“Measuring What Matters: Crime, Disorder, and Fear.” National Institute of Justice:
Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings, July 1999 (NCJ 170610),
p. 37-54.
This chapter considers two issues: 1) measuring the possible effects of an innovative policing program, and
2) doing so in a framework that could support the inference that the program caused variations that the
measurements might reveal. Measurement involves (among other things) the collection of data that
represent–sometimes only indirectly–the problems that programs target. These are “outcome” measures,
and it is vital that they represent the scope of a program’s intentions as accurately as possible. One cannot
divorce what is measured from how the measures can be linked causally to programs. What evaluators call
the “logic model” of a program–how, exactly, it is supposed to have its desired effect–needs to be specified
clearly enough that appropriate outcomes can be identified and their measures specified. For instance, if
evaluating a crime prevention program, exactly what kinds of crimes involving what kinds of victims during what
periods of the day or night should we examine for evidence of impact? This essay focuses on measurement
issues, but it addresses issues through concrete examples of how measures have been used to make
judgements about the impact of programs. It examines some of the experiences the evaluation community
has had in taking the vital signs of a community by measuring crime, disorder, and fear.
Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings, July 1999 (NCJ 170610),
p. 37-54.
This chapter considers two issues: 1) measuring the possible effects of an innovative policing program, and
2) doing so in a framework that could support the inference that the program caused variations that the
measurements might reveal. Measurement involves (among other things) the collection of data that
represent–sometimes only indirectly–the problems that programs target. These are “outcome” measures,
and it is vital that they represent the scope of a program’s intentions as accurately as possible. One cannot
divorce what is measured from how the measures can be linked causally to programs. What evaluators call
the “logic model” of a program–how, exactly, it is supposed to have its desired effect–needs to be specified
clearly enough that appropriate outcomes can be identified and their measures specified. For instance, if
evaluating a crime prevention program, exactly what kinds of crimes involving what kinds of victims during what
periods of the day or night should we examine for evidence of impact? This essay focuses on measurement
issues, but it addresses issues through concrete examples of how measures have been used to make
judgements about the impact of programs. It examines some of the experiences the evaluation community
has had in taking the vital signs of a community by measuring crime, disorder, and fear.
“The Various Meanings of Fear," in Wolfgang Bilsky, Christian Pfeiffer and Peter
Wetzels (eds.), The Fear of Crime and Criminal Victimization. Stuttgart: Enke, 1993,
131-140.
There have been several efforts to clarify the meaning of the concept of "fear of crime". Most found it
troublesome that there is no clear consensus among researchers on what the concept fear of crime means or
how it is best measured. This chapter argues that this apparent heterogeneity of meaning simply reflects the
fact that fear of crime is a general concept. It is suited for everyday conversation (Americans frequently talk
about fear of crime and its social and political effects), but the concept needs to be refined for research
purposes. How it is best defined depends upon the purpose of the research and the theoretical framework
within which the research is being conducted. Therefore, any specific definition of fear of crime is not correct or
incorrect; rather, it is either useful or not useful, and that is revealed by the results of the research. Most
research on fear of crime seems to conceptualize fear in one of four ways. Three of these definitions are
cognitive in nature; they reflect people's concern about crime, their assessments of personal risk of
victimization, and the perceived threat of crime in their environment. The remaining approach to defining fear is
behavioral; some studies conceptualize fear entirely in how it is reflected in things that people do in response
to crime. Dissecting these variations in how fear of crime is defined is important, because they make a great
deal of difference in what researchers have found. Different definitions of fear can lead to different substantive
research conclusions. This is particularly apparent in research on the elderly, one of the special foci of the
KFN's victimization research. A large body of research suggests that for many older persons fear of crime,
rather than actual victimization, presents the biggest problem. It is often claimed the elderly living in American
cities are over-concentrated in bad neighborhoods and are concerned about conditions and crime in their
neighborhood. It is also claimed that the elderly feel hopelessly vulnerable to crime, which can be evaluated
using measures of self-diagnosed risk. Finally, it is claimed the elderly are "prisoners of fear," traumatized by
the thought of venturing out because of the risks they would face. However, an inspection of the various
meanings of fear indicates that this conclusion is highly dependent upon what definition of fear is used. By
many measures the elderly are not more fearful at all. This chapter illustrates this, using surveys from the US,
Britain, and the Western area of the Federal Republic.
Wetzels (eds.), The Fear of Crime and Criminal Victimization. Stuttgart: Enke, 1993,
131-140.
There have been several efforts to clarify the meaning of the concept of "fear of crime". Most found it
troublesome that there is no clear consensus among researchers on what the concept fear of crime means or
how it is best measured. This chapter argues that this apparent heterogeneity of meaning simply reflects the
fact that fear of crime is a general concept. It is suited for everyday conversation (Americans frequently talk
about fear of crime and its social and political effects), but the concept needs to be refined for research
purposes. How it is best defined depends upon the purpose of the research and the theoretical framework
within which the research is being conducted. Therefore, any specific definition of fear of crime is not correct or
incorrect; rather, it is either useful or not useful, and that is revealed by the results of the research. Most
research on fear of crime seems to conceptualize fear in one of four ways. Three of these definitions are
cognitive in nature; they reflect people's concern about crime, their assessments of personal risk of
victimization, and the perceived threat of crime in their environment. The remaining approach to defining fear is
behavioral; some studies conceptualize fear entirely in how it is reflected in things that people do in response
to crime. Dissecting these variations in how fear of crime is defined is important, because they make a great
deal of difference in what researchers have found. Different definitions of fear can lead to different substantive
research conclusions. This is particularly apparent in research on the elderly, one of the special foci of the
KFN's victimization research. A large body of research suggests that for many older persons fear of crime,
rather than actual victimization, presents the biggest problem. It is often claimed the elderly living in American
cities are over-concentrated in bad neighborhoods and are concerned about conditions and crime in their
neighborhood. It is also claimed that the elderly feel hopelessly vulnerable to crime, which can be evaluated
using measures of self-diagnosed risk. Finally, it is claimed the elderly are "prisoners of fear," traumatized by
the thought of venturing out because of the risks they would face. However, an inspection of the various
meanings of fear indicates that this conclusion is highly dependent upon what definition of fear is used. By
many measures the elderly are not more fearful at all. This chapter illustrates this, using surveys from the US,
Britain, and the Western area of the Federal Republic.
Fear of Crime Abstracts
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |