"Fear of Crime and Neighborhood Change," in Albert J. Reiss and Michael Tonry
(eds), Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986, 203-229.
Crime rates and the quality of life do not necessarily change in direct response to changes in the physical
and social characteristics of neighborhoods. Developments that have an indirect effect on increasing crime
rates and fear of crime include neighborhood disinvestment, demolition and construction activities,
demagoguery, and deindustrialization. Other factors such as government programs, collective neighborhood
action, and individual initiatives and interventions help to maintain neighborhood stability. Fear of crime in
declining neighborhoods does not always accurately reflect actual crime levels. It is derived from primary and
secondary knowledge of neighborhood crime rates, observable evidence of physical and social disorder, and
prejudices arising from changes in neighborhood ethnic composition. Regardless of its source, fear of crime
may stimulate and accelerate neighborhood decline. Increasing fear of crime may cause individuals to
withdraw physically and psychologically from community life. This weakens informal processes of social
control that inhibit crime and disorder, and it produces a decline in the organizational life and the mobilization
capacity of a neighborhood. Fear may also contribute to the deterioration of business conditions. The
importation and local production of delinquency and deviance may also be influenced by perceptions of
neighborhood crime rates. Changes in the composition of the resident population may be stimulated by the
cumulative effects of fear. Fear of crime does not inevitably encourage or result in urban decline as
“gentrification” demonstrates.
(eds), Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986, 203-229.
Crime rates and the quality of life do not necessarily change in direct response to changes in the physical
and social characteristics of neighborhoods. Developments that have an indirect effect on increasing crime
rates and fear of crime include neighborhood disinvestment, demolition and construction activities,
demagoguery, and deindustrialization. Other factors such as government programs, collective neighborhood
action, and individual initiatives and interventions help to maintain neighborhood stability. Fear of crime in
declining neighborhoods does not always accurately reflect actual crime levels. It is derived from primary and
secondary knowledge of neighborhood crime rates, observable evidence of physical and social disorder, and
prejudices arising from changes in neighborhood ethnic composition. Regardless of its source, fear of crime
may stimulate and accelerate neighborhood decline. Increasing fear of crime may cause individuals to
withdraw physically and psychologically from community life. This weakens informal processes of social
control that inhibit crime and disorder, and it produces a decline in the organizational life and the mobilization
capacity of a neighborhood. Fear may also contribute to the deterioration of business conditions. The
importation and local production of delinquency and deviance may also be influenced by perceptions of
neighborhood crime rates. Changes in the composition of the resident population may be stimulated by the
cumulative effects of fear. Fear of crime does not inevitably encourage or result in urban decline as
“gentrification” demonstrates.
"Public Policy and the Fear of Crime in Large American Cities," in John A. Gardiner
(ed.) Public Law and Public Policy. New York: Praeger, 1977, Chapter 1, 1-18.
Data on crimes and victims–which primarily were collected in the federal government’s victimization
surveys–are organized around six working hypothesis that must be confronted by prospective social
engineers in the criminal-justice system: 1) Policies have different effects on different types of crime, and
often that effect is negligible. 2) Different types of crime have different effects on the fear of crime, and that
effect varies from group to group. 3) The fear of crime is usually generated vicariously and not be direct
victimization. 4) The fear of crime is affected by many social factors that have little to do with victimization,
directly or indirectly. 5) The relationship between expressed fear and actual behaviors is problematic. 6) The
causal system underlying the fear of crime is characterized by positive feedback and accelerating rates of
change. After mobilizing evidence supporting these propositions, the chapter concludes with a few modest
recommendations that seem congruent with the argument developed here.
(ed.) Public Law and Public Policy. New York: Praeger, 1977, Chapter 1, 1-18.
Data on crimes and victims–which primarily were collected in the federal government’s victimization
surveys–are organized around six working hypothesis that must be confronted by prospective social
engineers in the criminal-justice system: 1) Policies have different effects on different types of crime, and
often that effect is negligible. 2) Different types of crime have different effects on the fear of crime, and that
effect varies from group to group. 3) The fear of crime is usually generated vicariously and not be direct
victimization. 4) The fear of crime is affected by many social factors that have little to do with victimization,
directly or indirectly. 5) The relationship between expressed fear and actual behaviors is problematic. 6) The
causal system underlying the fear of crime is characterized by positive feedback and accelerating rates of
change. After mobilizing evidence supporting these propositions, the chapter concludes with a few modest
recommendations that seem congruent with the argument developed here.
Fear of Crime Abstracts
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |