Coping With Crime - Individual and Neighborhood Reactions

• NCJ Number: 78899
• Author(s): W G Skogan; M G Maxfield
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 272 pages
• Grant Number(s): 78-NI-AX-0057; 78-NI-AX-0111; R01MH29629-01
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare; US Dept of Justice; National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Sage library of Social Research volume 124.

Annotation

This study examined how city dwellers in Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Chicago cope with crime and fear of crime; it concluded that fear is a consequence of crime but that most crime consequences, including fear, are indirect.

Abstract

Interviews with citizens, local businessmen, police officers, and community leaders in 10 study neighborhoods were conducted, along with citywide telephone interviews and content analysis of 11,475 crime-related newspaper stories. The purpose was to determine how people learned about and reacted to crime. In addition, researchers investigated actual rates of victimization and vulnerability to crime using data from the interviews and from victimization surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Several behavioral responses to fear of crime were analyzed: taking personal precautions and protecting the household, involving oneself in community crime prevention activities, and moving to the suburbs. The study found that victimization, vulnerability, vicarious experience, and neighborhood conditions were significant correlates of fear. It was hypothesized that several factors would motivate precautionary and protective measures against crime. However, although fear of crime and neighborhood integration were consistently linked to this behavior, vulnerability to victimization, knowledge of local crime, and concern about crime-related conditions did not appear to be related to crime-reduction efforts or were related in unexpected ways. Crime reduction measures were adopted most often by upper status persons in lower crime neighborhoods. In addition, movement to the suburbs did not appear to be directly caused by fear of crime, but those who moved enjoyed a significant advantage in terms of crime risk, while those left behind were confined to even worse conditions as a result. Finally, the data suggest that household protection is encouraged by home ownership, moderate levels of income, and integration into community life. Recommendations are made based on these findings. Study data, about 200 references, and an index are provided.