You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.


    Evaluation of the Hartford Crime Control Experiment: Some Lessons for Future Evaluations

    Published: 0

      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (208K) 13 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (3.0M) 211 $55   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    The Hartford Residential Neighborhood Crime Control Program was a comprehensive, environmentally oriented research effort aimed at examining the process involved in successful crime prevention programming. This innovative “process approach” to crime control involved three major research activities: (a) the conduct of a detailed crime problem analysis in the target area, using comprehensive data to identify the particular features of the neighborhood which were creating opportunities for crime occurrence; (b) the design of a multi-strategy (environmental, police, and community) crime control program directed specifically toward the improvement of those conditions found to be contributing to neighborhood crime; and (c) the in-depth evaluation of this approach to crime prevention, including extensive monitoring of the implementation process and a detailed assessment of program impact on crime, fear, and the quality of life in the target area.

    This paper presents six major evaluation problems confronting most crime control program assessments and describes how each was resolved by Hartford Program evaluators. It is hoped that this discussion of a model program evaluation will be of help to future crime control program researchers in designing their own program evaluations.


    building security, crime prevention, evaluation measurement, environmental design program, crime control/prevention program, crime rate, victimization rate, fear of crime, multiple measures

    Author Information:

    Mock, L
    Social scientist, National Institute of Law Enforcement Justice. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C.,

    Committee/Subcommittee: F12.20

    DOI: 10.1520/STP28074S