Evaluation of the Minneapolis (MN) Community Crime Prevention Demonstration Program (A Methodological Review) (From Link Between Crime and the Built Environment, Volume 2, P C88-C103, 1980, by Tetsuro Motoyama et al - See NCJ-79544)

• NCJ Number: 79552
• Author(s): H Rubenstein; P Hartjens; S Meyers; T Motoyama
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 17 pages
• Corporate Author: American Institutes for Research
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche from NCJRS as NCJ-79544.

Annotation

This review assesses an evaluation conducted by the Minnesota Crime Control Planning Board of the Minneapolis Community Crime Prevention Demonstration Program. The program was designed to reduce crime and the fear of crime in three Minneapolis residential neighborhoods.

Abstract

Various crime reduction strategies were implemented, including police and citizen group strategies, home security strategies, and physical design changes. The process evaluation described all program inputs and analyzed the planning and decisionmaking processes used. The impact evaluation used a pretest-posttest design with a regular control group and a displacement control group. Both archival crime data and survey data were gathered, and they were analyzed through various statistical tests. The process evaluation findings appear to be supported by the data. They report the difficulty of implementing physically oriented crime reduction strategies in residential settings. To the extent that the program tried to reduce crime through making changes in the physical characteristics of the built environment, it was a virtual failure. The physical changes never took place. Thus, the evaluation was more of an assessment of how security surveys and neighborhood organizing can reduce crime. The findings show mixed results, and the authors do not place much confidence in the belief that all of the findings of crime reduction are directly attributable to the crime prevention strategies used. Statistical problems in the evaluation and inconsistent treatments received by the three neighborhoods do not permit unequivocal conclusions on treatment effectiveness based on the impact data. (Author summary modified)