CAROL A. ZIMMERMANN, CAROL A.. (2007) ROUTINE ACTIVITY THEORY AND THE HANDLING OF CHILDREN AND POLICY MAKERS. Using the Routine activity approach Gottfredson et al. (2007) explores how school programs and staff function using the after school program as its focal point furthers or regresses prosocial behavior. Gottfredson et al. (2007) questions whether the presence of a respectful guardian decreases the likely hood of delinquent activities, and talks about kids with too much free time and no structured or planned time turn to alternate activities such as Delinquency, which involves abusing drugs and victimizing others.
In their study Gottfredson et al. (2007) they proposed that success of prosocial behavior will be furthered if staff function in, concert across and all controllers role. It concluded hypothetically that a staff member either plays all three roles or is playing one, two or three roles and sharing a core mission to increase overall network of control in program may lead to more favorable outcome.
A proposed conclusion is that a if a member has no defined role then him or her is unable to fulfill the guardianship role instead manage the location handing the kids or combination of both. FIGURE 1. ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY AND CONTROLLERS APPLIED TO AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS Child Handler Guardian Place Manager Target Place Gottfredson et al. (2007) concluded that a higher percentage of males led to less delinquency behavior forcing them to question whether males and females members are playing the same controller roles.
It questioned if males and females differ and viewed their selves as managers or handlers of the kids. This led to the question about the importance of managers versus handlers to reduce the delinquency behavior. A higher ratio of staff to children the less delinquency and victimization occurred. It made it possible to explore whether the presence of more staff led to presence, and distributions of roles. With such a target, guardianship can be defined. Without such a target, is it difficult to specify the role of the guardian. FIGURE 2.
TYPOLOGY OF REFORMULATED ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY ELEMENTS AND CONTROLLERS AS APPLIED TO SAMPLE AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS Substance Abuse Social Skills Academic Curriculum Prevention Training Enrichment Unspecified Element Target Illegal sub- Incivilities Academic undefined stance use performance Controller Guardian (mission) Eliminate sub- Eliminate Eliminate undefined stance abuse incivilities school failure Element Place Program Program Program Program location location location location Controller Manager (mission) Place is kept Place is kept Place is kept Place is kept and managed and managed and managed and managed in accordance in accordance in accordance in accordance to school and to school and to school and to school and program rules. program rules. program rules. program rules.
Particular Particular Particular attention to attention to attention to making the making the equipping the place drug free. place civil and place for peaceful. educational processes. Element Offender Child Child Child Child Controller Handler (mission) Equip, support, Equip, support, Equip, support, Monitor the and survey the and monitor and monitor child and prochild to assure the child to the child to vide activities the child is not assure the child assure the child to assure the abusing sub- is acting in a is processing in child is safe stances. rosocial man- academic skill and not idle. ner. areas.
Sasse, Scott (2005) “motivation” and routine activities theory examines the motivation aspect of routine activities theory as it pertains to sex offenders. Using data gathered from 163 convicted sex offenders who participated in treatment programs between 1982 and 2000. This was important in order to further identify if demographics, abuse history, sex abuse, drug and alcohol use, and other motivating variables were predictive of in and out home offending. As Schwartz et al. (2001) made it clear that “researchers have made little attempt to discover what makes offenders different from other persons at the scene”.
Robinson (2004) expressed his unease about the neglect in routine activities research “Even though motivated offenders are part of the model, rarely do tests of the theory directly measure offender motivation” (Paulsen and Robinson 2004:104). According to Sasse, Scott (2005) “motivation” and routine activities theory Motivations, or the desires to commit crimes, are not necessarily realized immediately with the presentation of the right opportunity at the right moment. While this process will vary depending on the offense and where it happens as routine activities literature argues, the victimization processes do not always occur in the heat of the moment, may take years to come to fruition, and will vary according to the motivations of the offender.
Nelson and HuffCorzine (1998) examined the elderly’s risk of homicide within a routine activities perspective and many of their conclusions are germane to this discussion. These authors posited that violent victimization of the elderly is most likely to occur in their homes due to debilitating conditions and the decreased mobility that the elderly sometime suffer (Nelson and Huff-Corzine 1998:137). As Nelson and Huff-Corzine point out in reference to the elderly: “Persons who are close to the victim have the greatest opportunity to determine if she or he is a suitable target and if there are times when target protectors will be absent. A trusted person is likely to have access to the victim’s dwelling and knowledge of the victim’s routine activities which would allow successful commission of the crime” (137).
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics Characteristics f % Characteristics f % Access Weapon used Community 86 52. 8 No 157 96. 3 Lived with victim 77 47. 2 Yes 6 3. 7 Disability Acts preceding No 124 76. 1 Non-physical acts 51 31. 3 Yes 35 21. 5 Violent physical acts 91 55. 8 Missing 4 2. 5 Missing 21 12. 9 Abuse history Alcohol used No 81 49. 7 No 51 31. 3 Yes 71 43. 6 Yes 104 63. 8 Missing 11 6. 7 Missing 8 4. 9 Sex abuse history Drugs used No 110 67. 5 No 126 77. 3 Yes 23 14. 1 Yes 28 17. 2 Missing 30 18. 4 Missing 95. 5 Achieving compliance No force=threats 87 53. 4 Force=threats 61 37. 4 Missing 15 9. 2 Mean ages Home offenders 34. 4 Community offenders: 28. 7 X2 74 9. 08 p<. 003 Home victims 10. 4 Community victims: 14. 8 X2 14 25. 84 p<. 001