Urban youth, fear of crime, and resulting defensive actions.

Williams, J. Sherwood ; Singh, B. Krishna ; Singh, Betsy B. 等

INTRODUCTION

Fear of crime in the United States has become a significant social problem in the past twenty years (Lewis & Salem, 1986), resulting in considerable social, psychological, and economic costs to individuals and society. A problem such as this has the potential to bring people together and strengthen social bonds if they act collectively to solve it (Durkheim, 1938). However in the United States, this has not occurred. The result instead has been insecurity, distrust, and a negative view of the community. In addition, concern about crime and suspicion have brought about a reduction in social interaction, community organization, and the effectiveness of informal community control of deviance (Conklin, 1975). Nationally, crime prevention appears to have shifted from governmental programs designed to alleviate the "root" conditions of crime (e.g., poverty, unemployment, discrimination) to individual actions that might remove or reduce such risk. This shift has been toward actions that might "harden the target" and away from large-scale collective actions (National Crime Prevention Institute, 1978). Although collective actions are still being taken, the increase in personal defensive actions, encouraged by law-enforcement officials in some cases, at least implicitly suggests that the individual cannot depend on the social system for protection. This, we would hypothesize, contributes to the increase in fear of victimization.

Among the documented personal defensive actions are "avoidance" or behavioral restrictions. Garofaldo (1977) found in his study that half of his sample had restricted their behavior by avoiding going out in the evening or moving to a different neighborhood. Other actions include installing alarms, window bars, special locks, outdoor lighting, and timers for indoor electrical devices such as radios, lights, and television sets. Purchasing handguns, theft and vandalism insurance, engraving valuables, and keeping trained watchdogs have also been documented (Lavrakas, Baumer, & Skogan, 1978; Whitaker, 1986; President's Commission of Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967).

This paper examines the extent and correlates of defensive actions taken by school youth as a result of their concern with crime. This population (ages 12 through 19) is known to be victimized, both by violent and theft-related crime, at twice the rate of the older population (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1986). Not only do youth of today have a much larger knowledge base in general to absorb than did youth of the past, they must also deal with crime concerns to a much larger degree than did those who were in school before 1970. In 1987, the National Crime Survey estimated that nearly three million students, faculty, staff, and visitors were victimized while in school or on school property. Despite a declining school-age population, violent school crime has increased (Wetzel, 1989). Concerns with crime among this age group has been found to be associated with an increase in mistrust and suspicion, a decline in self-esteem, self-confidence, participation in sports and other youth programs, and an increase in hostilities, carrying weapons, nightmares, fear of being alone, being outside, truancy, and dropping out of school (Conklin, 1986; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1976). Fearful students have been found to be more likely to have few friend, lower grades, and lower self-esteem than their counterparts (Wayne & Rubel, 1980).

The only study the authors have been able to locate which dealt with the methods youth use to cope with crime concerns was done in the early 1970s (Savitz et al., 1977). That study was conducted in Philadelphia and focused on boys between the ages of 13 and 14. "Avoidance" was the major method used to cope with crime and/or the fear of crime. Among the avoidances mentioned were restricting movement to within two blocks of their residence at night, venturing out at night only with an escort or companion, not talking to "strangers," and not venturing into "gang turfs." Twenty-eight percent of the boys reported that they carried weapons for "protection" (10% carried a gun or knife, and 18% carried some "other weapon." Over half of the boys indicated that they had joined gangs. This action was interpreted, at least in part, as a collective protective response. The National School Safety Center recently concluded that, although some children may carry weapons to "show off," far too many consider the display and/or use of weapons as a "way of life" (Butterfield & Turner, 1989).

METHOD

The present analysis is based on a secondary analysis of data collected for a 1986 "youth safety" study in a large South Atlantic City school system. Since the questionnaire used in the study was not specifically designed for the purposes of this analysis, it did not include many of the variables we might have wanted. Nevertheless, several questions were asked which were specifically related to actions taken as a result of crime concerns.

The data were obtained from a random sample survey of middle and high school "home rooms" consisting of 2,132 students; 1,774 (83%) students completed and returned a self-administered questionnaire. In comparing the questionnaires, it was found that 86% of respondents were black, 12% white, and two percent other racial and ethnic groups. These percentages were identical to the secondary school student population of the school system.

In order to assess the defensive actions taken by the youth or their families, the students were asked to check all of the measures taken from a list of eight possible behaviors. Contingency analysis of the distribution of the actions taken was conducted using nine predictors. The predictors included perception of general safety, whether or not they had witnessed a crime and/or been a victim of a crime, and type of victimization (theft vs. violent). Perception of general safety was based on the students' responses (based on a five-point scale ranging from very safe to very unsafe) to how safe they felt in their home, their neighborhood during the day, their neighborhood at night, in their school, and if they had changed or limited their activities because of the fear of crime (responses to this question were "yes" or "no"). Responses to these five items were summated and grouped into three "safety" categories, i.e., high ("very safe" + "reasonably safe"), somewhat "moderately safe"), and low ("somewhat unsafe" + "very unsafe"). Table 1 contains an inter-item correlation matrix for the "safety" index items.

The sociodemographic correlates examined were sex, race, grade (as a proxy to age), housing (owned or rented vs. public/subsidized housing), and (family receiving public assistance) as proxies for family socioeconomic status.

FINDINGS

Over 57% of the sample indicated that they had taken one or more actions because of their crime concerns. Collective actions (i.e., household or family actions, were more common that personal actions. The most commonly reported household actions taken were leaving lights on and installing security locks. About 20% reported that home burglar alarms had been installed, and 17% keep a "watch dog" at home. Among the eight possible action responses, the most frequently noted was having an escort when leaving the home at night (57.5%). Nearly 20% indicated that they had learned self-defense measures. Carrying a repellant (10.2%) or a whistle (3.9%) were the least frequently cited actions taken.

Table 1. Safety Index: Correlation Matrix (Goodman and Kruskal's gamma
coefficients).

 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(1) Home Safety --- --- --- --- ---
(2) Neighborhood Day Safety .758 --- --- --- ---
(3) Neighborhood Night Safety .611 .936 --- --- ---
(4) School Safety .453 .325 .151 --- ---
(5) Behavior Change .376 .450 .330 .227 ---
(6) Fear Index .919 .965 .932 .801 .878
Table 2. Actions Taken as a Result of Crime Concerns.

 Percent N

Personal Actions
Carry Whistle 3.9 69
Night Escort 57.5 1021
Learn Self-defense 18.9 336
Carry Mace 10.2 182

Household Actions
Lights Left On At Night 39.2 696
Burglar Alarm 22.4 397
Guard Dog 17.0 301
Security Locks 38.0 675

Note: The denominator (total number of respondents) was 1775. The sum of
percentages is greater than unity due to multiple responses.

Table 3 reflects a more detailed analysis of the personal actions taken by the youth in this sample. Significant variation among those indicating that they carried a whistle with them were found when having witnessed a crime and perceived safety were considered. Although there was only a 2% difference between those who had and had not witnessed a crime, by knowing which response was given we could reduce our prediction error by over 25%; we could predict that those had witnessed a crime carried a whistle and those who had not witnessed did not. Similarly, those who were ranked high on perceived safety were significantly less likely than those ranked moderate or low to indicate that they did not carry a whistle (gamma = .181). None of the other variables examined in Table 3 were significantly related to this personal action.

As previously noted, the most common action taken as a result of crime concerns was not to walk alone at night. Females were over 25% more likely than males to indicate that they did not walk alone at TABULAR DATA OMITTED night. Using gender, our prediction error, in responses to walking alone at night, was reduced by over 48%. Other variables that were significantly related to not walking alone a night were whether the youth lived in subsidized housing, their perceived safety, and whether they had witnessed or been a victim of a crime. Youth who resided in subsidized housing, whose perceived safety was low, or had witnessed or been a victim of a crime were more likely to indicate that they did not walk alone at night.

The younger youth, those residing in subsidized housing, and those whose perceived safety was low were significantly more likely to assert that they had learned self-defense as a result of their crime concerns. Using either residence or perceived safety to predict learning self-defense reduced our prediction error by over 20%. Finally, carrying a repellant such as mace was found to be significantly more likely among the older youth, those whose perceived safety was moderate or low, and witnesses and/or victims of crime. Using any one of these variables to predict carrying a repellant results in more than a 15% reduction in our prediction error. The strongest of this type of behavior, however, was witnessing a crime (gamma = .244).

CONCLUSIONS

Crime concern has become a major social problem in the United States in general, and it has not escaped school-aged youth. This is particularly troublesome given that it occupies youths' time and appears to require a variety of adjustments when their major efforts should be focused on preparing themselves for adult roles. Since most of the youth examined in this study come from low-income and single-parent families, they already are working under a handicap. The additional social, psychological, and economic problems they must cope with as a result of crime-related concerns add an additional burden to their lives.

The findings reported here suggest that the most common reaction to crime concerns is to restrict mobility, and when individuals do venture out, they must take special precautions to increase their sense of security. Fear of crime also restricts students' activities after school; e.g., they avoid the use of libraries, and their parents do not attend parent-teacher functions. This is clearly not a small problem, and it is unlikely that it will be solved by individual action. There is a need for aggressive collective programs that will increase$citizen safety. Individual and neighborhood actions may contribute to alleviating fear, however, those activities are limited. Fear is pervasive and must be approached with a comprehensive plan if it is to be significantly reduced. Until the problem is directly addressed by our "leaders," the observation made by James Q. Wilson will persist."

Predatory crime does not merely victimize individuals, it impedes and, in the extreme case, even prevents the formation and maintenance of Community. By disrupting the delicate nexus of ties, formal and informal, by which we are linked with our neighbors, crime atomizes society and makes of its members mere individual calculators estimating their own advantage, especially their own chances for survival amidst their fellows. (1975:23)

REFERENCES

Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1976). Rape: Its effect on task performance at varying stages in the life cycle. In M. J. Walker, & Brodsky, S. L. (Eds.), Sexual assault. Lexington, NJ: D. C. Heath.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1986). Teenage victims: A national crime survey report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Criminal Justice.

Butterfield, G. E., & Turner, B. (Eds.). (1989). Weapons in schools. NSSC resource paper. Malibu, CA: National School Safety Center.

Conklin, J. E. (1975). The impact of crime. New York: Macmillan.

Conklin, J. E. (1986). Criminology. New York: Macmillan.

Durkheim, E. (1938). The rules of sociological method. Translated by S. A. Solovay & Mueller, J. H. (1966). New York: The Free Press.

Garofalo, J. (1977). Public opinion about crime: The attitudes of victims and nonvictims in selected cities. Albany, NY: Criminal Justice Research Center.

Lavrakas, P. J., Baumer, T., & Skogan, W. (1978). Measuring citizens' concern for crime. The Bellringer: Review of Criminal Justice Evaluation. 8, 8-9.

Lewis, D. A., & Salem, G. (1986). Fear of crime: Incivility and the production of a social problem. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI). (1978). Understanding crime prevention. Louisville, KY: National Crime Prevention Institute Press.

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (PCLEAJ). (1967). Task force report: Assessment of crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 88.

Savitz, L. D., et al. (1977). City Life and Delinquency--Victimization, fear of crime and gang membership. Philadelphia: Temple University.

Wayne, I., & Rubel, R. J. (1980). Student fear in secondary schools. San Marcos, TX> Southwest Texas State U., Institute of Criminal Justice Studies.

Wetzel, J. R. (1989). School crime: Annual statistical snapshot. Encino, CA: National School Safety Center.

Whitaker, C. (1986). Crime prevention measures: Bulletin NCJ-100438. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Wilson, J. Q. (1975). Thinking about crime. New York: Vintage Books.

B. Krishna Singh, Ph.D., President, Behavioral Research Group, Baltimore.

Betsy B. Singh, Ph.D., Director of EPM Research Services, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland-Baltimore. @ @