|
Abstract
|
One of the most neglected populations studied in victimology has been juveniles. The present study examines the impact of fear of crime among a sample of urban youth on their defensive actions. Studies of urban adult populations have found that a significant number of people fear to venture outside their homes at night. When they do go out, they often take defensive measures to insure their safety. Carrying "mace," whistles, guns, knives, and clubs, for example, is not uncommon. Some have indicated that they have undertaken training in a variety of self-defensive arts and/or keep dogs to protect themselves from the possibility of being victimized. Using data collected from a sample of 1,775 urban youth in 1986 it was found that this population has taken many of the same defensive actions. Only 11% of the sample indicated that they had not taken any defensive actions as a result of fear of crime. Nearly three-fifths took the precaution of having an escort when they went out at night. Learning a technique of self-defense was reported by 19% of the sample; 10% indicated that they carried "mace" or some other type of repellant. Only 4% reported that they carried a whistle because of crime concerns. Significant predictors of personal defensive actions include gender, crime-witnessing status, victimization status and type of victimization (theft vs. witnessing Other defensive actions taken by members of the respondents' households included installing a burglar alarm (22%), keeping a "trained dog" (17%), keeping lights on a night (39%), and installing security locks (38%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study by Williams et al. was to investigate the degree and correlates of defensive behaviors chosen by crime concerned school adolescents.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors conducted a secondary analysis of data collected from youth participating in a larger South Atlantic City school system study (1986), which focused on "youth safety." The authors stated that the items contained in the original study did not completely reflect those required for the present study. However, the authors claimed that there were a sufficient number of questionnaire items related to the types of behaviors chosen by respondents' as a result of crime concerns. 1,774 (83%), of an initial sample of 2,132 middle and high school students, completed a self-administered questionnaire. The authors found that the racial composition of the sample was 86% African-Americans, 12% white, and 2% other. The composition was reported to be representative of the entire secondary school student population. Students were asked to list the type of defensive behaviors that they, or their families, had taken in response to their fear of crime. They were provided with a choice of eight responses. The authors conducted a contingency analysis, using nine predictors, for a distribution of behaviors taken. The authors reported that the predictors included general safety perception, having had witnessed or been a victim of crime, and victimization type (e.g., theft vs. violent). The authors reported that general safety perception answers were based on five point Likert scale responses regarding the respondents' feelings of safety at home and at school. The choices they had made to change/limit outside activities because of fear was responded to with "yes" or "no." These item responses were summated and clustered in three "safety" classes: high, somewhat safe, and low. The authors stated that socio-demographic variables, including sex, race, grade, housing, and families receipt of public assistance as representative of family socioeconomic status, were investigated.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors found that more than 57% of respondents indicated at least one type of defensive behavior because of crime concerns. More collective reactions (e.g., household action) were reported than personal actions. Household actions included leaving lights on, security lock installation, burglar alarm installation, keeping a watch dog. The authors found that having an escort when leaving home was the most frequently reported defensive behavior response (57.5%). Almost 20% reported having learned self-defense, 10.2% had carried a repellant, and 3.9% reported having used a whistle. The authors found that those who had observed a crime, had carried a whistle and those who hadn't seen a crime did not carry a whistle. The authors also found that when respondents who had ranked "high" on perceived safety were compared with respondents who had ranked "moderate" or "low," they were significantly less likely to have had carried a whistle (gamma = .181). The authors stated that females were 25% more likely to report needing an escort at night, compared with males. The authors claimed that their prediction error was reduced by over 48% when using gender. The authors stated that youth who lived in subsidized housing, who perceived "low" safety, and who had witnessed, or been a victim of, a crime, were significantly less likely to walk alone at night. Younger youth who were concerned about crime, had lived in subsidized housing, and where perceived safety was low, were significantly more likely to report that they had learned self-defense. The authors stated that they had used perceived safety, or residence, to predict whether one would undertake learning self-defense as a result of crime concerns and reduce prediction error by 20%. The authors stated that older youths, who perceived moderate or low safety, and who were witnesses and/or victims of crime, were more likely to carry mace. The authors stated that using any one of the above variables to predict carrying a repellent reduced prediction error by 15%. The authors reported that being witness to a crime was the strongest indicator for learning self-defense (gamma = .244).
The authors concluded that restricting one's mobility was the most common type of defensive behavior in response to crime concerns. The authors also stated that when these youths did go out they took precautions to increase their safety.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors recommended that aggressive, collective programs and comprehensive plans be implemented for the improvement of community safety and the reduction of pervasive fear that exists among citizens.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Urban Youth
Urban Crime
Fear of Crime
Crime Perceptions
Juvenile Perceptions
Self Defense
Juvenile Victim
Juvenile Witness
Witnessing Violence Effects
Fear of Violence
Violence Perceptions
Violence Effects
Crime Effects
Language: en |