Overall, cities account for over twice the rate of serious
crimes than that of suburban areas, and over four times the
rate of rural areas.

Crime rates, particularly property crimes are lowest in
Southern states although these states maintain a high rate
of violent crime.

Burglarly and grand larceny are the most frequent crimes on
a national basis and maintain the highest rates in cities and
Western states.

Crime rates, of course, do not reflect gross numbers of crimes, but they do provide a convenient and useful measure by which jurisdictions can guage their crime problem. It seems apparent, for example, that crime problems are most predominant in cities and, in largest measure, reflect excessive burglary and larceny rates. The maintenance of uniform crime reports by a majority of the nation's law enforcement agencies allows each jurisdiction to weigh its reported crime against national, regional, state and local figures.

To a certain extent the Corps can utilize these data to guage the relative distribution of crime in recreation projects. One would expect, for instance, that projects closest to urban areas would maintain higher overall rates of crime than those in rural areas; that incidence would be highest in the Western and Northeastern states; and felonies would primarily involve burglary and larceny offenses.

However, it cannot and should not be assumed that "crime", as conventionally portrayed in the Uniform Crime Reports, is readily transferable to the environment of the recreation site. Criminal opportunities and victim vulnerabilities change dramatically by virtue of Corps project design, types and volume of visitors attracted, project location, and numerous other factors. As a result, national crime figures are best viewed and utilized on a generic basis and as general parameters for the interpretation of more specific Corps data.

One additional point involving unreported crime, which also applies to Corps area crime reporting, should be noted in relationship to the present discussion of national crime statistics. It has been long recognized that reported crime does not accurately reflect the actual number of crimes committed. A number of techniques have been employed to more accurately pinpoint the actual level of criminality, the most popular and accurate of which are surveys of victimization. The first comprehensive survey of this kind aimed at a national audience was recently completed by means of the National Crime Panel under sponsorship of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

Covering victimizations during 1972, the survey indicates that the total number of offenses reported in the five surveyed cities represent only about half of the actual crimes committed. Moreover, the number of larcenies, both personal and household, was some four times greater than the number which had been reported to the police. Larceny without personal contact was the most prevalent type of crime in the sample cities. It is apparent on the face of these data that crime is much more widespread than heretofore determined. For the purposes of the present study, it is important to recognize these tendencies not to report crime, especially those crimes such as larceny and robbery. In addition, it becomes clear through survey findings that the causes of unreported crime are intimately related to victim perceptions of himself, the crime, and the role and capabilities of the police. This point seems extremely important in interpreting the crime at Corps projects, to be discussed later. Specifically, the most common reason for failing to report crimes was the feeling that nothing could be done and/or that there was a lack of proof. In either event the ease of reporting, the perceived competence and interest of local authorities, and the local authorities capacity to respond all play a part in whether or not crime is reported.

From the national perspective of reported crime, and in the context of reporting problems, the Corps crime situation at recreation sites will

assume an added perspective. What is most crucially needed in these crime analyses yet, so far generally unavailable, is more precise data relating to criminal activity in parks, forests, recreational and public use lands generally. Due to the relatively unique nature of recreation areas in relation to their environs, crime data specific to the nation's recreation experience is most appropriate in attempts to formulate some baseline yardstick. Yet relatively few sources exist in these areas, or the level of crime which exists.

One of the few studies aimed specifically at these areas was performed by Gibbons2. He studied three contiguous rural counties in Oregon and found serious crime to be an infrequent occurence while the volume of petty law violations was large.

Crime in Urban Park Areas:

One study performed for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 3 Development does shed some light on the incidence of crime in parks and recreation areas. In particular, the study reveals that park visitors, as is the case in overall national crime statistics, most frequently are subject to robberies and larcenies among all other index crimes. most frequently the case where recreation areas are developed. ings indicate that:

This is

Their find

"The amount of reported Index crime in parks is substantially
below popularly assumed levels. Indeed, on the basis of re-
ported crime, parks appear to be much safer than their sur-
rounding areas in general."

Further they state,:

"Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that more crime occurs than
is reported, especially in minor crime categories. Since most
park departments do not report most of their vandalism, the
amount of property crime occuring in parks is substantially
greater than shown in police records. There is nothing in
the data, however, to indicate that the proportionate relation-
ships shown in this report would be significantly changed, even
if all crime of all types were known."

park areas tended to concentrate in one or two park locations. Unreported crime is again a large problem with justifications generally taking the same form as those found on the national level; for example, too much trouble to report, incident too minor, etc. In any event, law enforcement officers maintain that crime prevention is extremely difficult in parks primarily due to problems of poor visibility.

Another study cited in the HUD report again suggests that actual crime in parks and recreational areas is below that which is commonly assumed.

The Seattle Study which also dealt with index crimes, addressed reported crime in 34 of Seattle's 200 parks in comparison to discrete geographic areas. In concert with findings of the HUD study and expectations of surveyed police, crime rates were found to be very low in comparison with the immediate surroundings. In terms of violent crime for example, in no case did park occurrences exceed 6 percent of that in the contiguous area, and dropped as low as .39 of 1 percent in one park. These findings become even more glaring when it is remembered that these violent crimes are the most frequently reported.

One additional finding of the HUD study should be recognized. Table 6-2 (HUD Report p.37) below provides data relative to the incidence of crime in 3 categories of parks and in relationship to area served.

While the data reconfirms previous findings that park crime is less than expected through police statistics, it also suggests that as park size and resources increase, so does the occurrence of crime. It also suggests that park crime is more a function of crimes committed outdoors than overall uniform crime statistics. These findings lead one to assume that crime in Corps recreation areas, particularly near the more populous areas, can be expected to reflect a more severe picture than that noted in the above findings. Data from the more closely akin U.S.

TABLE 6-2

(Source: H.L. Malt Associates)