Thestudy investigatessaferide program that operates in a key metropolitan area. According tothe study estimates, safe ride programs decreases crime levels by 14percent. Amplified program intensity is another method that lessensthe rate of crime. As expected, the influence is higher during theweekends as a large number of trips are measured at the time. Thecosts linked with safe ride program shows it is an effective way ofdecreasing crime.
ProblemAddressed by the Paper and why it Matters
Thecurrent paper has scrutinized a longitudinal case study that hasaimed at determining whether safe ride programs have the capabilityof lessening urban crime. The author has investigated a safe rideprogram that operates in a key metropolitan area. These programs arewidespread in most universities. The study is significant as it hasbeen evidenced that large amount of spending is used by privateinitiatives to deter and prevent crime. Predominantly, universitiesand colleges have great concerns regarding security (Jackson &Owens, 2011). Some of the spending they use to ensure safetyencompasses safe ride programs, foot patrols, amplified lighting,emergency phone systems, as well as safety and crime preventionpresentations. According to a number of the United States highereducation institutions, the private security forces are accountablefor their security (Peng, 2011).
Accordingto the study estimates, safe ride programs decreases crime levels by14 percent. However, the influence continues in various classes ofcrime. Amplified program intensity is another method that lessens therate of crime (Bryan, 2014). As expected, the influence is higherduring the weekends as a large number of trips are measured at thetime. The study indicates that safe ride programs are an effectiveway of reducing crimes. This deduction is made considering theexpenditures used on the programs (Harding, Apsler & Goldfein,1988).
Methodologyand Data Used
Thestudy has used a longitudinal case study. The author has employed astudy design that has matched local crime data to the program. Weberhas employed a fixed effect estimate in a Poisson regression. A ZIPmodel was used and it confirmed a 14 percent decrease in crimelevels. The methodology has addressed the probability of reversecausality. Data used was on number of rides as well as operatinghours which was obtained from 2005 to June 2008.
MainConclusion of the Author
Thestudy findings indicate that safe ride program is linked with a 14percent decrease in the general crime count. Approximately half ofthis effect would become obvious if the policy makers wouldacknowledge the trend of putting the program in hours linked withincreased crimes. Besides, they should use fixed effects and drop thehours where the said program failed to function. The study has alsoshown that crime count acts in response to how strong the program is.For instance, as the program amplifies the rides conveyed by a singlestandard deviation, the counts in crime decreases by over 8 percent.This implies that boosting the intensity of the program is efficientin decreasing both violent and nonviolent crimes. Besides, it isefficient in decreasing crime count during weekends as compared toweekdays.
Assessmentof how significance, usefulness and readability of the paper
Fromthe study, it is apparent that Weber has been able to put his pointacross. Considering the high costs incurred in dissuading andpreventing crime, his study is extremely significant not only to theuniversities and colleges but to the society in general. Weberinvestigated the effectiveness of safe ride programs and the studyhas indicated that they assisted in decreasing crime counts by 14percent. A suitable methodology has been employed for this researchand it has offered credible and reliable findings. The author hasprovided a detailed explanation of safe ride program besidesexamining the basis of discovering disparity in its provision. Thepaper has been arranged into various sections and this is significantto the reader as it offers a good flow while reading.
Thisproject would not have been successful if it were not for theguidelines and encouragements of many. I express my sincereappreciation to individuals who played a key role throughout theproject. I extend my gratitude to John S. Heywood, members of theUW-Milwaukee Economics Seminar, as well as a number of unidentifiedreferees. My appreciation also goes to Lisa Sutton for her help withGIS software.
Bryan,W. (2014). Can safe ride programs reduce urban crime? RegionalScience and Urban Economics48, 1-11.
Harding,W., Apsler, R., & Goldfein, J., (1988). The assessment of rideservice programs as an alcohol countermeasure. FinalReport. Technical Report.
Jackson,C.K., & Owens, E.G., (2011). One for the road: publictransportation, alcohol consumption, and intoxicated driving. J.Public Econ.95, 106–121.
Peng,Q. (2011). ICTE2011 proceedings of the Third International Conference onTransportation Engineering : July 23-25, 2011, Chengdu, China.Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.