Travis Taniguchi

The Crime Reduction Effects of Public CCTV Cameras: A Multi‐Method Spatial Approach

Public Closed Circuit TeleVision (CCTV) initiatives have been utilized as methods of monitoring public space for over two decades. Evaluations of these efforts to reduce crime have been mixed. Furthermore, there has been a paucity of rigorous evaluations of cameras located in the USA. In this analysis, crime in the viewshed of publicly funded CCTV cameras in Philadelphia, PA, is examined using two evaluation techniques: hierarchical linear modeling and weighted displacement quotients. An analysis that incorporates controls for long‐term trends and seasonality finds that the introduction of cameras is associated with a 13% reduction in crime. The evaluation suggests that while there appears to be a general benefit to the cameras, there were as many sites that showed no benefit of camera presence as there were locations with a positive outcome on crime. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Gang Set Space, Drug Markets, and Crime around drug corners in Camden

Gang set space is defined as ‘‘the actual area within the neighborhood where gang members come together as a gang’’ (Tita, Cohen, and Engberg 2005:280). The current article examines one subarea of gang set space: where gangs maintain street corner-centered open-air drug markets. Two types of corners—corner markets dominated by one gang and corner markets with multiple gangs—were contrasted with one another and with non-gang, non-dealing corners. Functional and corporate perspectives on gangs would both predict single gang corner markets to have lower violent and property crime than non-gang corners, whereas a traditional view would predict more violence. Territorial and economic competition models expect the highest crime levels around corner markets occupied by multiple gangs. Using Thiessen polygons to define the sphere of influence of each corner, and controlling for community demographic fabric and nearby crime, results showed higher crime counts around space used for drug distribution and higher still when the set space was occupied by multiple drug gangs. Further, crime counts were higher in less stable locales. The portions of drug gang set space centered on small, known, open-air corner drug markets, especially when control is questioned, link to more crime.

Do Social Bonds Matter for Emerging Adults

The extent to which social bonds and turning points influence criminal activity has been the focus of much empirical research. However, there have been few empirical studies exploring social bonds and turning points and offending for those who have experienced emerging adulthood, a recently identified stage of the life course. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health we examined if indicators of social bonds and turning points were predictors of criminal offending. Several of the turning points and social bonds included in these analyses were found to influence decreases in criminal offending for a cohort of emerging adults. We extend previous research by examining the influence of social bonds and turning points on patterns of criminal offending during emerging adulthood.

Evaluation of a Criminal Justice Internship Program: Why Do Students Take It and Does It Improve Career Preparedness?

The internship program in the Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, is designed to help students: determine their career interests, learn factual and procedural information from practitioners, build relationships that facilitate career opportunities, and to smooth the school-work transition. The current study is an evaluation of this internship program and aimed to determine whether the program increased career preparedness. Surveys of students involved in the internship program were conducted at the beginning and end of the program. Students in other non-internship criminal justice courses completed a similar survey and serve as the comparison group. Results suggest that, relative to the non-internship group, some aspects of career preparedness improved for the interns. However, not all results were in the direction hypothesized. In particular, students’ locus of control, for both internship and non-internship groups, became more external as students’ perceptions that career choice was subject to luck and the influence of powerful others increased.

Theories of Crime and Place

In the previous chapter, we showed that crime is concentrated at very small geographic units, substantially smaller than neighborhoods, and that these concentrations, on average, are relatively stable. This is true whether examining high- or low-crime neighborhoods. Although high-crime places do cluster, they seldom form a homogeneous block of high-crime places. Rather, interspersed within concentrations of high-crime places are many low- and modest-crime places. Why is crime concentrated in a relatively small number of places? Standard criminology has not asked this question, largely because standard criminology focuses on criminality and implicitly assumes that the density of offenders explains crime density. Recognition that place characteristics matter is the starting point for this chapter. We look at two perspectives on crime place characteristics. We use the term “perspective” because each type of explanation is comprised of multiple theories linked by a common orientation. The first perspective arises from opportunity theories of crime. The second perspective arises from social disorganization theories of crime. We begin by contrasting two ways of thinking about how a place becomes a crime hot spot and suggest that the process by which high-crime places evolve must involve place characteristics. In the next sections, we examine opportunity and social disorganization explanations. In the final section of the chapter, we examine possible ways researchers might link these two perspectives. PROCESSES THAT CREATE CRIME PLACES Before we look for explanations of why places become hot spots of crime it is important to consider two processes that might lead to such an outcome. Criminologists have generally proposed two generic models to account for the processes that lead to variation in place susceptibility to crime. One model suggests that places may start with reasonably similar risks of an initial criminal attack, but once attacked the risk of a subsequent attack on the place rises. Over time, places diverge in their crime risk, and consequently in their crime counts. This temporal contagion model is also known as a boost model (see Chapter 2) or a state-dependence model. It puts the emphasis on offenders’ willingness to return to a previously successful crime site (Johnson et al. 2007; Townsley et al. 2000). It suggests that irrespective of initial crime risk the occurrence of a crime will lead to changes in risk of crime at a place.

Crime Places within Criminological Thought

A new perspective in criminology has emerged over the last three decades, a perspective with considerable potential to add to our understanding and control of crime. In the same way the invention of the microscope opened up a biological world scientists had not previously seen, this new perspective opens the world of small geographic features we had overlooked. Research has demonstrated that actions at these microplaces have strong connections to crime. Just as the microscope paved the way to new treatments and advances in public health, this new perspective in criminology is yielding improved ways of reducing crime. This new perspective shifts our attention from large geographic units, such as neighborhoods, to small units, such as street segments and addresses. This shift in the “units of analysis” transforms our understanding of the crime problem and what we can do about it. There are two aspects to this shift in units. The first shifts our attention from large geographic units to small ones. This we have just mentioned. The second shifts our attention from people to events, from those who commit crimes to the crimes themselves. Criminology has been primarily focused on people (Brantingham and Brantingham 1990; Weisburd 2002). Frank Cullen (2011) noted in his Sutherland Address to the American Society of Criminology in 2010 that the focus of criminology has been even more specific. He argued that criminology was dominated by a paradigm, which he termed “adolescence-limited criminology,” that had focused primarily on adolescents. To what extent have person-based studies dominated criminology? Weisburd (2015a) examined units of analysis in all empirical articles published in Criminology between 1990 and 2014. Criminology is the highest-impact journal in the field and the main scientific publication of the largest criminological society in the world, the American Society of Criminology. He identified 719 research articles. Of the 719 articles, two-thirds focused on people as units of analysis. The next main units of study were situations (15 percent) and macrogeographic areas such as cities and states (11 percent). Eck and Eck (2012) examined the 148 research papers published in Criminology and Public Policy from its first issue in 2001 until the end of 2010, and the 230 articles published in Criminal Justice Policy Review during the same time period.