ProgramsBranchUserReport

AN EVALUATION OF THENEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

IN THUNDER BAY

PETER B. WORREL L

Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada

AN EVALUATION OF THENEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

IN THUNDER BAY

PETER B. WORRELL

NO. 1984-29

This working paper was prepared by the Thunder Bay Police Force asa result of a study funded by the Ministry of the Solicitor Generalthrough its Summer Canada program. I t is made available as submittedto the Ministry. Th e views expressed are those of the author and arenot necessarily those of the Ministry of the Solicitor General ofCanada. Thi s working paper may not be published, cited or reproducedwithout permission of the Ministry.

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF

THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

This s udy examined and evaluated he impact of a Neighbourhood Wa ch

program on reducing the occurrence of residential property crime within a select-

ed residential area in the city of Thunder Bay.

Comparative victim history data was obtained longitudinally from the Test

Site and from a Control Site during the evaluation phase of the program in the

Test Site.

The results of the study indicated that the program was successful in sub-

stantially reducing the occurrence of residential property crime and, i n particu-

lar, eradicating the occurrence of household yard property theft - formerly the

principal property crime problem.

Moreover, th e findings suggest that the occurrence of residential property

crime is directly related to th e level of household and yard physical security

which, in turn, was found to be directly related to the a'uaeuLts u t presence of

applied, crime analysis and the acting upon of this information by the Neighbour-

hood Watch participants. Th e dramatic reduction in the victim experience of

Test Site respondents suggests that they did indeed act affirmatively in response

to the information.

Finally, th e results of the study indicated that the willingness of resi-

dents to assume an active role in reducing the occi..tauwe _T neighbourhood

property crime was largely dependent upon exposure to the Neighbourhood Watch

Program as implemented in the City of Thunder Bay.

City Of Thunder Bay Police Force(PS EAST DONAl.D STREET. THUNDER BAY. ONTARIO P7E5V! PHONE 80? h23

G. F. OueHette, Chief of Police

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express great appreciation to Constable Peter Connors, our

in-house Crime Prevention Officer, who was primarily responsible for

initially organizing and nurturing the Neighbourhood Watch block groupings,

and who shared in discussions regarding methodological considerations.

Similarly, appreciation is Extended Co our Director of Research and Planning,

Mr. Peter B. Worrell, who designed this research undertaking and conducted

the data analysis.

Acknowledgements would not be complete without recognizing the invaluable

contributions made by Andrea Richmond, Project Director, for both phases

of the study, who actively pursued the obtainment of highly accurate data.

Tn concert with the above, I wish to thank the following project workers,

whose obvious dedication made a large part of this study possible:

Rod EtheridgeJoan Alkenbrack

Marcia BevilacquaSuzanne DesmoulinAlda dos SandosJo Ann Raynak

Terri-Lynn DuncanMary MacIsaacFrancis O'Brien ' *Susan Potte*Rosa Tucci

Lastly, I wish to thank the many residents who let the project workers into

their homes and empirically demonstrated that working together does prevent

crime.

Respectfully submitted ,

C. F. Ouellette,CHIEF OF POLICE.

The Chief of Ponce

R&ernnq to.

Our File No. .

Your File No.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER P A

I. INTRODUCTIO N 2

Organization of the Paper 5

II. METHODOLOG Y 5

Background 6

The Implementatio n Phase 6

The Evaluation Phase 8

III FINDING S 1 0

Presentation Format 1 0

Victim Experience 1 2

Area of the Household Victimized 1 3

Offence Types 1 5

Reporting Behaviour: Crimes Against own Propert y . 1 7

Swiftness of Reporting to Police 1 9

Observed Neighbourhood Crime and Reported to Police 2 0

Follow up to Affirmative Action 2 1

Affirmative Action 2 2

Number of Neighbours Known by Name 2 4

Number of Neighbours Visited . . . 2 5

Social Cohesion 2 7

Neighbourhood Spirit 2 8

Perception of Frequency of Property Crime . . . 3 0

Perceived Resident Methods of ReducingOpportunity .to Commit Crime in Area 3 2

Physical Security of Resident Property . . . . 3 3

CHAPTZS

Perceived Effect o f Neighbourhood Watch inReducing Property Crime

Evaluation of Program By Residents

Surnrary of the Findings

Viccia Experience .

Reporting Behaviour .

Affirmative Action .

Social Cohesio n

Perception o f Noise Level

Perceived Me thods Employed by Residents toReduce Opportunity to Commit Property Crime

Physical Security of Household Property .

W«scforc T est Site P erception o f ch *Iain ac e o f Neighbourhood Watch

IV. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussion.

Implicatio

Recommendations

Appendices

?ACS

35

36

36

36

37

37

37

38

38

39

39

40

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In recent yea r s , proper ty r e l a ted crime or vandalism has re cei ve d a

deal of community concern throughout Nort h Americ a givin g r i s e t o govern -

ment funde d researc h p r o j e c t s o r i en ta t e d toward s reducin g th e occurrenc e

of suc h crime .

Unfortunately, ver y l i t t l e pressur e ha s ex i s t e d withi n th e Canadia n con -

tex t t o compe l r e c i p i e n t s o f federa l crim e preventio n fundin g t o e m p i r i -

ca l ly demonstrat e th e e f f ec t i venes s o f a give n crim e prevent io n s t r a t e g y .

Rather, emphasi s ha s bee n place d o n progra m implementation , no t eva lua t ion .

It i s no t th e purpos e o f t h i s pape r t o debat e th e meri t o f fundin g p r a c -

t i c e s , bu t merel y t o po in t ou t tha t th e absenc e o f a progra m eva lua t io n

component make s i t ver y d i f i c u l t t o d iscer n whic h approache s a s s i s t i n

reducing cr imina l opportunis m - th e ver v ouroos e o f th e researc h i n th e

first place .

Moreover, th e absenc e o f a standar d documen t forma t t o communicat e th e

findings o f evaluativ e resear ch earlier compounde d th e proble m o f

"getting a handle " o n effectiv e crim e preventio n programmin g withi n th e

police community .

To mak e matter s worse , universa l measurement s t o evaluat e rh e effective -

ness o r lac k o f regardin g implemente d strategie s hav e no t a s ye t bee n es -

tablished; thereb y makin g i t difficul t t o compare , interpret , an d gras p

the significanc e o f simila r studies .

During th e winte r o f 1982 , a researc h proposa l designe d t o tes t th e effec -

tiveness o f Neighbourhoo d Watc h a s a crim e preventio n strateg y wa s submit -

ted t o th e Solicito r Genera l o f Canad a fo r funding .

Unlike previous submissions , this proposa l was designe d to b e longi tudina l

in aa tura an d inc lude a n i mplemen ta t ion an d evaluatio n phase . Ou t o f nec -

e s s i t y , the 1981 proposa l sugges ted that fundin g b e provide d ove r a two-yea r peri od c o coincid e vic h -h e cv o phase s o r ch e scudy . W e ver s succes -

sful vic h this approac h an d receive d fundin g fo r boc h phase s fro m ch e S a i i -

c i ca r Genera l o f Canad a chrcug h ch e Sunane r Vouc h inpLoynen c Program .

H i s t o r i c a l l y , po l i c e agencie s hav e cande d c o determin e ch e efcecciver.as s o f

izpienier.ced c r i n e pravanci.c n scracegis s b y comparin g pr e an d pos e race s o c

reported crime , iascaa d o f accua l v icc i a experience . Clear ! / ch « iaipac c o c

criffie pravencio n scracagie a o n ch e rac e o f reporte d cr ic e i s o c ince resc ,

buc b y n o screec h o c ch e inagiaaciot i ca n i c b e use d wic h an y r a l i a b i l i c y c o

gauge ch e 5uccss s o r f a i l u r e o f a give n scraceg; ' o n reducin g ch e occurrenc e

of crime .

This scud y coo k ch e abov e inc o ccnsideracicn ; pa r t i cu la r l y durin g ch e avaiu -\$

acion phas e whereb y a n axaminacio n an d cocparisc n o f ch e followin g va s con - |ii

ducted: l |

CD ch a pr e an d pos t viccif l experisne e raca s K

(ii) ch e pr a an d pos e rac e o f reportin g cria e t o ch e polic e ' !

( i i i) ch e pr s an d pos e rac e a c whic h peopl e phone d neighbour s vhe nchey observe d someon e damagin g o r stealin g chai r neighbour' sproperty ;

i

Civ) ch e pr e an d pos e rac e a c whic h peopl e Talke d c o offender s ob - !

served damagin g o r 3taaiin g oche r neighbour' s propert y i

(v) ch e pr a and . pos e househol d securit y score s :

(vi) ch e pr a an d pos t yar d securit y score s !

"t !

(vii) ch e pr e an d pos e Level s o f socia l cohesion - i

Neighbourhood Watch programs implemente d elsewhere have been attributed

with great success from time to time despite the absence of reasonably

sophisticated research designs and/or devices to measure program perfor-

mancc. Thi s study, i n addition to making the pre and post comparisons nu-

ted above, will attempt to explain what variable(s) or mechanical aspects

of the Neighbourhood Watch Program, as implemented in Thunder Bay, were

paramount to its success or failure as a crime prevention strategy.

Generally, i t has been theorized that the level of social cohesiveness in-

creases following the introduction of a Neighbourhood Watch Program.

Natural outcomes of increased social cohesiveness are alleged to include

a greater spirit of co-operation and the acceptance of responsibilities

orientated toward watching out for both the neighbour and his/her property.

When coupled with a heightened awareness to properly secure the household

and yard property, th e Neighbourhood Watch Program functions to harden the

target physically as well as socially.

In keeping with the ab'"1*" *"<-":—' 1 hypothesis were formulated:

1. Resident s who have been exposed to a Neighbourhood Watch Program

will have a higher level of social cohesiveness than residents

who have not been similarly exposed.

2. Th e victim experience of residential areas previously^exposed to

Neighb _v\ •-•,' "T£tch will be lower than residential areas not ex-

posed previously to this program.

3. A residential area exposed to a Neighbourhood Watch Program will

subsequently exhibit a lowe r victim experience.

4. Neighbourhoo d Watch is an effective program to reduce the occur-

rence of residential property crime.

4

5. Neighbourhoo d Vacc h work s c o raduc a ch e occurrar.e e o f cri= e

as a r a s u i ; o f ch e iscraa.sa d leve l QZ hotn a an d yar d secur i t y

which occur s followin g exposur e zo ch e hem a secur i t y componer. c

of ch e Neighbourhoo d Wacci i ?rogram .

6. Maighbourhoo d Uacc h vork s c o raduc e ch a occurraac e o c c r la e as

a. resul c o £ ch a increase d ac e a ? can e a o f aeighbour s v i s a ' via

a l l neighbourhoo d propert y followin g exposur e c o aa d accepcaac a

of LapLia d soc ia l rssponaibi l ic ie s vhic h exten d oucsid a ch e l s -

nadiaca househol d c o includ e ch « ceighbourhood .

OitC'ANIZATIQW O F TH E ?APS? .- . .

7ne remainde r o f ch a pape r wi l l b e organiza d a s follows :

CHAPTER It MEIHQiDOLOC T

C3A2-ZZ3, III rODDTC S

CHAPTZH I V SUMMARY , DISCUSSION , IMPLICATION S AND

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

BACKGROUND

Funding was obtained in 1982 and 1983 from the Solicitor General of Canada

through Che Summer Youth Employment Program to conduct a research project

designed to cest the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Watch as a crime pre-

vention strategy. Th e research project was divided into tvo phases; th e

first involved the implementation of the program in a pre-selected resid-

ential area whereas the 5«c*ond* phase dealt with the evaluation of the pro-

gram.

For each phase, a Project Director and six interviewers were hired. Th e

same director was used throughout the one year longitudinal study to pro-

vide continuity.

THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

The City of Th****«i. u*y -^ divided into sixty-eight (68) police patrol and

crime reporting areas.

A site consisting of two hundred (200 ) households in one of the sixty-eight

areas exhibiting a relatively high rate of reported crime was selected to

test the effectiveness of the Neighbourhood Watch Program. A * additional

control site wa^ determined and would be examined one year lacer during the

evaluation phase of the study. Th e Project Director and interviewers were

involved in the site selection process.

Following selection of the residential test and control sites, the Director

and Project Workers were requested to take part in the construction of a

survey questionnaire designed to obtain data relating to victim experience,

physical household property security and a host of ocher variables.

At che cccplacion of cais cask, che project workers were diraccac co .nake

2ppoinc3er.cs vica cha rasidancs of each of cha rwo hundred households for

cha sursasa of:

CiJ conduccia g a victi a surve y

( i i j conductin g a horn s sacurlc y chec k

( i l l ) explainin g an d introducin g cii e concep t o f Neighbourhoo d Watc h

ac eac h househol d

(Iv) identifyin g potentia l blac k captain s

(v) Layin g Ch e groun d wor k fo r iaplanencic g ch * pcograr a vichl n Ch e

raaidencial araa., .

Accive incar-/iawin. g bega n i n ch e firs c wea k o f Jun e 198 2 an d wa s csapiaca d

by :h e er. d o x Augus t o f ch a sam e year . l a cotai , 16 2 household s respon -

ded c o ch e qus3ci.0nna.ira . Ih a response s o n ch. e quescionnaira s wa r a codad ,

cransfarrad e n -'•'sk^rc a ar d analyze d usin g ch a Scaciscica l Packag e fo r ch a

Social Sciences .

3ivariaca an d atulcivarlac a cabla s w«r a che a raquesce d c o displa y Ch e rala -

cicnbuj-u UJ . <*XJ - variable s c a vicci a experianca . la ocda r c o obcai n a n ac -

curaca zeasuracan c o f household/yar d securi: y an d socia l cohesivaness , com -

posica variabla s wer e conscrucca d usin g ch e coopuc a funccia n o f ch a program .

The cempuc e funccio n aieral y add s cogecha r a i l ch e value s o f ch e variable s

specified i n ch a equacion . A n equacio n i s provide d i n Appendi x A .

Ar c'- e conclusio n o f ch a sampling , bloc k unic s consistin g o f cMenc y C20 )

households eac h w«r e ascabilshad . Meab«r s o r aac h bloc k ver e iavice d c a

accand chei r firs c Xaighbourhoo d Wacc h :-ieacin g a c a nearb y Librar y a c whic h

ciote bloc k an d assiscan c blac k capcain s ver a selacca d b y ch e bloc k members .

Tin.- Crim e Crcveacia n Office r an d aenbec s o c ch e projac c coa m accande d eac h

muuCing t o as s I s c La a s ca b L i s him ; Ch e purpos e u l dm prov;r.-v n . (Sc- Appt-n -

du< 3) . \ ,

Kollcwing Che selection of the block captains, th e Crime Prevention Of-

ficer invited th e appointed block capcains to attend at Headquarters to

select their section leader. (Se e Appendix "C").

Throughout the course of the year, between the implementation and evalua-

tion project phases, on e meeting vas held monthly to accommodate the

needs of the block captains and one meeting a month was held L o meet the

needs of the section members. Bloc k captain meetings were held at Head-

quarters and Section meetings took place at the local library.

Meeting content involved discussions regarding security programs, methods

of responding to criminal behaviour", neighbourhood responsibilities, and

criminalistics. Th e Crime Prevention Officer attended all meetings to

provide information and advice.

In the early stages of the program, it was decided that Neighbourhood Watch

was not a program that should be police administered. Rather , the need was

stressed to develop a sense of program ownership amongst Neighbourhood

Watch household members. Therefore , a spirit of independence was fostered

through the deliberate involvement of the program members in the decision

making F • -.._h respect to the direction the program should take immedia-

tely following its implementation. A natural consequence of this approach

was the establishment of a monthly news bulletin by the section leader and

directed towards the membership. (Se e Appendix D)

Finally, Neighbourhood Watch signs were posted in February of 1^83 indica-

tina tb* existence of a neighbourhood involved in a Neighbourhood Watch -•

Program. I t was believed that chis would help to create a sense of com-

munity and assist to sustain the program over time. (Se e Appendix £).

Evaluation Phase

This part of the research project commenced one year later in the month of

May 1983. A project director and six workers were hired and directed t o

v ch e sam e rasoondanc s a s wa s don e on a yea r sari iar ; l a addicio n

co conductin g intrerviev s a c household * containe d viehi e ch e concra l sica .

The concro l sic a i s Iccaca d ca n (10 ) alia s awa y :rc m ch a lzplamar.-a:ic n

5ira an d i s roughl y cwic a a s Larg a i n gacgrsphi c ara a a s sh e cas e s i -e .

rr.is accounc s 5o r cr. e -nuc h large r r.uaba r o r rscaive d quascionnaira s ( i .e .

252).

A surve y quascionnair e wa s use d chroughou c ch e iacarvia w I n boc h ch e

plemencacion an d Ccncro i sice . Th e cuesriannalra s varie d l a cha c a

sar auabe r o f question s designe d c o «valuac e :h e laoac c oc ch e prcgra m

wera iacluda d l a ch e isralamencanlo a questionnaire . l a coca l 1J 6 quascicn -

oaired. ver e receive d fro m ch e Isplesencacio n sic e whil e 35 2 quescionnaira s

--era abGaine d fro m ch e large r concro l ales .

The rasponse s ver e agai n crar.sfarra d onc o disicacz a an d anal/sa d usir. g ;h a

Scaciscicai ?ac[^a§ a fo r sh e Socia l Sciancas . Tn e isc a axcracra d frcr a ch e

iapiemencacion sic a l a ch e surve y a ? 198 2 an d 1983 , an d zrot a ch e cancro l

sice, wer e subjecca d c o ch e saa e arogra o i n orde r c o oroduc a comparaal a

3ivariaca an d !*ulcivariac a Cunci^ganc y Table s co r ch e analysis .

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS

Presentation Forma t

In the majority of cases che reader will be provided with a sec of three

data tables. Th e first of these three tables will contain information

relative to the Westfort Test Site prior to the implementation of the

Neighbourhood Watch Program. Th e second table will display information

regarding the Westfort Test <Ttte following the implementation of che

Neighbourhood Watch program, while the third table of the sec will con-

tain comparative Control Site data.

TABLE 1

WESTFORT TEST SITE HOUSEHOLDS VICTIMIZED PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

VICTIM EXPERIENCE

YES

(31)

NO

80.9%

(131)

•

TOTAL

(162)

N - 16 2

10

TABLE 2

VEST70RT Ti3 T SIT E HQCJSEHOLJ S 7ICTTMIZI 2 "CLICKIN G TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N 0 1

THE :fcIGH3CURHO0 D VATC a PRCC1A M

VICTIM

£0 TOTA L

7.4S 92.6 Z

(10) (125 ) (135 )

H - U 5

TABLE 3

PERCESTACE DISTRIBUTIO N O F HOUSEHOLD S E X TH E CONTRO L SIT E VICTIMIZE D

VICTIM EXPERIENC E

YES ^ 0 TOTA L

1 9 . 6

(40)

30.

L9.

i

6

X

C236)

- 23 6

VICTIM EXPERIENCE

The data provided in Tables 1 and 2 indicate chat victim experience or the

actual occurrence of property crime in the Westfort Test Site decreased

substantially (67.7%) followin g the implementation of the Neighbourhood

Watch Program. Thi s suggests chat Neighbourhood Watch is effective.

When we examine Tables 1 and. 3 collectively we discover a victim experience

rate in the control sice which is approximately the same as that previous-

ly experienced by the WestforC Test Site respondents prior to the imple-

mentation of the program.

TABLE 4

AREA O F TH E HOUSEHOL D PROPERT Y VICTIMIZE D I N TH E WESTFOR T TES T SIT E

PRIOR T O TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH E NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

AREA VICTIMIZE D

HOUSE

22.6%

(7)

CAR

6.5%

(2)

YARD

48.4%

(15)

GARAGE

12.9%

(4)

-

GARDEN

3.2%

(1)

OTHER

6.5%

(2)

TOTAL

(31)

N - 31

12

U S L 5 5

AREA O F TH E HOUSEHOL D PROPERT Y VICTIMIZE D i: J TH E VESTrOR T TES T S I '

rOLlOWIi'G IH Z IMPLEXEirTATIC N O F TH E MEIGcSCCSHCO D VATC K PROGRA M

-U£A VICTtMtZSD

HOUSE OS GARAGE TOTAL

40.02 co. or 20. OS

(2) CIO)

N - 1 0

IA3L£ S

THS A5S A O F IH Z EOCSSHOLO S VICT21ISS D 12 1 TH E COtmO L SIT E

AREA

HOUSE CAR TAilD GARAGE

3.5 3 6 . 2

( 1 7 )

42-6

C20)

6.4

C3)

2.1

CD

0THE3

4.2

(2)

TOTAL

(47)

AREA O F TH E HOUSEHOLD.VICTIMIZE D

? r i o r c o ch a inpLasaencacio n o f ch e ^eignbouraoo d Macc h ?r3gra a ch a o r i . i c i -nil" carga c ara a i n ch e CJescfor c Tas c Si: a appeara- i zz b a ch e housetioL d yar d-ten 43.4^ ; o f a i l propert y crttn a raiacin g c o chi s aorcio n o t ch e househald .

Kuilowing the implementation of Che program not one occurrence relating to

damaged or stolen yard property was reported to the researchers to have

occurred. Th e house proper and the family auco still appear to be victim-

ized although the frequency of occurrence with respect to the household has

decreased by 75% as indicated in Tables 4 and 5.

In comparison, the findi-ngs presented in Table 6 indicate that the majority

of crime occurring in the Control Site relates primarily to the household

yard and car with 42.6% and 36.2% of all victims reporting crime to these

areas respectively.

TABLE 7

CRIMINAL OFFENC E TYPE S RELATIN G T O WESTFOR T TES T SIT E HOUSEHOLD S

VICTIMIZED PRIO R T O TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH E NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

THEFT FROMYARD

54.3%

(17)

WILFULDAMAGE

9.7%

(3)

CRIME

BREAK &ENTER

12.9%

(4)

TYPE

THEFT FROMAUTO

3.2%

(1) '

VEHICLETHEFT

19.4%

(6)

TOTAL

(31)

N * 31

TABLE 3

CRIMINAL OFFIC E TYPE S RELATIN G T O WESTFOR T T3S T SIT E KOl'SEKCLO S

:CTIMIZ£D "OL-CWIN C TH E CMPLEMEyTATIC N O F TH E :lE:CH30URII00 D *ATC H PROGRA M

BREAK &ESTER

60.02

(5)

CRIME TY? £

THEFT FRO MAUTO

3 0 . OZ

(3)

OTHER

10.QZ

(1)

TOTAL

(10)

M - L O

TABLE 9

CStDUJfAL 0F7EJIC I TYPE S RSLATXIJ C T O HOUSEHOLD S

VICTIMIZED I N TH E CCfrTRO t SIT E

THEFT FRC MYARD

4 0 . 4 £

( 1 9 )

WILFULDAMAGE

23 .42

( U )

BREAK &ETTHR

LQ.6Z

(5)

THEFT FRO MAUTO

2 1 . 3"

( 1 0 )

AUTOTHEFT

Z.IZ

( I )

OTHER

Z.IZ

U)

TOTAL

(47)

OFFICE TYPE S

M - 4 7

Aa a •iupnic.'nttnca. i c a Tab le s 4 , 5 , an d 6 ch e diic a praseacec t i n

and 9 p rov id e camoaraciv a i.afar:aacio n regard in g offacic a cypea . Thai c

p r o p e r t y fro m ch e y a r d , wh i l e a craquen c ac .ar .c s cyp e p r i o r ; o ch e La p

of Neighbourhoo d Vacc h in ch e Vescfor c Tes t S l c a , d i d r.o c occ u

following implementaCion. Tni s offence type, however, appears to have

occurred frequently in the Control Site as indicated in Table 9. Tin. :

same holds for wilful damage and theft from auto in the Control Site.

TABLE 10

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VICTIMS IN THE WESTFORT TEST SITE

REPORTING A CRIME AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY TO THE POLICE PRIOR

TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

REPORTED TO THE POLICE

YES

64.5%

(20)

NO

35.5%

( ID

TOTAL

(31)

N - 3 1

TABLE 1 1

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIO N O F VICTIM S I N TH E WESTFOR T TES T SIT E

REPORTING A CRIM E AGAINS T THEI R PROPERT Y T O TH E POLIC E FOLLOWIN G

THE IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH E NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

REPORTED T O POLIC E

YES

70.0%

(7)

NO

30.0%

(3)

TOTAL

(10)

N - 10

16

TA3LS L 2

0ISTRI3LrTIQN O F VICTIM S I N TH E CONTRO L SIT E REPORTIN G

A CRIM E AGAINS T THEI R PROPERT Y T O TH E ?GLIC Z

REPORTED T O POLIC E

YES

3 3 . Q*(39)

HO

1 7 . 0 1(3)

TOTAL

C4")

if • 4- 7

REPORTING 3EHAVIQL'R : CRIME S AGAINS T OW N PROPERT Y

A compariso n o f Ta b l as 1 0 an d L I reveal s cha c a large r percentag e o f Vesc -

for" Teat : Sic a ^ricciot a reparza d a crini a c o chai r aroparc y c o ch e pol ic e

following racha r cha n p r io r c a ch a tap l«»ncac io n o c ch « >T«ighbourhco d

Wh Program .

Table L I ind ica te s cha c a graaca r parcencag e a £ Cancro l Si" s v icc ia s ;ha n

wesczorc Tas c Sic e vicci.r. s rapor-a d suc h cr iaa s c o ch a ao l ic a d s s? i : a ch a

absence o f a Neighbourhoo d tfacc h Program . T*ai 3 3uggas-c 3 cha c ch e frequenc y

vich whic h v i cc i a s repor t c r ia e agaias c chai r propari 7 c a ch e aol ic a i s r.o c

depeadenc upo n exposur e c o a :Jaighbourhoo d wacc h Program .

TABLE 13

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WHEN VICTIMS IN THE WESTFORT TEST SITE

REPORTED A CRIME AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY TO THE POLICE

PKIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

WHEN REPORTED CRIME TO POLICE

ALMOSTIMMEDIATELY

45.0%

(9)

WITHIN4 HRS

10.OZ^

(2)

THE NEXTDAY

. 40.0 %

(8)

A FEW DAYSLATER

5.0%

(1)

TOTAL

(20)

N - 20

TABLE 14

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WHEN VICTIMS IN THE WESTFORT TEST SITE

REPORTED A CRIME AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY TO THE POLICE FOLLOWING

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

WHEN REPORTED CRIME TO POLICE

ALMOSTIMMEDIATELY

85.7%

(6)

THE NEXTDAY

1 14.3 %

(1)

TOTAL

(7)

N - 7

18

XABLS 13

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WHZS VICTIMS IN THE CONTROL SITE P.EPCRTZO

A CRIME AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY TO THE POLICE

WHEN SE2ORTH3 CRIME TO POLICE

ALMOSTIMMEDIATELY WITHI N i gH S A FES. ' PAY S UTS R TOTA L

7 1 . a / - ZO. J 7.7 SC2S) (8) (3) (39)

SWIFTNESS O F aE?oaTI.V C T O POLIC E N-39

"ablas 1 3 an d 1. 4 wha n janpara d indicac s cha c a graaca r 3arcar.:ag a Q CVast fort Tsis c Sic a vic-i.n s canca d c o racor t crin a 222ir.s c chai r prac aalaosc imad i aca l y c o th e Polic a followin g ijnjisnencacia n o c cn e . v."aigbourriood Watc h Program . Th e cigura s ar a 43.0 1 an d 35.7 1 raspeccfuii ysuggescins cha c ch a progra m ha.d a signizicar. s effac e o n ch e raporcia gbehaviour o f ch a "ieacfor c cas t sic a ra3p0ndan.es .

A re%*ia v o c Ch e Concrol * sic a cabl a iadicaca s cha c nearl y 71.3 Z o f a l lvictims reporte d th e c r i a a agains t chai r propert y a laos t i a sad ia ta i ycha Pol ice .

2 1 6

VESTFORT TZS T S t T i S£S?OMO£NT S WH O OBSEavE D A^ D R£?0RTE 3 CHCI E UKIC K

OCCURRED U TAZ ::EICH30URE00 D T O TH E POLIC H PRIO R T O TH E ^.PLEM^uA TOF TH E LNZICIHSOURHOO O V A T 3 PROGRA M

OBSERVED car-t E A;; D REPORTE D T O ?OLIC Z

YES Np ^ TOTA L5 0 . 0 1 % 50.01%

(3) (3 ) (16 )

TABLE 17

WESTFORT TEST SITE RESPONDENTS WHO OBSERVED AND REPORTED CRIME WHICH

OCCURRED IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD TO THE POLICE FOLLOWING THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

OBSERVED CRIME AND REPORTED TO POLICE

YES . N O TOTA L

100.0 %(4) (0 ) (4 )

TABLE 18

CONTROL SITE RESPONDENTS WHO OBSERVED AND REPORTED CRIME WHICH OCCURRED1 I N THE NEIGHBOURHOOD TO THE POLICE

i

I OBSERVE D CRIME AND REPORTED TO POLICE

YES N O TOTA L

63.6% 36.4 2

(14) (8 ) (22 )

N-22

RESPONSE TO OBSERVED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR

Prior to the implementation of the program, only 50.1 of chose Westfort

test site respondents who observed criminal behaviour reported it c o

the Police, compared to 100% following the implementation of the program.

Granted, the sample size is rather small. Nevertheless , the findings

suggest that the Neighbourhood Watch program is effective i n causing

respondents to phone the Police when criminal behaviour is observed.

In the accompanying Table 18 the data indicates that 63.6% of the

Control Site respondents contacted the Police when criminal behaviour

was observed. Thi s finding lends support to the idea that reporting

20

frequency raca s ar e deperidar. c upo n ch e prasanc a o f jair. c Police/ 1 Public

prever.cion program s dasi.sr.e c c a generac s af i i r=aciv a ac t ion .

FOLLOWS? T O AfrTRMATIV S ACTIO N

As a coilowu p c a ch e preceding • aer ias o£ cable s casooadetic s v«- e

co iadicac a wtia c cours e o f actio n ch» y voul d cak a Lz cha y u«c t c a observ esomeone comoiccin g a a r i s e agaias c chai r neighbour' s proper ty .

TASLE L 9

fFI-^UTI^'Z ACTIO N ?.E5?O>ISt S O T VS3TT0R T TZ3 T 5IT I ?.£S?GN-£:;T 3 ?a:oR . T Q

HE :MPL2!E3TATT.O K O F IK S N'EiCHBOL'SHOO D VATC K P

AfrTSWATIVi ACTIO N

WOULD TALK TO yOUL D PHONE WOUL D PHONE OTHE R TOTA LOFFENDER POLIC E HEIGH3QU 3

n.iz 34.o z 3-?r : i.zz'(3) (136 ) (6 ) (I ) (162 )

TABLE 2 0

ARFISMAUVE ACTIO N RESPONSE S O F WEST70R T TES T SIT T " £ R : - . » : £ N T STHE IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH E N'EICEBOCRHOO O C-/ATC K

AFTISMATIT:E ACTIO N

WOULD TAL K T O WOUL D PHON E WOUL D ?KO$ZOFFENDER POLIC E MEICK30U R TOTA L

9 . S S 3 6 . T " 3 . 7 "( 1 3 ) CIT ) (i ) (133 )

M-135)

TABLE 2 1

AFFIRMATIVE ACTIO N R£5PONSE S O F CONTRO L SIT E RESPONDENT S

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

WOULD TALK TO WOULD PHONE WOULD PHONE OTHER TOTALOFFENDER POLICE NEIGHBOUR

4.2% 93 .2%

(10) (220)

1.7Z

(4)

.8%(2) (236

N-236

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Clearly, Ch e purpose of Neighbourhood Wacch is Co instill, wichin Che

minds of che program participants, chac they must share in the responsibil-

ity of dealing with Che social problem of crime. On e of the ways che ac-

ceptance of che responsibility is acted out is chrough intervention,direct

or indirect, whenever a criminal act is observed. Moreover , it is held by

the proponents of the Neighbourhood Watch Program chac Che heightened

awareness and social cohesiveness derived from organize d neighbourhoods

might function to influence Che way in which the intervention is manifest-

ed. T o decermine the impact of Neighbourhocd Wacch in influencing che

way in which program participancs would socially incervefrfe, eac h respond-

ent was asked what course of action they would take . ^ ^u ,aey observe

an ace of criminality being commitced against cheir neighbour's property.

The finding presented in Tables 14, 20 and 21 indicat e that che program

had very little impacc on which course of social intervention

would actually b e taken. Phonin g Che Police was the preferred avenue,

with little impact on the selection of eicher calking Co the offender or

phoning a neighbour about co be victimized. Simila r results were

c a c o r d a d * a r Ch e C a n c r a i S i c a r a s a o a d a n c s .

NUMBER O f NEICH30UR S :<N0V N 3 Y MAM E 3 Y RESPONDENT S III TH E WESTFOR T TZS t

SITE PRIO R T O TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH E SEICHBOCSHOO O WATC H

MUMBES O F NEIGHBOUR S OOV K 3 Y NAK S

LZzS THA N 3 7-10 v

17.9Z

(29)

MORE THA N

49.4,:

(30)

1U

N-

TOTAI

(162)

L62

(12)

TABLE 2 3

OF NEIGHBOUR S K:iOW N B Y NA« E 3 Y RZSPOMDEyT S I N TH E WEST"OR T TI5 T

SITS FaiXOWIN G TH E IMPLEMENTATIO K O F TH E NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

NUMBER O F FAMILIE S 3QTOU S 3 Y NAM E

Z 5 5 TH* « 3 7-LO :-TOR£ THA N 1 0

3 .92

(12)17.OZ

(23)13.5Z(25)

5 5 . 6 2

(75) (135)U - U 5

TABLE 2 4

NUMBER 01" NEIGHBOURS KNOWN BY NAME BY RESPONDENTS IN THE CONTROL STTK

NUMBER OF NEIGHBOURS KNOWN BY NAME

LESS THAN 3 4- 6 7-1 0 MOR E THAN 10 TOTA L

16.2% 29. 8 % 13. IX 35.3 %

(38) (70 ) (44 ) (83 ) . (236 )

.- - K-23 6

NUMBER OF NEIGHBOURS KNOWN BY NAME

Table 22 indicates Chat 67.3% of all respondents in the Wescfort Test

Site prior to the implementation knew the n ames of seven (7) ur moi.e

neighbours compared to 74.1% following the program's implementation,

thereby suggesting that Neighbourhood Watch assists in sponsoring

social contact.

In the Control Site only 54% of the respondents knew seven (7) or more

neighbours by name.

TABLE 2 5 ' *

NUMBER O F NEIGHBOUR S VISITE D B Y RESPONDENT S I N TH E WESTFOR T TES T SIT E

PRIOR T O TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH E NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

NUMBER O F FAMILIE S VISITE D

LESS THA N

68.5%

(111)

3 4-6

20.4%

(33)

7-10

7.4%

(12)

MORE THA N

3.7%

(6)

10 TOTAL

(162)N-16 2

24

TABL£ 26

NUMBER O F NEIGHBOUR S VISITE D 3 Y RESPONDENT S I N 73 S V&STrO R

FOLLOWING TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N 0 ? IK E NEIGHBOURHOO D VAtC H P

NUMBER O F FAMILIE S VISITE D

LESS THA N 3 7=10 MORI THA N 1 0 TOTAL

6 4 . ZX

(36)17.62(37)

6. QZ

(3)

A3L£ 2 7

2.2S

(3) (134)

R O F JTE:CH3UUX S VISITE D 3 Y R£5?0MD£NT S I N TH E CONTRO L 5 I I Z

MUMBER O F FAMILIE S VISITE D

L£SS THA N 3 7-LO MORE THA N 1 0 TOTAL

7 2 . 9 X

(172)

Zl.ZZ

(50)3.4*

(3) CS) (236

tf-236

NUMBER O F .fEICKBOUR S VI5ITZ D

Raapondencs v«r « als o aska d c o iadicac a ch a auaba r a c neighbour s * ' : ;

v is iced o n & regula r baai s chroughau c chei r neighbourhood . Th « rasulc s

pressnced i n cable s 2 5 an d 2 6 iadicac a cha c 31-5 5 o f w'ascfor r Tas c Sic *

raspondeccs vt^ica d mor e cha n chra e (3 ) household s regular l y pr io r c o cti e

program's iiapl-sBaacacioa , csmpara d c o ch e pasz cigur a a £ 35 .3" .

This again suggests chat Che program assiscs Co a slighc degree in foster-

ing social contact:.

Comparatively, only 27.1% of respondents in che Control Sice indicated

that they visit three (3) or more neighbours on a regular basis.

TABLE 2 8

SOCIAL COHESIVENESS OF WESTFORT TEST SITE RESPONDENTS PRIOR TO THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

LEVEL OF SOCIAL COHESIVENESS

HIGH LOW TOTAL

53.IX

(86)

46.9%

(76)

TABLE 2 9

SOCIAL COHESIVENESS OF WESTFORT TEST SITE RESPONDENTS FOLLOWING THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

LEVEL OF SOCIAL COHESIVENESS

HIGH TOTAL

60%

(81)

40%

(54) (135)

K-135

26

TA3LE 3 0

SOCIAL CCKESIVENES S O F CONTRO L SIT E RESPONDENT S

LEVEL O F SOCIA L

H I G H CO W TOTA L

40.3Z . 59 .7 2

(95) : (141 ) ' (236 )

SOCIAL COHESIO N— — — — — — ^ *.Social cohesio n va s aeasura d b y combinin g cv o variables : ch e numbe r a cneighbours known , wis h zft e niaba r o c naignbour s vtsizzd, fa r ch e purpcs aof dacarairtia g p -/hac iapac c ch a iaplsrsancaciat i o f "h e progra m ha d or . ch eoverall lave l o f cohesio n a a deciaa d above .Ic woul d appea r cha c ch a progra m ha d a posiciv e aifac c t a earn s o f height -ening ch a lava i o f cohesio n a s evidenced , b y ch e ccraparaciv e figurs s i nTablaa 2 3 an d 29 . Th e finding s i n ch a Concro l Sic a cabl a d o no c ru ncontrary c o cii e pr e an d poa c progra m findings , an d 3uspor t ch e chaor ychac ch e progra m ha s ch e abili t y C o increas e ch a Lave ! o f cohesion .

. ZA2LZ 3 1

? S S C Z ? T X 0 N O F r « E S T F 0 R T T E S T S I T E RESPONDENT S aSCAftOr^ C TH E ?!IESE:IC E O F

NEIGHBOURHOOD S P I R I T P R I O R T O T£Z I M P L E l E N T A t l O M 0 ? T H S IIEIGHBOL'RKOO O

WATCH PROGRA M ' *

I S THER E MEICHBOURHOQ O S P I R I T

X E S SOMSKHA t N O TOTA L

3 3 . U 11.67. 25.2Z

(36) (35 ) (-11 ) (1 6 2)

TABLE 3 2

PERCEPTION OF WESTFORT TEST SITE RESPONDENTS REGARDIN G THE PRESENCE

OK NEIGHBOURHOOD SPIRIT FOLLOWIN G THE IMPLEMENTATIO N OF NEIGHBOURHOOD

WATCH PROGRAM

IS THER E NEIGHBOURHOOD SPIRIT

YES SOMEWHA T ,N O TOTA L

56.3%- * * 34.1 % 9.6 %

(76) (46 ) (13 ) (135 )

N-135

TABLE 3 3

PERCEPTION OF CONTROL SITE RESPONDENTS REGARDIN G THE PRESENCE OF

NEIGHBOURHOOD SPIRI T

IS THERE NEIGHBOURHOOD SPIRIT

YES SOMEWHA T N O TOTA L

66.9% 11.4f . 21.6 %

(158) (27 ) (51 ) " * (236)

N-236

Neighbourhood Spiri t

When asked about the presence of neighbourhood spirit, 74.7 % of the

Westfort Test Sit e respondent s indicate d yes t o somewhat of a presenc e

prior to th e implementatio n of the progra m compared to th e pos t imp -

lementation percentage of 90-4%. Th e Control Site distribution is

reminiscent of the pre implementatio n Test Site data, wit h 78.3 % in -

dicating yes o r somewhat with regard to th e presence of neighbourhood

spirit.

23

TA3L£ 3 4

PERCEPTION O F WZSTTOR T TES T SIT E RESPONDENT S REGARDIN G TH E OCCURRENC E

OF ?RC?5.TT : CRIM E I N THEI R JTEIGH3QU3HC0 D GVC S TH E ?AS 7 YEA R PRIO R T O TH I

OF TK £ JIEIGHBOURHQO D WATC H ?ROG«W «

PROPERTY CRIME aCREASED OVER THE ?AST Y

INCREASED RgMAiyE O SAM E QgC3EA5E3 . DON' T KNO W TOTA L

39.55: . 31 . 1Z 3.U T 6.2 *

(54) (33 ) (5 ) (10 ) (162 )

* * " " N**16 2

TABLE 3 5

PERCEPTION O F VtSTTOR T TES T SIT E RESPONDENT S REGAR D IMC TH E OCCURRENC E

OF PROPERT Y CRIM E U THEI R tfEIGHBOURSOO D OVE R TH E PAS T YEA R FOLLOWIN C T-i E

IMPLEMENTATION O F TH E NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

PROPERTY C^IM E INCREASE D OVE R TH E PAS T YEA R

:::CR£ASCD REMAINE D SAM E DECREASE D DOM' T :cro w TOTA L

4.42 15.ZZ 42. 1Z 28 . IZ

C6) • (34 ) (57 ) (38 ) (135 )

TABLE 3 6

PERCEPTION OF CONTROL SITE RESPONDENTS REGARDING THE OCCURRENCE OF

PROPERTY CRIME IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD OVER THE PAST YEAR

PROPERTY CRIME INCREASED OVER THE PAST YEAR

INCREASED

31.8%

(75)

REMAINED

55 .12

(130)

SAME

-

DECREASED

3.0%

(7)

DON'T KNOW

10.2%

(24)

TOTAL

(236)

M-236

PERCEPTION OF FREQUENCY OF PROPERTY CRIME

Next, program participants were asked vtiecner uney relt Che occurrence

of property crime in Cheir neighbourhood had increased over che past

year.

Without question the pose pro'*—— J-.-- jn table 35 suggests that a

complete turn around occurred with respect to the respondents' percept-

ion of the frequency of property crime in their neighbourhood.

Specifically, 35.1%. more respondents indicated that they believed the

occurrence of property crime had decreased following the implementation

of the Neighbourhood Watch program. I t is significant co*note that the

perception of the resident fp-iarding property crime levels correspond

to the victim experience data provided in the first cable of this

chapter.

30

TABLE 3 7

^"KAt JVcSTFOR T TI3 T SITZ RESPONDENT S THOUGH T r i lLC V RESIDENT S i/cR E uGI.\' C

TO ASSIS T I N REDUCIN G TH E OPPORTUNIT Y T O COMMI T PROPERT Y CRIM E I N TH E

AREA PRIO R T O TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH S NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

RESIDENT METHOD S O F REDUCIN G OPPORTUNIT Y T O COMMI T PROPERT Y CRIM E

LOOK AFTS a NEIGH - SECCa E TA1 X T O PHON E ?HON E30UR'S PROPERT Y PROPERT Y OFTiNDER S NEIGHBOUR S POLIC E OTHE X TOTA L

57.22(91)

5.7*(9)

1.91(3)

2.5::(4)

zs.zz(40)

7.5S(12) (139)

N-15 9

TASU 3 8

WHAT KESTTaR X TES T SIT E RESPONDENT S THOUGH T FELLO W RESICcNT S VaS E DOIN G

TO ASSIS T I N REDUCIN G TH E OPPORTUNIT Y T O COMMI T PROPERT Y CRtM S I N TH E

AREA FOLLOWIN G TH E IMPLEMENTATIO N O F TH E NEICH 3 OURHOO D WATC H PROGRA M

RESI3E2rr METHOD S O F REDUCIN G OPPORTL'MIT Y T O COMMI T PROPERT Y CRIM E

LOCK AfTE R NEIGH - SECUR E TAL X T O PHON E PHON ESOUR'S PROPERT Y PR0PE2T T 0F7ENDER S STEICH30UR S POLIC E OTHE R TOTA L

70.32 13-I S — 4.6 S 4.6 2 6.9 Z(92) (17 ) (6 ) ' • (6 ) (9 ) (130 )

N-L30

31

TABLE 3 9

WHAT CONTROL SITE RESPONDENTS THOUGHT FELLOW RESIDENTS WERE DOING TO

ASSIST IN REDUCING THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT PROPERTY CRIME IN THE AREA

RESIDENT METHODS OF REDUCING OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT PROPERTY CRIME

LOOK AFTER NEIGH- SECUR E TAL K TO PHON E PHON E OTHE R TOTA LBOUR'S PROPERTY PROPERT Y OFFENDER S NEIGH - POLIC E

BOURS

75.7% 9.8 %

(178) (23 )

I

1

METHODS PERCEIVED TO BE EMPLOYED at t%i^ I^»>J.D£NTS TO REDUCE OPPORTUNITY

.9%(2)

1 . 3 %(3)

1 1 . 9 %(28)

.4%

(1) (236)N-236

TO COMMIT PROPERTY CRIME IN THEIR AREA

When Westfort Test Site respondents were first contacted prior to the

implementation of Neighbourhood Watch, the y indicated that up to that

point neighbours primarily looked after neighbours' property and phoned

Che Police to assist in reducing the occurrence of neighbourhood property

crime. Followin g the implementation of the program an even greater per-

centage - 70.8% — felt that neighbours were looking after their neigh-

bour's property, and another 13.1% of the respondents believed that

neighbours wei- ucuj .somewhat more diligent in securing their worldly

possessions. I n any event, a shift occurred whereby phoning the Police

was noc viewed to be occurring as frequently - suggesting that phoning

the Police was no longer proactively viewed as a practical nor effective

method of dealing with neighbourhood crime. Mor e significantly, this

finding further suggests that a change in the attitude may have taken

place regarding the need for the resident to accept as his/her respon-

sibility the taking of affirmative action rather than sitting back and

32

defining cria e t n genera l a s fallin g cotall y wichi a ch e scop e o f ch e

Polica Forca .

to son e axcanc , ch e cir.dir.g s aresanca d La ch e correspondin g Coacro l

Sica ca b la suppor t ch e above , vic h 1.2 " o r ch e rasidanc s indicacin g

chac assiscacc e c o reduc s aeighbournoo d crim e I s provide d b y fallo w

residancs piroain g ch e Police . Thi s suggesc s cha c a belie f sxijc s cha c

che preveacio a o f cris e fall s wichi a ch e domai a o f ch e Polic e - cxo e

che public .

Sever^helaas, a significantly.graaca r auafae r o f rasidenc j - 75. 7Z

- *a iodicace d l a ch e Coaxra l Sic e dac a cable , perceive d residenc e

co b e assiscin g c o reduc e neighbourhoo d cria e b y lookin g afca r -hei r

neighbour's property . Thi J figur e is als o highe r cha c ch e pos e Wescfor t

Tesc Sic a percacicag a tt 7O.'3 S fo r ch e saia e cacagcry .

THE DECRE H t o WHIC H R£5?QgmEN7 5 7HTSSCAU. Y ScCUR£ 3 THS: ^ HOCTSEHOL D

AND

to chi s paia c ±n =h e scucy , ch e ana lys i s ha s focuase d p r i a a r i i y upo n

che im p ac e cha c Ch e Neighbourhoo d Wacc h Progra m ha s ha d o n shapin g

che soc ia l respons e o f progra m par t i c ipanc s c o ch a occurrenc e o f

P M w ' M cria M i n cha i r neighbourhood . Th e ciex c cabl e w i l l p-rovid e

che raada r wic h coGiparaciv e dac a ra lac in g spec i f i ca l l y c o ch e iapac c

of ch e progra m o n ch e physica l respons e o f raspondanc a c o ch e occur -

rence o f proper t y c r i n e l a chei r neighbourhood .

33

TABLE 4 0

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DECREE TO WHICH HOUSEHOLDS INCLUSIVE O THE

CO SPONDIN YARD PROPERTY WERE PHYSICALLY SECURED IN THE CONTROL

SITE AND IN THE WESTFORT TEST SITE PRIOR TO AND FOLLOWING THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

COMPARATIVEAREAS

DEGREE TO WHICH HOUSEHOLDS/PROPERTY PHYSICALLY SECURED

LOW MEDIUM HIGH TOTAL

WESTFORT PRIO RTO PROGRA M

WESTFORT FOLLOW -ING PROGRA M

CONTROL

SITE

4 7 . 5 %(77)

30.3Z(41)

54.5%(129)

24.7%(40)

25.1%(34)

22.4%(53)

27.8%(45)

44.6%(60)

22.7%(54)

(162)

(135)

(236)N-533

Before we discuss e significance of table 40 , a description of what

is meant by "physically secure" is in order. I n the methodology chapter

it was mentioned that composite variables were constructed to measure

social cohesion, var d security, and household security. Al l che compon-

ent variables comprising the yard and household security composite

variables were added together to create a global security composite vari-

able. Item s such as fencing, locking mechanisms, the securing of re-

creational and yard equipment, household and shed lighting, door types,

window types, the presence or absence of trees and shrubs in fronc of

basement windows, and a host of other security items were included in

the construction of the global security component variable (See Appen-

dix A).

34

The dac a displaye d i n Tabl e 4 0 suggesc s var y strongl y ciu c ch e Vastfor tTasc Sic a res iden t s responde d p o s i t i v e ! / c a ch e car^e c hardenin gaspecc o f th e ifeighbaurhoo d Wacc h Program . I n face , char e -a s a CCIBO -

leca reversa l v is a ch e aajocic y o f raspondenc s ragiscar in g a aediua t c ociigh l eve l a t physica l securic y followia g exposur e c o ch e program .

This f indin g i s supporte d b y ch e Contro l Sic e dac a whic h i s d i s c r ibuc -«d s i o i l a r l v c o ch « preprogra m iaplemancacio a dac a fo r ch e Vescfor ct e s c S i c e .

TABLE 4 1

PERCEPTION O F WESTFOR T TS3 T SIT Z RESPONDE D RECAADI G TH E IMPAC T O F

MEICK30lrRHQCD WATC H AS 9 "S£DtfCI2f G PROPERT Y CRIM E 12 1 THEI R M&ICH30URHOO D

FOLLOWING IT S IMPUMENT-VTCO N

ACT O F 5ffiICgBQUet5QO D Oi l gSOUCTSl C gaOgER T

VERY MUC H IMPAC T SOMEWHA T O F A N IMPAC T M O IMPAC T A T AL L

4 0 . 6 2 5 4 . 9 Z 4 . 5 3

( 5 4 ) ( 7 3 ) ( 6 ) ( 1 3 3 )

TABLE 4 2

DISTRI3UTI0N O F RESPONSE S REGARDIN G WHETHE R WESTFOR T TES T SIT E RESPONDENT S

WOULD RECOMMEN D NEIGHBOURHOO D WATC H A S A CRIM E PREVENTIO N STRATEG Y

FOLLOWING IT S IMPLEMENTATIO N

WOULD RECO^EN P ?TEIGK30l rRH00Q WATC H

? c S S O TOTA L

98.52 1.5 2(132) (2 ) (L3& )

35

THE EVALUATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM BY WESTFORT TEST

SITE RESPONDENTS

i

To complement the evaluation phase of the study, the Westfort Test Site

program participants were asked to indicate the degree to which Neigh-

bourhood Watch assisted i n reducing the opportunity to commit crime in

their neighbourhood, and whether or not they personally would recommend

the program to other citizens.-

As indicated in Tables 41 and 42, well over 95% of the respondents be-

lieved the program had very much to somewhat of an impact on reducing

the opportunity to conaftlt crime in their neighbourhood. Moreover , the

* distributio n of responses relating to recommending the program indicates

that over 98% of the residents believed the program should be recommend-

ed as a preventative strategy for other interested neighbourhoods.

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

VICTIM EXPERIENCE

The findings presented in this chapter suggest that the way in which the

Neighbourhood Watch program was implemented in Thunder Bay was effective

in reducing the victim experience of the Westfort Test Site residents.

In fact, there was a 67.7% reduction in the occurrence of all property

crime. No t one respondent following the implementation of the program

reported or indicated a theft of property from che yard had occurred

throughout the year. Thi s is a significant finding, given that almostee** *>- all related crime prior to the program had involved the theft of

property from a yard. Similarily , not one incident of wilful damage was

reported or indicated to have occurre d following the implementation of

the program.

The principal crime related problems in the control site included thefc

from the yard (40.4%), wilful damage (23.4%), and theft from the house-

hold auto (21.3%).

These findings support the concept that Neighbourhood Watch as implement-

ed, was effective in reducing the occurrence of theft from yards and

wilful damage.

36

R£?QRTI>*C BEHAVIOU R

A s l i g h t l y g r e a t a r percentag e o f Westfor t t as c Sic a raspondenc s con -

cactad :h e P o l i c s c o rapar t a crim e agains t zhei r ow n proper t y cache r

chan ao c raporc ia g i c a t a i l callow-in g ch e iapiaser.cacio n o f ch e p ro -

gram. However , i c woul d appea r cha c :h e progra m wa s a f f e c t i v e i n cera s

of causin g person s wh o d o repor t a crim a agains c chei r p roper t y c o d o

so aur a s w i f t l y , v lc h S5.7Z i ad icac ia g laacdlac a raporc ing , csmpars d c o

45Z o f chas * Wescfor x ras ldeac s wh o reporta d a c r i s e agaixts c t h e i r p

per ry p r i o r c o th e ispleoancatioc i o f th a program .

ACTIOK

Respondents ver e aske d whethe r the y ha d observe d anyon e c ommlt a c r i m ein their aeighbourho^d- , art d whethe r they ha d ohotia d ch e ?aLic a i n r a s -potise C o ch e e r i c a . ? r io r c o ch e prograa , onl y 50% o f thos e Vescfor ;tasc Sic e respondent s wh o ha d observe d a crim e bein g caaaicca d phone dChe Pol ice , compara d c o IQQZ at chos e Vestfor t t s s t 5ic a ras?oadenc 3who observe d a c r i a a bein g consulcta d followin g ch e iapiamencatio n o fthe program , th e hypothesize d impac t i s supporte d b y th e Contro l Si: adata , wit h 63.S S o f suc h respondent s rapcrt in g a n obsar/e d cr imina l ac tco th e ? o l i c a .

As a follo w u p quest ion , ax l respondent s wer a asica d wha t tha y uoul d d oif the y observe d someon e commie:in g a crim e agains c chai r neighbour' sproperty, th e finding s indicat a cha c cher a va s a o impac t o f ch e progra min t e r s s o f s t a r r i n g th a rasponsa . Unde r suc h condit ions , rsspondanc sia ch e t e s t Sic a reporte d equall y befor e an d afca r ch e progra m cha c che ywould b y preferenc e phon e ch e ?ol ica , cal k c o ch a of£*nd*r , an d lasci yphone ch e neighbou r bein g vict imised .

SOCI.-U. CQHES'OW

the dumbe r o f person s know n by.aam e an d vis isa d increase d i i i g h c l y l aChe Wescfor t Tes c Sic a followin g ch a iaplarneacacio n o f ch a program . Th e

level of interaction similarily increased, indicating that the social

cohosiveness was heightened as indicated by the associated comparative

tables. A significant impact of the program appears when the data re-

garding whether a feelin g of neighbourhood spirit had developed over

time, with over 90% indicating such was the case following the impleraen-J tatio n of the program compared to 74.7% of the Test Sice respondents

prior to program exposure, and 78% of the Control Site respondents.

PERCEPTION OF THE CRIME LEVEL

Again, the findings are significant, with a complete reversal of per-

ceptions occurring in Jke Westfort Test Site respecting the level of

( neighbourhoo d crime following implementation of the program. Fort y two

t poin t two percent (42.2% ) of the Test Sice residents perceived the level

of neighbourhood crime to have decreased, compared to 3.1% of Westfort

I Tes t Site respondents prior to the program, and 3% of che Control Site

PERCEIVED APPROACHES UTILIZED BY FELLOW RESIDENTS TO. ASSIST IN REDUCING

THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT PROPERTY CRIME

The data displayed in the relevant tables- indicate that a greater per-

centage of Westfort Test Site respondents following the implementation

of the program believed neighbours were assisting to reduce the opportun-

ity to commit neighbourhood crime by looking after their neighbour's

property, 70.6% compared to 57*2%, and securing one's own property, .

13.1% compared to 5.7%. Th e Control Site respondents perceive neigh-

bours to be assisting to reduce the occurrence 'of neighbourhood crime

primarily by looking after their neighbour's property, 75.7%, and phon-

ing the Police, 11.9%.

The major finding here is the down playing of phoning the Police by

Westfort Test Site respondents as a resident method to reducing the

opportunity to commit neighbourhood property crime. Prio r to the

38

program, 23.2 2 o f ch e respondent s perceive d ehi s c o b e a highl y ut i l ise dan chad compare d c o ch e pra-progra n figur e o f 4.5" .

This signal s a passibl e chang e i n ch e accicud e o f rssidenc s expose d c oa Neighbourhoo d (fetc h progra m a s provide d Thunde r 3ay , whereb y residenc sare perceive d c o b e cakin g a lea s passiv e an d mor e acciv e rol e i ndealing vtc h ch e issu e o f crime .

PHYSICAL OF

there Is scron g evidenc e C o subscanclac e ch e clal a cha c ch e progra m a simpleawncad ha d a ver r signiiican c iapac c o n incraasin g ch e leve l o fhousehold an d yar d securic y (Tabl e 40 ) i n ch e Vescfor c las c 5ica , whic hmay largel y explai n ch e dtamaci c reduccic n i n ch e occurranc a o f propert yrelacaci crim e chrougiiou c ch e Wescfor c Tes c Sica , parcictUarl y chec c o fyard property, an d explai n ch e rslacivei y hig h occurrenc e o f propert yrsiacad cria e i n ch e Concro l Sica .

tfESTFQRT TEST SITS PSaCgTIOWS 0? T3S PffAC? - OF »EICHBQURH0OD

Over 95 2 o f ch e Wescfor t tes c Sic e raspondenc s perceive d ch e progra m c ohave ha d samewhac , c a ver y tauch , o f a n intpac c o n recucin j neighbourhoo dproperty crime . Further , 98. 5X o f ch e Vescfar c tas c Sic e respondent sindicaca cha c chmy woul d recommen d ch a progra m c o othe r neighbourhood sas a crim e preventio n scracegy .

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION IMPLICATION S AN D RECOMMENDATION S

DISCUSSION

This research project was divided into two phases; the first involved the

implementation of the Neighbourhood Watch program in a pre-selacted

residential area, whereas the second phase dealt with the evaluation of

the program a year later. A n additional control site wa s determined

and similarly examined one year later during the evaluation phase of the

study.

Data was extracted from 162 Test Site households during the implementation

phase, and 135 Test Site households throughout the evaluation portion of

the study. Comparativ e data was obtained from 236 Control Site house-

holds from a residential area located ten (10) miles away from the Test

Site.

**.* was then analyzed using Che Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences to produce btvariate and multivariate contingency tables.

Clearly, th e data indicates that the collective victim experience of

Westfort Test Site respondents decreased substantially following the im-

plementation of the Neighbourhood Watch program.

The decrease in the victim experience of Westfort Test Site respondents

can largely be accounted for by the virtual absence of yard theft - which

contributed 54.8% to the total victim experience prior to the program ex-

posure. Thi s suggests that the program was particularly effective in

reducing the occurrence of this crime type.

Still, we have yet to determine what aspect of the program vas particular-

ly significant with respect to reducing the occurrence of thefc from

household yards.

The respondents of the Westfort Test Site indicated through their responses

that the level of social cohesion was heightened moderately as a result of

40

cha pr o gran , an d Ba y i n par ? ax ? Iai n ch e succes s o r ch a pr o 5 ran . Thi s

cheory i s sataawha c supporte d b y ch e Contro l Sic a dat a whic h indicate s

chat che y hav e a ralacivel y la w Lave l o f socia l cohesio n an d hig h vicci a

axaerienca raca . However , ch a chang a i n ch e Lava l o f socia l cohesio n in .

che Vestfor t Tas t Sic a wa s co o 3ligh t c a explai n full y ch e nechanica l

aspect o f ch e pragras i directl y responsibl e fo r reducin g ch e occurrenc e

of propert y criaa , an d i n particular , chef s o f propert y fros t ch a yard .

Ih« answe r i s relat ival / siatpl a - respondent s i n ch a Wastfor t Tes t Sic a

oeraiy incraaaa d ch a lavc l or yar d an d househol d s«curicy , as indicaca d

by sh e jignifican c percentag e differenc e o f ch a discribucio a arasanca d

in ta b l a 40 . Thi s become s ave n cor e significan t vhe n v « conside r Tabl e 1

simultaneous!/, vhareb y v « ar a abl a c o dra v a direc t relationshi p bee *

uesn ch e lava ! o f physica l sacuric y an d victi a axparienca .

Having establishe d ch a above , i t s t i l l regain s fo r u s c o determin e wha c

aspect o f ch e progra m contribute d t o activatin g ch e Vascfor t Tas t Sic a

respondents t o "bee f up " ch a lave l o f physica l sacuricy .

A portio n o f ch a intervie w wa s restricte d c c l i~v : fy i r ; tt» a potentia l

vulnerability o f aac h househol d C o ch a occurranc a o f propert y crime - Mor *

ioportant, a praliisinar y anal/s i 3 o f ch e victi m surve y dat a conducte d ia~

iMdiataly ai ta r th e samplin g o f ch a Wastfor t Tas t Sic a durin g ch e isplesMa -

cacian phas e reveala d ch a aajo r propert y crim e problam s raiatin g c o th a

Tast Sica . Thi s informatio n wa s convaye d c o ch e Section an d 31oci c

Captains followin g ch e establishmen t o f chas e positions , whic h i n cur n

was the n coionunicata d c o al l Haighbourhoo d Watc h raspondents . Th e aachod s

by which , th a informatio n wa s convaye d C o al l Vaacfor t Tas ; Sic a raspoad -

ar.es include d Ch e repetitio n o f criainaliscic s vi a a neighbourhoo d U'acc h

!tews Lacce r and , verbally , t- %}\ Moc k seeciag s (Se e Appendi x A) .- *

Specifically, chaf e o f propert y va s cita d a s ch e principa l problaa , an d

respondents wer e encourage d c o cu m thei r oucsid a light s o n an d sacur e

cheir outdoo r racreaciooa l aquir?men t an d cools/aachinery .

ic woul d appea r then , tha t ch e applicatio n o f cria e analysi s an d ch a u t i l iz -

ation o f chi s informatio n b y aoa-polic a personne l scryecura d inc o a n

organization suc h a s Neighbourhoo d Watc h ca n b e extremel y effectiv e i ndealing wit h specifi c crim e relate d problems .

Without th e Neighbourhoo d Watc h structure , whic h i n essenc e create s aformal citize n organizatio n withi n residentia l area s previousl y ex -hibiting informa l o r loosel y kni t socia l t ies , th e applicatio n o f crim eanalysis woul d i n a l l probabilit y fai l . Th e newl y create d Neighbour -hood Watc h organizatio n I s endowe d wit h a purpos e C o preven t th e occurr -ence o f neighbourhoo d crime , an d philisophicall y maintain s tha t al lhave a responsibilit y t o ac t i n concer t i n orde r t o realiz e th e organ -ization' s purpose .

Undoubtedly suc h organization s assis t t o creat e a greate r leve l o f socia lcontrol withi n ou r neighbourhood s b y workin g wit h a commo n definitio n o fdeviant behaviou r an d se t o f response s t o dea l wit h observe d act s o fcriminality, an d a a such , shoul d b e considere d whe n explainin g victi mexnerience.

In an y event , th e finding s i n additio n t o indicatin g tha t a Neighbourhoo dWatch Progra m ca n effectivel y reduc e th e occurrenc e o f propert y crime ,suggest tha t th e progra m wa s largel y responsibl e fo r causin g resident s t oacknowledge an d accep t th e rol e o f assumin g a pr o activ e stanc e i n partner -ship wit h th e Polic e - givin g substanc e t o th e expressio n "Workin g Togethe rTo Preven t Crime. "

42

DUPLICATIONS

1- Neighbourhoo d Watc h Program s ca n b e ver y e i i ac r iv e i n reducin gche occurrenc e o f r e s i d e n t i a l propert y c r iae .

2. T o b e e f f e c t i v e , c r i a a analysi s base d upo n v i cc i s experienc e dat ar i che r tha n re ? a r e a d cr la e s c a d s cic 3 anis e b e applied , an d i a -faraacion. share d wic h ch e bureaucrac y o f th e c i t i z e n Neighbour -hood Waec h organiza t ion .

3. Th e u t i l i z a t i o n o f a oavslecce r zo commuaicac a spec i f i c c r l a eproblems base d upo n v icc i a axperiaac a dac a is a n eefscciv e sacho dfor generat in g a n acciv e respons e o f Neighbourhoo d Vacc h o a r t i c i -panes.

i. Th e heighcane d leve l o f physica l securic y o f ch e Tas c Sic a house -holds va s du e t o ch a appl icat io n o f c r i a i n a l i s t i c s , an d d i recc l yre la ted t o ch e reductio n o f r e s iden t i a l properc >

5. Th e iatroducciot i o f a Neighbourhoo d Watc h organizatio n inc o aneighbourhood a s s i s c 3 t o heighte n ch e leve l o f soc ia l cohesio na* maasure d b y frequenc y o f soc ia l cantacc .

6. Neighbourhood s whic h hav e so t bee n expose d c o a. Neighbourhoo d Vacc hprogram w i l l exh ib i t love r level s o f socia l cohesion , physica lsecu r i t y , an d highe r viccia t experienc e racas .

7. Exposur e c o a Neighbourhoo d Ku<:c 3 progra m cause s c ic i^an s c o ack -nowledge t h e i r raspons ib i l i c y vi s a vi s crizte , an d c o assum e apro acciv e scane s i n partnershi p f -n.ch ch e Police .

RECOMMENDATIONS

J. Tkat HzA.gkbouAh.ood ttlatck o^gayUzatioru b e AponAoxzd andKZ4>OUA.CZA appioprUoXzLy pKavivzdzd at thz mwu.cA.pal Izvzl

2. That identical btudczA b e conducted in otkzn.

and thz n.z£uZtb a ft- 4amz compa/izd uriXk thz ^A.n.dinq^ G&

thu study.

I 3 . Tkat v-lctim expe/u.ewc £ AuAvzy* b e conductzd to

i -di e tpzcifac cumz Kzlatzd ptioblznu o£ a g<Lvzn nzigkbouA

kood.

4. Tkat thz cAAjniyuzZatZic information kouAzd by Poticz FQA.CZA

and ba&zd upon victim zxpinizncz b e ^kcuizd viith thz Hziqk-

bouJikood Watck Organizations.

5. Tkat victim zxpzAizncz data b e uXitizzd to zvaJUiatz tkz

zihzctivznzA* oh att c/Umz pJizvzntion htMXzgiZA ion. tkz

pwipotz oh dzvzZoping a mzaninghuJL and compa/urfivz

I APPENDICES

i.

APPENDIX At

t

0*

7. < Z UJ LJ Vw - J — a • u . ?

ro I. J T * a > c * —s ' • ILCI- . a . - u u

< + + * L L Q l t l ^O tf C C * I 3T >s z u c r i u o *ff-'rt n a S *- u • a: >r, * j ? a 2 - i f lo t

3 r, a v : iu r a2:j U U f f C U H U . - . , "

« • • • 5 — Q: X:"L "5 t* c .* u X \J f —

LJ < c; r u.- 3 -J • t./1 x :•" o 3 o a <n ^ x*• • < * * z r x »ua

j ^ c - * - ^ 3w*- c d •«? ^ o jr v11 y. *u. ' * - ir-u i c J

•> *2 *- u. 1 * — o » >r r — a y ' — •*•*{.' —

' " w " i f J -lll/'\l.4" <* *u J J c. tr, • j -I- —

a * t-i a n i-* r r •- >

o + * ^ + ; 2 T • ' >1. ? " ^ « C ^ 2 < u. 7

•* o OLLU. c a.**i •?.""•*• •• 1 e j r ^ — (j ;-•

u c C 2 r < / i j ( / ; > c > i r . • * H L*_ ; L + ^ 2 * "•«". ™i/lCu,li '(T LU* +^ *<I- IL ( f l " «> »IX< C3 (ft u * C X u N» •*• *• u; <r r. .-•- f c W Q'd, + <5 * 3 ~ U X C£ <•*'V

* J I I I ^ I I J I I ^ I 1 I I t I I I I I -I I I I I I

^ lj ^^K^«KSi^^^.>.x i •"^.•^••••^•^-•^••Airy (0 I Q 15 1" 'J ft : i ' 3 ^ J C t1 ^y we z < >•" . _'f* i 3 C " Ua i ; i r * r :u. • f i - < y j

C — — — — — - • — — — —-» f : cv {v ft, (^ PJ ?.• cu 0.- a CJ ft* <\ ft* CJ (/)< > Q. C" <

r ^ j p ' " i " , T c o 3 • • 7 1 " i x w a y ; • L r

> ? • • • • • • • « • • (7c1 'L* - • rC' ^* ^* ••• ^* ^* *V *^ r t ^^ *• «rt f^ t f lA B ^rt *«• #4 ^ V* «M ** ^* «^ P* «*• ^d f* M • *1 ^rt

H U. j U. U. U L ii 'X U. U '— L- I. i— :i U L. U i. U. Ii ti- ll U ^ LL U C •—rf Va - r > —

'.5 r- ** U- T ^ —«£ I. •" LU > f\. > b. r t* 1.. U k L U « » ( j t -— - J 2 N W * p . LL. — h-, Z t * ^ ^ K H - ^ U J U - Z * - ? 1 ^

d * u •- K c — n c i i i -S^jg- r t-C r< 3 u. a 3</a c" 5ac ;d - L* -Zc — 5 t ;• • — j -•: K v ' : | f l 7? r Ci 'T: L — *- z r* *- r e n.(rtr 7 ryyuui .* ^ *o j . " I J I ' L . 1 — C w ^ 0 " O i L > u > * r ;:V**f —u. r x" T — U 3 — C? C CCUUifl r I K

3 c r_' u.1 •* ?? •* u ';. L n r? c* * c Q. << u K > (_• - ? f u u y 1 K *f c C (.*

Ci2 M

UlU ^ . fK - 1 _

Al

APPENDIX B

GROUP 1

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH MEETING

DATE: Wednesday August 25, 1982

PLACE: Mary J. L. Black Library

TIME: 7:30

POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter ConnorsCrime Prevention Officer

STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richmond (Projec t Leader)Joan Alkenbrack (Projec t Worker)Marcia Bevilacqua n "Alda dos Santos H "JoAnn Raynak " "

NUMBER OF GROUP MEMBERS. PRESENT: 4 ( 3 guests present

BLOCK CAPTAIN: 13 1 Mary Street

ASSISTANT'BLOCK CAPTAIN:

-t25 SA

Qly O f Thunder Boy Polic e Forc ea SAY ONTARIO P7E5V1 PHCNE 307 S23-27'

G- F. Que(l«ne, Cliief of Police

GROUP n

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCHMEETtNG

3ATE: Augus t 3, 1982

PLACE: Mar y J. L. Slack

*IME: 7:3 0 pm.

POLICE PRESENT : Constabl e Pe ts r Conner s (Crim e Preventio n Officer )

STAFF PP£3c.NT : Andre a Richmon d (Projec t Laader )

Joan Alkenbrac k (Projec t Worker )

Marcia Sev-iTacqu a (Projec t Worker )

Suzanne OesmouTi n (Projec t Worker )

Alda do s Santo s (Projec t Worker )

Rod Etheridg e (Projec t Worker )

JoAnn Rayna k (Projec t Worker )

NUMSER O F GROU P MSMSER S PRESENT : 6

310CK CAPTArN : 12 3 E . Chns t i n a S t ree t

ASSESTANT 3L0C K CAPTAIN : 13 3 E . Chris t in a Stree C

Cut *••*•* NoYour ?•! « .No.

GROUP#3 NEIGHBOURHOO D WATCH MEETING

DATE: August 5, 1982

PLACE: Mary J. L. Black Library

TIME: 7:30

POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter ConnorsCrime Prevention Officer

STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richmond (Project Leader)Joan Alkenbrack (Projec t Worker)Marcia Bevilacqua " "Suzanne Desmoulin " "Alda dos SantosRod EtheridgeJoAnn Rawiak,. " w

NUMBER OF GROUP MEMBERS PRESENT: 7

BLOCK CAPTAIN: 19 5 Mary street

ASSISTANT BLOCK CAPTAIN: 19 3 Mary Street

aagaaccagcco waxe n aggros2ATS: August 9, 1982

?LACZ; y ry J. L. Slack Library

7:30

POLICE PPESSJT : Constabl e Pats r ConnorsCrine Prevesitio n Office r

PPESEWT: Andrs a aichnnn d (Prajec tJean AlJceRbrad c (Projec t Kbrkar )

Alca & s Santo sJtod Etfceridg eJcAtm Rayna k

OF G CU? MEMBE3S PHESZNT : U

3LXK CP P MM : U 4 tasz Mar y Stree t

ASSISTftMT 3D3G C C?PIMN : 12 0 s^s t :ar y Stree t

GR0UP#5 NEIGHBOURE D WVIC H PROGRA M

: Augus t 9 , 198 2

PLACE: Mary'J. L. Blac k Library

TIME: 7:30

POLICE PRESENT: Constabl e Peter ConnorsCrime Prevention Officer

STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richnond (Project Leader)Joan ADcenbrack (Projec t Worker)ftircia Bevilacqua n "Alda dos Santos " M

Rod EtheridgeJoAnn Raynak M "

NUMBER OF GROUP P4EMBERS PRESENT: 1 0

BLOCK CAPTAIN: 14 0 East Mary Street

ASSISTANT BLOCK CAPTAIN: 13 2 East Mary Street

GKOCJP: S

MglGHBOaafiOOO WATCH MEETING

DATE: Monday August 23, 1932

PLACE: Mary J.L. 31acJc Library

TIME: 7:30

POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter ConnorsCrime Prevention Officer

STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richmond (Project Leader)Joan Alkenbracfc (Project Workar)Marcia BeviiacquaSuzanne Qesmoulin " "Hod Etheridga

OG C3OCP MEMBERS PRESENT: S

BLOCK CAPTAIN: 14 7 EasS 3rccl< Straec

ASSISTANT 3LCCK CAPTAIN: 17 7 East 3rccic Straet

GROUP: 7

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH MEETING

DATE: Tuesday August 24, 1982

PLACE: Mary J. L. Black Libraryi

TIME: 7:30

POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter ConnorsCrime Prevention Officer

STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richmond (Projec t Leader)' Joa n Alkenbrack (Projec t Worker)

Marcia Bevilacqua " "Suzanne Desmoulin " "Alda dos Santos "

NUMBER OF GROUP MEX1BEPS PRESENT: 6

* ELOC X CAPTAIN: 121 2 Edward Street

ASSISTANT BLOCK CAPTAIN: 11 3 Brock Street

i

NEIGK3OURHQO0 WATC H MSSTIN G

DATE: Monda y Augus t 23 , 198 2

PLACE: Mar y J . L . S lac k L i b r a r y

TIME: 7:3 0

POLICE PRESENT : C o n s t a b l e ? e t e r Connor sPrevention Office r

5TA5T PRESENT : Andre a Riciunon d (Projec t Leader )Joan Alkenbrac k (Projec t worker )Marcia Bevilaccu a " "Suzanne Desmouli n " * *JoAnn RaynaJ c « *Rod Etiieridg e

NUMBER OF GZOW9 ME'ISERS PRESENT : 3

3LQCX CAPTAIN : 17 3 3 r ltre«t

ASSISTAiJT 3L0CX CAPTAIN: 14 0 3rock Street

GROUP: 9

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH MEETING

DATE: Tuesday August 24, 1982

PLACE: Mary J. L. Black Library

TIME: 7:30

POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter ConnorsCrime Prevention Officer

STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richmond (Projec t Leader)Joan Alkenbrack (Projec t Worker)Marcia Bevilacqua " "Suzanne Desmoulin " "Alda dos Santos " "

NUMBER OF GROUP MEMBERS PRESENT: 11

BLOCK CAPTAIN: 199- 1 Francis Street

ASSISTANT BLOCK CAPTAIN: 16 3 Francis Street

APPENDIX C

i :

WIU.iAM ilU'.O Y

POLICE CO-ORDINATO R

CONST. PETE R CONNOR S

SECTION l£ADE a

JUDITH HUCHK S

CROUP LEADE R

JERRY SALHEI A

GROUP LEASE R

TSSESA nr-i.vs KGROUP LEADE R

i ELUCi i « AfTAl.'I S jni-D

I *SSrK-,\:. T CLOC K CA?TAIK S :

,ir; rarquson

I 1

BLCCE CAPTAIN SA.-1D

AS5tSTA.Tr aLCC K CAPTAIN S_ . . . . . . . j .

JAMS Sai lDan M«n»r dH«nrv P«*rjo nMo« iUwlu kKao '.'ranc h

BLOCT CAPTAIN SAND

ASSISTANT BLOC K CAPTAIN S

(To b « reeruittd)

I 3LOC K CA?TAi:: 3; AS D! ASSISTANT SLOCS. C ~ ? 7 A :

4 S^vi d Anaarso nI. Cordo n 3«cku i

3ouctt*rCaruso

c* Lihc x

J L

Cl

iAPPENDIX D

I

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH NEUSLEXTSB

WESTTORT KCICHBOtntHOOO

VOL I I , I I

MARCH 4. 1983

To a l l n e i g h b o u r s In t h e neighbourhood Watch Prograa) in the

CoBSttmity, eh* f o l l o w i n g 15 a NEWSLETTER which w i l l t>rlnf you up co

dace *• to what ha* b*«n happening In t h e a r t * s i n c e August of 1982 .

The Nvlghbourhoed w«ech Prograa is now off ic ia l ly In efface as ofJanuary 29, 1983. Thl> Is ctw da** our sljni u«rt unvcilad. Th*captain* *nd aaalscane capciloi ueuJd Ilk* co etwnk al l chose nclghboufi vho Joined In ch* <itiv*tllnt of ch* signs. Sines thl* data w«4r* on our oun. What v« Ao. 'icand ca do, «te. ts entirely up to usas > eomuniey. Our comuntey of son* 200 ho««a plus, has betasectioned off inco 10 (csn) croups. Each group h** chelr own BlockCaptain and Assistant Captain. Tow will atcc and s«« /our captainsand assistants ac our f irst meeting on March 16, E903.

In November of 1982, al l Slock Captains and Assistanes t-sr* c i l ledfor ch*tr first meeting with Constable Connors, our Police Co-ordin-.ieor. ,\z this i»«»cfrtg, th« positions of Section Leader and OurCroup I.e.ider* u*r* f i l led . The Mechanics of ctte *-*lShbrurhoadw.icch Progra™ t< as

DX

'-"•acfor;, !?8J

CS« **»y le uorlu: for «JM»L*. if t.H

looklag

:«l«ohi?n« sails,

*ad iovn /our ie?i*c *nd /*ti l La ran s«nd of • ;M

s 3f ?surs«. /ou ean jravt

or aeeusatsi's). H toe. c.t« ?«Uc» d u m m i t , co«vtnf «• art nowta fuil apvraelaa. l t l l sancae: :h» S«eeian L4M«r «nd *•* far !M

Lofannelaa fraa ;M lammuaizj, Titm i««:tan l««4«r La can-' - " >r sraw# I*a4«rs, '*• to cum c n c u t ••*;

ICO >»«•• lw** joer Sack al

I itcy«la» scalaflJ ih«fei av«r 12003 4*fj araMM Litea

is• u e k*«fl «ur franc aad tiackour fhaMs laek«4.

;Sa nijhe *«4 '«

"^ *jk ta*e cms* neighbours ;.t«c:ti« (rone ar 9*ek af cnalr i>o*>**. ?*.**•*»

falgflt jntf

: » • *

PEVSLETTER

tfescfort Area

- 3 - March 4, 1983

February 16, 198], lc «as decided Chat w* would try and hold aCOHHCTITT MECTIWC. Thla include* «v«cyea« In that NeighbourhoodVac eh Prograi from Ease Christina to Fraaeia Scrxe . Thia aeceingv i l l b* a queaclon and anavwr aaecing. tf« will (Maeusa tha content)of ehia Newsletter la detail ac chat claw. Conacabl*. Connors « U :bm chare to anaver any of your nuasdons.

General Neighbourhood Hatch Meeting

March 16, 1993

7:30 p.a.

Kary J. L. Black library

Al chough «• ar«, ac prtsane, a non-profit program and ra« victwuc abudgtc p«r a«, unfareunactlr Chart ia and v i l l b« txp«nx*a. Unfort-unae«l7, th* Mary J. L. Black Library i* WTf FH£1 . it th«rc ia M M *on* who knova of • plaea vh«ra wa can gather aa a eooaawaity, which iafrva or chaapcr, plaaM advlaa ac th« March t6eh sacclng,

Th« Library la charginf $5-00 far th« largt •udieorlu* plus S3.00 ForCh* J*« of ehctr 100 " - "- — Tha ceff»c la optional. V«will dlaeus* ehl* at ch« March Ibth a*«clng. It haa b*m auggaattdthat v* donaca SOc p«r neetlnt (aach person) eo co*ar costa of thehall and coffa*. Thia of course 1* mbject Co chang* and will alaob« dlscuaaad at th* March I6ch "••ting. Th«r« nay b* aoaw beokkacp-ln( tnvolvad her* and ac tha owceing «* win hav* co find a eraasurtr.If th«rc Is anyon* in eh« coiasuRier lnceraatad 1B chia position,pl*aa«- lac ua know ac tha March loth a««ctng.

It you Ilk* cha Idaa of a N«wsl*tcar, it will b« up to you EO daeldthow of tan ,v «.—u *: k# ona. Eventually we will hav* to pay foreh« copying of th* Mvalateer. Tnla will hav* to ba kept In alnd aaan cxpene*.

Soaw of you were contacted ac ch* beginning of February regarding ared and white van ehac waa aeen crutalng the Mary SCr**t area.Although It waa a false al*m, (try* two fallows were delivering forChe owner of th* van and vert given che wrong address), Che systemdid work. Ulchln several hours of concacC with the Section Leader,Ch* police had «• description of Che Van. Che CVK> fellows driving lcAnd che Licence plats number.

03

.larch i. 139]

OB ri(tn*»rr la, 1MJ, S!M Use* Cipealna aa4 Autacaats MC farGlMir avcood a«««la(. &>aa<aal« Caaosr* Lnfonatf u« »«e laQ«*«a*«r «£ 19«2 et» fallowing «rta«* *•*• eaaaacsad ui 9ur » u ;

m t. franelaS300.00 - I. CitUelM

• S. MarrI h u k •«• bear - S*«wri Sef««c

AS w« iwwral SB—mitcy M«clat La -tarsh, v« ^dy• e» 41aevaaidaaa *m ss Ao« :s adueaca oursalna igaioac c r t u . ^i«art * faw *u«za»tianc and <*m ne^* ia o«*in • !** aor*

you <c ifia

1. - daaonaeTaca 'iMV ;a sacuraaaears.

lacks.

3. TLla an "3oaa S«curicr"<

6. Pallet**** uiX ea aur cawna**?* *nd chlld?«ti

-. jlk*a - ;ntt blerelo «v*y «e aiyie *«4Lack a*.

Lka e» haar :haa ac

:!*» lied

AS TSI saim! stot or nuw::s TTIEIT ts wrr rtr unot,TO •ITH nr.•ft MMacK.-jneao 'J*Tca PTOC-U«. -* ASX :r n«e iwrni, s tag 3f F*>^C;

so rftrr rao

04"

;•_ 1 , :. - •;.: . . ; ' .'ate!- . ;v-j..-r.vr .

: - i .e . * r i L » ,

^adcrc wer e ojiocsr .fjll-.vlr.^ i s wha t trarspirtd :

;.cr-r-nc i n ou r n«tjhborhoo; !v.-'- !*!• . .:.a y mea n a neighborhoo d search , e t c . ,t«I •: Lr'ij t o neighbors , th e polic e onl y mak e or: *i:i".cr.-- - a l l t o th e Sectio n Leader . The Seetior .L,aJcr ca l l s th e fou r Grou p Leaders ; th eZJ.-Z-J.I-

r - adftr<5 ca l l thei r designate d Bloc kCaptains an d «ssietants . Thes e I;loc k Cap-- -Vii.-.s t'--e n ca l l t:. e individua l home s i n-r.-^ir part icula r ^roup . Thi a save s th epolice fro m making : umptee n phon e cal l s ar. di:.t"-rvicv;s an d i t cave s a lo t cf-preciou sti.se. I f yo u se e o r hea r anythin g suspic -ious, yo u ar e no t t o hesitat e t o cal l th epolice.

-'_• wer e informed , throug h th e surve yrtw.-:2 or. eac h individua l hom e las t August , that57.2\'. o f th e crime s i n ou r neighborhoo d ar eoutside th e :^o.-e . . 5 ^ o f ou r 20 0 home sh*v± poo r bac k yar d security . Ther e hav ebeen i n th e pas t year :

u she'f s broke n int o5 bicycle s stoks n3 theft s ove r C0 03 car s broke n int o

D5

- 2 -

prove 3u r backyar d security . • ..' e zus t :- ;;ur fron t an d tac k light s on . ..' a r.uc :kw-*p ou r she>i s lacked . Zz yo u £ 0 d-ov-r ."'-i-lstir.a Strse t (th e cicc'r : jus t of fIdwardJ, yo u wil l sa c tha t almost : a l l

ilao i n th e tack , war y .2trea t .i s -1..J; :"•au fir. d t;i » id d haca e ha s ,iu t thei rTr^r.t l i j h t on . **' e asi c tha t tns^ s •«.-.. :Kara fccn * ar; d cacl c hedges , place s kee pth«a cu t i t a rvasona'cl e Ltsr.ftiv .

. - - W • — *

"t wa s cscide d that - t:; i 3I-c; t - - . - -tilr.3 wil l ^ee " jnc a a sor.th . Th e.Tsetir.g » s adjourne d c y <-r.ata.sl i"i :ei" -onncr s wh o ha s ne w l$?z i t u ptc th e indiridua l 31ocl c Ca p pair.3 to *relay wha t rrar.spira a a t t?\i s seatin gi: thei r neighbors , ./ e ax* e als o no w•jr. ou r ow n an d i t i s ro w u p t o u s a sa coruiur.it y t o ^ak c chi s ••v rSc .

Groups - an d 5 wer e natifia d o' * zr.sf i r s t nalghicrhoo d watc h nsetinf . l-t:a>. -w<sre sen t t o a l l ccncemaci . Althou^r . » chaJ a tota l o f 9 (nine ) ho-£ S t'e^racs:: . :s.i'we di d -accotnplish a grea t deal . *EVT . t j.r.al-:a thi s ;:..' ? i rea l SUCCSJ S •/ & cus s ;:a*." wthe res t o f th e caiasunity* - (no t onl y th eu^'-uita bu t th e childre n a s well ) anthucJc i•iri pax'ticipatio n i n thas t ^estir-.^ ^ i;.J ,

'"t 2 t;r.

- 3 -

th2"L 3Ir.c e w o (a t th e presen t t L.r.e) h2v &no f-i-d s available , v/e'woul d al l pa y ,0.; oper xt- - tiii£ (whic h i d onc e a month ; jus tto cove r th e cos t o f th e hal l . Coffe e a tthis pcir. t i s optional . J i l l tc discusse d

2\.: r.ir.t - J.O.T.C * represente d agree d t o:.ct'. ^:.-: i a -or.t;. , a t th e beginnin g o f eac hnorth (sj'ojec L t o change ) s.i\d th e £loc k-a^tai; .- a t th e en d o f eac h month . Ou rnext reichborhoc d .. ratch Meetin g wil l b escheduled fo r th e beginnin g o f February .

.7c discusse d ho w w e wer " roin g t oeducate ourselve s agains t Crime . Th egroup cam e up , wi t h th e followin g suggest -ions: *

1. Locksmit h - demonstrat e Tariou slock techniques

2. :Cen Hoshkoff - Task Force onVandalism

n. ^7.7 . - ' ^ y Bewar e - Const . Connor s^ . Tolicexa n tal k t o ou r childre n -

Const. Connor s - loc k u p tikes , et c5. Sel f Defens e seaiina r£ Thunde r Ha y .(ap e Centr e - semina r?. Firs t Ai d aroun d th e hom e

basically th e afcov e i s wha t trans -pired a t ou r f i rs t meeting . ..' e d o hop ethat perhap s th e nex t meetin g i n Februar ywill a t t rac t a fe w mor e families .

11. 198 3

Constable Connors called. Th e signswill be £oin£ up on'January 21, 19^3 • -*' einvite th e neighborhood watch community tojoin us on January 2 i 1983 at 2:00 p.m.(Saturday) along with the press, Aldermanlet lane, and Lysr.es, Constable Connors,Ker. Boshkoff, at the corner of Christinaand Kir.£sway for a group picture. Pleas etell your neighbors.

Judy nughes-action Leade

D7

APPENDIX E

\ • ' ' • ' • % . . • ' • -

THE CORPORATION 0^ THE CITY OF THUNOSS

BY-CAW NUMBER . J- -1 *f 19 9 2.

A By-la w t o regulat e neighbourhoo dwatch progra m signing .

Whereas Sectio n 21 0 141 ' provides tha t By-law s na y b efor prohibitin g o r regulatin g sign s an d othe r advertisin g de v icthe postin g o f notice s o n building s o r vacan t lot s withi n an y darea o r area s o r o n lan d abuttin g a define d highwa y o r par t o fhighway; \

AMD WHEREA S Sectio n 194{S ) o f Th e Municipa l Ac t prov ithat council s na y pas s Bylaw s providin g fo r th e us e b y th e pu blands o f whic h th e Corporatio n i s th e owne r an d Co r th e regula tsuch us e an d th e protectio n o f suc h lands ;

AHO WHEREA S Sectio n 10 4 o f Th e Municipa l Ac t provide severy counci l ma y pas s suc h By-law s an d mak e suc h regulation s C:health, safety , moralit y an d welfae e o f th e inhabitant s o f th emunicipality i n matter s no t specificall y provide d fo r b y th e sa .as ma y b e deeme d expedien t an d ar e no t contrar y t o law ;

BOW THEREFOR E TH E COUNCI L 0 ? TH E CORPORATIO N O P TH E C ITHUNOER SA Y ENACT S A S FOLLOWS :

1 . This By-la w a p p l i e s t o th e whol e o f t h e Ci t y ot Thund e

2. S ign s i n th e for m o f th e s ig n show n i n Schedul e *A * n amay b e e r e c t e d wit h th e a u t h o r i t y an d i n accordanc e wit h th ed i r e c t i o n s o f a membe r o f th e Thunde r Ba y P o l i c e Forc e a s pa : ~ oNeighbourhood Hatc h Program .

3. Excep t a s provide d i n Sec t io n 2 hereof , n o perso n sha le r e c t , p o s t , p lac e o r us e an y s ig n i n th e for m show n i n Schedul ehereto o r an y sig n tha t i s likel y t o caus e person s t o believ e t. his a sig n authorize d hereunder .

4. An y perso n violatin g an y o f th e provision s o f thi s by- :shall b e subjec t t o a penalt y o f no t mor e tha n Twency- f ive (52S .0CDollars, exclusiv e o f costs , an d al l suc h penaltie s shal l b erecoverable unde r Th e Provincia l Offence s Act .

5. Thi s ay-la w shal l com e int o forc e an d tak e effec t upo nfinal passin g hereof .

ano «»• xands al iifl coot* Ofhcin

QTRTIFIED TRU E COP Y

19

,*.- -a

'•9 V -

l\ APPENDIX F

THUNDER BAY POLICE FORCE

CO-OPERATION PREVENTS CRIME

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

Street

Date

Any informatio n tha t yo u provid e u s wit h wil l b e kep t strictl y con -

fidential, t *-»

CASE NUMBE R I I I ' 1 I I 11 2 3 4 5 6 7

PART I

HOME SECURIT Y SURVE Y

F I R S T , W E WOUL D LIK E T O EXAMIN E AN D AS K A FE W QUESTION S ABO^ T TH E

WAY YO U SECUR E YOU R HOUSEHOLD , OU T BUILDINGS , AN D YAR D I N ORDE R T O

REDUCE TH E OPPORTUNIT Y FO R PERSON S T O DAMAG E O R STEA L YOU R PROPERTY ,

(TO B E REA D B Y INTERVIEWER )

PART I

HOME SECURIT Y SURVE Y

Are th e hous e numbers

2. Ar e the house numbers

(X) small ?

(2> large ?

(1) th e same colour as th e background?

(2) contras t in colour from the back-ground?

3. Ar e the house numbers

(1) no t visible from the street?

{2) visibl e from the street?

4. Ar e th e shrubs/bushe s (unde r 8 feet ) blockin g the view of any of

the windows o r doors?

(1) ye s

(2) n o

5. Ar e there trees (ove r 8 feet ) blockin g the view of any of the win-

dows o r doors?

(1) ye s

(2) n o

6. I s ther e an operative front door light?

(1) n o

(2) ye s

10

"II

12

13

If yea, is it a 40 watt covered bulb:

(1) r.o

(2) yes I I14

is chcr e a window{s ) i n Ch e fron t doo r o r immediaccl y besid e th u

door?

(1) yas

(2) no | |L5

I* yes, is the window laminatad glass?

(1) no

(2) yes I |16

describe th e *ron c doo r lock .<# * •

(1) M o loc k a t a l l(2) Ke y i n th e kr.c b(3) Mortise d loc k

• (4 ) Ri a loc k(5) Dea d latc h bol t(S) Jimm y proo f(7) Hig h security ria lock

(3) Cea d bolt singla cylinder

(9) Dea d bolt double cylinder 1 117

(a) Describ e th e *ron t door hinges

£1) Exterio r not pinned

(2) Exterio r pinne d(3) Interio r - | [

13

(b) I s th e fron t doo r

(1) 3oUo v cor a | j(2) Soli d cor a

2 -

12. I s ther e a door viewer in th e fron t door?

(1) n o

(2) ye s I I20

13. I s ther e a patio door on the household?

(1) ye s

(2) no 1 I21

14. I f yes, i s ther e a lock stick or Charlie Bar?

(1) n o

(2) ye s | i4 '" 2 2

I 15 . I f yes t o question 13 , ar e there screws i n the top track?i

(1) n ok (2 ) ye s | it 2 3

16. I s ther e an operative back/side door light?

(1) n o

(2) ye s | |24

17. I f yes, i s i t a 60 watt covered bulb?

(1) n o

(2) ye s j {

25

13. (a ) I s ther e a window in the back/side door or immediately adjacent t o

it?

(1) ye s

(2) no26

(b) I s the back/side door

(1) Hollo w core

(2) Soli d core j [27

- 3 -

19. Z£ yes, i s the window laminatad gias3?

CD r-o

(2)

20. -escrib e th e back/sId a dea r lac k

(1) M o loc k a t a l l

(2) Ka y i n eh « taob

(3) Morzisa d loc k

(4) Sia locJc

Deacrijsa ch a baci c dco r hinge s

(5) Jiatn y proof

(6) Hig h security ria lock

(7) 0«a d latch bolt

(3) Caa d bol e 3in?lf t c/l^Ada r

(9) D«a d bol t douol e cylinde r

(1) Sxrario r :.o c 3inr.e e

{2) Exrario r pinne d

(3) Incario r

Is char e a doo r v iewe r i n tft a bac k door ?

CD n o

(2)

23

29

30

23. Ar a ther e slidin g window s o n th e house ?

(D ye s

(2) n o

24. I f yes , hav e locks'o r loc k stick s bee n installe d i a a l l suc h windows ?

CD no »

(2) yes

32

z ye s s o questio n 2 3 F hav e screw s See n ? la c a d i n th e to o track s

n a l l auc h windows ?

CD s o(2) ye s

26. Ar e there double hung windows on the house?

(1) yes

i (2 ) n o , :

35

, 27 . I f yes , hav e a l l suc h window s bee n pinned ?

(1) no

1 (2) yes t j

36

28. I f yes to question 26, have all of the double hung windows been

pinned for ventilation?•# *

(1) n o

(2) yes L _ J

37'

X 29 . Ar e there casement windows on the house?

T (1 ) ye s

(2) no L ,38

30. I f yes , hav e latche s o r bolt s bee n installe d o n a n •»!*- * windows ?

(1) n o(2) yes L_ .

39

31. Ar e there basement windows?

(1) ye s

(2) no J

40

32. Ar e there bars on all the basement windows?

(1) n o

(2) yes , _ ,41

- 5 -

33- I s ther e a si.aaair. g are a i n th e basement ?

CD yes

(2) n o , ,

42

34. I s ther e a garag e o n sh e property ?

£1) yes

(2) n o i t

43

25. i s char s a n operativ e outdoo r ligh t o n th e garage ?

(1) n o

(2) yes f i

36. I* yes, is it a SC watt covered bulb?

(1) no

(2) /as u .

45

37. Is tha vehicle door to the garage locked ar bolted from the in-

side?

(1) no

(2) yes f

4633. Describ e th e pedestria n garag e doo r lock .

(1) M o loc k a c a l l (S ) (a } Jiamt y aroo i o r

(2) (a ) Ke y i n tth e kno b o r (b ) 3olts d tau ? wit h,. . _ , . • ! . „ , . backin g plat s an d padloc k(b) Screwe d o n has ? wit h padloc k F * r

(3) Dea d latc h bol t (7 ) Hig h securit y ri a lac k

(4) Mor-cise d loc k (3 ) Dea d bol e Singl e cylinde r

(5) ai a loc k . (9 ) Cea d bol t dcuii a cylinde r

39. Describ e th e pedestria n garag e doo r hinges . 4 7

(1) £xtaria r hinge s no t pinne d43

(2) Exterio r hinge s f+r.ned(3) Interio r hinge s

40. Doe s anyone in your household own a bicycle?

(1) yes

(2) no

41. I f yes, ar e all the bicycles licensed ?

(1) no

(2) yes

42. I f yes to question 40, i s i t marked for identification (Socia l

Insurance Number ) o r is th e serial number recorded?

4 * (1 ) n o

(2) yes

43. I f yes t o question 40, ar e all the household bicycles locke d or

stored i n a locke d area?

(1) no

(2) yes

44. I s there a storage she d on the property?

(1) yes

(2) no

45. I f yes, i s the door

(1J .wi . .i.Gc.ved at all

(2) Padlocke d - {Has p not secured)

(3) Has p secured and padlocked

46. Ar e al l household recreationa l item s and outdoor tools

(1) no t secured at all

(2) chaine d or locked

(3) store d in a locked structur e

49

50

51

52

53

54

- 7 -

47. Ar e th e househol d valuable s (star90s , cameras , *zc.) siarJee d wit h

an identificatio n nufflce r o r ar e th e seria l nunoer a recorded ?

CD n o(2) ye s

4S. I s ther s a rsa r lan e adjacen t t o th e backyar d propert y lane ?

CD(2) n o

56

49. : f y«d , i s th e hous e nxsatas displaye d i n th e 2ad c yar d And

from zhm lana?

4±. - (I) n o(2) ye s

50. : s thmrm fancin c aratai d th e fron t yard ?

(1) n o(2) yes

I* yes , i s ch e Sattezaq aroun d th e fron c yard ?

(1) Partia l(2} Comsiec a

52. Zs ther e fencin g aroun d ch a bac k yard ?

(1) n o(2) yes

IZ yes , i s th e fencin g

CL3- Partial

(2) Complet e

S3

59

60

SI

52

PART II

VICTIM EXPERIENC E

NEXT, W E ARE SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT PROPERTY CRIMES I N THIS AREA. THI SINCLUDES SUCH THINGS AS MARKING UP PROPERTY, STEALIN G FROM GARDENS, SLASH -ING TIRES, BREAKIN G FENCES, ETC . W E ARE ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN THE PROP-ERTY CRIMES THAT YOU PERSONALL Y KNOW ABOUT AND IF ANY HAV E DIRECTLY HAPPENE DTO YOU. (T O BE READ BY INTERVIEWER )

54. Ha s any of your property been stolen or damaged at this house/apart-

ment in the last year?

(1) ye s (2 ) n o (63

55. I f yes, state type of crime

(1) Thef t from yard*

(2) Wilfu l damage (vandalism )

(3)(4)

(5)

(6)

SreaJc

Theft

Auto

Other

and Enter

from auto

theft

Please specify 5 4

56. Are a of structure victimized was:

(1) Hous e (6 ) Fence s

(2) Ca r (7 ) Apartment

(3) Yar d (8 ) Awa y from house

(4) Garag e (9 ) Othe r

(5) Garde n 6 i

57. Di d you report it to the f-'^c^"1 *

(1) ye s (2 ) n o66

58. i f yes, ho w soon after did-you report it to the police?

(1) Almos t immediately

(2) Withi n four (4 ) hour s after you noticed it

(3) Th e next day 6 7

(4) A few days later

- 9 -

59. I f yc u di d no t rapor r i t t o th e po l i ce , pleas e explai n why ?

63

60. Hav e yo u ave r observe d anyon e ccnani t a ? r sce r t y Cria e i. i t h i s

neigftbo urhood?

(1) ye s C2 J n o

52. Di d you report it to the police:

(1) ye s (2 ) n o

S9

51. I - yes , s t a t e typ « o f propert y c r i a a :

(1) Thef t fro m yar d

(2) wi l fu l damag e (vandalism )

(3) 3rsa k an d Sr.ta r * """

(4) Thsf t frc n aut a

(5) Aim s the f t (ac tua l t i tef t o f automobile )

(S) Othe r70

(?lea£e specify)

71

TH2 RELATIONSHI P AN D I rTSP-ACTIC N THA T ?0t I HAV Z WIT H ' CC H MEIO H

MAY ZZXTZ.ZZXCZ TH E HAT S O F ?SCP£3T Y C3IM E I N THIS ARSA . (T O 3 E 3£A 0

3Y IMTE3WIZWES )

63. Ho w raa y o f you r neighbour s o n t h i s a t r a e t woul d yo u kno w b y name ?

£1) Z,ass tha n 3 (3 ) betwee n 7 an d 1 0

(2) 3«cw«e n 4 zn& 5 (4 ) Mor a tha n 1 0 ( J72

i.

69. Wha t would you actually do if you saw someone damaging or stealing

your neighbour's property?

Would you: (1 ) tal k to the offender

(2) phon e police

(3) phon e your neighbour

(4) ignor e it and not report it

64. Ho w many do you visit in their homes?

(1) Les s than 3 (3 ) Betwee n 7 and 10

(2) Betwee n 4 and 6 (4 ) Mor e than 10 In 7 3

r,5. D o you feel a part of this neighbourhood?

n(1) ye s C 2 ) n o (3 ) somewha t

74

66. D o you think tha t there is an y neighbourhood spirit?

(1) ye s (2 ) n o (3 ) somewha t

75

67. Fo r example: I f a stranger was hanging around your house,

would your neighbours d o anything about it ?

(1) ye s (2 ) n o (3 ) I' m not surei; o r don't know

ii 76

' 68 . Wha t do you think your responsibility is when you think some kind

of crime is going on?

(1) Phon e police (2 ) Phon e neighbour

(3) Tal k to offender (4 ) Othe r (pleas e specify)

77

78

- 1 1 -

70. Kav e yo u ave r don e an y o f th e afcove ?

(1) ye s (2 ) .1 079

"1 . I f yes, di d you:

fl) Phon e th e police

(2) ?hon e your neighbours

(3) Tal k = o ch e offender

(4) Ignore is and not report it- 1 1

ao

72. Ho w stan y peopl e ca n yo u recognis e o n sigh t a s bein g i n1

neighbourhood; "

(1) MOn e (S ) U c o 2 0

(2) 1 or 2 (6 ) 2 1 co 50

(3) 3 t a 5 « * (7 ) Mor e Cha n 5 0

(4) 6 ; a 10

3. He w man y oi f you r neighbour s d o yo u kno w wal l enoug h " a as k a

favour of , L£ yo u neede d something ;

(1) Non e (5 ) I I 5 o 2 0

(2) 1 or 2 (6 ) 2 1 to 50

(3) 3 c o 3 (7 ) Mor e sfta n S O

'4> * to L0

4. m general , ho w eas y o r d i f f i cu l t , i s i t fa r yo u t o cal l a 3trange r

crcai someon e -Jn o l ive s i n you r neighbourhood :

(1) ver y

{2} eas y

(j) difficul t

(4) ver y difficul t

(5) neve r gav e i s ouc h though t , | _ j

Evaluation Page Insert

- 80. D o you chink you have more concacc with your neighbours than before

the Neighbourhood Watch Program began?

(1) Ye s (2 ) N o

Ml. I f yes, i n what w.iy h;is greater contact occurred:

(1) b y telephone

(2) ove r the fence or on the street conversations

(3) Neighbourhoo d Watch Meetings/Activities

(4) Othe r (Pleas e specify)

4 ~

82. D o you think Neighbourhood Watch has had any impact on decreasing the

occurrence of crime in your neighbourhood?

(1) Ver y much

(2) Somewha t

(3) No t at all 1 8

83. Woul d you recommend Neighbourhood Watch to people living in other

neighbourhoods?

(i) Ye s (2 ) N o , 1 9

34. Se x of the respondent;

(1) femal e

(2) mal e 2 0

*

85. Statu s of the re-^aJ.... :

(1) owne ri

(2) rente r 2 1

- 14 -

S3 . Ho w interested would you be in acting as a neighbourhood block

captaxn?

(1) Ver y interested

(2) Somewha t interested (maybe )

(3) No t interested at all.

19

34. Se x of the respondant

t -(2) mal e

85. Statu s of the respondant

(1) Owne r

(2) p«m-« i

(1) femal e

i20

21

15