIZATION ESTABLISHED*
1884-1969 39 32.0 32.5
1970-1979 37 30.3 63.3
1980-1989 44 36.1 100.0
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION*
Community Action 13 10.7 10.8
Agency
Community
Development 17 13.9 25.0
Corporation
Human Service 26 21.3 45.8
Agency
Neighborhood
Association/ 22 18.0 65.0
Block Club
Other 42 34.4 100.0

 

Note: * Missing data account for why some of the frequencies
do not add up to 122 projects.

45
Now that we have briefly touched upon some of the overall
characteristics of CBOs without distinguishing between crime
prevention and non-crime prevention projects, we can move our
attention to the first part of this study. That is, examining
the relationship between community and CBO characteristics as
they relate to CBOs initiating crime prevention and non-crime

prevention projects.

Community Characteristics

Initially, we developed our analysis by dichotomizing
CBOs that have and. have not initiated. crime (prevention
projects. From the 109 CBOs establishing crime prevention and
non-crime prevention projects (N=122), the data indicate that
47.5 percent (N=58) of the projects are either primary,
secondary, or comprehensive crime prevention in nature. In
contrast, 52.5 percent (NI-64) consists of non-crime prevention
projects. Hence, it becomes obvious that from the 122
projects identified that the number of crime prevention and
non-crime preventiOn. projects are distributed relatively
equally.

Further, upon examining geographical area served by CBOs,
no significant differences appears to exist between CBOs
initiating crime prevention and non-crime prevention projects.
A chi-square (X2) significance test was used to determine
'whether a relationship existed between the geographical area

served by CBOs and crime prevention and non-crime prevention

46
projects (see Table 4). That is, the obtained X2== 4.55 was

not significant.

Table 4: Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention and
Non-Crime Prevention Projects by Geographical
Area Served

 

GEOGRAPHICAL CRIME PREVENTION NON-CRIME PREVENTION
AREA SERVED (N=58) (N=64)

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Area Larger

than a 16 38.1 26 61.9
Municipality

Whole City,

Township, or 19 63.4 11 36.7
Village

City Sub-Area 23 46 . o 27 54 . o

 

 

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 percent, due to rounding
error. x?- = 4.55, p - .103

Although there exists no statistically significant
difference between the geographical area served by CBOs and
the initiation of a crime or non-crime prevention project, the
frequency in certain categories are noticeably different. For
example, between the crime and non-crime prevention.projects,
from those that indicated they served an area larger than a
municipality, 61.9 percent (N826) were non-crime related
projects. In contrast, 63.3 percent (N819) of the CBOs that
serve a geographical area such as a whole city, township, or

village is attributable to CBOs that initiated crime

prevention projects.

47

Another issue under study is the perception of crime
throughout the community. Respondents were asked how do
people in their organization and the community it serves
perceive crime in their area. As indicated in Table 5, even
though the responses were collapsed into the categories of
'high,' 'moderate,‘ and 'low,' no statistically significant
relationship (at the 0.05 level) was found. between ‘the
perception of crime in the community and the initiation of

crime and non-crime activities.

Table 5: Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention and
Non-Crime Prevention Projects by Perception of

 

 

Crime
PERCEPTIONS CRIME PREVENTION NON-CRIME PREVENTION
OF CRIME (N=58) (N-64)
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
High 28 54.0 22 44.0
Moderate 14 50.0 14 50.0
Low 14 35.0 26 65.0

 

Note: Frequency and percentages may not equal 100 percent,
due to missing data. X’- = 4.025, df - 2, p - .1336

However, it is still interesting to note that from those
CBOs indicating that crime in the community is high, 54
percent (NI-28) had initiated a crime prevention project.
Whereas those CBOs perceiving community crime rate to be low,
65 percent (N-26) were CBOs that were instituting non-crime

related activities (see Table 5). Unfortunately, since the

48

sample size in this study is relatively'smell, it becomes much
more difficult to isolate a statistically significant
relationship between such variables as the perception of crime
and the initiation of a crime or non-crime related activity.

The third community variable under study is the issue of
race. As indicated in Table 6, race is not statistically
significant when differentiating between crime and non-crime
related activities. Thus, there appears to be no relationship
between race and the initiation of a crime and non-crime

prevention program at the probability level of 0.05 (see Table

6).

Table 6: Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention and
Non-Crime Prevention Projects by Race

 

 

 

 

RACE CRIME PREVENTION NON-CRIME PREVENTION
(N-58) (N-64)
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Caucasian 31 45.6 37 54.4
Minority 26 49.0 27 50.9

 

Note: Frequency and percentages may not equal 100 percent,
due to missing data. x?- - .1438, df - 1, p - .7045

Reviewing Table 6 indicates that race, as dichotomized
into caucasian and minority, is relatively proportionally
distributed between CBOs with crime prevention and non-crime
prevention activities. .Although.there exist no statistically

significant relationship between race and the distinction

49

between crime and non-crime related.projects, the percentages
appear to reflect the fact that minorities account for a
greater number of crime prevention projects. Moreover, it is
interesting to note that Lavrakas 8 Herz's (1982) research
further indicate that minorities, specifically African
Americans, have a higher level of participation in crime
prevention projects than caucasians. The high level of
participation by minorities may reflect the fact that they
account for a greater percentage of crime prevention projects
in their communities (Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982; Shernock, 1986).

In sum, as we examined responses to community
characteristics, crime prevention projects were not found to
differ significantly from non-crime prevention projects on
those items concerning the geographical area served by CBOs,
perceptions of crime by the community, or the racial
composition of the community. Although the findings in this
section are not statistically significant at the p < .05
level, one should not avoid the fact that noticeable
differences may still exist in terms of the raw frequency and
percentage responses. However, to further determine whether
crime and non-crime prevention projects differ in certain
characteristics, we can redirect our attention to various CBO

characteristics.

50
Community-Based Organization Characteristics

The CBO characteristics are the next variables to be
discussed. This section attempts to determine whether
significant relationships exists between crime and non-crime
related projects based on certain CBO characteristics. The
following factors are examined: 1) number of full-time paid
staff, 2) number of volunteers, 3) year the CBO was
established, and 4) the type of CBO.

Table 7 provides the frequency and percentage of the
number of full-time paid staff for projects that are both
crime and non-crime related. .As shown in Table 7, there does
not appear to exist any noticeable difference between crime
and non-crime related projects. However, it is interesting to
note that CBOs which.maintained full-time paid staff, ranging
from 25 to 250, account for 60 percent (N89) of the projects
within this category that are crime prevention oriented.

A chi-square test of significance failed to reveal any
significant difference between.crime and.uon-crime prevention
projects (p = .6097) (see Table 7). Thus, based on this data,
it appears that the number of full-time paid staff is not a

good predictor for crime prevention projects.

 

Ta.‘

vu......|

51

Table 7: Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention and
Non-Crime Prevention Projects by Number of
Full-Time Paid Staff

 

 

NUMBER OF CRIME PREVENTION NON-CRIME PREVENTION

FULL-TIME (N=58) (N864)

PAID STAFF Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
0 15 41.7 21 58.3
1-2 10 40.0 15 60.0
3-7 15 45.5 12 44.4
8-19 9 47.4 10 52.6
25-250 9 60.0 6 40.0

 

Note: The percentages are calculated between participants
and nonparticipants. Percentages, when calculated
across, may not total 100 percent, due to rounding
error. 1:2 - 2.6974, df - 4, p - .6097

52

The number of volunteers that are active in projects
initiated by CBOs was examined. Table 8 indicates that non-
crime prevention projects have, by and large, a higher
percentage of volunteers which range between 2 and 200, and
which account for approximately 54 percent of the projects.
However, from those CBOs which have active volunteers, ranging
from 201 to 3500, crime prevention projects account for 51.6
percent in this range. Therefore, it would seem that a
greater number of volunteers gravitate towards crime

prevention projects.

Table 8: Number and Percentage of Community-Based
Organizations Initiating Crime Prevention and
Non-Crime Prevention Projects by Number of

 

 

 

 

 

Volunteers

NUMBER OF CRIME PREVENTION NON-CRIME PREVENTION
VOLUNTEERS (N=58) (N-64)

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
2-20 15 46.9 17 53.1
21-50 12 42.9 16 57.1
51-200 14 48.3 15 51.7
201-3500 16 51.6 15 48.4

 

Note: Frequencies and percentages may not be exact, due to
missing data. A chi-square test of significance was
performed to try and determine whether a relationship
existed between the number of volunteers and crime and
non-crime prevention projects (xza- .4643, df - 3, p -
.9267).

Reviewing Table 8 indicates that the greatest number of
people feel the need to volunteer for crime prevention

projects respectively, as opposed to the various types of non-

53
crime related projects. However, the chi-square statistical
test revealed an alpha probability level greater than 0.05
(see Table 8).

Thus, it appears that no inferences can be drawn
concerning the number of volunteers and the initiation of
crime prevention projects. Yet, these findings are somewhat
similar to Shernock's (1986) research. Shernock found no
significant difference between people participating in crime
prevention projects and people that were not involved in crime
prevention projects.

To further attempt to identify factors which may affect
the decision to implement crime and non-crime prevention
projects, the year the CBO was established and the particular
type of CBO were examined. Table 9 is a cross-tabulation
between the year a CBO was established and whether the CBO
initiates crime or non-crime related activities. No
significant relationship*was found between the year a CBO was
established and the CBOs crime or non-crime related.projects.
However, CBOs that were established in 1969 or before tend to
be less likely to establish crime projects (see Table 9).

This may lead one to conclude CBOs that initiated crime
prevention projects probably did not come into existence until
the early 1970's when the crime rate significantly increased.
These data support that conclusion in that 56.8 percent of the
CBOs that were established between 1970 and 1979 are focusing

on crime prevention projects.

54

Table 9: Cross-tabulation of the Year the CBO was
Established by Crime and Non-crime Prevention

 

 

 

 

Projects

Year CBO Est. Crime Prev. Non-crime Prev. Row Total
16 23 39

1969 or before 41.0 59.0 32.5
21 16 37

1970 to 1979 56.8 43.2 30.8
21 23 44

1980 to 1989 47.7 52.3 36.7

Column 58 62 120

Total 48.3 51.7 100.0

Chi-Sguare Degrees of Freedom Significance

1.8918 2 .3883

NOTE: Frequency does not total 122 projects due to missing

data.
The type of CBO ‘was also examined. The data are

illustrated in Table 10. By use of a chi-square significance
test, there appears to be no statistically significant
relationship at the p < .05 level. However, the percentages
in Table 10 indicate that CBOs‘which classified themselves as
community action agencies accounted for 61.5 percent of the
non-crime related projects, whereas CBOs which categorized
themselves as neighborhood associations accounted for 63.6

percent of the crime prevention projects.

Table 10: Cross-tabulation of the Type of CBO by Crime and

Non-crime Prevention Projects

 

 

 

 

 

Type of CBO Crime Prev. Non-crime Prev. Row Total
5 8 13
Community Action Agen. 38.5 61.5 10.8
10 7 17
Community Devel. Corp. 58.8 41.2 14.2
12 14 26
Human Service Agency 46.2 53.8 21.7
Neighborhood Assoc./ 14 8 22
Block Club 63.6 36.4 18.3
16 26 42
Other 38.1 61.9 35.0
Column 58 62 120
Total 48.3 51.7 100.0
Chi-Sggare Degrees of Freedom Significance
5.1056 4 .2766

 

NOTE: Frequency does not total 122 projects due to missing
data.

From these results, one might speculate that community
action agencies tend to encompass a.much broader area thereby
initiating a variety of projects. Therefore, less emphasis is
placed on developing crime prevention projects because they

encompass a vast geographical area. This is consistent with

the findings relating type of project to geographic area

served. On the other hand, it may also be speculated that

neighborhood associations/block clubs focus on smaller

geographical areas, thereby developing projects which tend to

56
be more oriented towards crime related issues.

To more thoroughly determine whether the previous
community and CBO variables are valid measures to consider for
distinguishing between the dichotomous criterion variables of
crime and non-crime prevention projects, confirmatory
discriminant analysis was utilized.

Discriminant analysis was utilized to determine whether
the number of full-time paid staff and the number of
volunteers for projects can successfully predict group
membership into either the category of CBOs that initiate
crime prevention projects or CBOs with non-crime prevention
projects. Out of the 122 projects under study, 120 unweighted
cases will be used in this analysis because two cases had at
least one missing discriminating variable.

The descriptive information from the discriminant
analysis indicates that CBOs with crime prevention projects
have group means of 18.57 for the number of full-time paid
staff and 257.42 for the number of volunteers respectively.
In addition, the standard deviation for both predictor
variables were 42.17 for the number of full-time staff and
548.0 for the number of volunteers, while the CBOs with non-
crime preventions projects had group means of 8.69 (SD -
19.83) for the number of full-time paid staff and 172.03 (SD

- 302.05) for the number of volunteers for the non-crime

projects.

57
The two-group discriminant analysis involving the two
predictor variables of the number of full-time paid staff and
the number of volunteers yielded a nonstatistically

significant F ratios (see Table 11).

Table 11: F test of the Discriminant Function Analysis for
Predicted Group Membership between Crime
Prevention and Non-crime Prevention Projects.

 

Predictor Variables F ratio Significance
Number of Volunteers 1.14 .2867

 

Note: The F test was employed to determine the level of
significance for the discriminant equation. The
equation was not significant at the 0.05 level.
Degrees of Freedom were equal to 1 and 118.

In addition, the classification results yield the
percentage of "grouped" cases correctly classified at 53.33
percent (see Table 12). Hence, it appears that the number of
full-time paid staff and the number of volunteers are not good
predictors of whether a CBO is more oriented towards crime
prevention or non-crime prevention. However, Table 12
indicates that 79.4 percent of the cases that are considered
non-crime prevention are correctly classified per the
predictor variables. Therefore, one may speculate that the

predictor variables are better' predictors for non-crime

prevention projects.

58

Table 12: Prediction Results of the Confirmatory
Discriminant Analysis using Crime
Prevention and Non-crime Prevention Projects.

 

Predicted Group Membership

Criterion No. of Group 1 Group 2
Variables Cases Crime Prevention Non-crime Prevention
Crime Prev. 57 14 43

(24.6%) (75.4%)
Non-crime Pre. 63 13 50

(20.6%) (79.4%)

 

Note: Percentage of ”grouped" cases correctly classified:
53.33% A.discriminant analysis was employed
predicting crime prevention projects and non-crime
prevention projects as dichotomous variable by 2
different, continuous variables: 1) Full-time paid
staff, 2) Number of volunteers.

Finally, this section has attempted to focused upon
independent variable such as 1) geographical area served by
CBOs, 2) perceptions of crime by the community, 3) racial
composition of the community, 4) the number of full-time paid
staff, 5) the number of volunteers, 6) the year the CBO was
established, and 7) the specific type of CEO. None of these
factors were statistically significant in terms of their
relationship to either crime or non-crime prevention projects.
Rather, the only real noticeable differences were found in
observing the percentage differences that would lend
themselves to distinguishing between crime and non-crime
prevention projects. Thus, it continues to be difficult to

find factors that distinguishes between crime and non-crime

prevention projects.

the

sec)
CEO
of
001

th

t)

CC

59

Community Crime Prevention Strategies:
Primary, Secondary, and Comprehensive

This section of the analysis focuses more specifically on
the types of crime prevention strategies, whereas the previous
section primarily addressed the differences in community and
CBO characteristics. This section examines the specific types
of crime prevention strategies initiated throughout
communities in general and CBOs specifically. In addition,
the various types of community crime prevention activities
such as primary, secondary, and comprehensive, are analyzed in
terms of their relationship to community and CBO
characteristics.

Table 13 provides a clear picture of the frequencies and
percentages of the various community-based crime prevention
activities. Out of the 122 projects under study, 58 (47.5%)
are crime prevention. The primary prevention strategies
account for 30.3 percent of the total 122 projects, whereas
those activities classified as secondary prevention account
for 11.5 percent and comprehensive preventative strategies

consist of 5.7 percent.

60

Table 13: Crime Prevention Strategies Initiated by
Community-Based Organizations

 

 

ACTIVITY FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
PRIMARY PREVENTION 37 30.3
Drug Abuse Prevention 7 5.7
Delinquency Prevention 6 4.9
Recreation/Sports Program 7 5.7
Tutoring/Mentorship 9 7.9
Educational Program 10 8.1
Leadership Training 1 .8
Skills Training 6 4.9
Neighborhood Cleanup/ 19 15.6
Beautification
Other 24 19.6
SECONDARY PREVENTION 14 11.5
Neighborhood Watch 7 5.7
Security Lighting 9 7.4
Security Locks 5 4.1
Citizen Patrols 3 2.5
Community Organizing 2 1.6
Other 10 8.1
COMPREHENSIVE 7 5.7

 

NOTE: The specific crime prevention activity will not equal
the major category the activity falls within. This is
due to the fact that individual activities were either
unique to one project or multiple activities existed
within one or more projects initiated by a CBO
grantee. More specifically, a project may have had a
combination of crime prevention activities that were
reither a primary or secondary strategy. Hence, the
activities are not necessarily mutually exclusive,
except for the three general crime prevention
strategies.

pen
sec:
com
to

att
dir
(Na
Alt
fin
pri
for
are

the

st:
inc
Chi

tYI

61

In terms of the 58 crime prevention projects, 63.8
percent (N=37) were primary, 24.1 percent (N-14) utilized a
secondary approach, while 12.1 percent (NI-7) implemented
comprehensive crime prevention strategies. It's interesting
to note that some of the literature indicated that little
attention, through both evaluation and initiation, was
directed towards primary and comprehensive strategies
(National Crime Prevention Council, 1989; Rosenbaum, 1988).
Although, in terms of this study, the literature and these
findings appear inconsistent with one another. That is, the
primary prevention strategies noted in this research account
for 63.8 percent of the total crime projects. These findings
are inconsistent with past research, which tends to indicate
that secondary crime prevention strategies are more prevalent.

To obtain a more thorough understanding of the type of
strategies initiated, community and CBO characteristics were
included. The following data represent community and CBO
characteristics that may influence the initiation of various

types of crime prevention strategies.

62
Community Characteristics

Table 14 shows the results of a cross-tabulation of the
geographical area served by C308 and the specific types of
crime prevention initiatives. These data indicate no
significant relationship (x2 = 4.4830).

Yet there exists some observed percentage differences
‘within and between strategies. Note, for instance, that 27.6
percent (N=16) of the CBO respondents identified an area
larger than a municipality. Within this group, 81.3 percent
(N-13) where involved in primary crime prevention strategies.
At the same time, 36.8 percent (N=7) fell within the
categories of both 'whole city, township, or village' and
secondary crime prevention. Although not significant, these
percentages seem to reflect a noticeable difference between
primary and secondary strategies in terms of the geographical

area served.

63

Table 14: Cross-Tabulation of Geographic Area Served by
Project Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geographical Row
Area Served Primary Secondary Comprehensive Total
Larger than a 13 2 1 16
Municipality 81.3 12.5 6.3 27.6
Whole City, 9 7 3 19
Township, or 47.4 36.8 15.8 32.8
Village
City 15 5 3 23
Sub-area 65.2 21.7 13.0 39.7
Column Total 37 14 7 58
63.8 21.7 12.1 100.0
Cells
Degree of ‘with
Chi-Square Freedom Significance Min E . F . E . F . <5
4.48306 4 .3446 1.931 5 of 9
( 55 . 6% )

 

Note: Data not significant at the 0.05 alpha level.

These findings appear somewhat dissimilar to Lavrakas 8
Herz's (1982) research which suggests CBOs respond to the
salient issues of crime at a much smaller level such as the
suburbs as opposed to a larger area of the city. However, the
difference between the present study and Lavrakas 8 Herz's
research may be attributable to how variables were
operationalized.between.both studies, as well as the specific
population chosen for this research.

The perception of crime in the community is another
characteristic this study examined. Here an attempt is made
to determine whether the type of crime prevention strategy is

dependent on the community's perception of crime throughout

theil

the
cla:
an
s'u
an

Ii

64
their neighborhood.

Table 15 presents the findings of a cross-tabulation of
the perception of crime by the community and project
classification. A chi-square test of significance indicates
an alpha level greater than 0.05 (p = .1202). That is, no
significant relationship exists between perceptions of crime
and project classification. However, when controlling for
race, the data indicated that when the caucasian community
perceives crime as high, they are more like to initiate
secondary strategies. On the other hand, when the minority
community perceives crime as high, they, however, are more apt
to initiate a primary preventive strategy (table not
available). Moreover, these data are not significant at an

alpha level less than 0.05.

 

In
cc
wh
se<

She

65

Table 15: Cross-Tabulation of Perception of Crime by
Project Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceptions Row
of Crime Primary Secondary Comprehensive Total

HIGH 16 10 2 28
57.1 35.7 7.1 50.0

MODERATE 9 1 4 14
64.3 7.1 28.6 25.0

LOW 10 3 1 14
71.4 21.4 7.1 25.0

Column Total 35 14 7 56
62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0

Degree Cells

of with

Chi-Square Freedom Significance Min E . F . E . F . <5
7.31429 4 .1202 1.750 5 of 9
(55.6%)

 

Note: N will not equal 58 due to missing data.

Although the overall findings were not significant, 50
percent (N828) of the respondents which initiate crime
prevention projects perceived crime in their community as
high. From those projects which were classified as primary
prevention, 71.4 percent (N810) perceived crime as low. 35.7
percent (N810) of the CBOs that were initiating secondary
prevention projects perceived their community crime rate to be
high (see Table 15). These finding are, more or less,
consistent with the literature that states that communities
which tend to perceive crime as high are more like to initiate
secondary prevention strategies (Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982;

Shernock, 1986).

66

The racial composition of the community was another
characteristic analyzed. As stated previously, race was
dichotomized to consist of caucasian and minority. These
predictor variables were used to assess whether a type of
crime prevention strategy initiated by CBOs is dependent on
the racial composition of the community.

Lavrakas 8 Herz (1982) indicate that minorities
(specifically African Americans), are more apt to employ
certain opportunity reduction strategies. However, the
findings in this study do not support such a conclusion
(possibly due to dissimilar measuring techniques). That is,
as indicated in Table 16, there exists no significant
relationship. Rather, these findings suggest primary and
secondary prevention programs are relatively equally
distributed between both types of racial communities and the
type of strategy instituted.

The only real noticeable exceptions exist when viewing
the marginal percentage differences. Although caucasian
communities tend to show a higher percentage in primary and
secondary strategies, minority communities are almost three
times more likely to have a.comprehensive strategy (see Table

16). Yet, these differences were not significant.

67

Table 16: Cross-Tabulation of Racial Composition of the
Community by Project Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

RACE Primary Secondary Comprehensive Row Total
CAUCASIAN 20 9 2 31
64.5 29.0 6.5 54.4
MINORITY 16 5 5 26
61.5 19.2 19.2 45.6
Column 36 14 7 57
Total 63.2 24.6 12.3 100.0
Cells 5
Degree of with i
Chi-Square Freedom Significance Min E . F . E . F . <5 4
2.45330 2 .2933 3.193 2 of 6 i
(33.3%)

 

 

Note: N will not equal 58 due to missing data.

68
Community-Based Organization Characteristics

This last section focuses on CBO characteristics. The
first CBO characteristic examined is the number of full-time
paid staff. The approach used to analyze the relationship
between the number of full-time paid staff and the type of
crime prevention activity consists of a cross-tabulation and
a chi-square significance test. The results were not
significant at the 0.05 alpha level (see Table 17).

However, the percentages from the observed data in the
cross-tabulation appear to indicate, for the most part, that
primary prevention strategies account for the greatest number
of full-time staff. More specifically, from the respondents
who indicated they have between 0 to 7 paid staff, the data
show that almost 68 percent fall within the category of CBOs
that are involved in primary prevention strategies (see Table

17).

69

Table 17: Cross-Tabulation of Full-Time Paid Staff by
Project Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full-time Row
Paid Staff Primary Secondary Comprehensive Total
0 10 3 2 15
66.7 20.0 13.3 25.9
1 to 2 7 1 2 10
70.0 10.1 20.0 17.2
3 to 7 10 4 1 15
66.7 26.4 6.7 25.9
8 to 19 4 4 1 9
44.4 44.4 11.1 15.5
25 to 250 6 2 1 9
66.7 22.2 11.1 15.5
Column Total 37 14 7 58
63.8 24.1 12.1 100.0
Cells
Degree of with
Chi-Square Freedom. Significance Min E.F. E.F.<5
4.08190 8 .8497 1.086 10 of 15

(66.7%)

 

70

The second CBO characteristic to consider involves the
number of volunteers that are active in projects initiated by
community organizations. Table 18 illustrates a cross-
tabulation of the number of volunteers by project
classification. A chi-square significance test was used to
determine if a relationship exists between the number of
volunteers and the type of crime prevention strategy initiated
by CBOs. The data yields an alpha level of .5152 thereby
indicating a nonstatistically significant relationship (see

Table 18) .

Table 18: Cross-Tabulation of Number of volunteers by
Project Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Row
Volunteers Primary Secondary Comprehensive Total
2 to 20 9 5 1 15
60.0 33.3 6.7 26.3
21 to 50 8 2 2 12
66.7 16.7 16.7 21.1
51 to 200 11 1 2 14
78.6 7.1 14.2 24.6
201 to 3500 8 6 2 16
50.0 37.5 12.5 28.1
Column Total 36 14 7 57
63.2 24.6 12.3 100.0
Cells
Degree of with
Chi-Square Freedom Significance Min E.F. E.F.<5
5.22608 6 .5152 1.474 8 of 12
(66.7%)

 

Note: N will not equal 58 due to missing data.

 

71

However, aside from the significance level indicated in
Table 18, the percentages continue to appear to be overly
represented for those CBOs that initiate primary preventive
strategies. These data, although not designed to challenge
the validity of some researchers per se, indirectly contradict
Bennett 8 Lavrakas' (1989) research that indicated volunteers
are more likely to be active in opportunity reduction
(secondary) strategies.

The third area under study examines the year a CBO was
established by project classification. The literature in this
particular area is rather scarce. Therefore, it becomes
difficult to assess whether the findings in the present study
are consistent or, for that matter, inconsistent with those
authors whose examining this type of phenomena. Whatever the
case, these findings are reflected in Table 19.

To test if a relationship exists between the
forementioned variables, a chi-square significance test was
conducted. The findings were not significant at the 0.05
alpha level. Moreover, further analysis of the cross-
tabulation reveals that CBOs that initiated primary prevention
strategies tend to have been established before CBOs that were
conducting secondary strategies. However, note that these
findings become rather difficult to analyze, especially since
CBOs that have conducted primary strategies are, again, overly

represented in the category of primary.

72

Table 19: Cross-Tabulation of Year of Organization's
Establishment by Project Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year of Row
Establishment Primary Secondary Comprehensive Total

1969 or 11 3 2 16
Earlier 68.8 18.8 12.5 27.6

1970-1979 12 8 1 21
57.1 38.1 4.8 36.2

1980-1989 14 3 4 21
66.7 14.3 19.0 36.2

Column Total 37 14 7 58
63.8 24.1 12.1 100.0

Cells

Degree of with

Chi-Square Freedom Significance Min E . F . E . F . <5
4.74502 4 .3145 1.931 4 of 9
(44 . 4% )

 

The last CBO characteristic to be examined centers around
the type of CBO. To determine whether a relationship existed
between the type of CBC and the type of crime prevention
program, a chi-square statistical significance test was
performed (see Table 20). No statistically significant
findings were obtained at or below an alpha level of 0.05.
Rather, the only real noticeable differences lie in the
proportional responses indicated by each cell. For instance,
aside from the category of 'other, ' CBOs who classified
themselves as human service agencies tended to be most likely
to initiate primary prevention activities. This is not

surprising since most human service agencies tend to address

long-term social problems .

73

Table 20: Cross-Tabulation of Type of Organization by
Project Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Row
Organization Primary Secondary Comprehensive Total
Community 3 2 5
Action Agency 60.0 40.0 8.8
Community 3 5 2 10
Development 30.0 50.0 20.0 17.5
Corporation
Human Service 9 1 2 12
Agency 75.0 8.3 16.7 21.1
Neighborhood 9 3 2 14
Association 64.3 21.4 14.3 24.6
Other 13 2 1 16
81.3 12.5 6.3 28.1
Column Total 37 13 7 57
64.9 22.8 12.3 100.0
Cells
Degree of with
Chi-Square Freedom Significance Min E . F . E . F . <5
10.29953 8 .2446 .614 11 of 15
(73 . 3% )

 

Note: N will not equal 58 due to missing data.

The use of various statistical techniques were employed
throughout this chapter. They consisted of such statistics as
frequencies, percentages, means and standard. deviations,
cross-tabulations, chi-square significance test, and
confirmatory discriminant analysis. The more sophisticated
statistical approach used to analyze the relationship between
certain CBO characteristics as they relate to crime and non-
crime prevention strategies was the confirmatory discriminant

analysis. That is, a discriminant function was employed to

74
try and. assess the level of ;predictability' between ‘the
predictor and criterion variables. The results yielded a
prediction classification of 53.33 percent.

The final part of this chapter utilized discriminant
analysis to try and predict if a relationship exists between
the number of full-time paid staff and the number of
volunteers as they relate to primary, secondary, and
comprehensive crime prevention activities. Specifically, in
this analysis, the dependent variable was the types of crime
prevention strategy, while the independent or discriminating
variables were two CBO characteristics (e.g., number of full-
time paid staff and number of volunteers).

The discriminant analysis consists of two parts. First,
this analysis focused on a two-group discriminant function
analysis. Specifically, the discriminant analysis attempted
to predict group membership into either a primary or secondary
crime prevention strategy depending on the number of full-time
paid staff and the number of volunteers. Secondly, because
the criterion variable has three constituent categories (e.g. ,
primary, secondary, and comprehensive), a multiple
discriminant function analysis was used to assess the
relationship with the predictor variables mentioned.

The initial processing of cases by the SPSS/PC+ program
indicated that from the 51 cases that are either primary or
secondary prevention strategies, 1 case was eliminated from

analysis because of at least one missing discriminating

75
variable. Therefore, 50 unweighted cases were be used in the
analysis.

The descriptive information from the discriminant
analysis indicates that CBOs with primary prevention
strategies have a group mean of 15.47 for the number of full-
time paid staff with a standard deviation of 30.32. The
number of volunteers have a mean of 217.88 with a standard
deviation of 584.60. On the other hand, CBOs that tend to
institute secondary community crime prevention strategies have
a group mean of 30.32 for the number of full-time paid staff
and a standard deviation of 30.36. Moreover, the number of
'volunteers have a group :mean. of 398.78 and a standard
deviation of 569.95 respectively.

Table 21 yields the results of an. F ratio of the
variances between group 1 (primary) and group 2 (secondary)
‘with respect to the number of full-time paid.employees and.the
number of volunteers. The results of Table 21 indicate a
nonstatistically significant F ratio at an alpha level of 0.05
for both predictor variables. That is, it appears that the
number of full-time staff and the number of volunteers do not
discriminate between primary or secondary crime prevention

projects.

76

Table 21: F test of the Discriminant Function for Predicted
Group Membership between Primary and Secondary
Crime Prevention Strategies.

 

Predictor Variables F ratio Significance
Full-time Paid Staff .0100 .9207
Number of Volunteers .9783 .3278

 

Note: The F test was employed to determine the level of
significance for the discriminant equation. The
equation was not significant at the 0.05 level.
Degrees of Freedom are 1 and 48.

Nonetheless, when the two discriminant functions were
applied to the raw data, 72.00 percent of the cases were
correctly classified into the groups to which they were
originally assigned by the type of strategy initiated (see
Table 22). More specifically, the data appear to indicate
that the number of full-time paid staff and the number of
volunteers are modest predictors for the type of crime
prevention strategy initiated (see Table 22). That is, 88.9
percent (N832) of those projects that were predicted to be a
primary prevention strategy were actually classified as a
primary prevention project. On the other hand, only 28.6
percent (N84) of the secondary crime prevention projects were

correctly classified based on the predictor variables.

77

Table 22: Prediction Results of the Confirmatory
Discriminant Function Analysis using Primary and
Secondary Crime Prevention Strategies.

 

Predicted Group Membership

Criterion No. of Group 1 Group 2
Variables Cases Primary Secondary
Primary 36 32 4
(88.9%) (11.1%)
Secondary 14 10 4
(71.4%) (28.6%)

 

Note: Percentage of ”grouped" cases correctly classified:
72.00%: A.discriminant analysis was employed predicting
primary and secondary crime prevention strategies as
dichotomous variable by 2 different, continuous
variables: 1) Full-time paid staff and 2) Number of
volunteers.

The second part of the discriminant analysis is
addressing whether the predictor variables of the CBO
characteristics discriminate between the three major
categories of the crime prevention strategies. Aside from the
group means previously indicated.of the primary and secondary
strategies, the comprehensive strategy reflects group means of
38.57 (SD 8 93.22) for the number of full-time paid staff and
178.00 (SD 8 205.89) for the number of volunteers actively
involved in crime prevention projects.

Not unlike the previous data, the following results (see
Table 23) do not seem to show that the predictor variables

discriminate between the three crime prevention strategies.

78

Table 23: F test of the Discriminant Function for Predicted
Group Membership between Primary, Secondary, and
Comprehensive Crime Prevention Strategies.

 

Predictor Variables F-ratio Significance
Full-time Paid Staff .9224 .4037
Number of VOlunteers .6244 .5394

 

Note: The F test was employed to determine the level of
significance for the discriminant equation. The
equation was not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 24 indicates that out of the 57 projects analyzed,
the discriminant function resulted in 56.14 percent (N832) of
the "grouped" cases being correctly classified. Again, the
results tend to show a rather high percentage of groups being
classified correctly as primary prevention. On the other
hand, only 1 case (14.3%) focusing on a comprehensive approach
was correctly classified. In comparison to the two-group
discriminant analysis, the multiple discriminant analysis also
indicated an exact prediction of secondary projects (28.6%,

N=4) .

79

Table 24: Prediction Results of the Confirmatory
Discriminant Function Analysis using
Primary, Secondary, and Comprehensive Crime
Prevention Strategies.

 

Predicted Group Membership

Criterion No. of Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Variables Cases Primary Secondary Comprehensive
Primary 36 27 4 5
(75.0%) (11.1%) (13.9%)
Secondary 14 9 4 1
(64.3%) (28.6%) (7.1%)
Comprehensive 7 5 1 1
(71.4%) (14.3%) (14.3%)

 

Note: Percentage of ”grouped” cases correctly classified:
56.14% A discriminant analysis was employed
predicting primary, secondary, and comprehensive crime
prevention strategies as multiple discriminant
variable by 2 different, continuous variables: 1)
Full-time paid staff and 2) Number of volunteers.

 

80

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, an analysis of the data was conducted to
try and determine whether a relationship existed between
community and CBO characteristics as they relate to the
initiation of a crime or non-crime related project. In
addition, community and CBO characteristics were further
analyzed in terms of their relationship with the specific type
of crime prevention strategy. Moreover, based on the measures
and statistics used, the data throughout this study yielded no
statistically significant findings. The summary of the

findings and conclusions are presented in Chapter V of this

study .

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

This study is the product of a descriptive analysis of
data that attempted ‘to address community and CBO
characteristics as related to community-based crime
prevention. Specifically, this study consisted of two levels.
First, the purpose of this research was to identify the
community and CBO characteristics that may distinguish between
those CBOs that do and do not initiate a crime prevention
project. Secondly, this study focused on CBOs that
specifically initiated crime prevention projects. That is,
the particular types of crime prevention strategies consisted
of primary, secondary, and comprehensive community oriented
approaches to crime prevention. These .strategies ‘were
examined in terms of their relationship to community and CBO
characteristics.

Community characteristics included such independent
‘variables as the size of the geographical area served by CBOs,
perceptions of crime by the community, and the racial

composition of the community. In addition, CBO

81

82
characteristics consisted of such independent variables as the
number of full-time paid staff; number of volunteers; year the
CBO was established; and the type of CBO. In essence, this
study assessed whether the type of crime prevention strategy
initiated by funded CBOs is based on certain community and

organizational characteristics.

mm

The literature review focused on a great deal of research
that seemed to have its origins from more of an applied ethos.
That is, the nature of previous research tended to address
community and CBO characteristics that influence whether a CEO
is or is not going to initiate a community-based crime
prevention strategy. The literature of this study was divided
into two major sections.

The first section specifically addressed community
characteristics. Characteristics such as the geographical
area served, perceptions of crime, and the racial composition
of the community were examined. The second major section the
literature focused on was CBO characteristics. Specifically,
the number of full-time paid staff, the number of volunteers,
year the CBO was established, and the type of CEO.

Both the community and CEO characteristics were analyzed
by previous authors (as‘well.as the present study) in terms of
the characteristics that were related to the initiation of

crime and non-crime prevention projects. In addition, the

83
literature began focusing only on CBO that initiated various
types of community crime prevention strategies.

The literature identified that CBOs traditionally
initiate two types of community crime prevention strategies:
1) primary (causes of crime) and 2) secondary (opportunity
reduction) approaches. In addition, some CBOs have combined
the strategies to provide a mere comprehensive approach to
community crime prevention. That is, CBOs develop programs
that may not necessarily be considered mutually exclusive from
one another; rather, the strategies are joint attempts to
attack social ill in the community (Bennett 8 Lavrakas, 1989;
Lab, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1988; among others).

Each of these crime prevention strategies have their
origin grounded in social control theory. More specifically,
community-based crime prevention is oriented towards
"informal" social control. That is, the community becomes the
major impetus in motivating people to become involved in
anticrime activities. However, when discussing informal
social control one has totconsider‘this theory in terms of how
community is defined (Johnson, 1987; Podolefsky, 1983) 1983;
weiss, 1987).

As indicated, consistent throughout the literature was
the uncertain and nebulous quality of defining community.
That is, community has been defined in terms of geographical
boundaries, networks of social relationships, and a sense of

community cohesion and solidarity (e.g., shared values and a

84
collective conscience) (Johnson,-1987; Podolefsky, 1983) 1983;
Weiss, 1987). When.the community is used.as the foundation to
begin crime prevention such nebulous and illusory qualities
must be considered.

In terms of community-based crime prevention strategies,
community has traditionally been defined based on the
geographical area served by a CBO, perceptions of crime, and
the racial composition of the community (Bennett 8 Lavrakas,
1989; Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982; Podolefsky, 1983; Rosenbaum,
1988; Shernock, 1986). For instance, Rosenbaum. (1988)
maintains that the collective responses initiated by CBOs are
ordinarily targeted to a community with Clearly defined
geographical boundaries such as a residential areas
encompassing a block or neighborhood (Rosenbaum, 1988). This
appears to suggest that community-based crime prevention is
more oriented towards smaller, more manageable geographical
boundaries.

What motivates.communities to initiate crime prevention
strategies appears to simply be part of a CBOs overall agenda
(Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982). Furthermore, Podolefsky 8 Dubow
(1981) state that certain types of anticrime programs may even
affect perceptions of crime in the community. In addition to
what has already been stated, the racial composition of the
community is a factor which may influence the development of
a community crime prevention program. More specifically, some

researchers suggest that communities which are predominantly

85

minority (such as the African American community) tend to
initiate secondary strategies more readily as opposed to
primary prevention projects (Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982) . This
phenomena may be based on the fact that minority communities
tend to have fewer CBOs and maintain lower participation in
organizations (Bennett 8 Lavrakas, 1989; Skogan, 1989).

Other factors which were not addressed throughout the
literature involved the year a CBO was established and the
particular type of CBO. This area is exploratory in nature

and is without much research support.

Methodology
This study analyzed 122 projects that were both crime and

non-crime prevention oriented. However, the focus of the
research was on the 58 projects designated as community crime
prevention. No representative sampling techniques were
employed in this research. Rather, the population under study
were those CBOs that applied and were awarded a grant from the
Michigan Neighborhood Builders Alliance (NBA). The dependent
variables consisted of those projects which were classified as
a crime prevention projects (N858) (e.g., primary, secondary,
and comprehensive) and projects which were not classified as
crime prevention (N864) . The independent variables were the
community and CBO characteristics.

Two data collection methodologies were utilized. First,

a survey questionnaire was mailed out to all recipients of the

86
NBA grant. After a week, all recipients were contacted by
phone and were asked to respond to the survey. Secondly, a
content analysis of the NBA grant application files was
conducted. The data for the dependent variables came from the
content analysis method and the data for the independent
variables was extracted from the survey questionnaire. This
research was descriptive and exploratory in nature and was not

an attempt to test research or theory.

Major Findings

The analysis section of this study was divided into two
major areas consisting of: 1) crime prevention and non-crime
prevention projects and 2) the specific types of crime
prevention strategies initiated. The final section will
address the limitations of the study.

Part I

The first section to discuss consist of community and C30
characteristics as they related to crime and non-crime
prevention projects. In regard to the geographical area
served by CBOs, the data was not statistically significant at
the 0.05 level, although the frequency in certain categories
are noticeably different. For example, 61.9 percent (N826)
served an area larger than a municipality and was not a crime
related project. In contrast, 63.3 percent (N819) of the CBOs
that serve a geographical area such as a whole city, township,

or village were predominantly CBOs that initiated crime

87
prevention projects. Given the geographical area, one may
speculate that projects which tend to be crime oriented are
directed at a smaller region of the community.

In regard to the perceptions of crime variable, it was
interesting to note that from those CBOs indicating that crime
in the community is high, 54 percent (N828) had initiated a
crime prevention project. Among those CBOs perceiving
community crime rate to be low, 65 percent (N826) were
instituting non-crime related activities.

These findings do not seem surprising due to the fact
that when a CBO implements a community crime prevention
project, it tends to be under the assumption that crime is
somewhat of a problem in the community. On the other hand,
Podolefsky 8 Dubow (1981) state that a certain type of crime
prevention project may negatively affect perceptions of crime
in the community. However, for purposes of this study, we may
speculate that perceptions of crime changed.between crime and
non-crime prevention programs, especially if a program has
been in effect for three years before an examination of
perceptions.

The racial composition of the community is another factor
under study. For example, race, as dichotomized into
caucasian and minority, is relatively proportionally
distributed between CBOs with crime prevention and non-crime
prevention activities. Aside from the fact that there does

not exist a statistical relationship between race and crime

 

88
and non-crime prevention projects, the percentages appear to
reflect the fact that minorities account for a greater number
of crime prevention projects.

These findings appear to be consistent with Lavrakas 8
Herz's (1982) research. They maintain that minorities,
specifically .African .Americans, have a higher level of
participation in crime prevention projects than caucasians.
The high level of participation.by minorities may reflect the
fact that they account for a greater percentage of crime
prevention projects in their communities (Lavrakas 8 Herz,
1982; Shernock, 1986). However, other research seems to be
somewhat unclear in the level of participation between various
racial groups (Shernock, 1986).

In terms of the number of full-time paid staff by CBOs,
there does not appear to exist any noticeable difference
between crime and non-crime related projects. However, it is
interesting to note that CBOs which maintain full-time paid
staff, ranging from 25 to 250, account for 60 percent (N89) of
the projects within this category that are crime prevention
oriented. On the other hand, CBOs with non-crime related
projects accounted for 60 percent that indicated 1 to 2 full-
time paid staff. Again, these results are not statistically
significant and appear to be rather skewed.

The data for the number of volunteers that are active in
projects initiated.by CBOs indicate that non-crime prevention

projects have, for the most part, a higher percentage of

 

89

volunteers. The number ranges from 2 to 200 thereby
accounting for approximately 54 percent of the projects which
fall within that range. However, from those CBOs which have
volunteers ranging from 201 to 3500, crime prevention projects
account for 51.6 percent in this range. Therefore, it would
seem that a greater number of volunteers gravitate towards
crime prevention projects.

The next CBO characteristic examined involves the age of
the CBO. A question asked was whether age of a CBO is
significant in distinguishing crime and non-crime related
projects. Unfortunately, the findings were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. However, a greater percentage
of CBOs (59.0%) that initiated non-crime related projects tend
to have been established in 1969 or before.

As stated earlier, one may speculate that CBOs that
initiated crime prevention projects probably did not come into
existence until the early 1970's when the crime rate was
reported as significantly increasing. Further, this
speculation may be due to the fact that 56.8 percent of the
CBOs that were established between 1970 and 1979 are focusing
on crime prevention projects. Regardless of the
nonsignificant findings, age of an organization should be of
interests to examine in future research.

Another interesting area was the distinguishing between
the types of CBOs that initiated crime and non-crime

prevention projects. For instance, 61.5 percent of the

90
respondents of non-crime related projects classified their CBO
as a community action agency, whereas CBOs which categorized
themselves as neighborhood.associations/blockzclubs accounted
for 63.6 percent of the projects which are crime prevention
oriented.

Even though the results are not statistically
significant, we can speculate that community action agencies
tend to encompass a much broader area, thereby initiating a
variety of projects. That is, less emphasis is placed on
developing crime prevention projects because they encompass a
vast geographical area. On the other hand, it may also be
postulated that neighborhood associations /block clubs focus on
smaller geographical areas, thereby developing projects which
tend to be more oriented towards crime related issues.
Speculation aside, these areas are valid issues to address
when considering the type of CBO and the various task's the
organization initiates.

The last part of this section addresses the findings of
a confirmatory discriminant analysis between the number of
full-time paid staff and the number of volunteers as they
relate to crime and non-crime prevention projects. The data
appear to indicate that the number of full-time paid staff and
the number of volunteers are not good predictors of whether a
CBO is more oriented towards crime prevention or non-crime
prevention. However, 79.4 percent of the cases that are

considered non-crime prevention are correctly classified per

 

91
the predictor variables. Therefore, we may speculate that the
predictor variables used within this section of the study that
attempts to discriminate between crime and non-crime
prevention projects are better predictors for non-crime
prevention projects.

Part II

The second major area of our findings focuses on the
projects that were specifically identified as being crime
prevention oriented. More specifically, this section
summarizes the major finds of the community and CBO
characteristics that were examined in terms of primary,
secondary, and comprehensive crime prevention strategies.

The first section consists of community characteristics.
Although not statistically significant, the data indicate that
CBOs which initiate primary crime prevention projects tend to
encompass areas larger than a municipality, while secondary
prevention strategies were more common for an area such as a
whole city, township, or village.

Another area of consideration involves perceptions of
crime by the community. The findings indicate that from the
projects which were classified as primary prevention, the
community tended to perceive the crime rate as low. CBOs that
were initiating secondary prevention projects were more apt to
perceive the crime rate to be high. These findings are
consistent with previous research. That is, minorities are

more likely to perceive crime as high as well as initiate

 

92
secondary prevention strategies (Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982) . This
brings us to our third community characteristic under study--
race.

Based on the data, the racial composition of the
community tends to be relatively equally distributed between
both the caucasian and minority communities and the type of
strategy instituted. However, caucasian communities tend to
show a higher percentage in primary and secondary strategies,
whereas minority communities are almost three times more
likely to have a comprehensive strategy. This may be based on
the fact that minorities, since the early 1960's, have tended
to rely on various strategies to help attack social problems
in their area (Lavrakas 8 Herz, 1982).

The second section of Part II of these summary findings
address CBO characteristics as they relate to the type of
crime prevention.project initiated. For instance, CBOs which
initiate primary prevention strategies tend to account for the
greatest number of full-time paid staff. In addition, based
on the raw frequencies and percentages, CBOs that tend to
initiate primary prevention strategies appear to employ
between 25 to 250 employees.

In regard to the number of volunteers that are actively
involved in projects CBOs sponsor, primary crime prevention
projects are overly represented in comparison to secondary and
comprehensive projects. More specifically, from CBOs which

have volunteers ranging from 2 to 200, primary prevention

1- 818:2458; .3 '10-»,

 

IT

93

projects account for over two-thirds (68.4%) the number of
volunteers in comparison to CBOs which have initiated
secondary or comprehensive programs. In addition, these data,
although not designed to challenge the validity of some
researchers per se, indirectly contradict Bennett 8 Lavrakas'
(1989) research that indicates volunteers are more likely to
be active in opportunity reduction (secondary) strategies.

The third CBO characteristic under study focuses on the
year the CBO was established. The data indicate that CBOs
which initiate primary prevention strategies tend to have been
established before CBOs that were conducting secondary
strategies. To stretch an assumption, one may speculate that
CBOs which have been conducting primary prevention projects
have been. consistent throughout. the years and have not
fluctuated in terms of changes of their perceived crime level.
CBOs that are more likely to address secondary prevention
approaches may have been less well established and have tended
to shift strategies based on perceived changes in society.

The last CBO characteristic within this section examines
the type of CBO as it relates to a particular crime prevention
strategy. For example, CBOs that focused on primary crime
prevention tended to classify themselves as human service
agencies; although this is not surprising since msst human
service agencies tend to address long-term social problems.

The conclusion of this section examines the relationship

between the number of full-time paid staff and the number of

 

94
volunteers as they relate to the various types of crime
prevention activities. A discriminant analysis was employed
which classified 72.00 percent of the cases correctly. That
is, the data appear to indicate that the number of full-time
paid staff and the number of volunteers are modest predictors

for the type of crime prevention strategy initiated.

Conclusion

Because the issue of community-based crime prevention is
a relatively’ new' and. unchartered. areas, it ‘will become
essential to traverse the multitude of issues. This will
require expanding the limits of the traditional criminal
justice system model of police, courts, and corrections, to
include further research into the area of community-based
crime prevention as it relates to community, education,

industry, and government.

 

APPENDICES

96
APPENDIX A:
CONTENT ANALYSIS SHEET

NBA ID#
I. COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION/REDUCTION STRATEGIES:

 

MAJOR PART OF PROJECT(S)
MINOR PART OF PROJECT(S)
NOT APPLICABLE (NO PART OF PROJECT(S))

II. IF CRIME PREVENTION IS A MAJOR OR MINOR PART 01" PROJECT,
WHICH ACTIVITIES DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE?

 

 

 

CAUSES OF CRIME STRATEGIES OPPORTUNITY-REDUCTION
STRATEGIES
DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION SECURITY LIGHTING
RECREATION/SPORTS PROG SECURITY LOCKS
TUTORING/MENTORSHIP CITIZEN PATROLS
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM COMMUNITY ORGANIZING
(POLICE TALK TO YOUTH/ (BLOCK CLUBS, ETC.)
PARENTS/COMMUNITY
CENTER/ETC.) ELIMINATE DRUG HOUSES
LEADERSHIP TRAINING CRIME STOPPERS
SKILLS TRAINING AND OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY

 

EMPLOYMENT COUNSELING/
JOB PLACEMENT

CLEAN-UP/NEIGHBORHOOD
BEAUTIFICATION

OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY

 

III. CATEGORIES PROJECT(S) AS:
CAUSES OF CRIME (SOCIAL PROBLEMS APPROACH)

OPPORTUNITY REDUCTION APPROACH

 

BOTH (CAUSES/OPPORTUNITY REDUCTION)

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

98

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Babbie, E. R. (1989). The practice of social research.
Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Bartol, C. R. 8 Bartol, A. M. (1989). Juvenile Delinguency:
a systems approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall.

Bell, M. M. 8 Bell, M. M. (1987). Crime Control: deterrence
and target hardening. In Johnson, E. H. (Ed.), Handbook

on Crime and Delinguency Prevention. New York: Greenwood
Press.

Bennett, S. F. 8 Lavrakas, P. J. (1989) . Community-based
crime prevention: an assessment of the Eisenhower
Foundation's neighborhood program. Crime 8 Delin enc ,
1513), 345-364.

Currie, E. (1985). Confronting Crime. New York: Pantheon
Books.

Garofalo, J. 8 MCLeod, M. (1989). The structure and
operations of neighborhood watch programs in the United
States. Crime 8 Delin enc , §§(3), 326-344.

Gregory, W. C. (1989). The crisis in the michigan criminal
justice system: causes, consequences, and options. House
Fiscal Agency. Lansing, Michigan.

Hagan, J. (1985). Modern criminology: crime. griminal
behgvior, and its control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hagan, F. E. (1989). Research methods in criminal justice
and criminology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

 

Johnson, E. H. (Ed.). (1987). Introduction: the "What,”
"How, " ”Who, " and ”Where" of prevention. Hangpook on

Crime and Deiimgmency Prevention. New York: Greenwood

Press.

Lab, S. P. (1988). Approaches, practiges and evmlmations.

New York: Anderson.

Latessa, E. J. 8 Allen, B. E. (1980). Using citizens to
prevent crime: an example of deterrence and community

involvement. Jo na P 'ce S ' c a d

minim-.193. 8(1). 69-74.

 

99

Lavrakas, P. J. 8 Herz, E. J. (1982). Citizen participation
in neighborhood crime prevention. Criminolo , 22(3),
(4), 479-498.

Lavrakas, P. J. (1985). Citizen self-help and neighborhood
crime prevention policy. In Curtis, L. (Ed.), American
Violence and Public Policy. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Lavrakas, P. J. 8 Bennett, S. F. (1988a). Thinking about
the implementation of citizen and community anti-crime
measures. In Hope, T. 8 Shaw; M. (Eds.), Communities amd
C imp Reduction. London: her Majesty's Stationery
Office.

Lavrakas, P. J. 8 Bennett, S. F. (1989). A process and
up’ act evaluation of the 1983-1986 neighborhood anti-
crime self-help program: summary report. Evanston, IL:

Center for Urban .Affairs and Policy Research,
Northwestern University.

 

Lewis, D.A., Grant, J. A. 8 Rosenbaum, D. P. (1988). The

social construction of reform: crime prevention and
community organizations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Books.

Lindsay, B. 8 McGillis, D. (1986). Citywide community crime
prevention: an assessment of the Seattle program. In

Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.), Community Crime Prevention: goes

It Work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lurigio, A. J. 8 Rosenbaum, D. P. (1986). Evaluation
research in community crime prevention: a critical look
at the field. In Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.), Community Crime

Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Marx, G. T. (1989). Commentary: some trends and issues in
citizen involvement. in. the law' enforcement process.
Crime 8 Delin enc , §§(3), 500-519.

Michigan Department of Management and Budget. (1991).

Michigan population in 1990: g. decade of struggle.
VII(1), 1-11.

Michigan Department of State Police. (1988). Unifprm Crime
ngprr. East Lansing, Michigan.

Nachmias, D. 8 Nachmias, C. (1981). Research methods in
the social sciences. New York: St. Martin's Press.

100

National Crime Prevention Council. (1985). Making a

difference: young people in community crime prevention.
Washington, D.C.

National Crime Prevention Council. (1986). Preventing crime
in urban communities. Washington, D.C.

National Crime Prevention Council. (1989). The success of
community crime prevention. In the Canadian Journal of

Podolefsky, A. 8 Dubow, F. (1981). Strategies for community
crime prevention: collective responses to crime in urban

america. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Podolefsky, A. (1983). Case studies in community crime
preventiom. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Roehl, J. A. 8 Cook, R. F. (1984). Evaluation of the urban
crime prevention program. Washington, DC: Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.). (1986). Community crime prevention:
does it work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Rosenbaum, D. P., Lewis, D. A. 8 Grant, J. A. (1986).
Neighborhood-based crime prevention: assessing the
efficacy of community organizing in Chicago. In

Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.), Community Crime Prevention: Does
It Work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Rosenbaum, D. P. (1987) . The theory and research behind
neighborhood watch: is it a sound fear and crime
reduction strategy? grime 8 Delingmency, 32 (3) , 103-134.

Rosenbaum, D. P. (1988). Community crime prevention: a

review and synthesis of the literature. Justice
Quarterly, 5(3), 323-395.
Shernock, S. K. (1986). A profile of the citizen

crimeprevention activist. Journal of Criminal Justice,
3 211-228.

Siegel, L. J. 8 Senna, J. J. (1988). Juvenile Deiingmency:
theory, practice, and law. New York: West Publishing.

Skogan, W. G. 8 Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime:

individual and neighborhood reactions. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.

101

Skogan, W. G. (1989). Communities, crime, and neighborhood
organizations. Crime 8 Delin enc , §§(3), 437-457.

Trojanowicz, R. C., Trojanowicz, J. .M., 8 Moss, F. M.

(1975). Community-based. crime prevention. Pacific
Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

Troyer, R. J. 8 Wright, R. D. (1985). Community response to
crime: two middle-class anti-crime patrols. Journal of

Criminal Justice, i3, 227-241.

Weiss, R. T. (1987). The Community and Prevention. In

Johnson, E. H. (Ed.), Handbook on Crime and Delingmency

Prevention. New York: Greenwood Press.

Yin, R. K. (1986). Community crime prevention: a synthesis
of eleven evaluations. In Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.),

Comnity Crime Prevention: Does it Work? Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage Publications.

‘tttttttttttttt