Peer Comments Regarding at Identifying Risk

Please respond to Elizabeth Michael, and Destiny about their post in 3 different paragraphs as if you were me. Not in 3rd person. Minimum 100 words each paragraph.
Elizabeth Gonzalez
Attempting to identify risk due to intentional or unintentional threats is something most of us do in our daily lives. Several of the factors that we use in our personal risk assessment when it comes to a particular area may include: identifying and categorizing surroundings’ appearance, in other words, assessing if there is proper illumination/lighting, if the nearby structures are well-maintained (i.e. is there a dilapidated building, is the paint chipping off, are there some windows broken, is there garbage spilled in common areas, are there green areas properly attended, or any green areas at all?, etc.), if there are any abandoned items that might pose some concern (such as abandoned vehicles or perhaps construction equipment), if there is unartistic* graffiti on the walls, etc. A step above mere observation and analysis could (and often does) involve collecting data on the crime statistics in the area. There are apps and websites nowadays that – depending on one’s jurisdiction – can offer valuable insight, sometimes gathered from open source and other times gathered directly from local police departments. Combining a careful evaluation of one’s surroundings with relevant data from accurate sources can be an effective approach to tackling the very real fear of crime that many of us feel at times. In addition, taking appropriate action following the risk assessment is equally important: CPTED can offer valuable methods to help make our surroundings feel safer and to minimize the incidence of crime. Granted, we are using the idea of a residential area given the prompt of this discussion post – fear of crime and assessing personal risk – however, similar elements of individual risk assessment can be used in other contexts and venues.

*Ps. Adding this obvious but important clarification: art is subjective. Perhaps to some people all graffiti is art. Perhaps to others only graffiti in certain “allowed” venues is art. Defining which one is which is not only a futile exercise (one that rests solely on individual perspective), but it is also beyond the scope of this discussion post. However, I still wanted to add this disclaimer to the word unartistic.

References:
Crowe & Fennelly (2013), Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Main Textbook Reading
Michael Kenny
“Not necessarily all people who live in a high-crime area feel insecure. Some do, some don’t. People experience fear differently, according to their age, lifestyle, gender, level of social contact with within the community, perception of neighborhood decline or rehabilitation (and) personal experience as a victim of crime” (Crowe Ch. 12). It is important to consider the different perceptions of individuals and find areas of concern that can be addressed to reduce fear of crime.
There are several factors that have been identified in assessing the safety of an area and are provided in chapter 12 of our text as, “presence or absence of people, status or function of the area, visibility, possibility for surveillance, management and maintenance, and degree of diversity” (Crowe Ch. 12). Our text further identifies three factors that characterize “frightening” places; fear generating functions, vandalism and bad maintenance, and problematic urban design. Fear generating functions refers to areas that have prostitution or drug abuse activities, attracting people who create fear in others. Areas that receive good management and maintenance provide a feeling of cleanliness and encourage care and ownership. Areas that do not receive the same attention can fall into disrepair and invite fear generating activities. Problematic urban design refers to an areas lack of surveillance, isolation, and lack of additional access or egress. These areas can be improved through better lighting, elimination of blind spots/hiding spaces, and addition of signage with easily understood directions.
Understanding what causes fear is an important element to CPTED and can help create spaces that not only prevent crime, but also reduce the fear of crime within a community.
Crowe, T. D., & Fennelly, L. J. (2014). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Elsevier.
Destiny Hamilton
When I read our question for this week, my mind went back to the neighborhood I grew up in and also the neighborhood I presently live in now. Growing up, we had a close knit neighborhood where families knew each other on your block and two blocks over. My parents and other adults worked to make sure the neighborhood was clean and safe. Hedges,grass, and trees were kept trimmed so a would be thief would be seen because there was not anything to hide behind. Children could play outside and parents not worry about strangers lurking around because stand a chance trying to snatch up a child. Today whenever I go home to visit it has changed so much. The houses families left are condemned but not to the drug addicts and pushers. Lawns, trees, hedges, are not kept up and places behind some homes are overgrown. So, in thinking of factors people use or need to use to access an area of safety study are:
1. The economic environment
2. The housing environment
3. The social environment
Growing up the economic environment was middle-class to low-income. The uniqueness though was you didn't know who was in which class because neither group stood out. There were two apartment complexes and even there the area was kept up and it was designed for low-income and senior citizens. Today it's a ghost town and the drug dealers are running it. The schools have had to put up fences with locks.
My neighborhood I live in today is very serious about the safety and care of the residents. Before you can come into the area you have to get clearance meaning I would have to have you on the list saying that I am expecting you. Surprisingly, my neighborhood went through a gentrification process and while some moved out others stayed. They stayed and for them in the process their homes were restructured, the landmarks such as some of the stores were revamped as well. So from this I would say that because the people wanted better and knew that the crime would continue to rise if something was not done. This is where CPTED and environmental criminology go hand in hand because they both have visions to reduce and/or eliminate crime along with fear and to help make the quality of life better for those there. Environmental criminology also helps the people in the neighborhood or area identify potential unsafe areas and they make plans to eliminate these issues.
It takes the neighborhood coming together and organizing not only neighborhood watches but having natural surveillance on the corners different areas along the streets and the use of security technology in homes without any type of security. For example, homes that needed security were given security as a part of their renovation. These were older people and they were and still are the history of the area. Their homes were paid for so the generousity of concerned groups had systems installed. They just have to keep up with the taxes each year. Those who relocated were compensated to make a new start. They moved into areas that were already secure and the crime rate was low to none. It took hard work and continuous monitoring but there are quite a few areas that through CPTED and integrating environmental criminology are much better to live and shop in. The campuses of the schools are open with no fences. There are not any areas where students can hide and secretly jump someone or pull someone in a dark place. There are cameras everywhere except inside the restrooms and locker rooms. Uniforms are worn so that gang affiliation is not identified based on the colors red for Bloods and blue for Crips. Suspensions and expulsions are put in effect but they have not had as many in the past 3 years and especially since the pandemic, because many parents opted for virtual learning. It took the guidance of those with CPTED and others who have the expertise along with concerned community citizens to make the changes happen. The people in my former and present neighborhood feel safe and there are frequent meetings to keep a record of anything that raises a red flag of possible trouble. When identified it gets "nipped in the bud" as Barney Fife would say. This doesn't mean that criminals have not tried to invade our neighborhood. They found out that if they did, the outcome is not going to be good at all. This has helped deter others.