Golden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital Commons

California Assembly California Documents

5-1985

An Evaluation of the California Community CrimeResistance ProgramsAssembly Office of Research

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly

Part of the Legislation Commons

This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in California Assembly by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contactjfischer@ggu.edu.

Recommended CitationAssembly Office of Research, "An Evaluation of the California Community Crime Resistance Programs" (1985). California Assembly.Paper 326.http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly/326

prepared by Assembly Office of Research

070-A

I

Honorable Tom Hayden Member of the Assembly State Capitol, Room 2141

Dear Assemblyman Hayden:

May 20, 1985

The Assembly Office of Research has been studying the appropriateness, costs, and results of punishments available under California law and comparing them to other possible sanctions which could be more effective and/or less costly. A previous report, "The Costs and Benefits of Prison Sentences for Burglars," issued in February 1984, examined the costs and benefits of recent sentencing laws for the crime of burglary.

This report evaluates the California Community Crime Resistance Program and makes recommendations for continuing the program, which is scheduled to terminate in January 1986. The report also suggests possible improvements in the program.

Sincerely,

PETER R. CHACON

PRC:

'

OF

PROGRAMS

• rc

n 1 an Associate Consultant

compiled by: ie Agata ior Consultant

y ce

s

Poli

sea

sembly

i rman , Vice

r the

i Res eo.

i rman

1 1 3

7

7

7 10 12

16

V: RECOMMENDATTONS Intr0duction ..... Lift the Sunset on CCR

Program . . . . . i Ongoi Funding CCR Programs

ise Lim ton Maximum Grants . Streamline Reporting Requirements

and Increase Accountabi 1 i ty . . . Review Targeting of the Elderly ..

iew ram Designs ..... .

APPF~OI A: CHAPT 578, STATUTES OF 1978

IX R:

APPENDIX C:

I ON FOR ING nt'ARTERLY PROGRESS REP0PT

YSIS OF Vf1RI.ANCE PROCEDURE IJSEn TO IN DIFFERENCES H! BURGLARY RATES

49

49

54

61

71

ce nal

ties loca

y

anni (OCJP) began funding the

Program as a pilot program in 1980.

ies and community development

ies.

incidence of crimes and to

in the crime resistance

were awa , community crime

involve members of

reduce the vulnerability of

zations, and home

ex pee community services.

minimum necessi es for

are components of many other

as victim and witness

sis counseling, and juvenile

me prevent future victimization.

i Crime istance Program has been to

commercial burglaries and reduce

se Communi istance ram

term on lyman Tom

Ass CE'

Community me istance

evalua the c resistance

success 1 ' suggest ways

examine the ip

the resulting changes in the r as wel as

relationship between the characteri cs lat on in t commu

served and the success of the programs.

-ii-

I

on

I i sta nee

and

f a 1

u i

ram was

ia

, ( .l \

s f

i ne),

k

(See

s program

to

, each local

ig bil

activi 1evels o

cooperation wi

to con so 1 i

federa 1

crime in

0

vehi e

11

• I

' • • I

commu

commu

1

1

i or

rams

s

0

In

i

s

were

on ary 1.

ni

g local

were

tion, th

rams

1) recruit, train, use u

local me on

inc se ci zen i nv

3) ca l oca 1 resi inesses in res

techniques

4) To train cers ni as

in me prevention

5) To es lish comprehensive

6) To conduct home and sines securi i i

7) To assist in <:level new or i rc

standards and ordinances in a si

8) To -C"ci Q,.,.,»Jl t in el a

tic vi enc

To assi in i a

assault

ch program director ich 4- a e ec d l.

inclu as ls 1 oca 1 c p ram

to achieve those goals. In i

target areas were sel w in i s al res

were to made.

h prov a quarter

quarterly inc uded resi al a commerc al

A

on

inc eval ion

were ly in

r crime

p c

loca

s s i in program

a t b 1 c p

iverse la-

ons had

and

communities

s g n The

s

Bal n Berkel Contra ) Fresno Hawthorne los Angeles 2 Menlo Park Modesto Palmdale Paramount Sacramento San Francisco San Mateo . ) Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Monica Sausali Union Visalia

Covina Yuba

7

more r.

and Union 1 lations of

le se

are a

ali

communities a ncisco and

)

5.2

ons in

Nineteen a

55 are

"t . cn,ena ram

was the number citizens

of vi cti zation. e 3 s

juri sdi cti ons rtici +. c-l s

the median the at cen

residents of the communities, i l e column

tvla teo, San ncisco~

City, Baldwin rk, t na a

uctu t on n cr me

proportion

teen a

increase i a

the p f each communi

?0 5

"crime II ri n a t s li

proportion + c i

activities ai p i i

you 1 offe

Over ons

Hawthorne, Paramount nta t ' a t

15 and Sta

15 a

es

• (Co.) 9.1

.l

i is

20.7% .3

17.1 .5 .2 .8 .9 .7

18.4 .3

18.1 .7 .1 .2

.1 9.5

.4

.0

.4

.6

.0

Employment, Income, and Poverty

Table 4 illustrates the economic diversity of the 21

jurisdictions. According to 1980 census data, the

per capita ranges from a high of $20,586 in Sausali

fourth that amount in Baldwin Park and Hawthorne (~4,

annual income

to less than one

5 and .M,

respectively). The proportion of families living on an income below the

federal poverty standard is highest in Paramount (16.0 percent), Bal~1in

Park (13.2 percent), and Los Angeles (13.0 percent). The jurisdictions

with the smallest percentage of families living in poverty are st Covina

(4.2 percent), San Mateo (4.4 percent), Menlo Park (5.1 percent), and

Sausalito (5.6 percent). Statewide, the average income is

8.7 percent of the families below the federal poverty lev

-12-

4

6.6 7o4 8 3~6 4.5

.3 .9

.4 .6 5 9 1

8.5 7. 6.5 4 8 9.4 5.7 6 4 6 7 5.

5 B. 5. 8 8 5 ? 7 3

!) . 7 6 • 9.9 7.8

t communi

' J ' .1

( (1 .1

tistics for the preceding two r·s show t t

recess ior: between 1 and 1983 affected these iurisdictions ly.

Du ng this period the unemployment rate in Modesto and Paramou

3.6 percentage points while Santa Rarbara (1.0 ion Ci

(1.5 percent), and San Mateo (1.6 percent) experienced increases less

than ~. percenta points.

Crime in the Program Jurisdictions

The nffice of Criminal Justice Planning publishes annual reports

comparing the number of major crimes reported in each California

jurisdiction. Table 5 summarizes the numbers and rates of such

reported to the law enforcement offices in each of the pro(lram communitie

in The first column shows the number of major crimes reported, while

the second column shows the rate of the crimes per 1 ,nno pers 1 vi

in

to

communi

ice d

ma.i or pu

fou fi

a commercial

Column 3 shows the ranking of each ju sdic on

iff jurisdictions in the state.

the CCR programs was to reduce burgl

columns of Table 5 show the total number of resi al

rglaries reported during calendar year 19Rl, year j

or to the granting of CCR program funds. This period wil trea

n

rqla tes

assess the effects of the

owing years.

-14-

as

e 5

t, e

ice Services in the Program Jurisdictions

umwa zes a s ice

n

cap E:Y

re ti e e

Baldwin Park Berkeley

c ons

res over the 3-year peri i an i

o each community.

e 6

Police Per Capita Expendi

Per Capita Expenditures

1980-81

s 45 65

1982-83

$ 55 111

1983-84

s 57

Contra Costa (Co.) Fresno Hawthorne los Angeles Menlo Park Modesto Palmdale Paramount Sacramento San Francisco San Mateo (Co.) Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Monica Sausalito Un Ci Visalia West na Yuba City

81 73

146 51 61

53 95

152

84 76 71

139 58 54 60 65

81 111 164 91 80 60 68

102 210

96 105 86

188 74 62 81 85

95 130

47

74

99 109 97

71

*Data for San Mateo and Contra Costa counties have been because of the difficulty in determining comparable ~A·~~··u totals between city and countywide jurisdictions.

-16-

the

Per capita police ex itures shovJ significant varia ion

5u s c ons. FY 1 • these 1 . po. 1 ce

to lS2 cap ta. By 1983-84, these ita

ncrea n ranging from to

On an individual basis, however. the changes in per cap t2 i-

tures in ,iuri sdi ons exhibit a wider range. Per ca itures

in 1 o Pa lined .5 percent between 1980 a 1 wh e

its capita expenditures by 78 percent. cos

statewide increased slightly less than 30 percent during this same

Community Crime Resistance Program Funding

Since 79-80, Communi me Resistance p rams have n awa

over $4.5 million in state and federal funds. The original program ra

\'/ere $500,000 of redirected federa 1 Law t sis nee

Administration nts and a matching amount from s 1

;'l.fter enactment Chapter 1 1, which became ive ,Janua 1 ' 1

each participating local a was required to provide 10

ram's total i for the first r and rcen

maximum grant was limited by statute 000.

's ons to local CCR programs come

1 The state ri on v1as 7,

a FY -84. FY s a on was

$

7 s amounts gr,ants awa to t

ocal p over r riod. The a t column c

-17-

s i level of the total -year ea ram.

1 ca amount which could be awa ram

n consi le dispa ty programs in

s r capita. le, the ci of Los es rece a

equivalent to 7 cent person, while San Francisco 1 S grant was cents

smE lest communi es, Seusalito lmdale, rece

gran equivalent .38 and $3.3? person, i y.

Table 7

Amount of Grants Awarded to Each Community Crime Resistance Program

First Second Year Year

Grant Grant Total Capita

Ba 1 dwi n Hi 11 s $ 32~385 $ 26,987 $ 59,372 Berkeley 45,000 32,772 77,772 Contra Costa (Co.) 58,770 52,240 111,010 Fresno 125,000 112,500 237,500 Hawthorne 50~000 45s000 95,000 los Angeles 125,.000 112,500 237 Menlo Park 30,000 27,000 57,000 Modesto 48,207 43~386 91, 0 Palmdale 30,000 279000 57,.000 3. Paramount 26,238 ?3,614 49,852 1 Sacramento 123,249 109,063 232,.312 0. San Francisco 125,000 112,500 237,500 0. San Mateo 111,699 100,528 n2~~221 2 Santa Ana 75,267 67~740 143,007 0.64 Santa Barbara 44,283 39,198 83,481 1.08 Santa Monica 50,000 45,000 95~000 1 Sausalito 30,000 25,977 ,977 7 Union Ci 30,000 ,694 ,694 l. Visalia ?8,270 ,439 :.709 0 West na 50~000 45,000 ,000 1.07 Yuba City "9~982 24~074 54,056 2.63

Sources: Office of Criminal Justice Planning, 11 Cali ia Community Crime Resistance Program; Annual Report, April 1982 to June 1984." November 1~ 1984.

-18-

•

ic

resistance

of resi

on

incl

a

senior citizens

in

recrui

g

in

Community Crime Program Activities

an init al p 1 containi

ted and quarterly reports to

ieve the objectives. Reduci

commercial burglaries was menti as

ing programs. All of the p rams

educate citizens and business owners

proposals contained descriptions of activities

burglary. Curbing domestic violence wa

ec ives

on c

t

i

lp

ls while four programs offe services aimed

1 assault. objectives were r:

u and ock ca ins, initiation

ness watch rams, securi ins i OilS. a

tten in na i s e and

niti ons i

services and activ

X B ins a samp·l ing

' some did not contain in forma ion about

recruited or number of neig h g

ess, we attempted summarize

to provide a profile of t activiti

bles, the fact t data are not s s

mean the program did not provide t serv ce or

vi Only informa on which Itt as reported in a manner

other programs could be included i les.

-1

Use of Volunteers in Crime Resistance

xteen CCR programs proposed to recruit and train volunteers

out various tas Some programs recruited Boy Scouts, while others

concRntrated on involving senior citizens. These volunteers worked with

local police on activities such as administrative duties, riding along with

police patrols, engraving valuables, installing locks, speaking on behalf

of the CCR program, and substituting for sworn peace officers in organizing

neighborhood watch groups.

During the April 1902 to June 1984 grant award period, CCR programs

recruited and trained a total of over 3,080 volunteers. These volunteers

contributed a total of 31,952 hours of community service. Table 8 shows

the number of volunteers and block captains reported by the programs in

each year of the grant period.

-20-

• Baldwin Berkeley

Table 8

Volunteers and Block Captains Recruited by Community Crime Resistance Programs

Volunteers Block Ca~tains

Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

157 283 70 58

Contra Costa (Co.) Fresno 43 206 249 Hawthorne 30 13 43 los Angeles 406 302 708 143 435 Menlo Park 22 Modesto 86 20 Palmdale 42 27 69 Paramount 27 Sacramento 161 47 208 San Francisco 27 208 San Mateo (Co.) 35 Santa Ana 47 n/a Santa Barbara 126 Santa Monica 35 93 Sa usa 1 ito

ty

168 134

-21-

Total

70

578

22 79

208

5~0

27

302 27

Resisting Residential Burglary

6, neighborhood watch groups were reported by CCR programs.

groups provide ? way for neighbors to meet and learn to aware of

the normal comings and goings of the persons living in the neighborhood.

Pesi~ents are 1n tructed on procedures for making their homes sa and for

reporting suspic ous activities to the police. Many programs provide crime

resistance pamphlets and other educational materials.

Over h,OOO home security inspections, conducted by reace officers or

trained volunteers, were reported by most programs as another means of

preventing burglaries. These inspections ~ere often conducted in the

presence of a group in one home or apartment in order to show neighbors how

to "nspect their own homes.

Table 9 sumrr:arizes the number of neighborhood watch groups

+he number of

ndinq.

security inspections conducted during the two years

-22-

Table 9

Neighborhood Watch and Home Security Inspections in Community Crime Resistance Programs

Neighborhood Watch Home Security Ins~ection

Year 1 Year 2 Total Year 1 Year 2 Total

Baldwin Park 77 72 149 206 240 446 Berkeley 68 126 194 135 160 295 Contra Costa (Co.) Fresno 807 402 1,209 341 1,311 1,652 Hawthorne 13 13 Los Angeles 331 1,042 19373 61 250 311 Menlo Park 26 14 40 64 24 88 Modesto 160 254 414 120 58 178 Palmdale 22 43 65 52 52 Paramount 42 42 30 30 Sacramento 98 142 240 San Francisco 152 129 281 78 177 255 San Mateo (Co.) 11 14 25 58 126 184 Santa Ana 50 50 Santa Barbara 104 117 221 519 808 1,.327 Santa Monica 29 24 53 81 81 Sausalito 45 27 72 91 50 141 Union City 101 95 196 393 918 Visalia 158 151 309 3 3 West Covina 160 121 281 Yuba City 29 22 15 15

-23-

Reducing the Vulnerability of Individuals and Seniors to Crime

The legislation which established the Community Crime Resi

Program required that each local program emphasize services for

elderly, as defined in the statute. While programs specifically

mentioned services for the elderly in their approved funding proposals, 18

reported data for one or more such activities. These programs conducted

over 300 senior citizen safety awareness seminars dealing with such topics

as personnel safety, home security, and fraud prevention. Some p rams

provided and installed deadbolt locks, while others coordinated services to

the elderly with existing victim and witness assistance services.

Personal safety seminars, many emphasizing rape prevention, were

conducted by many of the programs. Table 10 summarizes the senior and

personal safety seminars and workshops conducted.

-24-

Table 10

Senior Crime Resistance and Personal Safety Seminars Conducted by the

Community Crime Resistance Programs

Programs for Seniors Personal Safety Programs

Year 1 Year 2 Year Year I' Total

Baldwin Park 6 36 n 57 Berkeley 14 65 65 Contra Costa (Co.) Fresno u 9 6 Hawthorne 16 1 17

Angeles Menlo Park 5 5 8 8 Modesto 4 4 8 1 1 Palmdale 0 6 6

1 1 8

San Francisco Mateo (Co.)

Ana 4 Santa Barbara 6 0 6 4 4 Santa Monica 6 40 46 5 5 Sausalito 2 2 1 1 2 Union City 9 9 Visalia 5 2

Covina 20 20 Yuba City 2 7 3 3

Business Workshops and Inspections

The O-Ffice Criminal Justice Planning interpreted the nine statu

program ls into program "components, 11 one of which is 11 to provide

businesses crime prevention services, including education, training and

security inspections. "1 Over 739 workshops vtere reported by 17

jurisdictions, involving more than ?,153 businesses. In addition, over

1,000 business security checks were performed. Table ll shows the reported

activities of the CCR programs to reduce commercial burglaries during the

two-year reporting period.

10ffice of Criminal ,Justice Planning, California Community Crime Resistance Program, Annual Report April 1982 to June 1984, November 1, 1984, Sacramento, p. R.

-26-

e 1

l 1 ---- ---~

1 16

• (Co.) 5 5

Angeles 86 153 o Park 2 11

Modesto 4 4 6 6 e 15

Paramount 2 2 Sacramento 16

Francisco San Mateo (Co.) Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Monica Sausalito 9 9 8

on City 6 7 salia 1

Covina 6 6 Yuba City 2 2 93

-2

Other Program Activities

Some the programs offered other services, as traini

programs r cers in crime resistance and communi involvement

presentations for school age children on crime resi se

domestic violence, and vandalism.

Several programs held community rallies to promote crime resi tance a

disseminate information. Other programs used the media (radio,

and newspaper) to promote crime resistance efforts.

Summary

levision

The preceding demographic analysis of the 21 participati communi es

indicates great differences with respect to their size, wealth, and ethnic

and racial composition. The correlation coefficien in le 1

additional analysis of demographic characteristics amonq the ')

communities.' Per capita income is positively and signi

with the percentage of white citizens (.59) and the per

(.71). Conversely, capita income is negatively and signi ca

correlated to the percentage of the population ages 1 {-.

percentage of Hispanics in the community (-.58), and the empl

(-.55). The percenta9e of white residents is strongly

(negatively) with the percentage of Hispanics in community.

:>n ~The correlations coefficient is a statis c which varies

and -1.00 and shows direction and strength of the rel two variables.

-28-

grant

ita

n l. tween

Elderly

Whi

Black

Hispanic

Unemployed

Populat1on change

Capi Police

Per ta

*Bold indi

.,

Table 12

Correlations Between Characteristics of the Connunity Crime Resistance Jurisdictions

i -·-·~- ---~- --- -·-·-

.37

.59 .39

- . 1

-e -.48 47 - .. 84

-. -.3 .41 -.1 -.0?.

-. -.54 . - ' - . . .2 ·- . - .3 -.1

- -. . . . .

.05 or

•

on ce -----

-. . . '

grants were a1 so ignificantly correlated to the percentage of ite

population while at the same time negatively correlated with the percentage

of 15- to ~4-year-olds .

.L\mong the criteria for selection of CCR program funding are number

and percentage of e 1 derly in the community. This criterion was not fully

realized. Although the elderly within a CCR community were v y and

successfully targeted, in the aggregate, CCR communities were uni ly

"elderly." Eleven of the CCR communities had a percentage of elderly less

than the statewide average (19.5 percent). In addition, 12 of CCR

communities show median ages less than the statewide median of 29.9 year.

In characterizing the 21 CCR communities, the following sta

be made:

• The larger the elderly population~ the lower the proportion

1 24 year olds and Hispanics

t The larger the percentage of 15-?4 year olds, the higher

proportion of Hispanics, the lower the percentage of white

population and the per capita CCR grant

t The strongest correlation indicates that the greater whi

ts ca

population, the smaller the Hispanic population, indicating white

and Hispanic isolation from one another in CCR communities (similar

significant correlations are not evident between the black

population and the Hispanic or white populations)

-30-

• Communities with higher per capita income, tend to higher

percentages of whi population and lower o ic

population

capita income, larger percentages of whi

of youth population age 1 24

-31-

, a lower rcenta

III

RESUlTS OF THE COMMUNITY CRIME RESISTANCE PROGRAM

on

the CCR ram is is a cu tc

answer simply. The 1 " the

occurrence of crime, is unmeasura e. How can we count the

mes were never commi

mes actual

Other measures of succes

avail le. For example, we can

resistance program communi es wi

levels citizen rtic tion as ev

the programs. In addition, the

ect a high level isfacti

the CCR program.

This chapter evaluates

d mensions:

3

we are uncerta n of number of

p rams are more rea

ra in cr

peop e s s isfaction with

of law enforcement personne wil

and nee

veness p ram on

I

rose

6.0

similar

15.8

rate

s

s

•

i a burgla es

.8

1983

, the

laries and 1 .3

1982-83 1981-82 1980-81 1979-80 1978-79 1977~78

Index

i

1

ci i communities. In fact 8 of the 21 communities showed

ce statewide average with 3 of these communities reporting

over 3 times the statewide average -9.6 percent.

Table 14

Percentage Changes in Residential Burglaries in CCR Communities

1981-82 1982-83 1981-83

Baldwin Park -38.5% -13.3% -46.7% Berkeley -23.0 10.5 -14.9 Contra Costa (Co.} - 6.7 -10.0 -16.1 Fresno 3.3 - 8.4 - 5.4 Hawthorne -13.3 -18.6 -29.4 los Angeles - 5.8 - 6.5 -11.9 Menlo Park -16.3 9.0 - 8.8 Modesto -12.6 -24.4 -34.0 Palmdale 28.5 13.4 45.7 Paramount 4.8 3.0 7.9 Sacramento -18.8 3.0 -16.4 San Francisco -26.5 - 9.1 -33.2 San Mateo (Co.) -19.9 -13.8 -31.0 Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Monica Sausalito Union ty Vi sa lia West Covina Yuba City

Statewide

(-

-18.6 -14.8 -30.7 -29.2 -32.4 -52.1 -23.3 3.8 -20.4 -50.3 32.4 -34.3 -25.6 4.4 -22.3 -15.6 -14.9 -28.2 -13.4 -16.2 -27.4 -16.6 - 5.1 -20.8

- 9.6 - 7.3 -16.3

t reductions in residential burglaries occurred in Sausalito

nd ldwin Park (-38.5 percent). In contrast, three

communities recorded ncreases in residential burglaries during their first

r.

-36-

I

in reported commercial

1 and 1983. Community

commercial burglaries are more

laries.

e

Reported aries

1982-83 1981-83

49.5% 31.9% 4.9 -23.7

-10.9 - 7.5 -11.2 -19.2 25.1 36.7

- 5 - 0.0 .2 -18.9

-31.4 -42.6 .2 -25.5 .9 -45.0

- ~.2 - 4.2 .0 -26.3 .5 -18.0

-10.1 - 8.3 9.5 -19.7

Santa Monica 7.2 - 0.2 -14.3 -59.0 -4.6 4.4

.4 -25.9 -10 6.6 - 1.6 -49.4

- 8.8 -11.3

.8 percent, two communi es,

t Palmdale

significant increases du is i

communities reported decreases

statewide average.

in Target

Nine CCR program agencies me s cs reas

regions or neighborhoods chosen ia1 programs or ve

efforts. The table below s in

burglaries for these nine ci es.

e

Percentage Change Reported Burgl in Target Areas

Commerci

footnote

determine if

ta areas

commercial

decline in

in areas

explanation

sta stical procedure, we tested the crime rate data to

re was a si ificant difference between results in the

communities as a whole. resi ial

la es, was no di resul The rate of

number reported burglaries was not significantly greater

specia on. Appendix C for a iled

ANOVA anal is.)

There are several possible explanations why the success rate in

targeted areas was not signi cantly higher than in the untargeted areas,

for example:

1 Su cient services may not have been provided in target areas to

stify ir being considered a different program than that

pro vi elsewhere in community

e me lem i target areas may be so more severe than in

the ci ive were , even if

a greate resu t coul rea i

' G r c me resistance awareness in areas may e

produced mm'e

actu

avai 1

s i e

reporting of bu laries, which could mask an

se in c mes committed

are not suffi ci to distinguish the effects of

ion.

-40-

1

sta

universe

resi

1 a

Per Capita Income Elderly Youth (15-24) White Black. Hispanic Unempl

1

Note:

bu

ch rae i

rcenta

c s

is not surprising considering the small

anal is'. Over the two-year

s si ificantly correlated with

lained changes in population between

e17

nn·nJ~'8" Percentage Change in and Characteristics of

Prevention Program Cities

Connercial Burglaries

1981-83

-.43 -.22

.19 -.53

.30

.39

.11 -.04 -.45

cant at the .05 level or better. All The correlations for changes in

per 100,000 population) showed no e above.

y correlated with commercial

ite population (R=.53) and per capita

are small, however, showing that only

commercial rglaries can be explained by

community and only ?.0 percent of the

-42-

i can la

8

n

s i

i

ons Interpreting the Data

done ca s place t proportion of crime that goes

un changes in the tendency to report or not

report s cally significant changes in the

n r f year. One of the results of the CCR

program tion tween citizens and law enforcement.

Another ram's neighborhood watch component is the

encouragi suspicious activity which might

otherwise

•

reason

sma

severa ns

reasons

conclus

In J

nei

ci

a scale of one

g

is

on

vo

c

watch

ipation in crime

t an

tions of ,000

comment on

s i nee 1981. Of

s

frequently

Summary

istance programs are perceived by

effective means of reducing crime.

cit zen and

e data

is accurate. In many cases, burglaries decl in

es at a faster rate than in state as a e.

t efforts to specific areas the

ive programs have produced significant resu ts.

would require information on crime in

ni es.

target areas

istance communities s impressive success in

burglary in the first year. while having a more

second year. Program communities also showed moderate

commercial burglary rates, although first and second

relatively stable. percentage wh tes n a

n population were statistically associ with

es. Per Capita Grants levels were also shown to

to bu aries. Twenty percent of the decrease in

was explained by an increase in per capi CCR

-47-

i

I a

p

i

ncreasi

l securi

ra than

i i a.

t

is a

iti on, the

enormous.

ram be

Genera 1ly,

younger than

predominant

incomes

poverty lev

low-income communi

therefore, most

volunteers.

communities

with relativel

rime resis

a you

n

suggestion

or

in l s.

To i 1E:ment

reli e source

der

law

lower grants.

ci zens are

younger, more

1 ov-1er per capita

ow federa 1

that many

ion and are,

efforts with

to nclude more

dened so that communities

p ram

i in t

The special

ions of teenagers

1 i

orities.

1 materials

as a

diminished

in scope and

broadened,

that funds

Officers'

•

Training Fund or the Drivers Training Penalty Assessment Fund be rerirected

to establish a CCR fund.

A penalty assessment of $4 on every $10, or fraction thereof, assessed

on penal or vehicle code fines or ~orfeitures will yield total revenues of

$130.5 million in FY 1985-86. From these penalty assessment revenues,

appropri ons are made to such programs as the Peace Officers' Training

Fund and the Drivers Training Penalty Assessment Fund. Each fund has had a

budget surplus for the past three fiscal years. Table ?0 summc zes the

amounts of funds in reserve or transferred to the General Fund.

Table 20

End of Year Status of Funds in Thousands of Dollars

Peace Officers• Training fund~ End of year reserves

Drivers Training Penalty Assessment Fund, Transfers

General Fund

1983-84

6,764

25,694

1984-85

6,937

13,764

Source: Governor's Budget: 1985-86, pp. SG-13~ E-31.

1985-86

844

18,561

administered programs providing services crime v c ms at

local level are funded by penalty assessment monies. These monies

c me resis nee programs are continued and that new efforts are

encou

-51-

A tota

rv 1985

Fund.

As an 1

any one program

California, the 1

for large communities.

~!e recommend

~50,000 be based on

on the size

guC!ranteed

Alternati

to community

spec area

vers

ld

in

requested for

Penalty Assessment

imit program grants to

ice all citizens of

resul in severe underfunding

jurisdictions of over

all grants should be based

t large communities must be

e level of service.

in large jurisdictions

ve services to

Streamline Reporting Requirements and Increase Accountability

The narra ve s

provided exi

community. resu t

always provi

programs are ex

rlirector

services, cannot

n

ied by the CCR programs

circumstances of each

program and did not

programs. As the CCR

and standardized. The

providing essential

ng or overly detailed

s

other hand, it is essential to be able to account for the

iture of public funds.

, therefore, that OCJP issue guidelines for a simple

The report should incorporate:

volunteers recruited and/or trained each quarter

volunteer hours of work

neighborhood watch meetings held

home security inspections

programs for senior citizens

programs directed to teenagers and young adults

personal safety programs

siness watch meeting~ held

siness security inspections

rti~i on in each CCR program

complete information on the number of burglaries

(Data should be consistent with the Uniform Crime Report

the Bureau of Criminal Statistics.)

are essential for assessing the effectiveness of the

addition, information on successful crime resistance efforts

on will provide guidance to new programs in communities

lation characteristics.

-53-

elderly,

not have uni

significantly d

measures

Consequently

citizens resi

evidence that e

11 number and o

fall owed.

We recommend

in an effort to i

jurisdictions

Program

in a

i

exceeded ons

In addi on rst

second year

the phasi

services i

first and

emphases An eva

might reveal cu

significant

t

y

is

l

have been targeted to the

communities as a whole did

communities were not

whole with respect to two

on over 55 years of age.

11 number of elderly

lemented. There is also no

funding be based on the

ms ... in that community11 was

ew i funding procedures and criteria

1 islative intent to target

state's elderly.

ons in residential burglaries

1 es in participating communities.

al burglaries also exceeded

suggest that OCJP should review

For ex amp 1 e, a review of

es might indicate that

fferent activities and

ng commercial burglaries

can be improved to have a

me.

•

recommend

is 1 e. i

veness

commercia bu aries .

rev ew program designs and recommend changes

ases d include: the improvement of

the improvement programs directed towards

crimt• resistance.

•

with Sect io11 to community

5. 197/l Filt•d with 1971!

enact as follows

13840) il-

resistanet· to crime and of both community

crime resistance citizen volunteers and

given recognition. In to recognize successful disseminate successful

local agencies to crime and related

or combinations thereof. 55 years of age

purposes. executive director on

funding will on Criminal Justict• in

to consist not more than 16 officials. two elected sh: law enforef'ment

successful of crime

of

undt•r (:riminal

t•valuated bv t-stablishe~l

appropriate appropriatl· for

comments to the Planning.

Criminal Justice to communities

programs in the California

13844 and 13845. be selected

the crime for

exceed a ($125,000) eight local

available under

chapter and Force, the

program and thf' California

chapter to the

and final the

Criminal Committe<> of

Novem~r l, the executive to Legislahue describing in d<·tail

and results from Resistance Program

supported undt·r California shall include a! lt•asl thn·1·

crime prt>vention programs eldt•rly. to training and victim and wilnes~

wwighborhood involve-mf'nt. such a.~. hul not clubs and other community bas('()

community orientation and

continue citizt'n been

of subdivi'iion (a) Section

by type, not limited in the community making the

citizens in community ratio elderly crime victims compared to

in that community of cooperation betwet'n the community

t"""""'m agency in with tlw crimf'

on part of the applicant to show how under this program l:w t~rdinated local, state or federal available for

in Section 13844 monitoring of all grants made

"'"''"<•h• y of the Office of Criminal JustiC('

programs shall madt· available communities through the California

Foret> technical assistanct> procedures

SEC 2. The California Council on Criminal Justice is encouraged to make funds available from the local share of federal money under its control to carry out this act

SEC 3. Section 1 of this act shall remain operative only until January 1. 1983. and on such date is repealed.

SEC 4 The crime rate in California has substantially increased over a 10-year period. The rate of increase over the last five years has been 20 percent (20%); and over the last 10 years has been at a rate of 93 percent (93%). This represents an average increase of almost 10 percent (10%) per year. The types of crime resistance activities to be supported under this act have generally been demom.trated to have a substantial and rapid effect in reducing local crime incidence.

-60-

rmTE:

L

A. B.

IL CR

A.

B.

I I L

A.

B.

c.

L

completing all section of the I

Subnit at 9719

.::::..._;~~

TO\'IARDS ACHIEVI

APPENDIX B

For this section If you do not have a p

1. 2. 3.

L

ective draw a slash

REPORTHJG FOR~1

res i a 1 d a the jurisdiction as a le

same quarter last year and the

de other s me you have

VITI & REPORT!

vi es scuss

\'I ere not

on

ca i

encountered? in i ne

ems

i re

v es u ion I.

your p

, fi 11 out the front bf the

the OCJP Control c Jl. ~..;;...;.....

ich re provided. P Program

cs for your target area. in quarter, as well as for prior to the start·of your

du

or to a pecific

the qua r which

explain.

Section I. example and the

? " p 1 el'ls were not specifically mentioned

is ions ProgramMatic: for it.

uested revi ion and justi cation

2.

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT

PART I: OBJECTIVES

Quarter Ending:

Project Sponsor: .---r----­( City or County

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE To recruit, train and use volunteers to carry out local crime prevention efforts.

Project Objectives:

Levels of Performance

Modification to Planned Strategies:

Unanticipated Resources/Difficulties:

-62-

p

citizen involvement in local crime measures includi e development

neighborhood watch groups; in and ing home sec ty inspec-

ining/educ ng community groups in crime resistance measures.

s:

6

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE #3: To train peace officers in crime prevention procedures.

Project Objectives:

Levels of Performance:

f•1odification to Planned Strategies:

Unanticipated Resources/Difficulties:

-64-

crime prevention

I

PROGRAM OBJECTIV To orovide commercial crime prevention services including education, training and security inspections.

Project Objectives:

Level of Performance:

Modification to Planned Strategies:

Unanticipated Resources/Difficulties:

-66-

To assist in the development of new or modification of existing architectural standards and ordinances in o r assi in crime prevention.

67-

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE #7: · To assist in the development and implementation of programs designed to reduce domestic violence.

Project Objectives:

Levels of Performance:

Modification to Planned Strategies:

Unanticipated Resources/Difficulties:

-68-

as ist in development and implementation rams designed to prevent sexual assaults .

•

I -.....! 0 I

PART I I: CRH~E REPORTING FORt1

]~_§_ El_I\_8I~.m _Q_A_T_~ fl_T_~L C_ O_[Jt !!J'.:_ W ID_!:_QA T ~

( Narne or II )

Stats for this Stats for Stats for Sarne Stats for Stats for Same ReiJort Feriotl Same Qtr. Qtr. of Year Stats for this Silllle Qtr. . of Year

CR!ME NONTHS ( quarter ) Last Year Prior to Project CRIME MONTHS Report Period L"st Year Prior to Proiect

, __ ---·--Res1dential Residential --· -Burglaries .Burglaries

1---

Total: Total: ----------- ----

!

-----Conune rc i a l

Commercial Burglaries ----- ---Burglaries

-----Total: Total: ------

FOR THOSE PROJECTS THJH ARE ALSO TARGETING OTHER CRIMES, SUCH AS RAPE, ARMED ROBBERY, ASSAULT, THEFT OVER $200, etc., PLEASE SPECIFY BELOW:

--------·--·- - - - ------

--------- ·- ·---.. ---

--Total: ---- Tot a 1: ------ ------

------- ------- --------------

-··----- - - ··~-···-- ··---1-

---

---- ·---Tot a 1: Total: ----- ----

--'- ---- -

APPENDIX C

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PROCEDURE USEO T() EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES BURGlARY RATES

ance ( l is a s istical technique used to

of independent, c1assification variables on a

variable. The variation in the dependent variable is

sa ained" to do the effects of the classification variables.

on, we examined the effects of targeting designated areas ~or

s nee p rams t programs, and different

lain" di ring rates of change in the number of

commercial burglaries.

ri zes ANOVA procedure used to explain changing rates

F statistic is a measure o+ the ratio of the

the to that attributed to random error. The

s t stic, the more vari ion in the dependent variable is

t The column PR is a measure o-f the

F s ti ic is stat i s t i ca 11 y significant. The smaller

more l i magnitu of the F is not the result

s a measure of the variation in the dependent variable

model. The independent variable Program*Year means the

classi cation effects.

-7

di

Model

1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

Table lC

ANOVA Explaining Differences in Changing Residential Burglary Rates

Independent Effects F PR

Targeting .06 .812 Program 1.56 .182 Year 9.15 .005 Targeting, 1.35 .260 Program Program, 3.24 .009 Year Targeting, 2.82 .017 Program, Year Prograa, 3.30 .008 Year, Program*Year Program, 2.97 .014 Year, Targeting, Program*Year

R2

.00

.32

.21

.32

.53

.53

.76

.76

Targeting special areas within the CCR program cities did not explQin

between residential burglaries in target areas and the city as

1 e. Di rences between the years of the program were significant,

t explain only 32 percent of the variation in burglary rates. Models

ve and six explain 53 percent o~ the variation in residential burglary

Models seven and eight. which contain the interactive effects

v iable, explain 7~ percent of the variation.

-72-

7