I "

\

?i/O!

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER

Washington. D.C. 20202

ERIC rn~~rnmU~

THIS DOCUMENT has been printed exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated do not necessarily represent official National I nstitute of Education position or policy.

Prepared by ERIC Document Reproduction Service Operated by

COMPUTER MICROFILM !NTERNATIONAI.. CORPORATION P. O. BOl{ 190 Arlington, Virginia 22210

The quality of this document accurately represents the quality of the original document from which it was reproduced.

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

, ( ,

ED 077 104

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATE NOTE

EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS

IDEN~'IFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCU,"1ENT RESUME

EA 005 01.'3

Survey of Eurglary and Vandalism Occurre~ce and Preventative Measures in ~wenty-Five' Large California School Distrj.ctso Summary Report.

'Fresno City Unified School District~ Calif. Office of Planning and Research Services. [Jan 73] l1p.

MF-$0,65 BC-$3o~9 Community Acti('1n; *costs; Crime~ Delinquency Prevention; Equipment; Glass; Insurance programs; Police school Relationship; *Prevention; Public Schools. Questionnaires; *School Buildings; School Buses; School Districts; *School Surveys; *School Vandalism; Tables {Dai.....1) *Burglary; California

Twenty-three Cali:fornia school districts resFonded to a burglary and vandalism survey conducted by the Fresno Unified School District Burglary and Vandalism Prevention Project~ whi~h represents the first pbase of a developing program to reduce vandalism occurrences and improve recove~y of losses. ~his summary compiles survey data on 18,,000 occurrences of damage or loss to buildings" glass" equipment,!' buses u and ncnspeciried areas amounting to ~l!q500pOOG dollarso . The total loss recover.y by all techniques utilized in tbe 23 reporting distric'cs amcunted to $432/1000/1 ,>lith an average recovery per:::entage of nine percento Reported onsite anti-vandalism techniques include the use of fencJ.ng y floodl:i.gbtil1g~ leJ~an/Flexiglass \qindows p protective screening, burglar alarm s:'ztems, security patrols" and guard dogs. Survey results also reflect administra'cive measures taken/, such as communi ey action cortl..rnittees" neighborhood school aler'.:. systemsr- publicity campaigns,.. telepbone Ilhot linesl"cl police co()peratioIl v and court ccoperatione Hot-rever p from the evidence re"Corted" it appears that no effective means of preventing burgla,ry and van.:lalism occurrences has been develor;;ed,; and sever"l suggestions are Ind.de for improv.:..ng pl:eventative measures •. (Author/JF)

>-"V

~ ... ~ ,- ... .... '" -~ ~ ~~

,­"

, ,I

. " ' ..

FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Planning and Research Servies

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WElFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO CUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGM"ZATION ORIC· INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN· IONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL vFFlCE OF EDU· CATION POSITION OR POLICY

SURVEY OF BURGLARY .AND VAN:JALISH OCCURRENCE AND PREVENTATIVE MEASURES IN TWENTY·FIVE LARGE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Sununary Report

The twenty-three school districts responding to the Burglary and Van­dalism Survey reported almost 18,000 occurrences of damage or loss tOt buildings, glass, equipment, buses and no;,-specified areas amounting to ~our and ~ne-half millions of dollars. Total loss recovery, by ~ll techniques utilized in '~'le twenty-three districts, amounted to $432,000. The average recovery precentage of all the reporting districtA was nine percent.

BUILDING

With 8, 70l~ occurrences reported, building damage or loss of $2,750,000 uas the most costly area to the tWenty-two districts. I.9s Angeles Unified School District suffered sixty-two percent of the total loss reported and I:€'ceived siAty percent, $100,000, of the $168,28l~ recov­ered by the twenty-two school districts. Los Angeles recovered six percent of its total building burglary and vandalism loss, which, as equal to the ave~age recovery percentage of all the reporting districts.

Orange Unified School District was the most successful io' percentage of loss recovery. The district insurance and recovery program prvvided $30,000 or a '3ixty-five percent r .. ~turn. Ninety percent of this recov­ery amount was accomplished through insurance. No indication as to the cost of maintaining policies in the amount necessary to provide this percentage of recovery was included in their report.

Of the fourteen di.stricts reporting recovery of building losses, Sacramento Unified School District was the least successful in its efforts. Only two-tenthD of one percent or $126.71 of a $56,000 loss was recovered.

Glass Gamage \,as the next highest area of loss. Total loss amounted to $1,105.151 thro;lgh the 9,379 occutrences reported. A recovery of only $5,100 hy the twenty-two reporting districts amounted to a percentage of recovuy of .005 percent. Only five districts reported any recovery in this glass damage area.

Los Av;::;eles Unified School Distrio. c, ~rlth no reported recovery in a loss of $648,926, was high~st in (.ollar loss. Orange Unified School District, with. a recovery of forty-six percent of their $6,500 loss, was the district with the better record of recovery.

\

FILMED FROM BEST AV1\ILABLE COpy 1 ------..--.~_ --'_~"',~I.,<.n __ '~_' ___ ' ~. "'~ __ .. :1

• '\ .. >

~ ________________________________________ ""S~~~~~."~~"~?8~~~~J ... ~,~'~ __ ~~~~ __

Many districts appear to cunsider building damage or loss and glass damage or loss in a combined fashion. When viewed in this man.ner, total bu:i.lding/glass damage or loss amounts to $3,855,578 or eighty­five percent of the total $4,541,959 loss reported by the tTNenty-t'"o districts. Forty percent of the total $432,337 recovery reported by those districts would then fall into the building/glass combined re­covery category, amollntin5 to $173,384, an average of four percent re­covery of building/glass damage or loss.

Equipment damage or loss, as reported by the twenty-two districts, amount~d to $630,602. Recovery amounted to $222,512 o~ thirty-five percent of the loss incurred. ~his higher rate uf recov~ry. in com­parison to other categories, was largely attributable to insura,lce claims which provided ninety-four percent of the recovery total. Al­though no t reported specifically, it ,,,ould appear more di stricts r.ro­vide insurance coverage for equipment.

The reporting in this category is somewhat confusing. San Diego Unified School Distr'ct, for example, reported a loss of $137,695 in the equipment category. However, San Diego Unified suffered an arson loss of $231,318 and did not report any recovery in this area. It is possible that the $181,318 San Diego Unified reported as recovered by insurance in the equipment area would include a considerable amount of equipment loss through arson which was covered by insurance.

Of those districts reporting, Hacienda La Puenta Unified School Distr~ct recovered forty-three percent of its $37,168 loss. However, Hacienda La Puenta also suffered 'n $85,000 arson 109s and the entire amount of equipment recov2ry was received from insurance clailM. Orange Unified S~hool District il1~icated a loss of $3,000 in the equipment category with no arson involved. Through insurance, Orange Unified recoverpr{ forty percent of its loss, or $1,200, which appears to place Orang Unified in the top position of recovery.

Only two districts reported a 10S8 due to burglary and vandalism of buses. Hayward Unified School Dist.dct indicated a $1,000 loss, but did not ~eport recovery categorically. Norwalk La Hir.:H1a Unified re­ported one incident of bus damage and dict not indicate a dollar loss. The Newport-Hesa Unified District did acknow"ledge a $21.00 insurance bus dam~age recovery, but failed to indicate an incident or loss.

?ERTINE~r QUESTIONS

1. Twenty of the twenty-three districts responding to the question­naires reported that, at least a.t the elementary level. thp,y have an lIopen-gatell playground policy. Fifteen of those t~Tenty ciistric.ts

_, ___ IiIII-------))II2---.,.W-----~,---... f,A':.i.!!"'------------------------

indicate that the"open-gate" policy does contribute to the prob­leM of vandalism in their districts. Eleven of those twenty dis­tricts indicat:e that the "open-gate" policy does contribute to the problem of supervision. However, the major purpose of thfl "open­gate" policy, to increase the use of playgrounds) <.ippears to have been accomplished according to seventeen of the ttventy re:spondellts in this category.

2. Fourteen districts l"eported arson occurrences resulting in damage to buildings and lcss of ~quipment amounting to over one million dollars. THenty-three pp.rcE:nt of the total loss $238,908, was re­covered by ins~rance fOl: repair or repl<' ~ment of buildings and equipment. Insurance recovery was the solely reported means of recovery for loss by arson.

PREVENTATIVE HEASURES INSTITtITED

ON-SITL lEASURES

Eighteen of the tHenty-three responding school districts, reported fenced grounds used as an intrusion deterrant, twenty of the twenty­thr~e school districts, reported floodlighting used as a deterrant a~d twe~ty-one of the twenty-three school districts, reported Lexan/Plexiglas used as a replacement for gl:1GG :i.n their programs of burglary and van­dalism prevention. In some districts, schools with a high inciden.ce of burglary and vandalism a:r~ arbitrarily replacing lower floor \olindows "With the afore:-Mentioned glass substitute.

Protective screening for glass and entrance-ways have been installed by t,,Yelve of cite twenty~three reporting districts, while alarm systems and electronic detection devices are used by seventeen of those twenty-three districts.

Only ten of the twenty-three responding di~tricts use a school employee security patrol in their ~2fo~ts to curb burglary and vandalism. Four of those ten districts report that their p.:..trol meJ.1lbers are in uniform and three of those same four districts report that their patrol members are also armed. Two distri.cts hire an independent secu;;ity patrol service. One other district hires an indepeudent patrol service only on occasion (games and othe::r functions) so was not added to that category.

Two sch001 districts reported using guard dogs in conjunction with their patrolf.>. Tr.ere was no indication of specific tasks or results in the use of guard dogs.

Other measures noted by districts were:

," "

~1 \.~ ;1

Twenty-fo'lr hour custodial service at high schools. ~.' Security Agent 01." Officer assigned to investigation, public relations, :{ police liaision, and pdtrol. , .',:\ S'<:urity watchmen. custodian watchmen, graveyc;rd 8h:'.1;1: custod;i.an, and 'j f;~ campus control supervisor. :: Fire detection systems. . '~;l

'. Telephone answering system when school is not l.D op(;!ration. \~

t~ , 3 '. ',' , , !~'''*~i!'ii]f~#i\.~~~3tZll'i:l.ti1!;ii~§.:.,.~U\.:ir,i.;~~L~

I .1

ADMINISTRA l'lVE HEASURES INSTITtrrED

All twenty-three reporting school districts recognize burglary and van­dalism as a growing threat to tl-teir educational programs. St!veral school districts have organized community action committees concerned with alle­viating this expense and manpower drain.

Eleven districts have established neighborhood alert systems where neigh­bors surrounding a particular school may alert school personnel or police officers cof unusual happenings at the school site. Some success is claimed. Ten school districts nave focused their efforts on a publicity campaign thr.ough local newspapers, billboards and radio/TV coverage. Sj~ce this is a relatively ne\'7 approach, no indication of hO\,1 effective this program may be was reported.

Si.. of the twenty-tht'ee reporting districts heve est:ablished a "hot line" for information r.eceiving and transmitting.' Three distri.:ts utilize a "reward for information" technique in attempting to discourage or appre­hend those responsible fOJ,: burglar.y and vandalism.

Of the twenty-three districts responding, twenty strive to cooperate with the police in cases of burglary or vandalisnt. Eleven !istricts suggest cooperation of the courts as an administrative means of recovering burglary and vandalism losses.

Student organizations are used as a means of attempting burglary and v".n­dalism loss reduction by seven of the tHenty-three school districts respond­ing to tne questionnaire.

Los Angeles Uni.:i~d School District has developed a Security Section which, ~!hen. fully staffeti, l"ill number three hundred twelve Iller· bers I a force €;qual 1.n ~:I.ze to that employed by the City of Fresno. Radio cars> full-time' and pa}~t-time security agents, full-time and part-time watchmen, on-the-job protection personnp.l, intrusion alarms, and fire detection devices are all part of this organi.zed effort to reduce burglary and vandalism.

Other administrative measures noted by districts were:

Volunteer parent patrol in limited use. Lawsuits Security Department investigation and follotv-'lP, annual poster and essay contest:. PriOri~ies established for di.strict programs of Employee Security, COmmulUl:y Involvement, Student and Parent Responsibility Building and Ground Security, Liai::;~n with other agencies. ' Evaluation of.. _ntrusion and Fire Detection Devices, Emergency call down system 'Wl.th Hal.ntenaIlce and Operations Departn;.ent.

4

./" I

I:

;l

"

BURGLARY AND VANDALISH S')[>!HARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECONHENDATIONS

All participating districts recognized the threat to educational programs posed by increasing occurrences of burglary and vandalism. A second bur­den ~o already strained budgete is the spiraling costs of r.eplacement or repair. These direct 1 off-the-top expend;;'tures represent only a portion of the actual losses in~urred. Classroom space that cannot be utilized, equipment that cannot be used, man hours that must be consumad in reporting 1

inventorying, inve5tigatl..fts,~nd students diverted from their purpose through scheduling upsets, incomplete course requirements, and restricted activities are all additional lo~ses produced by burglary and vandalism. The tGtal impact upon edllcational programs is enormous. For C};.;Ullplc, the Los Angeles Unified School District reportedly maintains a force of more than 300 officers and staff in their Security Secticn. This ~s an expen­sive undertaking in itself, yet, oVer tHO and one-half million dollars Has reported in losses. All this, over and above the afore-men!:iG,~d losses to indiviciual school pr.0tirams, pers.:>nnel, and students. To t.!ah,ulate ac­tual dollars for the total Los Angeles burglary and vandalism of c;chools Froblem is well nigh impossible.

OnlZ of the more perplexing facets of the problem is recovery of losses. Insurance is almost beyond the financial reach of :n..'my disLricts, so much so, that only protectio;:), from catastroyhic occurrences is maintained !Jy some dLtricts. Hith 1ess thap ten percent of loss recove.ry for ell cat­egories, the need for a new perspective is evident.

The State of California has in the Education Code (Art 5 Sec. 10606) a parent reeponsibility statute wh1.c.h provides school districts with the right to seek compensation from pa1:ents whos!! youngsters damage Gchool property. Until recently, many distri.cts viet'Ted the usc oJ; the courts as a public relations threat. That some districts pursue more vigorously programs of recovery from their available sources is evident. However, the range of disparity ~~ng districts is extremely large and uemonstrates that an aggressive effort can be effective in after-the-fa~t concerns. An increasing number of districts no~'l lock upon the law as a tool in their burglary and vandalism prevention programs.

From the evidence repo 'ted it appears that no truly effective means of preventing burglary an.:! vandalism occurrences has been deve_oped. Phy~ical

means of prevention, such as fencing, ligr.ting, electroni.c detection de­vices and security patrols are deter!:'ants huf- ineffective in prevention.

<\~ , " • ...k~ha.tlge of focus seems to be now appropriate.

Research (1) has found that the major offenders in burglary and vandalism of schools are youngsters less than eighteen years of age.

It is suggestEd that programs developing m.areness of the problem in the public and in students, its effects upon school prog;:ams and student opportunities, aud the dollar losses that are pr.esent as "Tell as future responsibilities, b", coordinated with all 1ml enforcement agencies. It must be recognized tlwt; i111lnedin!::c spectacular change'.) or results Hill not be e'l;ident, but that a c .. 'd.inuing pt"ogram can be dxpcctcd to pl:ovide some visible and statistical results.

5

.. ~ .."

."

(' :~1

, ,

i:! y.",,' :;

" t

c,

0 ~ ~ .!. .'J'

',1-

" ] ,-" '.

,,~ '.1

I "

"

I

'j ";', ~ l

"

rl ~

",

! ......

.. ' . ~.

I ;.1

It is further suggested that school administrators, architect, and sup­pliers of major pieces of school busi.ness, audio-visual, c:nd vocational equipment COficern themselves with preventative measures through designa­tion of need, designed storage and availability, and production of van­dal proof, visually idenLificable equipment.

It is also suggested that a revie'\-l of the procedures in dealing with juveniles suspected of burglary and vanda.lism be instituted. Th,! pro­fusion of la\y enforcement '''fiencies, the snifting of respol1.s1.bil ity from level to level, the time co.'suming processes of communication failures, repeated paper wotk and extended unproductive meetlngs promote.cynical feelings and lack of confidence in the de'TIocratic ~,ystem by parents, school officials, and, n10st serious of all, in those under suspicion.

Lastly, it is suggested that a uniform method be devised to identify, report, and follow-up on burBlary/vandalism occurreuces. Individual school officials, administrators, law enforci:ment members and pare.lts could then be equally inform"J of the progessiOlI a case may be making toward solution and recovery. 11. second benefit of this arrangement would be that a comparative com!,ilation of reports could than be made from all school distdcts througllout the state. Trends';'n the success' of preventa':ive measures e'TIployed by the various districts could then b~ charted, referred to otherG, and enhanced by the additional 1cno\(l'ledge produced by such. statewide involvement. Communication of this sort could lead to a lessening of the problems presented throughout the body of this report.

(l)Baltimor:e City Public Schr)ols Report on Burglary and Vandalism Center For Planning, Research And Evaluation, Balt:imorc City Public Schools, B~ltimore, Maryland.

6

I ~

·

'1·:

"

-,

:.

....

25 mSTRiCTSURVEY SOME DISTRICTf

DAMAGE INCURRED REPORTED

TOTALS ONLY

BUILDING GLASS EQUIPMENT BUSES TOTAL Number

of Cases

Value Attached (Dollars or percent of total)

Recovery (Dollars or percent of totl11) By School District By Police Action By Court Action By Insurance Claim

UNSPECIFIED RECOVERY

I 8,704

some

$2,750,427

5168,284

510,368

$ 4,713

5 1,220

$51,€18

5100,337

9,379 2,493

combined

$1,105,151 5630,602

'5,100 $222,512

52,489 $1,347

s2,OOO S8,4:;:a

• 0 • 5 567

• 0 • $209,393 - - -~~

56:0 52,787 TOTAL LOSS

31 17,733

47 Hothar"

· ,

I 5634.00 54,541,959

521.00 $432,337

I • 0 • $17,667

• 0 • $19,542

· 0 • S 7,103

~j.~0 :>261,843

• 0 • 5126,018 $4,541,959

TOTAL RECOVERY $ 432,337

PERTINENT QUESTIONS I, Does your school. district have an "open ga~e"

playground polit:y?

In your opinion: a, Does this policy contribute to the

vand.o:'\lism problem? b. Has this freedom of entry increased

playground use? c. Has this freedom of eritry increased

supervision prohlems'?

2.· Was arson a factor in the losses sustained by your district in 1971-72? Loss value attributed to this cause $1,043,559.78

:,~ , ..:..;a,.;.../~"'Jr''''",,,,,,,,:

Yes 20 No 2

Yes 15 No 6

Yes 17 No 2

·Yes 11 No· B

Yes 14 No 5

ARSON RECOVC:RY 5230,908.74

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES INSTITUTED

ON SITE MEASURES 1. Fenced Grounds 2. Floodlighting 3. Lexa.,/Ple::dglas Windows 4. Protective Screening 5. Burglar Alarm Systems 6. Electronic Alarm Systems

'7. School Employee Security Patrol Uniformed Armed

8. Independent Security Patrol 9. Guard Dogs

NO

3

2

1

7

3

4

8

13

13

17

lC

10. Others 24 Hour custodial service at H.S. level.

YES!

I 18 I

20 ,

-21

12

17

17

10

4

4

1 , 2

Fire delectlcn Jystem, telephone answerl"ll~m when school

not In <ossloo. Security watchmen, custudtJn watchmeo, campus

control supervision. gravayara shllt watchm.,'.

NO YES ADMINISTP.ATIVE MEASURES

1. Community Action Committee 12 8

2. :-;eighbo~hood School AVert System 9 11

3. Publicity Campaign 9 10

4. Telephone "Hot Line" 12 6

5. Rewards for Information 15 3

6. Cooperation of Police 0 20

7. Cooperation of Courts 7 11

8. Student Organizations 8· 7 I

9 . Others Security Dept. Follow.up. Court suits, EdUC. Assn.

Poster/Essay coot!>5t, E, •• rgency c311 down syst~m, w/mallltenanc ;l

and operation <!~pt., volunteer puent patrol (limIte!! USe).

Ple.?-semail response to Dr. A. L. Pepper Office of Planning and Rese2:och Services Fresno Unified School District 2'348 l\.lariposa Fresno, California 93721

23%

-""i

~·Sf p! ::u:u;w;;:;;t ... '} y '.-) .£3.:· ;.·kt·· .. ; }ul¢N3i.-.i ,~. ,.it·£Jri-<· .. ,ljf .'·£!lS','?i?;?5k >,f£~·:;;ac3;;;::::i:"'*,,~t,S¥;i'J-miii~ {it'J."<ilj¢,-E·P,:.<};;..,'Si4;::;i'1rti/~~,J.,t;Gffi:g';f;?<~h"'j$et!;'i~.j; ;':;!tgHiimM:z~giNiti'MtiMJ$i~!i~Jfijffi1

~ ..

<;;;::":::""'~;,::'~·':'n,··" ..... , .. " . . ':::1 .; 'I "1

i" ~i ,,: :;.!

THENTY-THREE 'JISTRICT BURGLARY AND -;"ANDALISM QUESTIONNAIRE SUNMPARY

Chart I

lei / 'l'\ . Pertinent Ques'tions

"" '~~,: '.'1.' f' ';:-~-=''''=;c,===4 b 11 ,,{~ ..... v~ ~o tU~ ~o.; 'i '\1 ~. "Q.::r I'J~ '17 ~,,1 . ,4,.0 '!V",""Y ." 'Iy~ .t:;'0"'1lJ -<.-0'"

~.~: ' .; iil

1 f:;:I' q, o~ (bill "Y r..t§'

"i,' . O'.l tv c.; .;)' ~v

i: . :;!; e:,'li.1> b . ° ~ " ;~. Cl' -.J ,~ t:J"" {:;o '{;'." ".: ,~:,~, .... ...,. 00:>' <""'. / 0 ~ I' ,~~ ~ ,,&, {:;o0'li

y

• ':i¢L" 9,,1lI"'''' (I' o/'~ (", ' ~ rr; ';'y'<T co:>' , ',: - ~ ,.. ~=,,~~ ;.' '.': _ FREMmIT :e;:, + + ~~r:::r • "~ "', No i_

F;' .. '1 " • 0 0 T o' t '3 FRESNO F=~..I.. +. + I-~ ~"i I""""=~ fJ'Q - o! 0 ]

__ ~.~ GARDE.' GROVE .. >-f,;" . + +. + l:. :t :::c:::t:.:::::J ,: :1.'. ?LENDALE rc=-~. ~s .+ + ' + +-"'... UACIF'IT\[' ' 0 r.:' ~ ::-~u'~ =¥illi + ..J..-~{~l :...... .LA pr~~t1J'E No -",' - , I +

_~ i, "'.1 !1AxlvARD == . "" , JR' y'~;=' + '~' I + 1 ' r ,..~, "', -=-=n ..... r...·' t,,; =-~.. - '" """ &0 . . <n'r==-=--

~:l LCNG BEACH ~~$ + ' + ~r+--t' + ~ ,:~ _ O,~. --.; I =~

~:.'," ,I' ~OS ~iGELE3 ~.::t -__ *'- ' J ;--:--~" I~= ' J.~(> 0 0 1--- ..• r' -:,- 0 0 """

ii; MONTEDELLO J.P.f; + + I + r -== ,.. .~ No::r:- ._.; + i\" NT. D;::''illLO L.. Yes + ~+- + T + B ~ . No I

ii,: NEWPO~ .... i~~ .;. + +:1.' ~' ~ ~, NORHAJ.K- ",.' '" :r=:: 0

I.',' LA I·URADA .... ~~9 T + -1:. -- ~' ":J; - = .... ' o~

+

..

," " .p.. T ~, =.=-1

:: .~:" ... f~,., •• , . '~L \' <. 'A"~, """""'""''" """"""",-:.m"",,", \ _;;. ~. _ . _; / ': "'~ '" " ... "' ,", , .. ""n •• '~. ".'(.,e>, '" """".,""",.""» . .f~.y<,,,,, ",.,-~,"-'," •.• ,,_''''.;,,_

.J,. "'_~_M' __

"~I;''-~' ·1 ~_. 'l , . - -"

.C ,1 E I :1

~ d , ....... ,.

I"

f ;. f

·,~t

l ';,

li'~ ..... :":Jj, rr·~

,,'~

~; £.

... f. . t

::i • ~J J t}

.~

TWENTY-THREE DISrRICT BURGLARY AND VANDALISM QUESTIONNAIRE SUNHARY

Chart I (continued~

I:c t:1Jl~nt Ou"'st' -.1. ~_~ W ~on~

'v~ 0~ =-"",:;..r-~.~?;-.,, ,~,'Y v'Y' 'lI'i:i e,b -q,o ~ v~ tq~

<' ;;-i '%O~.r.,. .if ,%e, .,..".c;.. 'y.r§'~'li ~ ~ .::,; (;;0 ~.,..,,'b .~~ .,..,,0

",-'il'" _ 0";:;' - iY'b (;;0 .t$'" ~ .~J~ 0

O

.::,.'1;0 441 I' 0" .l:Cj

AKL.A-r' ~=4:=:t:";"'.J ~'i::'""- -I V~. ~". ,"" ,~ '0 -;;::t::::::~-=~+t:::~.::-:=~~::~P _ q=J-:~::f

J:r; Ql Z

fa I'J'l

~

,§" ...... &.

2...~;: WY~2 ~ + ..::-,.,~~e::a:c::::::= -- NoH' ' + ~ :::::1-~"': === - + !ili'.!!':~ t:f~:>~ + ,',-

SAcRANENrO _:0'- + ' , - !::~ r:?~===-~__ N 1 + !:-=-~ gvJEGO ~?~' ~ £:1:1!..J;PSE ~ + ,::;::t ,~

. N9=C + ~~ H.k- . ++=r=~~~=J: S~AC~ -Rl~~. 0 ==-_ ~AA No -r:~+::t::+::t-~=+::j:j::r:j

Yes r~ + I STOCKTON No o o

Yes + +

l----l r-' J

WoIl_. } ...... ''''' I.. -, I;

r~, '.3 l~ ~4

.R

:.i. -.}-

, r~',

[,

~.".; ~. ~,

f; .. .t J

~~ * !ft *

" i"{ 3 .• ! ... '

'ri .f

1 ~ ~ 1-'~ - . . , .~ ~ 4 ... •

<t *

.~ II .j :~ .~

I'}lo' ~ .~ . :j

il .

j"

i:···'~ ; j

-;4 ·f

t. }

r. :1 ~ '1

~.: :1 r' :--i ~, ·1 "

v * .......

• '. 4 .... -. ;. ~ TWENTY-THREE DISTRICT BURGLARY AND VMiDALISM QGESTIONPAIRE SUMMARY

Chart II

. PREVENTATI-YE' MEASURES 'INSTITUTED

On site measures ~ ;p=====; =} » ' I P

'Of/) ~<;'

;.,.0

r?J~ • ov .JS:-

,~~0 ~. ~ ~

;y ov-<;

,q,,'l1

J> x,o~ .

'!yOV"\

.' .::;."" v

I:!;l a:J

G ~'l1 ""O~ly:# . -:.,"\

;.,."y v'::;'

Jr "Y~

Cor;; <V

brz,~ ",,;Y ~oc..

, .("b

~ J> ~ (y-

",,,,, ' ov ~ -:-;v 'bv c.."\ .(,.4) 4? ~

~'b ~~ ~~ $ ~ ~Itf

G ~

~ 4,.'b o

~(J' ~.::;. '\-~"S ~- . - ' Y~--'-~' .~ + ,. + --~+-~--=~ .--.-£=

~i:.:4r-~~:, ~, 0 0 : 0

FRF,s(;? _ .£io J=~ _ 0 0 0, 0

Yac; + + +'f + + + GA..1ffiEN GROVE . No - t -"0 . 0 I 0 0 0

~-. §", + '+ --"'-r+'- + + ~ GLEl\T'ALE . t:;~ - , .== _ ,. .. 0 0 0 0 0

~cli;;;;"- ' ~t' +,' --;. , + - ,+ :"" + 1 + . + ~""':'1' m No I 0 0 0

.,..:~ ., .:-L??. _ ~ + + J + r 1

l!AYlI;;~_=_d!2 0 o. E' [ "1-'~"-'!PS + + I + + + + .LCNG,aEAOH 'l~8=::~l-=F -~'-=J O-~ =--r.::::t o:::t:=F=I= ~~ g I e-~~ ~~~+. r ..... + -+ - + +

o o o <>

o n

, + + + + + j • ..-!

~~=O ====§_..1'1£..=:> _. _ -. 0 0' _Q n n'

Yes + + + Mr. DI.N3LO ~ - - .. r- .'

.=."' -'X';=;"=- = .;. 1=' "~l"~"f + '-=;= +" - . , ';rm1"T'''''''''' ",<;."SA ",,=.-.L_J-=-= ... = =,,=. - . -•• 1,,\1£",,"-1. ~u:; No ......., ,

No'~r.K~ ~~: - + + ~L 1

'0 'i' _, " .~

;~~ ~:~ i. ,:, .... I_~ :h i .... • ";;;,;;;-;::.,,,-: .. ::,,,,,;;-• .«,,. ,tGi"'iN"'_·::;'Z1iIi-··,::;;;;;·:;,·;··,,:::.:lt:l;;;;},·\k;Z ;Ohi\'i$k\tdl#!'4\i!m ~ "~~ ____ ==~ ____ ~ ____ -=~==~==~~==:=~=c~=z~~:=~~ t'"l·iMw,;.$ _ ~ _=

It- 11!-,~AJJA '-No I J------= -----'L __ r::::...'Q r n " 0 .1 0

"J tt· w

.• ',',

-I'~l \',1

; '.! :. -~

~ it ~ J ..

.. , ~ '.., i

.,t

TWENTY-THREE DISTRICT BL~GLARY AND VANDALISM QUESTIONNAIRE S~~RY

Chart II (continued)

PREVEN'.rAT~VE MFASURES INSTITUTED

,:.j ~ --~ ... -

1 I .- ~

'':\ 'Iv'"

.::,~ . ~v c:,

'" ~< 1 ~ ,§"~ ~o "'~

~~ .q,.'Ir

.. ~~ # J"b

~<y -j -f Z

k' ':1 t< i -< ••• O~li'l_ + 0 0 i ;I.~.. OlUNd

( ~ ~ :' t!CR'~~e!:~"'~"'='==l .J ,~~,~

j .. '. RIEL~~=,==I,~

b-v ,\-.r;.

~"'!. :'

g

SACR,~SENT.yO~="""""*~!t~~==~==l=="""""~,-=~~=-",.,....".,,..J_h~~_-C:-=_}_""""-~.,. .. ".- ==

SAN ;HECN

r,' r=:;=;~:;===B' . ={~*;=I=:o JJ-=Jcuu~i-=() ~~~c;:='"'i-=;:: -=i::? :: g=E,~: (:::: ' ~ ~=-.-~-== .~s~~ .=+-~ - +M -, ~==- + I-L_l + &:. SAN JjT~~____ No J 1 0 l 0 --L 0 + : ~

~ SM"7~" C:.AP.~ ~i:{=+ -~ + . ~ Jr:J:-:::J + ...;;t! a ~ '0

4

--.- -,

ii ="""=, Hti:d~ >==="lU3=r:r"=L~ + + j ::::::: C: =: w

~ . r=-t'--;'; -r=''''o= - .. = _=.oe,~.. .- 0 - --, 0 - L......2. I _ I b

f.: - r=i~_9 g-. + - +' + T t,,_, . _ Liia c__ 0 _. • 0 -1 0 I 0 1 0 1 , i=-:::::t:= : --t- - 1

f [ '; ~! ~ *:; .. ~ ~-f~~o..!#.L- = :r-= =-mr="""" . __ ,'ICT"'~:::::,.--::

. " :.::..;: .... ~~.,*1St4£'nr;,,~

-""'----~------.. ~'-i"",," •• __ ~_~ '"'". ,-•• ~

THENTY-THREE DISTRICT BURGLARY AND VANDALISH QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

J.:L'UJ .. ;.u.'v I=====--=""'='-l

GARDEN GROVE

Chart III

PREVENTli£IVE MEASURES INSIITUTED

GT-ENDALE ::> 0 0 0 0

-0

o

~C{EiIDh = Ue.s . + -_±.= I f j ~~~~:r.t =.----HP~=?"-=<l=,.,,.J= 0 0 E!; :~=

H..~YWALU> F::~~~ =w .s-"'4~·===af"""""'" "'", .-=--...;, .... :.=-i.~!---=----o.o!

LC~G BEA:::H ¥.P.S + + . "-~ ! ,0' 0

LOS A..~GELE: .J~s + +' 0 u . -- - -~ --:=-~:J N(~~=:=t~ t ~ 0=-1 0:::J I M~N;EBE!.LO ~.,,- + ."...,.--"'" 0 •• 'l...._ =l ~. D~LO: l ~:S 0 + i-.-;- 0 ,~~

l '" f=,- I + _ NEWPORt !':ESA r -"'" .' ,- I . -N~==-=-.-=j=~~ .~ 0 =-= 0 ~ + + ~ + + .......!1' MIRADA ._l."".l'.·~_l + + t-----' . . I ->

• • == ~:E.Q._:1 0 - - ===,= + + 1 + . . I .=.=. + . ~ ~. Q_~.~

".

irt,...·,,·""

~'" 'yo

'l.-"" ",,'If

't!'~ "

0""6.0 #

.''j

c i :-:'

\.

--"1

( i I

-

THENTY-TBREE DISTRICT BURG:.:..ARY MIl) VMf.)ALISM QUESTIO~"'NAlRE SUMMARY

ta tl)

Z

~ In

~

Chart III (continued)

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES INSTITurED

;,. ORANGE

;;-~~~~~~·r·--~-'''--'' -..;}J.UI:. [>:0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I == -." ~:r:::±::C:: ~:.J:::::c:±::1::±.t::j -----~.s"Lt 6±=F:.::1":=cE~--=:3=·"?· . . , ~ .. . l-"'c,-,,~, *-===f-.....:

. =-" -=t=J~~; - + ~.. + "r -c",:~=r:=!.uJ=-'=C~ No l~;=~ B' Yes - ~ + .UZJl iLC' ~ j ~ . ~-~ =:3 =m~ r c: ~a-. == ...,uC:U'i No J

=>=x .".,..",.".)~. Yes' r----=. ""=. ~r ...",~ + j~~~ 2 __ ~~ 0 T'=7""'" 0 o! =;=-1== ==e=,*,","

~ :=:J + _.. I=~-I :+:: :1: No 0 0 0t:::i~~ y.~s . + W&U>D+~=.! +

.. "'vI:. No.. 0 0 0 0 ~~~ EF-'E~ . , ..... b== ==:X.::::=

~~> ••

"'~ o· .t'j.

",,'l1 ~'>y

~ C'"

-., e .~

. . TWENTY-THREE DISTRICfS RESPONDING TO BURGLARY AND VANDALISM ~'ESTIONNAIRE RANKED BY

I I I III BUILDINGS GLASS EQJIPME

NUMBER NUMBER NUMBeR rRIc:T ENROLLMENT CASES LOSS RECOVERY % CASES LOSS RECO":'i{Y 7. CA3ES LOSS

,

NARD 26,626 239 90,000.00 40,000.00 20,000.00 1<56,000 at".

LAND 62,653 3,143 139,894. Ol; I -0- 3,058 70,905.00 -0- 6:.'6 85,621. 00

JOSE 35,846 75,609.00 15,375.00 .20 40,376.00 -0- , 28,351. DC (4) .

--.---' lENDA LA PUErITE 35,588 IS 88,013.37 -0- 70 18,009.59 2l0.47 .01 84 37,168.8E

*85,(){}{) ar. ( 1)

$ DIEGO 128,489 2,268 242.,477 • 00 5,589.21 .02 2,083 97,695.00 -0- 435 137,695.0(

*231,318 ar $.

$ 1AMENTO 50,138 1,430 56,152.34 126.71 .002 1,296 55,7 l ;9.39 -0- 187 48,576.8 c I

(1) $6

.-ANGELES 738,281 1,721,994.00 100,003.uv .06 p48,926.00 -0-

~

'1<.TON 31.626 62,959.18 702.98 .01 30,797.7 -0-

I *557.55 ar. (4)

$303.48(1) rEBELLO 25,279 49 44,148.08 9,556.48 .2? 83 6,645.4~ 341. 16 .05 55 23,696.7l

$9, 253.0G,M

SNO 56,200 416 35,208.35 -0- 355 25,282. '.9 -0- 204 61,689.9

G BEACH 68,437 239 129,000.00 600.00 .005 560 33,000.0( I *6,000.00ar (1)

$3,000 (2) $1,000 (1) NGE 26,7'91 69 46,000.00 30,000.00 .65 153 6.500.0C 3,000.00 .46 :n 3 , OOO.O(

$27,000(4) $2,000 (2) .

1)50% 2)25% 14,592.0;:1

1) WALK LA MIRADA 36 , 716 13,858.00 If, 879.00 .35 -0- 30,548.0

3) 257., l,) 0"'. 3)

DEN GROVE 50,935 610 23,606.00 208.19 .008 2,045 33,742.0C 560.66 .016 144 21,675.0

- -----

1 ,

! ! .r .. \

J ,._'

, ,

'.

--.-"0 - aJRRECTED COPY

; AND VANDALISM QJESTIONNAIRE RANKED BY LOSS -PER STUDENT JANUARY 12, 1973

\ ----- ._------

II III -; :LASS E QJ lP~~Et.'T TOTAL--TOTAL- TOTAL LOSS RE('(lVERY-

NUMBER -. NUMBER DISTRICT DISTRICT PER PER

RECOVERY % CASES 1.OSS RECOVERY % CASES LOSS __ RECXlVE"~ STPDENT ST~:DENT

I Bus $1,000 $3.000 (1) ! 10 20,000.00 150,OOO.uO 4,000.00 $5.63 $ .15 J

$1,000 (3)

t $560.00 (1) .15 I )0 -.: - &36 8S,621.0C -0- 6,837 296,420.00 Q,347.00 4.73 . $4,411 (2)

$4 516 (3) I

)0 -0- 28,351.0( -0- 144,336.00 15,375.00 4.03' .43 "I .

: ;9 210.47 .011 84 37,16B.8f 15,821.74 .43 169 143,191.82 16,032.21 4.02 .45 , (:I.) ( 4)

$567. ~4 (3) )0 -0- ""35 137,695.0C 181,885.00 ? 4,786 477,867.00 187,474,35 3.72 1. 46

$181, 318(l1) .

$3,047.74(2 ! 19 -0- 187 48,576.8S 9,823.01 .20 160,[,78.58 9,949.72 3.20 .20

$6,775.27(4

Ie -0- 6,290 2,270,917.00 100,003.00 3.08 .14

I -0- 535 93,756.65 702.98 2.96 .02 (4)

,4 341.16 LO' 55 23,696.7~ 254.12 .01 187 74,490.26 10.151. 76 2.95 . '10

.-1-

19 -0- 204 61,689.9 -0- 990 134,651.77 9,878.03 2.40 .18

560 33,OOO.O( 3,000.00 .09 799 162,000.00 3,600.00 2.37 .05 (2)

-$1,000 (1) ){] 3,000.00 .46 31 3,OOO.0( 1,200.00 .40 243 55,500.00 34,200.00 2.07 1.28

$2,000 (2) (4)

- -1)25% 2)50%

)C -0- 30,548.0 4,371.00 .14,1, h54 58,998.00 9,250.00 r."iil .25 3)0'1. 4)25%

,

<' "", ..

JC 560.66 .016 144 21,675.0, 153.15 .00 2,085 79,033.00 922.00 1. 55 .02 ,

I

T ,

:1

TWENTY-THREE DISTrtrerS RESPONDING TO BURGLARY AND VANDALISM Q,JESTIONNAIRE RANKED

I 11 BUILDINGS GLASS

NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NO. DISTRlcr ENROLLMENT CASES LOSS RECOVERY % CASES LOSS RECOVJ:RY % CASES La ,

~. ".~'" ~ . 15. TORRENCE 37,072. 19,171.00 1,211.83 .06 28,.

(1) . 16. GLENDALE 24,869 ONLY TOTAL OSS PROVIDEP

, 17. SANTA CLARA 23,9 l .0 105 17,512.OC -0- 100 5,000.O( -0- . 68 4,

*13,392 ar.

18. SAN JUAN 52,844 162 7,624.0( 85 77 .01 I 36,

19. NEv)PORT-MESA 26,192 99 4,593.0 493.00 .11 47 .3,168. O( -o- n 11. (2)

20. RIVERSIDE 28,304 45 4,573.:2 -,,- 45 3,939.0l -0- 22 1.0,

21.1 111:, DIABLO 47,858

-22. FREMONT 32,072 ':0 4,386.0 115.00 .026 44 3,824.0( 938.00 .25 36 7.

, 'I

23. RICtL"lOND

I 40,836 OMIT- NO REPOR'r 0 flHOUNTS

i I

TOTALS 1,646,75£' 8,704 $2,750,4::7 $168,28/1 .06 9,379 $1,105,151 $5,100 .005 2,493 $63C

1.) SCHOOL RECOVERY $10,368.23 $.2,489.63

Z.) POLICE RECQIfflfs'l $ 4,713.00 .$2,01)0.00

3.) roURT RECOVERY $ 1,22G.00 -0-

4. ) INSURANCE RECOVERY $51,62~.OO -o-S.) UNSPECIFIED RECOVEliY $100,337.00 $ 510.66

T~mNTY-TllO DISTRIct AVERAGE LOSS .$206,452.72 THElITy-'.mo DIs'rRIer AVERAGE RECOVERY $

my AND VAN!)ALlSH Q:JESTIONNAIRE RANKED BY LOSS PER STUDENT (roNT!N'JED)

roRRECTED COpy JAWJARY lZ,-1973

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~r II III

GLASS • EQ,JIPMENT NUMBER

LOSS REaWERY % ~ASES LOSS REOOVERY

28,946.56 ~O-

I

5,OOO.0( -0- 68 4,771.00 -0-

36,823.06 2,633.97

Bus $21.00 3,168.DC -0- 31 11,1.82.00 3, laS.OO

(4)

3,939.0£ -0- 22

! 10,596.40 -0-

, 3,82/1 .0 938.00 .25 36 7,161. 00 185.00

,

$1, lOS, 151 $5,100 .005 2.,4513 $630,602 $222,512

$2,489.63 $1,347.12

$2,(100.00 $8,418.74

%

.07

.28

.02

.35

TOTAL NUMBER CASES

384

273

178,

112

i 47 othel:

177

TOTAL DISTRICT

LOS']

48,117.80

32,143.00

27,293.00

44,447.26

18,943.00

19,208.£:8

30,001.1.00

TOTAL DISTRICT REc:'VERY

1,211.83 (1)

-0-

12 394.00

2.719.74

3,678.00

-0-

102.00

f12o.00 othe 18,564.00 1. 358 .. 00

17,733 $4,541,959 $432,3~7

$11,6(:7.98

$19,542.74

. ·0- $ 567.14 $ 7,103.14

.0-

$ 610.66

$209,393.01

$2,787.12

. .,rENlY-Ti-,lJ DlS'tRICt f.\'ERAGE ntCOVERY $19,651.71

$261,843.99

$126,018.58

PERCElfr OF RtCOVERY .0951

, LOSS REroVERY

PER PER STUDENT S TIl DENT

$1.30 $ .03

> 1. 29

0 . 1.14 .52 ,

.-.84 .05

.72 .14

.68

.63 .002

.58 .{)4

A"'g. Avg. $2.75 $ .26

4%

1,%

2%

61%

29% 100~. RECOVERY

"