Programs Branch User Report AN EVALUATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM IN THUNDER BAY
PETER B. WORRELL
Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada AN EVALUATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRA M IN THUNDER BAY
PETER B. WORREL L NO. 1984-29
This working paper was prepared by the Thunder Bay Police Force as a resul t of a stud y funded by the Ministry of the Solicitor General through its Summer Canada program. I t is made available as submitte d to th e Ministry. Th e views expresse d are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada. Thi s working paper may not be published, cited or reproduced without permission of th e Ministry. ABSTRACT
AN EVALUATION OF
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM
This s Uudy examined and evaluated Uhe impact of a Neighbourhood WaUch program on reducing th e occurrence of residential propert y crime within a select- ed residential area i n the city of Thunder Bay.
Comparative victim history data was obtained longitudinally from th e Test Site and fro m a Control Site during th e evaluation phase of the program in the Test Site.
The results of th e study indicated tha t th e program was successful in sub- stantially reducing the occurrence of residential property crime and, i n particu- lar, eradicatin g the occurrence of household yard property theft - formerly th e principal property crime problem.
Moreover, th e findings suggest tha t the occurrence of residential property crime is directly related to th e level of household and yard physical securit y which, i n turn, was found to be directly related to th e a'uaeuLt s u t presenc e of applied, crime analysis and th e acting upon of this informatio n by th e Neighbour- hood Watch participants. Th e dramatic reduction in the victim experience of Test Site respondents suggests tha t the y did indeed act affirmatively i n respons e to the information.
Finally, th e results of th e study indicated that the willingness of resi-
dents to assume an active role in reducing the occi..tauwe _T neighbourhood property crime was largel y dependent upon exposure to th e Neighbourhood Watch Program as implemented in th e Cit y 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 fo r initially organizing and nurturing th e Neighbourhood Watch block groupings, and who shared i n discussions regardin g methodological considerations.
Similarly, appreciatio n is Extended C o our Director of Research and Planning, Mr. Pete r B. Worrell, who designed this research undertaking and conducted the data analysis.
Acknowledgements would not be complete without recognizing th e invaluable contributions made by Andrea Richmond, Projec t Director, fo r both phases of th e study, who actively pursued th e 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 Etheridge Joan Alkenbrack Marcia Bevilacqua Suzanne Desmoulin Alda dos Sandos Jo Ann Raynak Terri-Lynn Duncan Mary MacIsaac Francis O'Brien ' * Susan Potte* Rosa Tucci
Lastly, I wish to thank the many residents who let the project workers into their homes an d empirically demonstrated tha t 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 th e 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 th e Household Victimized 1 3
Offence Types 1 5
Reporting Behaviour: Crime s Against own Propert y . 1 7
Swiftness o f Reporting t o Polic e 1 9
Observed Neighbourhood Crime and Reported to Police 2 0
Follow up t o Affirmative Action 2 1
Affirmative Actio n 2 2
Number of Neighbours Known by Name 2 4
Number of Neighbours Visited .. . 2 5
Social Cohesio n 2 7
Neighbourhood Spirit 2 8
Perception of Frequency of Property Crime .. . 3 0
Perceived Resident Method s of Reducing Opportunity .to Commit Crime in Area 3 2
Physical Security of Resident Property ... . 3 3 CHAPTZS ?ACS
Perceived Effect o f Neighbourhood Watch in Reducing Property Crime 35
Evaluation of Program By Residents 36
Surnrary of the Findings 36
Viccia Experience . 36
Reporting Behaviour . 37
Affirmative Action . 37
Social Cohesio n 37
Perception o f Noise Level 38
Perceived Me thods Employed by Residents to Reduce Opportunity to Commit Property Crime 38
Physical Security of Household Property . 39
W«scforc T est Site P erception o f ch * Iain ac e o f Neighbourhood Watch 39
IV. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion. 40
Implicatio
Recommendations
Appendices CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In recent years , property related crime or vandalism has re cei ve d a deal of community concern throughout Nort h Americ a givin g ris e t o govern - ment funde d researc h project s orientate d toward s reducin g th e occurrenc e of suc h crime .
Unfortunately, ver y littl e pressur e ha s existe d withi n th e Canadia n con - text t o compe l recipient s o f federa l crim e preventio n fundin g t o empiri - cally demonstrat e th e effectivenes s o f a give n crim e preventio n strategy . Rather, emphasi s ha s bee n place d o n progra m implementation , no t evaluation . It i s no t th e purpos e o f thi s pape r t o debat e th e meri t o f fundin g prac - tices, bu t merel y t o poin t ou t tha t th e absenc e o f a progra m evaluatio n component make s i t ver y dificul t t o discer n whic h approache s assis t i n reducing crimina 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 tudinal in aa tura an d inc lude a n i mplementation an d evaluatio n phase . Ou t o f nec - essity, the 1981 proposa l sugges ted that fundin g b e provide d ove r a two-year 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 Saii - cicar Genera l o f Canad a chrcug h ch e Sunane r Vouc h inpLoynen c Program .
Historically, polic e agencie s hav e cande d c o determin e ch e efcecciver.as s o f izpienier.ced crin 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 vicci a experience . Clear! / ch « iaipac c o c criffie pravencio n scracagie a o n ch e rac e o f reporte d cric e i s o c inceresc , 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 raliabilic y c o gauge ch e 5uccss s o r failur 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 ; particularl 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 ' !
(iii) ch e pr s an d pos e rac e a c whic h peopl e phone d neighbour s vhe n chey observe d someon e damagin g o r stealin g chai r neighbour' s property ; 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 Watc h programs implemente d elsewher e have been attributed with great succes s fro m time t o tim e despite th e absence of reasonably sophisticated researc h designs and/or devices t o 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 th e 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 followin g th e introduction of a Neighbourhood Watch Program.
Natural outcomes of increase d socia l cohesiveness are alleged t o includ e a greater spirit o f co-operation and th e acceptance of responsibilities orientated towar d watching out fo r both the neighbour and his/her property .
When coupled with a heightened awarenes s to properly secure th e household and yard property, th e Neighbourhood Watch Program functions to harden the target physicall y 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 t o Neighb _v \ •-•, ' "T£tch will be lower than residential areas not ex- posed previously t o this program.
3. A residential area exposed t o a Neighbourhood Watch Program will subsequently exhibi t a lowe r victim experience.
4. Neighbourhoo d Watch is an effective program to reduce th e 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 rasui ; o f ch e iscraa.sa d leve l QZ hotn a an d yar d securit y which occur s followin g exposur e zo ch e hem a securit 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 crla e as a. resul c o £ ch a increase d ac e a ? can e a o f aeighbour s vi s a ' via all neighbourhoo d propert y followin g exposur e c o aa d accepcaac a of LapLia d socia l rssponaibilicie s vhic h exten d oucsid a ch e ls - 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 wil 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 I I
METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
Funding was obtained in 1982 and 1983 fro m the Solicitor General of Canada through Ch e Summer Youth Employment Program to conduct a research project designed t o ces t th e effectiveness of Neighbourhood Watch as a crime pre- vention strategy. Th e research project was divided into tvo phases; th e first involved th e 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 throughou t the one year longitudinal study to pro- vide continuity.
THE IMPLEMENTATIO N 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 ) household s in one of th e sixty-eight areas exhibiting a relatively high rate of reported crime was selected t o test th e effectiveness of the Neighbourhood Watch Program. A * additional control site wa^ determined and would be examined one year lace r during th e evaluation phase of the study. Th e Project Director and interviewers were involved i n the site selection process.
Following selection of th e residential tes t and control sites, th e Director and Project Workers were requested to take part in the construction of a survey questionnaire designed t o obtain data relating t o victim experience, physical household property security and a host of ocher variables.
At che cccplacion of cais cask, ch e project workers were diraccac c o .nake 2ppoinc3er.cs vica cha rasidancs of each of cha rwo hundred households fo r cha sursasa of:
CiJ conduccia g a victi a surve y
(iij conductin g a horn s sacurlc y chec k
(ill) 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 ai 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 ass 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 Ch e selection of th e block captains, th e Crime Prevention Of- ficer invite d th e appointed block capcains t o attend at Headquarters t o select their section leader. (Se e Appendix "C").
Throughout th e course of th e year, between the implementation and evalua- tion project phases, on e meeting vas held monthly to accommodate the needs of th e block captains and one meeting a month was held L o meet th e needs of th e section members. Bloc k captain meetings were held at Head- quarters and Section meetings took place at the local library.
Meeting content involved discussions regardin g security programs, method s of responding to criminal behaviour", neighbourhood responsibilities, and criminalistics. Th e Crime Prevention Officer attended all meetings to provide informatio n and advice .
In the early stages of th e program, i t was decided that Neighbourhood Watch was not a program that should be police administered. Rather , th e need was stressed t o develop a sense of program ownership amongst Neighbourhood Watch household members. Therefore , a spirit of independence was fostered through the deliberate involvement of th e program members i n the decision making F • -.._ h respect t o th e direction the program should tak e immedia- tely following it s implementation . A natural consequence of this approach was th e establishment of a monthly news bulletin by the section leader and directed toward s the membership. (Se e Appendix D)
Finally, Neighbourhoo d 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 tha t chi s 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 th e research project commenced one year later i n 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 sariiar ; 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 si-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 ch e reade r will be provided with a sec of three data tables. Th e firs t of these three tables will contain information relative t o the Westfort Test Site prior to th e implementation of the Neighbourhood Watch Program. Th e second table will display information regarding the Westfort Test TABLE 1 WESTFORT TEST SITE HOUSEHOLDS VICTIMIZED PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM VICTIM EXPERIENCE YES NO TOTAL 80.9% (31) (131) (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 19.6 30. i 6 (40) L9. C236) X - 23 6 VICTIM EXPERIENC E The dat a provided in Tables 1 an d 2 indicate cha t victim experience or th e actual occurrence of property crime in th e Westfort Tes t Site decreased substantially (67.7% ) followin g the implementation of the Neighbourhood Watch Program. Thi s suggests cha t 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 CAR YARD GARAGE GARDEN OTHER TOTAL 22.6% 6.5% 48.4% 12.9% 3.2% 6.5% (7) (2) (15) (4) (1) (2) (31) - N - 3 1 12 USL5 5 AREA O F TH E HOUSEHOL D PROPERT Y VICTIMIZE D i: J TH E VESTrOR T TES T SI ' 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 0THE3 TOTAL 3.5 36.2 42-6 6.4 2.1 4.2 (17) C20) C3) CD (2) (47) AREA O F TH E HOUSEHOLD.VICTIMIZE D ?rior c o ch a inpLasaencacio n o f ch e ^eignbouraoo d Macc h ?r3gra a ch a ori.ici - 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 ai l propert y crttn a raiacin g c o chi s aorcio n o t ch e househald . Kuilowing th e implementatio n of Ch e program not one occurrence relatin g t o damaged or stolen yard property was reported to th e researcher s t o have occurred. Th e house proper and the famil y auco still appear t o be victim- ized although th e frequenc y of occurrence with respec t t o th e household has decreased by 75% as indicated in Tables 4 and 5. In comparison, th e findi-ng s presented in Table 6 indicate tha t th e majority of crime occurring in the Control Site relates primarily to th e household yard and car with 42.6% and 36.2% of all victims reporting crime to thes e 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 CRIME TYPE THEFT FROM WILFUL BREAK & THEFT FROM VEHICLE YARD DAMAGE ENTER AUTO THEFT TOTAL 54.3% 9.7% 12.9% 3.2% 19.4% (17) (3) (4) (1) ' (6) (31) N * 3 1 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 CRIME TY? £ BREAK & THEFT FRO M ESTER AUTO OTHER TOTAL 60.02 30. OZ 10.QZ (5) (3) (1) (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 M WILFUL BREAK & THEFT FRO M AUTO YARD DAMAGE ETTHR AUTO THEFT OTHER TOTAL 40. 4 £ 23.42 LQ.6Z 21. 3" Z.IZ Z.IZ (19) (U) (5) (10) (I) U) (47) M - 4 7 OFFICE TYPE S Aa a •iupnic.'nttnca. i c a Table s 4 , 5 , an d 6 ch e diic a praseacec t i n and 9 provid e camoaraciv a i.afar:aacio n regardin g offacic a cypea . Thai c property fro m ch e yard , whil e a craquen c ac.ar.c s cyp e prio r ; o ch e La p of Neighbourhoo d Vacc h in ch e Vescfor c Tes t Slca , di d r.o c occ u following implementaCion. Tni s offence type, however, appears to have occurred frequentl y i n th e Control Site as indicate d in Table 9 . Tin. : same holds fo r wilful damage an d theft from auto in the Control Site. TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VICTIMS I N 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 NO TOTAL 64.5% 35.5% (20) (ID (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 NO TOTAL 70.0% 30.0% (7) (3) (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 HO TOTAL 33. Q* 17.01 (39) (3) C4") if • 4- 7 REPORTING 3EHAVIQL'R : CRIME S AGAINS TOW N PROPERT Y A compariso n o f Ta b las 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 polic e following racha r cha n prio r c a ch a tapl«»ncacio n o c ch « >T«ighbourhco d Wh Program . Table L I indicate s cha c a graaca r parcencag e a £ Cancro l Si" s viccia s ;ha n wesczorc Tas c Sic e vicci.r. s rapor-a d suc h criaa s c o ch a aolic a dss?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 viccia s repor t cria e agaias c chai r propari 7 c a ch e aolic 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 ALMOST WITHIN THE NEXT A FEW DAYS IMMEDIATELY 4 HR S DAY LATER TOTAL 45.0% 10.OZ^ . 40.0 % 5.0% (9) (2) (8) (1) (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 ALMOST THE NEXT IMMEDIATELY DAY TOTAL 85.7% 1 14.3 % (6) (1) (7) N - 7 18 XABLS 13 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WHZS VICTIMS IN THE CONTROL SITE P.EPCRTZ O A CRIME AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY TO THE POLICE WHEN SE2ORTH3 CRIME TO POLICE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WITHI N i gH S A FES. ' PAY S UTS R TOTA L 71.a / - ZO. J 7.7 S C2S) (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 C Vast fort Tsis c Sic a vic-i.n s canca d c o racor t crin a 222ir.s c chai r prac a alaosc imadiacal y c o th e Polic a followin g ijnjisnencacia n o c cn e . v."aig bourriood Watc h Program . Th e cigura s ar a 43.0 1 an d 35.7 1 raspeccfuii y suggescins cha c ch a progra m ha.d a signizicar. s effac e o n ch e raporcia g behaviour 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 al l victims reporte d th e cria a agains t chai r propert y alaos t iasadiatai y cha Police . 2 1 6 VESTFORT TZS T StT 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 T OF TH E LNZICIHSOURHOO O VAT3 PROGRA M OBSERVED car-t E A;; D REPORTE D T O ?OLIC Z YES Np ^ TOTA L 50.01 % 50.01% (3) (3 ) (16 ) TABLE 17 WESTFORT TEST SITE RESPONDENT S WHO OBSERVED AND REPORTED CRIME WHICH OCCURRED IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD TO THE POLICE FOLLOWIN G 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 REPORTE D CRIME WHICH OCCURRED 1 I N THE NEIGHBOURHOOD TO THE POLICE i I OBSERVE D CRIME AND REPORTE D TO POLICE YES N O TOTA L 63.6% 36.4 2 (14) (8 ) (22 ) N-22 RESPONSE TO OBSERVED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR Prior to th e implementation of the program, onl y 50.1 of chos e Westfort test site respondent s who observed criminal behaviour reported i t c o the Police, compared to 100% following the implementation of the program. Granted, th e sample size is rather small. Nevertheless , th e findings suggest tha t th e Neighbourhood Watch program is effective i n causing respondents t o phone the Police when criminal behaviour is observed. In the accompanying Table 1 8 th e data indicates tha t 63.6% of th e Control Site respondents contacte d th e Police when criminal behaviour was observed. Thi s finding lends support to th e idea tha t 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 afiir=aciv a action . FOLLOWS? T O AfrTRMATIV S ACTIO N As a coilowu p c a ch e preceding • aerias 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 e someone comoiccin g a aris e agaias c chai r neighbour' s property . 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 PHON E WOUL D PHON E OTHE R TOTA L OFFENDER 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:-.»:£NT S THE 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$Z OFFENDER POLIC E MEICK30U R TOTA L 9.SS 36.T " 3.7 " (13) 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 TOTAL OFFENDER POLICE NEIGHBOUR 4.2% 93.2% 1.7Z .8% (10) (220) (4) (2) (236 N-236 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Clearly, Ch e purpose of Neighbourhood Wacch is Co instill, wichin Ch e minds of che program participants, cha c the y must share in the responsibil- ity of dealing with Che social problem of crime. On e of the ways che ac- ceptance of ch e responsibilit y is acted ou t i s chroug h intervention,direct or indirect, whenever a criminal act is observed. Moreover , it is held by the proponents o f th e Neighbourhood Watch Program chac Ch e heightened awareness an d socia l cohesiveness derived fro m organize d neighbourhoods might function to influence Ch e way in which th e intervention is manifest- ed. T o decermine th e impact of Neighbourhocd Wacch in influencing ch e way in which program participancs would socially incervefrfe , eac h respond- ent was asked what cours e of action they would take .^^u ,ae y observe an ace of criminality being commitced against chei r neighbour's property . The finding presented in Tables 14, 20 an d 21 indicat e that ch e program had very little impacc on which course of social intervention would actually b e taken . Phonin g Ch e Police was th e preferred avenue, with little impac t on th e selection of eicher calking Co th e offender or phoning a neighbour about c o be victimized. Simila r results were cacordad *a r Ch e Cancra i Sic a rasaoadancs . NUMBER O f NEICH30UR S : MUMBES O F NEIGHBOUR S OOV K 3 Y NAK S LZzS THA N 3 7-10 v MORE THA N 1U TOTAI 17.9Z 49.4,: (12) (29) (30) (162) N- L62 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 Z55 TH* « 3 7-LO :-TOR£ THA N 1 0 3.92 17.OZ 13.5Z 55.62 (12) (23) (25) (75) (135) U-U5 TABLE 2 4 NUMBER 01" NEIGHBOURS KNOWN BY NAME BY RESPONDENTS I N 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 Cha t 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 tha t Neighbourhood Watch assists i n 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 3 4-6 7-10 MORE THA N 10 TOTAL 68.5% 20.4% 7.4% 3.7% (111) (33) (12) (6) (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 64. ZX 17.62 6. QZ 2.2S (36) (37) (3) (3) (134) A3L£ 2 7 R O F JTE:CH3UUX S VISITE D 3 Y R£5?0MD£NT S I N TH E CONTRO L 5II Z MUMBER O F FAMILIE S VISITE D L£SS THA N 3 7-LO MORE THA N 1 0 TOTAL 72.9 X Zl.ZZ 3.4* (172) (50) (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 * ' : ; visiced 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 regularl y prio r c o cti e program's iiapl-sBaacacioa , csmpara d c o ch e pasz cigur a a £ 35.3" . This again suggests cha t Ch e program assiscs Co a slighc degree i n 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 PRIO R TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH LEVEL OF SOCIAL COHESIVENESS HIGH LOW TOTAL 53.IX 46.9% (86) (76) TABLE 2 9 SOCIAL COHESIVENESS OF WESTFORT TEST SITE RESPONDENTS FOLLOWIN G THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM LEVEL OF SOCIAL COHESIVENESS HIGH TOTAL 60% 40% (81) (54) (135) K-135 26 TA3LE 3 0 SOCIAL CCKESIVENES S O F CONTRO L SIT E RESPONDENT S LEVEL O F SOCIA L HIGH 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 c neighbours known , wis h zft e niaba r o c naignbour s vtsizzd, fa r ch e purpcs a of dacarairtia g p -/hac iapac c ch a iaplsrsancaciat i o f "h e progra m ha d or . ch e overall 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 n Tablaa 2 3 an d 29 . Th e finding s i n ch a Concro l Sic a cabl a d o no c ru n contrary c o cii e pr e an d poa c progra m findings , an d 3uspor t ch e chaor y chac ch e progra m ha s ch e abilit y C o increas e ch a Lave ! o f cohesion . . ZA2LZ 3 1 ?SSCZ?TX0N O F r «ESTF0RT TES T SIT E RESPONDENT S aSCAftOr^ C TH E ?!IESE:IC E O F NEIGHBOURHOOD SPIRI T PRIO R T O T£Z IMPLElENTAtlO M 0 ? TH S IIEIGHBOL'RKOO O WATCH PROGRA M ' * IS THER E MEICHBOURHOQ O SPIRI T XES SOMSKHA t N O TOTA L 33.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 THERE 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 th e 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 Sit e data, wit h 78.3 % in- dicating yes o r somewhat with regard to th e presenc e 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 REGARDIN G THE OCCURRENCE OF PROPERTY CRIME I N THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD OVER THE PAST YEAR PROPERTY CRIME INCREASED OVER THE PAST YEAR INCREASED REMAINED SAME DECREASED DON'T KNOW TOTAL 31.8% 55 .12 - 3.0% 10.2% (75) (130) (7) (24) (236) M-236 PERCEPTION OF FREQUENCY OF PROPERTY CRIME Next, program participants were asked vtiecner uney rel t Ch e occurrence of property crime i n Cheir neighbourhood had increased over che past year. j Without question the pose pro'*—— J-.- - n table 35 suggests that a complete turn around occurred with respect to the respondents' percept - ion of th e frequenc y of property crime i n their neighbourhood. Specifically, 35.1% . more respondents indicated that they believed the occurrence of property crime ha d decreased followin g the implementation of the Neighbourhood Watch program. I t is significant co*not e that the perception of the resident fp-iardin g property crime levels correspond to th e victim experience data provided in the firs t cable of this chapter. 30 TABLE 3 7 ^"KAt JVcSTFOR T TI3 T SITZ RESPONDENT S THOUGH T rilLC 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 E 30UR'S PROPERT Y PROPERT Y OFTiNDER S NEIGHBOUR S POLIC E OTHE X TOTA L 57.22 5.7* 1.91 2.5:: zs.zz 7.5S (91) (9) (3) (4) (40) (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 E SOUR'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 L BOUR'S PROPERTY PROPERT Y OFFENDER S NEIGH - POLIC E BOURS 75.7% 9.8 % .9% 1.3% 11.9% .4% (178) (23 ) (2) (3) (28) (1) (236) N-236 I 1 METHODS PERCEIVED TO BE EMPLOYED at t%i^ I^»>J.D£NTS TO REDUCE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT PROPERTY CRIME I N THEIR AREA When Westfort Test Site respondents were firs t contacted prior to th e implementation of Neighbourhood Watch, the y indicated tha t up to tha t point neighbours primarily looked after neighbours' propert y and phoned Che Police to assist in reducing the occurrence of neighbourhood property crime. Followin g th e implementation of the program an even greater per- centage - 70.8% — felt tha t neighbours were looking after their neigh- bour's property, an d 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, thi s finding further suggests that a change in the attitude may have take n place regardin g th e need for th e resident to accept as his/her respon- sibility the takin g 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 analysi s ha s focuase d priaarii 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 socia l respons e o f progra m participanc s c o ch a occurrenc e o f PMw'M cria M i n chai r neighbourhood . Th e ciex c cabl e wil l p-rovid e che raada r wic h coGiparaciv e dac a ralacin g specificall 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 propert y crin e l a chei r neighbourhood . 33 TABLE 4 0 THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DECREE TO WHICH HOUSEHOLDS INCLUSIV E O/ THE CO33&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 COMPARATIVE DEGREE TO WHICH HOUSEHOLDS/PROPERTY PHYSICALLY SECURE D AREAS LOW MEDIUM HIGH TOTAL WESTFORT PRIO R 47.5% 24.7% 27.8% TO PROGRA M (77) (40) (45) (162) WESTFORT FOLLOW - 30.3Z 25.1% 44.6% ING PROGRA M (41) (34) (60) (135) CONTROL 54.5% 22.4% 22.7% SITE (129) (53) (54) (236) N-533 Before we discuss UIe 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 th e yar d and household security composite variables were added together to create a global security composite vari- able. Item s such as fencing, lockin g mechanisms, th e securing of re- creational and yard equipment, household and shed lighting, door types, window types, th e presence or absence of trees and shrubs in fronc of basement windows, an d a host of other security items were include d in the construction of the global security component variable (Se e 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 t Tasc Sic a resident s responde d positive! / c a ch e car^e c hardenin g aspecc o f th e ifeighbaurhoo d Wacc h Program . I n face , char e -a s a CCIBO - leca reversa l vis a ch e aajocic y o f raspondenc s ragiscarin g a aediua t c o ciigh leve l a t physica l securic y followia g exposur e c o ch e program . This findin g i s supporte d b y ch e Contro l Sic e dac a whic h i s discribuc - «d sioilarl v c o ch « preprogra m iaplemancacio a dac a fo r ch e Vescfor c tesc Sice . 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 40.62 54.9 Z 4.5 3 (54) (73 ) (6 ) (133 ) 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 ?cS 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, th e Westfort Test Site program participants were asked to indicate th e degree t o which Neigh- bourhood Watch assisted i n reducing the opportunity t o commit crime i n their neighbourhood, an d whether or not the y 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 reducin g the opportunity to conaftl t crime in their neighbourhood. Moreover , th e * distributio n of responses relatin g to recommending th e 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 FINDING S VICTIM EXPERIENC E The findings presented in this chapter suggest tha t the way in which the Neighbourhood Watch program was implemente d in Thunder Bay was effective in reducing th e victim experience of the Westfort Test Sit e residents. In fact, ther e 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 yar d had occurred throughout the year. Thi s is a significant finding, given that almost ee** *>- all related crime prior to the program had involved the theft of property from a yard. Similarily , no t one incident of wilful damage was reported or indicated to have occurre d following the implementatio n of the program. The principal crime relate d problems in the control site include d thefc from the yard (40.4%), wilful damage (23.4%), and theft from the house- hold auto (21.3%). These findings support th e concept that Neighbourhood Watch as implement- ed, was effective in reducing the occurrence of theft fro m yards and wilful damage. 36 R£?QRTI>*C BEHAVIOU R A slightl y gr eatar percentag e o f Westfor t tas c Sic a raspondenc s con - cactad :h e Polic s c o rapar t a crim e agains t zhei r ow n propert y cache r chan ao c raporcia g i c a t ai l callow-in g ch e iapiaser.cacio n o f ch e pro - gram. However , i c woul d appea r cha c :h e progra m wa s affectiv e i n cera s of causin g person s wh o d o repor t a crim a agains c chei r propert y c o d o so aur a swiftly , vlc h S5.7Z iadicacia g laacdlac a raporcing , csmpars d c o 45Z o f chas * Wescfor x rasldeac s wh o reporta d a cris e agaixts c thei r p perry prio 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 cr ime in their aeighbourho^d- , art d whethe r they ha d ohotia d ch e ?aLic a i n ras - potise C o ch e erica . ?rio 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 d Che Police , compara d c o IQQZ at chos e Vestfor t tss t 5ic a ras?oadenc 3 who observe d a cria a bein g consulcta d followin g ch e iapiamencatio n o f the program , th e hypothesize d impac t i s supporte d b y th e Contro l Si: a data, wit h 63.S S o f suc h respondent s rapcrtin g a n obsar/e d crimina l ac t co th e ?olica . As a follo w u p question , ax l respondent s wer a asica d wha t tha y uoul d d o if the y observe d someon e commie:in g a crim e agains c chai r neighbour' s property, th e finding s indicat a cha c cher a va s a o impac t o f ch e progra m in ters s o f starrin g th a rasponsa . Unde r suc h conditions , rsspondanc s ia ch e tes t Sic a reporte d equall y befor e an d afca r ch e progra m cha c che y would b y preferenc e phon e ch e ?olica , cal k c o ch a of£*nd*r , an d lasci y phone ch e neighbou r bein g victimised . SOCI.-U. CQHES'O W the dumbe r o f person s know n by.aam e an d visisa d increase d iiighcl y l a Che Wescfor t Tes c Sic a followin g ch a iaplarneacacio n o f ch a program . Th e level of interaction similarily increased, indicatin g that the social cohosiveness was heightened as indicated by th e associated comparative tables. A significant impac t of the program appears when the data re- garding whether a feelin g of neighbourhood spirit ha d developed over time, with over 90% indicating such was the case following the impleraen- J tatio n of th e program compared to 74.7 % of the Test Sic e respondents prior to program exposure, and 78% of the Control Site respondents. PERCEPTION OF THE CRIME LEVEL Again, th e findings are significant, with a complete reversal of per- ceptions occurring in Jk e Westfort Test Site respecting the level of ( neighbourhoo d crime followin g implementation of the program. Fort y tw o t poin t two percent (42.2% ) o f the Test Sice residents perceived the leve l of neighbourhood crime to have decreased, compare d to 3.1% of Westfort I Tes t Site respondents prior to the program, an d 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 followin g the implementation of th e program believed neighbours were assisting to reduce the opportun- ity t o 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 th e down playing of phoning the Police by Westfort Test Site respondents as a resident method to reducing th e opportunity t o commit neighbourhood property crime. Prio r t o the 38 program, 23.2 2 o f ch e respondent s perceive d ehi s c o b e a highl y utilise d an 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 o a Neighbourhoo d (fetc h progra m a s provide d Thunde r 3ay , whereb y residenc s are perceive d c o b e cakin g a lea s passiv e an d mor e acciv e rol e i n dealing 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 s impleawncad ha d a ver r signiiican c iapac c o n incraasin g ch e leve l o f household an d yar d securic y (Tabl e 40 ) i n ch e Vescfor c las c 5ica , whic h may largel y explai n ch e dtamaci c reduccic n i n ch e occurranc a o f propert y relacaci crim e chrougiiou c ch e Wescfor c Tes c Sica , parcictUarl y chec c o f yard property, an d explai n ch e rslacivei y hig h occurrenc e o f propert y rsiacad cria e i n ch e Concro l Sica . tfESTFQRT TES T SITS PSaCgTIOWS 0? T3S PffAC? - OF »EICHBQURH0O D Over 95 2 o f ch e Wescfor t tes c Sic e raspondenc s perceive d ch e progra m c o have ha d samewhac , c a ver y tauch , o f a n intpac c o n recucin j neighbourhoo d property crime . Further , 98. 5X o f ch e Vescfar c tas c Sic e respondent s indicaca cha c chmy woul d recommen d ch a progra m c o othe r neighbourhood s as a crim e preventio n scracegy . CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION IMPLICATION S AN D RECOMMENDATION S DISCUSSION This research project was divided into tw o phases; th e first involved the implementation of th e Neighbourhoo d Watch program in a pre-selacted residential area, whereas th e 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 th e study. Data was extracted from 162 Test Sit e households during the implementation phase, an d 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 t o reducing the occurrence of thefc from household yards . The respondents of th e Westfort Test Site indicated through their responses that th e 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 relatival / 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 stil 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 li~v:fyir ; 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 aita 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 utiliz - 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 n dealing 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 a formal citize n organizatio n withi n residentia l area s previousl y ex - hibiting informa l o r loosel y kni t socia l ties , th e applicatio n o f crim e analysis woul d i n al l probabilit y fail . 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 l have 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 l control withi n ou r neighbourhood s b y workin g wit h a commo n definitio n o f deviant behaviou r an d se t o f response s t o dea l wit h observe d act s o f criminality, an d a a such , shoul d b e considere d whe n explainin g victi m exnerience. In an y event , th e finding s i n additio n t o indicatin g tha t a Neighbourhoo d Watch 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 o acknowledge 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 r To Preven t Crime. " 42 DUPLICATIONS 1- Neighbourhoo d Watc h Program s ca n b e ver y eiiacriv e i n reducin g che occurrenc e o f residentia l propert y criae . 2. T o b e effective , cria a analysi s base d upo n vicci s experienc e dat a richer tha n re ? a r e a d crla e scads cic 3 anis e b e applied , an d ia- faraacion. share d wic h ch e bureaucrac y o f th e citize n Neighbour - hood Waec h organization . 3. Th e utilizatio n o f a oavslecce r zo commuaicac a specifi c crla e problems base d upo n vicci a axperiaac a dac a is a n eefscciv e sacho d for generatin g a n acciv e respons e o f Neighbourhoo d Vacc h oartici - 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 applicatio n o f criainalistics , an d direccl y related t o ch e reductio n o f residentia l properc > 5. Th e iatroducciot i o f a Neighbourhoo d Watc h organizatio n inc o a neighbourhood assisc 3 t o heighte n ch e leve l o f socia l cohesio n a* maasure d b y frequenc y o f socia l cantacc . 6. Neighbourhood s whic h hav e so t bee n expose d c o a. Neighbourhoo d Vacc h program wil l exhibi t love r level s o f socia l cohesion , physica l security, an d highe r viccia t experienc e racas . 7. Exposur e c o a Neighbourhoo d Ku<:c 3 progra m cause s cici^an s c o ack - nowledge thei r rasponsibilic y vi s a vi s crizte , an d c o assum e a pro 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 and KZ4>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 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 A t t 0* 7. < Z UJ LJ V w - J — a • u . ? ro I. J T * a > c * — s ' • ILCI- . a . -u u <+ + *LLQltl^ O tf C C * I 3T > s zucriuo* ff-'rt n a S *- u • a: > r, * j?a 2 -iflot 3 r, a v: iu r a2: j UUffCUHU.-.," « • • • 5 — Q: X:" L "5 t* c .* u X \J f — LJ < c; r u.- 3 -J • t. /1 x :•" o 3 o a '" w "if 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 cC2rc>ir. • * H L* _; L+^2* "•«". ™i/lCu,li' (T LU* +^ * * 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^^^.>.xi •"^.•^••••^•^-•^••Airy (0 I Q 15 1" 'J ft :i' 3 ^ ^ J C t1 ^ y we z ^ < >•" . _ 'f* i 3C" U a 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 • • 71 " i x w a y ; • L ^ r > ? •••••••«•• (7c1 'L* -• r C' ^* ^* ••• ^* ^* *V *^ rt ^^ *• «rt f^ tflA ^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 V a - r > — '.5 r- ** U- T ^ — «£ I. •" LU > f\. > b. r t* 1.. UkLU «»(jt- — -J 2N W* p. LL. — h-, Z t* ^^ KH-^UJU-Z*-?1^ d * u •- K c — n ciii-S^jg- r t-C r< 3 u. a 3u>*r ;:V**f —u. r x" T —U 3 — C? C CCUUifl r IK 3 c r_' u.1 •* ?? •* u ';. L n r? c* * c Q. << u K > (_• -? f u u y 1 K *f c C (.* Ci 2 M Ul U ^ . f K - 1 _ Al APPENDIX B GROUP 1 NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH MEETING DATE: Wednesday August 25, 1982 PLACE: Mary J. L . Black Library TIME: 7:3 0 POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter Connors Crime Prevention Officer STAFF PRESENT: Andre a Richmond (Projec t Leader) Joan Alkenbrack (Projec t Worker) Marcia Bevilacqua n " Alda dos Santo s H " JoAnn Raynak " " NUMBER OF GROUP MEMBERS. PRESENT: 4 ( 3 guests present BLOCK CAPTAIN: 13 1 Mary Street ASSISTANT'BLOCK CAPTAIN: Qly O f Thunder Bo y Polic e Forc e -t25 SA a SAY ONTARIO P7E5V1 PHCNE 307 S23-27' G- F. Que(l«ne, Cliief of Police GROUP n NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH MEETtNG 3ATE: Augus t 3, 1982 PLACE: Mar y J. L. Slack *IME: 7:3 0 pm. POLICE PRESENT : Constabl e Pets 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 . Chnstin a Stree t ASSESTANT 3L0C K CAPTAIN : 13 3 E . Christin a Stree C Cut *••*•* No Your ?•! « .No. GROUP#3 NEIGHBOURHOO D WATCH MEETING DATE: August 5, 1982 PLACE: Mary J. L. Blac k Library TIME: 7:3 0 POLICE PRESENT: Constabl e Peter Connors Crime Preventio n Officer STAFF PRESENT: Andre a Richmond (Projec t Leader) Joan Alkenbrack (Projec t Worker) Marcia Bevilacqua " " Suzanne Desmoulin " " Alda dos Santos Rod Etheridge JoAnn Rawiak, . " w NUMBER OF GROUP MEMBERS PRESENT: 7 BLOCK CAPTAIN: 19 5 Mary street ASSISTANT BLOCK CAPTAIN: 19 3 Mary Street aagaaccagcco waxe n aggros 2ATS: August 9, 1982 ?LACZ; y^ry J. L. Slack Library 7:30 POLICE PPESSJT : Constabl e Pats r Connors Crine Prevesitio n Office r PPESEWT: Andrs a aichnnn d (Prajec t Jean AlJceRbrad c (Projec t Kbrkar ) Alca & s Santo s Jtod Etfceridg e JcAtm Rayna k OF G^CU ? MEMBE3 S PHESZNT : U 3LXK CP^P^MM : U 4 tasz Mar y Stree t ASSISTftMT 3D3G C C?PIMN : 12 0 s^s t :ary 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 Connors Crime Prevention Officer STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richnond (Projec t Leader) Joan ADcenbrack (Projec t Worker) ftircia Bevilacqua n " Alda dos Santos " M Rod Etheridge JoAnn 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, 193 2 PLACE: Mary J.L. 31acJ c Library TIME: 7:30 POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter Connors Crime Prevention Officer STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Richmond (Projec t Leader) Joan Alkenbracfc (Projec t Workar) Marcia Beviiacqua Suzanne 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, 198 2 PLACE: Mary J. L. Blac k Library i TIME: 7:3 0 POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter Connors Crime 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 Broc k Street i NEIGK3OURHQO0 WATC H MSSTIN G DATE: Monda y Augus t 23 , 198 2 PLACE: Mar y J . L . Slac k Librar y TIME: 7:3 0 POLICE PRESENT : Constabl e ?ete r Connor s Prevention 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 O F GZOW9 ME'ISER S 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, 198 2 PLACE: Mary J. L . Blac k Library TIME: 7:3 0 POLICE PRESENT: Constable Peter Connors Crime Preventio n 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: 1 1 BLOCK CAPTAIN: 199- 1 Francis Street ASSISTANT BLOCK CAPTAIN: 16 3 Francis Street APPENDIX C i: POLICE CO-ORDINATO R CONST. PETE R CONNOR S SECTION l£ADE a JUDITH HUCHK S CROUP LEADE R GROUP LEASE R GROUP LEADE R WIU.iAM ilU'.O Y JERRY SALHEI A TSSESA nr-i.vs K i ELUCi i « AfTAl.'I S j BLCCE CAPTAIN S BLOCT CAPTAIN S I 3LOC K CA?TAi:: 3 ni-D A.-1D AND ; AS D I *SSrK-,\:. T CLOC K CA?TAIK S : AS5tSTA.Tr aLCC K CAPTAIN S ASSISTANT BLOC K CAPTAIN S ! ASSISTANT SLOCS. C~?7A: _...... j . JAMS Sai l (To b « reeruittd) 4 S^vi d Anaarso n I ,ir; rarquson Dan M«n»r d . Cordo n 3«cku i H«nrv P«*rjo n 3ouctt*r Mo« iUwlu k Caruso I 1 Kao '.'ranc h c* Lihc x J L Cl i APPENDIX D I NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH NEUSLEXTSB WESTTORT KCICHBOtntHOOO VOL II, II MARCH 4. 1983 To all neighbours In the neighbourhood Watch Prograa) in the CoBSttmity, eh* following 15 a NEWSLETTER which will t>rlnf you up co dace *• to what ha* b*«n happening In the art* since August of 1982. The Nvlghbourhoed w«ech Prograa is now officially In efface as of January 29, 1983. Thl> Is ctw da** our sljni u«rt unvcilad. Th* captain* *nd aaalscane capciloi ueuJd Ilk* co etwnk all chose nclgh boufi vho Joined In ch* In November of 1982, all Slock Captains and Assistanes t-sr* cilled for ch*tr first meeting with Constable Connors, our Police Co-ordin- .ieor. ,\z this i»«»cfrtg, th« positions of Section Leader and Our Croup I.e.ider* u*r* filled. The Mechanics of ctte *-*lShbrurhoad w.icch Progra™ t< as DX , !?8J '-"•acfor; CS« **»y le uorlu: for «JM»L*. if t.H looklag *ad iovn /our ie?i*c *nd / *til La ran s«nd of • ;M :«l«ohi?n« sails, s 3f ?surs«. /ou ean jravt or aeeusatsi's). H toe. c.t« ?«Uc» dummit, co«vtnf «• art now ta fuil apvraelaa. ltll 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 cncut ••*; ICO >»«•• lw** joer Sack al I itcy«la» scalafl J ih«fei av«r 1200 3 4*fj araMM Litea is •ue k*«fl «ur franc aad tiack ;Sa nijhe *«4 '« our fhaMs laek«4. "^ *jk ta*e cms* neighbours ;.t«c :ti« (rone ar 9*ek af cnalr i>o*>**. ?*.**•*» :»•* falgflt jntf PEVSLETTER - 3 - March 4, 1983 tfescfort Area February 16, 198], lc «as decided Chat w* would try and hold a COHHCTITT MECTIWC. Thla include* «v«cyea« In that Neighbourhood Vac eh Prograi from Ease Christina to Fraaeia Scrxe. Thia aeceing vill 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 a budgtc p«r a«, unfareunactlr Chart ia and vill b« txp«nx*a. Unfort- unae«l7, th* Mary J. L. Black Library i* WTf FH£1^. it th«rc ia MM* on* who knova of • plaea vh«ra wa can gather aa a eooaawaity, which ia frva or chaapcr, plaaM advlaa ac th« March t6eh sacclng, Th« Library la charginf $5-00 far th« largt •udieorlu* plus S3.00 For Ch* J*« of ehctr 100 " - "- — Tha ceff»c la optional. V« will dlaeus* ehl* at ch« March Ibth a*«clng. It haa b*m auggaattd that v* donaca SOc p«r neetlnt (aach person) eo co*ar costa of the hall and coffa*. Thia of course 1* mbject Co chang* and will alao b« 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 daeldt how of tan ,v «.—u *: k# ona. Eventually we will hav* to pay for eh« copying of th* Mvalateer. Tnla will hav* to ba kept In alnd aa an cxpene*. Soaw of you were contacted ac ch* beginning of February regarding a red and white van ehac waa aeen crutalng the Mary SCr**t area. Although It waa a false al*m, (try* two fallows were delivering for Che owner of th* van and vert given che wrong address), Che system did work. Ulchln several hours of concacC with the Section Leader, Ch* police had «• description of Che Van. Che CVK> fellows driving lc And che Licence plats number. 03 .larch i. 139] OB ri(tn*»rr la, 1MJ, S!M Use* Cipealna aa4 Autacaats MC far GlMir avcood a«««la(. &>aa 3. TLla an "3oaa S«curicr"< 6. Pallet**** uiX ea aur cawna**?* *nd chlld?«ti -. jlk*a - ;ntt blerelo «v*y «e aiyie *«4 Lack 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, stag 3f F*>^C; so rftrr rao 04" ;•_ 1 , :. - •;.: . . ; ' .'ate!- . ;v-j..-r.vr . : -i.e. *r iL», ^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 , etc. , t«I •: Lr'ij t o neighbors , th e polic e onl y mak e or: * i:i".cr.-- -al l t o th e Sectio n Leader . The Seetior . L,aJcr call s th e fou r Grou p Leaders ; th e ZJ.-Z-J.I- r -^adftr<5 call thei r designate d Bloc k Captains an d «ssietants . Thes e I;loc k Cap-- - Vii.-.s t'--e n cal l t:. e individua l home s i n -r.-^ir particula r ^roup . Thi a save s th e police fro m making : umptee n phon e call s ar. d i:.t"-rvicv;s an d i t cave s a lo t cf-preciou s ti.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 e police. -'_• wer e informed , throug h th e surve y rtw.-:2 or. eac h individua l hom e las t August , that 57.2\'. o f th e crime s i n ou r neighborhoo d ar e outside th e :^o.-e . .5 ^ o f ou r 20 0 home s h*v± poo r bac k yar d security . Ther e hav e been i n th e pas t year : u she'f s broke n int o 5 bicycle s stoks n 3 theft s ove r ^C0 0 3 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 f IdwardJ, yo u wil l sa c tha t almost : al 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 r Tr^r.t lijh t on . **' e asi c tha t tns^ s •«.-.. : Kara fccn * ar; d cacl c hedges , place s kee p th«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 p tc th e indiridua l 31ocl c Ca p pair.3 to * relay wha t rrar.spira a a t t?\i s seatin g i: 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 s a coruiur.it y t o ^ak c chi s ••v^rSc . Groups - an d 5 wer e natifia d o' * zr.s first nalghicrhoo d watc h nsetinf . l-t:a>. - w '"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.; o per xt- - tiii£ (whic h i d onc e a month ; jus t to cove r th e cos t o f th e hall . Coffe e a t this pcir. t i s optional . Jil 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 h north (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 r next reichborhoc d .. ratch Meetin g wil l b e scheduled fo r th e beginnin g o f February . .7c discusse d ho w w e wer " roin g t o educate ourselve s agains t Crime . Th e group cam e up , wi^t h th e followin g suggest - ions: * 1. Locksmit h - demonstrat e Tariou s lock technique s 2. :Ce n Hoshkoff - Task Force on Vandalism 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 c 5. 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 firs t meeting . ..' e d o hop e that perhap s th e nex t meetin g i n Februar y will attrac t a fe w mor e families . 11. 198 3 Constable Connors called. Th e sign s will be £oin£ up on'January 21, 19^3 • -*' e invite th e neighborhoo d watch community t o join u s o n January 2^i 198 3 at 2:00 p.m. (Saturday) along with the press, Alderman let lane, and Lysr.es, Constable Connors, Ker. Boshkoff, a t the corner of Christina and Kir.£sway for a group picture. Pleas e tell 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 d watch progra m signing . Whereas Sectio n 21 0 141 ' provides tha t By-law s na y b e for prohibitin g o r regulatin g sign s an d othe r advertisin g de v ic the postin g o f notice s o n building s o r vacan t lot s withi n an y d area o r area s o r o n lan d abuttin g a define d highwa y o r par t o f highway; \ AMD WHEREA S Sectio n 194{S ) o f Th e Municipa l Ac t prov i that council s na y pas s Bylaw s providin g fo r th e us e b y th e pu b lands o f whic h th e Corporatio n i s th e owne r an d Co r th e regula t such us e an d th e protectio n o f suc h lands ; AHOWHEREA S Sectio n 10 4 o f Th e Municipa l Ac t provide s every 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 e municipality 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 I THUNOER SA Y ENACT S A S FOLLOWS : 1. This By-la w applie s t o th e whol e o f th e Cit y ot Thund e 2. Sign s i n th e for m o f th e sig n show n i n Schedul e *A * n a may b e erecte d wit h th e authorit y an d i n accordanc e wit h th e directions o f a membe r o f th e Thunde r Ba y Polic e Forc e a s pa : ~ o Neighbourhood Hatc h Program . 3. Excep t a s provide d i n Sectio n 2 hereof , n o perso n sha l erect, post , plac e o r us e an y sig n i n th e for m show n i n Schedul e hereto o r an y sig n tha t i s likel y t o caus e person s t o believ e t. h is 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 (52 S .0C Dollars, exclusiv e o f costs , an d al l suc h penaltie s shal l b e recoverable 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 n final 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 Street CO-OPERATION PREVENTS CRIME Date NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH 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 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 PART I HOME SECURIT Y SURVE Y FIRST, 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 the house numbers (X) small ? (2> large ? 2. Ar e the house numbers (1) th e same colour as the 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? 10 4. Ar e the 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 "II 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 12 6. I s ther e an operative front door light? (1) n o (2) ye s 13 If yea, is it a 40 watt covered bulb: (1) r.o (2) yes I I 14 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, i s 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 al 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 1 17 (a) Describ e the *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 there a door viewer in th e fron t door? (1) n o (2) ye s I I 20 13. I s ther e a patio door on the household? (1) ye s (2) no 1 I 21 14. I f yes, i s ther e a lock stick or Charlie Bar? (1) n o (2) ye s | i 4 '" 2 2 I 15 . I f yes to question 13, ar e there screws in the top track? i (1) n o k (2 ) ye s | i t 2 3 16. I s there 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 there a window in the back/side door or immediately adjacent to it? (1) ye s (2) no 26 (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) 23 20. -escrib e th e back/sId a dea r lac k (1) M o loc k a t all (5) Jiatn y proof (2) Ka y i n eh « tao b (6) Hig h security ria lock (3) Morzisa d loc k (7) 0«a d latch bolt (4) Sia locJc (3) Caa d bol e 3in?lf t c/l^Ada r (9) D«a d bol t douol e cylinde r 29 Deacrijsa ch a baci c dco r hinge s (1) Sxrario r :.o c 3inr.e e {2) Exrario r pinne d (3) Incario r 30 Is char e a doo r viewe r i n tft a bac k door ? CD n o (2) 23. Ar a ther e slidin g window s o n th e house ? (D ye s (2) n o 32 24. I f yes , hav e locks'o r loc k stick s bee n installe d i a al l suc h windows ? CD no » (2) yes 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 tracks n al 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 al 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 fo r 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 46 33. Describ e th e pedestria n garag e doo r lock . (1) M o loc k a c all (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 bolt 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 d 43 (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 49 41. I f yes, ar e all the bicycles licensed ? (1) no (2) yes 50 42. I f yes to question 40, i s it marked for identification (Socia l Insurance Number) o r is the serial number recorded? 4 * (1 ) n o (2) yes 51 43. I f yes to question 40, ar e all the household bicycles locke d or stored i n a locke d area? (1) no (2) yes 52 44. I s there a storage she d on the property? (1) yes (2) no 53 45. I f yes, is the door (1J .wi . .i.Gc.ve d at all (2) Padlocke d - {Has p not secured) (3) Has p secured and padlocked 54 46. Ar e all household recreationa l items and outdoor tools (1) no t secured at all (2) chaine d or locked (3) store d in a locked structure - 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 56 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 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 S3 50. : s thmrm fancin c aratai d th e fron t yard ? (1) n o (2) yes 59 I* yes , i s ch e Sattezaq aroun d th e fron c yard ? (1) Partia l (2} Comsiec a 60 52. Zs ther e fencin g aroun d ch a bac k yard ? (1) n o (2) yes SI IZ yes , i s th e fencin g CL3- Partial (2) Complet e 52 PART II VICTIM EXPERIENC E NEXT, W E ARE SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT PROPERTY CRIMES IN THIS AREA. THI S INCLUDES 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 HAVE DIRECTLY HAPPENE D TO YOU. (T O BE READ BY INTERVIEWER) 54. Ha s an y 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) SreaJc and Enter (4) Theft from auto (5) Auto theft (6) Other Please specify 5 4 56. Are a of structure victimized was: (1) Hous e (6 ) Fence s (2) Ca r (7 ) Apartmen t (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 o 66 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 police , pleas e explai n why ? 63 60. Hav e yo u ave r observe d anyon e ccnani t a ?rscert y Cria e i. i thi s neigftbo urhood? (1) ye s C2 J n o S9 51. I - yes , stat e typ « o f propert y criaa : (1) Thef t fro m yar d (2) wilfu l damag e (vandalism ) (3) 3rsa k an d Sr.ta r * "" " (4) Thsf t frc n aut a (5) Aim s thef t (actua l titef t o f automobile ) (S) Othe r 70 (?lea£e specify) 52. Di d you report it to the police: (1) ye s (2 ) n o 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 THI S ARSA . (T O 3 E 3£A 0 3Y IMTE3WIZWES ) 63. Ho w raa y o f you r neighbour s o n thi s atrae 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 ( J 72 i. 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 I n 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 that 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 sure i; 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 77 69. Wha(3) tTal woulk dt yoo offendeu actuallr (4y do if) yoOtheu sarw (pleassomeonee specifydamagin)g 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 78 - 1 1 - 70. Kav e yo u ave r don e an y o f th e afcove ? (1) ye s (2 ) .1 0 79 "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 n 1 neighbourhood; " (1) MOn e (S ) U c o 2 0 (2) 1 or 2 (6 ) 2 1 co 5 0 (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 5 0 (3) 3 c o 3 (7 ) Mor e sfta n S O '4> * to L 0 4. m general , ho w eas y o r difficult , i s i t fa r yo u t o cal l a 3trange r crcai someon e -Jn o live 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 Inser t - 80. D o you chink you have more concacc with your neighbours than before the Neighbourhoo d Watch Program began? (1) Ye s (2 ) N o Ml. I f yes, i n what w.i y h;i s 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 r i (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 (1) femal e t - (2) mal e i 20 85. Statu s of the respondant (1) Owne r (2) p«m-« i 21 15