More Dogs In the Neighborhood Often Means Less Crime (phys.org) 150
In a study conducted in Columbus, researchers found that neighborhoods with more dogs had lower rates of homicide, robbery and, to a lesser extent, aggravated assaults compared to areas with fewer dogs, at least when residents also had high levels of trust in each other. Phys.Org reports: The results suggest that people walking their dogs puts more "eyes on the street," which can discourage crime, said Nicolo Pinchak, lead author of the study and a doctoral student in sociology at The Ohio State University. "People walking their dogs are essentially patrolling their neighborhoods," Pinchak said. "They see when things are not right, and when there are suspect outsiders in the area. It can be a crime deterrent."
For the study, researchers looked at crime statistics from 2014 to 2016 for 595 census block groups -- the equivalent of neighborhoods -- in the Columbus area. They obtained survey data from a marketing firm that asked Columbus residents in 2013 if they had a dog in their household. Finally, they used data from the Adolescent Health and Development in Context study (which Browning runs) to measure trust in individual neighborhoods. As part of that study, residents were asked to rate how much they agreed that "people on the streets can be trusted" in their neighborhoods. Research has shown that trust among neighbors is an important part of deterring crime, because it suggests residents will help each other when facing a threat and have a sense of "collective efficacy" that they can have a positive impact on their area, Pinchak said.
Results of this study showed, as expected, that neighborhoods with high levels of trust had lower levels of homicide, robbery and aggravated assaults when compared to neighborhoods with low levels of trust. But among high-trust neighborhoods, those with high concentrations of dogs showed an additional drop in crime compared to those with low concentrations of dogs. Among the high-trust neighborhoods, neighborhoods high in dog concentration had about two-thirds the robbery rates of those low in dog concentration and about half the homicide rates, the study found. It really has to do with the dog walking, Pinchak said. [...] Results showed that the trust and dog-walking combination helped reduce street crimes: those crimes like homicides and robberies that tend to occur in public locations, including streets and sidewalks. The study found that more dogs in a neighborhood was also related to fewer property crimes, like burglaries, irrespective of how much residents trust each other, Pinchak said. [...] The protective effect of dogs and trust was found even when a wide range of other factors related to crime was taken into account, including the proportion of young males in the neighborhood, residential instability and socioeconomic status. The study was published in the journal Social Forces.
For the study, researchers looked at crime statistics from 2014 to 2016 for 595 census block groups -- the equivalent of neighborhoods -- in the Columbus area. They obtained survey data from a marketing firm that asked Columbus residents in 2013 if they had a dog in their household. Finally, they used data from the Adolescent Health and Development in Context study (which Browning runs) to measure trust in individual neighborhoods. As part of that study, residents were asked to rate how much they agreed that "people on the streets can be trusted" in their neighborhoods. Research has shown that trust among neighbors is an important part of deterring crime, because it suggests residents will help each other when facing a threat and have a sense of "collective efficacy" that they can have a positive impact on their area, Pinchak said.
Results of this study showed, as expected, that neighborhoods with high levels of trust had lower levels of homicide, robbery and aggravated assaults when compared to neighborhoods with low levels of trust. But among high-trust neighborhoods, those with high concentrations of dogs showed an additional drop in crime compared to those with low concentrations of dogs. Among the high-trust neighborhoods, neighborhoods high in dog concentration had about two-thirds the robbery rates of those low in dog concentration and about half the homicide rates, the study found. It really has to do with the dog walking, Pinchak said. [...] Results showed that the trust and dog-walking combination helped reduce street crimes: those crimes like homicides and robberies that tend to occur in public locations, including streets and sidewalks. The study found that more dogs in a neighborhood was also related to fewer property crimes, like burglaries, irrespective of how much residents trust each other, Pinchak said. [...] The protective effect of dogs and trust was found even when a wide range of other factors related to crime was taken into account, including the proportion of young males in the neighborhood, residential instability and socioeconomic status. The study was published in the journal Social Forces.
It was always well known annecdotally. (Score:5, Interesting)
Both times I've been burgled, the cops always said "If you can get a dog, you should", apparently getting called out to burglaries at houses with dogs, even little yappy dog, is pretty rare.
Plus when I was 20, in the early 1990s, and my first house, I had a bull terrier land-shark in my back yard that managed to take a chunk of flesh outside of some poor burglar it caught in the yard. And the poor guy made it two houses down over fences after before being caught by the surprisingly community minded Coffin Cheater biker (The guy would take his whipper snipper and go up and down the street trimming everyones lawns) that lived there , and that boys and girls is what you call a "Crime doesnt pay" day. But yeah back on topic, get a dog, the little fellas are the best burglar alarms money can buy.
Re: It was always well known annecdotally. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We're lucky (sometimes) in that we have two big dogs, but the biggest acts like a yapper. I swear, the neighbors could whisper to each other inside their house and she'll start barking like an idiot. It's great to be notified when packages arrive, and I know she's scared off the neighbor kids who are notorious for knock-and-dash bullshit among the other neighbors, but sometimes I do wish she could keep it under wraps.
Guarantee only a complete dumbass would try to break in to our place though. She sounds vic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ours is a german sheppard, terrier mix that's about half again as big as that would imply. She's a giant, but sweet as can be once she gets to the person she wants to see. But man can she pull like an old Mac truck. We started using the no-pull / leader type harnesses that put the leash mount on the front. Then if she pulls it forces her to turn to face you. It sucks the first couple times you use it, but it shapes up that pulling real quick.
Our other is a stocky little terrier mix that's also very sweet,
Re:It was always well known annecdotally. (Score:4, Funny)
get a dog, the little fellas are the best burglar alarms money can buy.
What about geese? Geese don't need to go for walks and they also lay tasty eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
Geese Howard doesn't work cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
they crap everywhere
Dogs don't?
they will attack all visitors without regard for intent to burgle
Sounds perfect.
Re: It was always well known annecdotally. (Score:2)
Housetrained dogs donâ(TM)t. IIRC itâ(TM)s not possible to housetrain birds since they donâ(TM)t have voluntary control over when they excrete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A camera that can detect people in the frame and a speaker that makes dog sounds might work equally well.
I'm more of a cat person, but cats are fairly useless for protecting your home from anything other than another cat.
Re: (Score:2)
"A camera that can detect people in the frame and a speaker that makes dog sounds might work equally well."
Hmmm. I wonder if I can take the feed from a Ring and use it to trigger...
Re: (Score:2)
You just need a bigger cat. 8-D
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap and works almost as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much of this is dogs and how much is fences.
When I moved into my current neighborhood, maybe 25% of houses had a fence. In the years since then enough people have gotten dogs and fenced in their yard that you no longer can freely move through the backyards and between the houses. There used to be a bit of foot traffic through our backyards and between houses as people cut through the neighborhood instead of walking around the block, but that's largely not possible anymore.
Years ago kids would f
yea the problem is (Score:5, Interesting)
The owners, most dogs I encounter in our neighborhood go full on nuts mode jumping at their leash or pens and on occasion directly running out to me and my 6 year old daughter just for having the nerve of walking around a few blocks on a nice afternoon.
There's only a few dogs out of (I dunno) a dozen that I actually let their owners know I appreciate their well behaved dog, and at least one that I told "if your dog comes growling and barking at my little kid again while she plays in her own front yard, I am going to hit it with a hammer in its face"
Maybe cause I am not much of a dog person, maybe I was mauled twice and attacked multiple times by a neighborhood chow before I beat it to death with a heavy branch... not sure
Re:yea the problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
yea I live in redneck land, they wont do anything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a dog person, BUT, if people are letting their dog off leash, not in a fenced yard, call animal control.
Agreed, our dog has a rope in the front yard and a fence in the back, FOR HER OWN SAFETY. People who just let their dog roam free, except for a few exceptional dogs I know (and even one or two of these have been killed by cars), are not caring about the dog or their neighbors, and should not be allowed to have a pet (or probably children). And yes there are a few people I know that are great to their dogs that do this, but again, some of these still ended up mourning their dogs as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK if a dog attacks anyone it is destroyed. Owners know that so keep their dogs under control and docile, because if they don't there is a very good chance it will get put down and they will be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is how it should be. Sure, a badly behaved dog is universally the owner's fault, but clearly they should not have one in these cases and this legal situation makes that happen.
Re: (Score:2)
...at least one that I told "if your dog comes growling and barking at my little kid again while she plays in her own front yard, I am going to hit it with a hammer in its face"
Don't hit the dog in the face with a hammer, you will get little sympathy. Hitting the owner, on the other hand, may just win you a medal.
Unless (Score:5, Insightful)
>"More Dogs In the Neighborhood Often Means Less Crime"
Unless you also count the crimes of noise complaints, bites/attacks, and litter (pooing on other's properties).
Certainly not the case with MOST dog owners, but as someone who has had to suffer many years listening to those things endlessly disturb my peace, there are two sides to every coin.
Re:Unless (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a dog person. I love dogs. I've had dogs all my life. I would like to drop a brick on my neighbor's little yappy rat dog.
Yip-Yap Yip-Yap Yip-Yap ... Bang! (Score:5, Funny)
Yip-Yap Yip-Yap Yip-Yap ... Bang! ...
[NO TERRIER]
Re: (Score:2)
Ya beat me to it. One of my all-time favorites. But how many modems does it take to change a light bulb?
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to drop a brick on my neighbor. They some kind of valuable yappy little fuck dog, but it's only a problem for everyone else because they keep it outside. It's a lap dog, it wasn't meant to be left outside and neglected. It's not the dog's fault. It's the human's.
Same neighbors apparently run a fucking laundry service because their dryer runs about 66% of the time, and their dryer sheets are fucking horrid. I can't even be outside.
Re: Unless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because cat people are criminals.
In other news: (Score:2, Funny)
PHYS.ORG: Don't let Higgs boson your leg, dumbass..
Correlation is not causation (Score:4, Insightful)
Dogs are, generally, owned more frequently by affluent people in affluent neighborhoods (because they can afford dogs, have time for dogs, and have fewer restrictions by landlords on pet ownership). Conversely, poorer neighborhoods have fewer dogs.
At the same time, there is usually more crime in poorer areas than in affluent areas.
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFS they controlled for wealth.
I expect the GP was using "affluent" in a very relative sense, not an absolute sense, and did not mean to exclude non-affluent people with modest incomes and modest homes and with dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, it's that the same traits that enable people to care for dogs (taking responsibility, planning, managing one's affairs) are the same traits that lead to affluence.
Re: (Score:2)
But poorer families often have more children than affluent families - which by definition requires substantially more of "taking responsibility, planning and managing one's affairs".
Re: (Score:2)
You are conflating "taking responsibility" with "requiring responsibility."
It follows that less responsible people would have, on average, more unprotected sex than more responsible people. This would result in more children for less responsible people. The fact that those children "require" responsibility doesn't make it happen. I know this because I volunteer with an inner city mission that works with people who live in poverty. In these neighborhoods, stray dogs roam the streets looking for food. These d
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, it's that the same traits that enable people to care for dogs (taking responsibility, planning, managing one's affairs) are the same traits that lead to affluence.
Affluence is often inherited and those traits are not necessarily present. Also the GP was using "affluent" in a very relative sense, not an absolute sense. The study like shows the safe effect with non-affluent people with modest incomes and modest homes and with dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Affluence is often inherited
Is this because of nature, or nurture? Is it because of genetics, or because "affluent" parents teach their children good habits that lead to more probability of affluence? There is, to be sure, some of both at play, but it's very difficult to make a categorical statement one way or the other.
Regardless of where affluence comes from in a specific case, it's still true that the same habits that are practiced by responsible individuals lead to both successful dog ownership and to affluence.
Re: (Score:2)
Affluence is often inherited
Is this because of nature, or nurture?
Nurture, wealthy parents, wealthy kids. Their setup to be wealthy adults if they avoid stupid mistakes.
Regardless of where affluence comes from in a specific case, it's still true that the same habits that are practiced by responsible individuals lead to both successful dog ownership and to affluence.
You are doubling down on the error that affluence is involved. The non-affluent working poor can have pretty good ideas and habits too. Keeping dogs being one of them. Their non-affluence more determined by their starting position, and something that may change in the long term given their good ideas and habits.
Again, dogs are common even in non-affluent neighborhoods with very modest houses.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think I said that affluence is a factor, you didn't really read my post. My position is that affluence is a side effect of the habits that are cultivated through pet ownership. Some people who don't own pets are also responsible people, it is being responsible that brings about affluence, not pet ownership. Yes, I know the study controlled for affluence.
The non-affluent working poor can have pretty good ideas and habits too.
No, they don't, at least, this is not the norm. I've lived this. My parents were poor, hard-working people. I grew up on free school lunches, not rea
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be what the Article explained, walking Dogs, actually has you meet and talk to your neighbors, and gives you a hint what is normal activity and what isn't in your area.
If I didn't have a dog, I probably wouldn't go out and walk the street as much, and I wouldn't have any idea about my neighbors, who is retired, who is working, who has kids, who likes to party and who generally keeps to themselves. I also have a sense of illegal activities that goes on, most no one really will bother to report,
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen people having small dogs like yorkshire terriers or the like even in social housing apartments with tiny balconies, an of course normally gutter punks and squatters are dog lovers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that eating more cheese makes it more likely you will get strangled in your bedsheets?
https://www.tylervigen.com/spu... [tylervigen.com]
Sometimes it is causation (Score:2)
Sorry dude, occasionally it is causation not correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the section of town that other people in my area give you funny looks for being from. It's majority minority, and one of the cheapest area in town to buy a house. I'd hazard that a quarter of the residents have dogs. They're live-outside un-pampered dogs, so less expensive than an affluent fur baby.
I'll counter your affordability/time/restrictions argument with that poor people generally live in more dangerous neighborhoods and already knew subconsciously what this research is now confirming.
Re: (Score:2)
Dogs are, generally, owned more frequently by affluent people in affluent neighborhoods (because they can afford dogs, have time for dogs, and have fewer restrictions by landlords on pet ownership).
You are using "more affluent" in a misleading sense, it implies above average wealth. People of modest wealth with modest homes own dogs too. Some of these may also be considered "poor", "working poor". Basically, low wealth and stuck in rented apartments leads to low dog ownership. In general you are correct, your just a little misleading with your use of "affluent" and "poor".
Also, there is likely a correlation between dog ownership and gun ownership. And of course A => B does not mean B => A.
Cats (Score:2)
What about cats? My cat never let anyone rob the place. However he did use the new leather sectional sofa as a scratching post, so it evens out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you take your cat out for walks? The authors think dog walking is a major factor that leads to lowering crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you take your cat out for walks? The authors think dog walking is a major factor that leads to lowering crime.
They are probably right. Since getting my dog (An enormous Greyhound, and wannabe lap dog) I know all my neighbours. They all love my dog, and frequently stop us to talk. This leads to neighbours knowing each other and what they are doing. So last summer when the sisters down the street were away I knew that there was no reason for the side window to be open as that window was closed. I called the police, and they arrested someone coming out of the house.
I got a very nice thank you card from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely this. I think I'd like having you as my neighbor.
My neighbors and I have each other's cell numbers, we tell each other when we're away, we have each other's house keys, and you bet we would call the police if we saw something amiss. I have no doubt that some of this is due to meeting each other while dog walking.
Re: (Score:2)
They are wonderful people who deserve a much better neighbour than me. But I ain't moving, so they are stuck with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dogs are ok but (Score:4, Funny)
Dogs are ok but what you really need is a werewolf.
Re: Dogs are ok but (Score:2)
How is that going to work? So we can get robbed 28 out of 29 days? I feel like you have not seriously thought through this werewolf idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Dogs are ok but (Score:2)
It's the sign (Score:2)
"No trespassing. What the dogs don't finish we feed to the pigs"
Yeah, my dogs are definitely a crime deterrent (Score:3)
I have no doubt that any ne'er-do-well who hops the fence into our yard will be promptly and effectively licked to death.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the social aspect (Score:2)
More people walking around, socializing, maybe even helping each other. Dogs meeting strangers, some giving unconditional affection, some getting it.
There are downsides to dogs: I've been bitten and my dog too. Not everyone has their dog under leash and control.
Not just dog walking surveillance (Score:2)
People who walk their dogs tend to meet each other while walking their dogs. They become friends and look out for each other.
And yes, burglars do think twice when they come to a door and hear a dog barking inside.
Surprised nobody has said it yet (Score:2)
> residents were asked to rate how much they agreed that "people on the streets can be trusted" in their neighborhoods. Research has shown that trust among neighbors is an important part of deterring crime
So they found a correlation between "people on the streets can be trusted" and low-crime neighborhoods.
I don't know about you, but if I lived in neighborhood full of criminals, I probably wouldn't trust them - because they're criminals. If you ask me about "people on the street can be trusted", my ans
Re: (Score:2)
Among the high-trust neighborhoods, neighborhoods high in dog concentration had about two-thirds the robbery rates of those low in dog concentration and about half the homicide rates, the study found.
I'm not sure *I* trust your ability to read.
Re: (Score:2)
"trust among neighbors is an important part of deterring crime", Pinchak said.
He noticed a correlation between trusting your neighbors and the neighborhood being safe.
He assumes that's trusting your neighbors makes the neighborhood safer. As opposed the obvious truth that if your neighbors ARE safe, if they aren't gang bangers and meth heads, you'll trust them more. He gets the causation exactly backwards.
I'm not sure I trust your ability to read, even when it's directly pointed out to you after you've read
Complete bullshit (Score:2)
I have lived in multiple metropolitan areas with massive amounts of dog ownership, and those dogs have done nothing to prevent non stop assaults, burglaries, homeless all over the streets, graffiti, encampments, mentally ill people without pants wandering the streets, petty theft, robberies, you name it.
Now police roaming the streets arresting criminals seems to have a real effect in reducing crime, but apparently that isnt trendy with leftists who think responsible dog ownership will stop the crime. But he
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed your comment was complete bullshit (Score:3)
You can't patrol crime away; the resources needed are not plausible. Having the streets patrolled by police give the tax payers the illusion of safety, but it seldom achieves anything of value. What's needed is accurate data about when crime is happening, and where, as well as ever more surveillance ;)
The core problem of course remains that we don't have an explanation for the fall in the crime rate in the mid 90s. The least bad explanation is that it was as a result of the removal of lead from petrol. Unti
Theory B (Score:5, Funny)
I have a theory the reduction is caused by more people being awake at odd hours due to dogs fucking barking all the time.
Re: Theory B (Score:2)
Or a cranky dog making its poor human take it out for a stroll at 2am in the morning.
Let us look at demographics (Score:2)
Almost none of its members owns dogs.
That makes this correlation rather remarkable and intuitive.
Training (Score:3)
Somewhat unrelated, but seeing how many comments are complaints about misbehaving dogs, I think I should say it...
Dogs are not cats, nor are they cuddly toys and/or replacement for babies. They need an owner who knows how to handle an animal, not just for the sake of other people, and other pets, but for their sake as well. People dress up these dogs as cute toys, and reinforce negative behavior and cause psychological distress to them, unknowingly, all the time. These dogs end up biting, jumping, eating stuff, barking and even attacking kids, eventually.
By all means, get a dog, but know the breed, know what you getting, and what it needs in terms of exercise, food and training.
If you can't learn how to handle animals, you should not have a dog legally, like you shouldn't drive a car if you don't know how. It's best case annoying to other people, and worst case, it can cost somebody their life.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people, including most people who have dogs, should not be allowed to have a dog... or a child. They abuse them, at minimum through neglect. It's a living being, not a toy.
No crimes... (Score:2)
...and no sleep.
And shitty shoes.
Vet bills (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Criminals are averse to dogs sniffing their crotch (Score:2)
Especially when they're growling. Just kidding about having it a custom to allow your junk to be sniffed, but I imagine people walking dogs makes an area look less inviting of crime than otherwise.
Not that surprising (Score:2)
It makes sense. Criminals self-select for not being noticed. (Those who are noticed tend to get arrested.)
I've read that other changes, such as traffic calming also reduces crime for similar reasons - a slow or stopped driver is much more aware of their surroundings than a driver traveling at full speed through the neighborhood.
Missing the point (Score:2)
>at least when residents also had high levels of trust in each other.
Reads like the people who conducted the study came to the conclusion about dogs while ignoring possible other factors that may be of higher importance to the reason of lower crime.
Haha (Score:2)
In California, all the criminals own pit bulls. Maybe they don't do crime in their own neighborhoods.
THe attraction of correlation (Score:2)
layered defense (Score:2)
I prefer a layered defense:
0. Safe neighborhood.
1. Secure doors and windows.
2. Intrusion detection and security cameras.
3. A large German Shepherd.
4. Cell phone (on charger) and flashlight next to my bed.
4. A secured gun in a quick-access safe in my bedroom.
I am low risk for home intrusion, but like they say, at the time you realize that you need it then it is too late.
Direction? (Score:2)
How do they know the dog walking causes the reduction in crime? Couldn't it be the other way around, that people walk their dogs more in low crime neighborhoods, because they feel safe doing so?
You like dags? (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/dQSnua3M2lo?t... [youtu.be]
Maybe this also has something to do with it? (Score:2)
"...at least when residents also had high levels of trust in each other. "
So perhaps an alternate answer is that people are pretty good about categorizing the level of risk they find themselves in.
If you have shitty neighbors, you may just know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but some of the crazier stuff happens from 1AM to 4AM when there aren't many dogs out.
Cars, maybe, but most house burglaries take place during the day (when people are more likely to be out of the house).
Re: Night time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Night time (Score:2)
Re: More dogs in neighborhood means... (Score:2)
I wonder if the authors thought of that:
The protective effect of dogs and trust was found even when a wide range of other factors related to crime was taken into account, including the proportion of young males in the neighborhood, residential instability and socioeconomic status.
Looks like they did.
Re: (Score:2)
I am failing to see an agenda with this research. Being that they accounted for other aspects that can cause crime, I think it is a rather solid study.
We don't have Big Dog Pound that seems to pressuring the world to get Dogs or else doom.
Which is unlike say Big Oil who recently creates FUD, and scientific sounding studies, which is often based off of bad or misleading data.
Eg a research study showing that EV are more Expensive then a Gas car. By comparing a more expensive EV, with a a cheap Gas Car, and c
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, people who are responsible enough to take care of dogs, are also more responsible with their money and end up with more of it than those who are irresponsible.
Re: I have at least two dogs in my neighbourhood (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This study forgot one thing: Not everybody is out of the house all day and the people that aren't will have to listen to dogs barking all day long until their asshole owners come back.