Surveillance should be part of any library's vandalism prevention approach. Goldstein recommends two types of surveillance. The first is traditional formal surveillance by police, security guards, citizen groups or paid or voluntary security personnel. The second type of surveillance is that which naturally occurs by employees such as librarians and custodians while completing their daily activities. Any surveillance should be at irregular intervals so that potential vandals cannot predict when a certain area will be unobserved (Lincoln).
Goldstein describes rule setting as making express statements of both acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, as well as the consequences for misbehaviour, available and well posted. To keep rule setting from being an empty threat, libraries should follow through with punishment, another strategy suggested by Goldstein, by enforcing their rules on the (unusual) occasions that vandals are caught. Punishments may include fines, restitution, or suspension of library privileges. Another Goldstein strategy, counselling, may be appropriate for vandals, such as young students caught vandalizing a school or public library. As well as publicizing the library's rules, publicity may be used to inform potential vandals and the general public of the problem and costs of vandalism through such means as anti- vandalism advertising, new releases, decals, slogan contests, anti-vandalism buttons, t-shirts, rulers, bookmarks, posters, and flyers (Goldstein). Lincoln recommends that libraries share the costs of anti-vandalism advertising and other publicity such as public service announcements by partnering with schools or transit authorities.
and many other ways...
Monday, September 14, 2009
Many Forms of Vandalism in the Library
Vandalism in libraries can take many forms. Lincoln has enumerated six types of vandalism in libraries, including: intentional damage to materials, vandalism outside the building, vandalism inside the building, vandalism to vehicles, vandalism to equipment, and arson. For example, one public library in Georgia spent $5,000 in one month repairing windows that were repeatedly broken by vandals (G.M.E.). Prevention strategies for all types of vandalism will be presented in the last section of this paper. The remainder of this section will explore the insidious problem of materials mutilation.
Many authors, such as Robert Schumm do not believe that complete elimination of materials mutilation is possible. However, he suggests that understanding the types of materials that are most frequently mutilated is the first step in reducing the problem. For example, studies have shown that materials about controversial subjects and materials in special formats are more frequent targets than other materials (Curry, Flodin and Matheson). The survey of libraries subscribing to Playboy that found two-thirds of the libraries experienced problems with that magazine alone (Cornog and Perper) supports the contention that controversial materials are a target for vandalism. The literature abounds with examples such as the vandalism of twelve gay-positive books in the Central Michigan University library ("Gay"). The books were discovered with ripped out pages and tossed into toilets. Although not vandalism of sex materials per se, six Boston public libraries found copies of an illustrated essay supporting pedophilia as an acceptable practice pasted into their books (R.O.). Cornog and Perper warn librarians about treating the vandalism of sex materials differently than the vandalism of other materials. They suggest that it is inappropriate to choose not to carry sex materials where such a decision would not be considered for other types of materials. They recommend employing the same strategies to prevent vandalism as librarians use for other materials, and not to opt for simply restricting or not replacing the materials.
Many authors, such as Robert Schumm do not believe that complete elimination of materials mutilation is possible. However, he suggests that understanding the types of materials that are most frequently mutilated is the first step in reducing the problem. For example, studies have shown that materials about controversial subjects and materials in special formats are more frequent targets than other materials (Curry, Flodin and Matheson). The survey of libraries subscribing to Playboy that found two-thirds of the libraries experienced problems with that magazine alone (Cornog and Perper) supports the contention that controversial materials are a target for vandalism. The literature abounds with examples such as the vandalism of twelve gay-positive books in the Central Michigan University library ("Gay"). The books were discovered with ripped out pages and tossed into toilets. Although not vandalism of sex materials per se, six Boston public libraries found copies of an illustrated essay supporting pedophilia as an acceptable practice pasted into their books (R.O.). Cornog and Perper warn librarians about treating the vandalism of sex materials differently than the vandalism of other materials. They suggest that it is inappropriate to choose not to carry sex materials where such a decision would not be considered for other types of materials. They recommend employing the same strategies to prevent vandalism as librarians use for other materials, and not to opt for simply restricting or not replacing the materials.
Categories of Vandalism & its Definition.
To properly prepare for and prevent vandalism, it is important to consider what acts constitute vandalism. Goldstein suggests that acts of vandalism have in common three central concepts: intentionality, destructiveness and property ownership. In other words, "[v]andalism is an intentional act of destruction or defacement of property not one's own" (Goldstein 22). With respect to mutilated material, Badri Prasad has suggested that "mutilated" refers to any act that makes material unfit for reading, either partially or completely. Utilizing Prasad's definition, mutilation of materials would include such acts as cutting pages, highlighting, underlining, making notes in the margins, and adding materials, such as stickers or letters that are not meant to be part of the material.
A number of authors, including Goldstein and Stanley Cohen, have recognized certain categories of vandalism, many of which are common in libraries. The first category is acquisitive vandalism, which involves acts done to obtain property or money (Goldstein). Examples of acquisitive vandalism that may occur in libraries includes damage to parking meters, public telephones, vending machines, and photocopiers (Lincoln). The second classification of vandalism is tactical vandalism. It includes acts done to accomplish goals other than monetary gain (Cohen), such as graffiti (Lincoln) or the defacement of material by a student to prevent the use of that material by fellow students. The third type of vandalism is ideological vandalism, which are acts done in promotion of a social, political or other cause (Goldstein), such as the placement of KKK stickers within materials in a public library ("KKK"). Often ideological vandalism will be identifiable by the materials targeted (Cornog and Perper). Vindictive vandalism, the fourth category, involves acts to gain revenge (Goldstein). In her review of the literature, Constantia Constantinou found that there were contrary studies as to whether or not hostility towards a library is a significant factor in a vandal's motivation. The fifth category is play vandalism. It includes acts of destruction or disfigurement in the course of play (Goldstein), such as a group of teenagers who decide to play target practice with library windows. The final category of vandalism is malicious vandalism. These acts express rage or frustration (Goldstein). Examples a library might encounter include the clogging of toilets or sinks, setting off fire alarms or sprinkler systems, or urinating in public places (Lincoln). While the above categories have not been extensively tested so as to verify their comprehensiveness and reliability (Goldstein), they may be useful in designing appropriate prevention practices.
A number of authors, including Goldstein and Stanley Cohen, have recognized certain categories of vandalism, many of which are common in libraries. The first category is acquisitive vandalism, which involves acts done to obtain property or money (Goldstein). Examples of acquisitive vandalism that may occur in libraries includes damage to parking meters, public telephones, vending machines, and photocopiers (Lincoln). The second classification of vandalism is tactical vandalism. It includes acts done to accomplish goals other than monetary gain (Cohen), such as graffiti (Lincoln) or the defacement of material by a student to prevent the use of that material by fellow students. The third type of vandalism is ideological vandalism, which are acts done in promotion of a social, political or other cause (Goldstein), such as the placement of KKK stickers within materials in a public library ("KKK"). Often ideological vandalism will be identifiable by the materials targeted (Cornog and Perper). Vindictive vandalism, the fourth category, involves acts to gain revenge (Goldstein). In her review of the literature, Constantia Constantinou found that there were contrary studies as to whether or not hostility towards a library is a significant factor in a vandal's motivation. The fifth category is play vandalism. It includes acts of destruction or disfigurement in the course of play (Goldstein), such as a group of teenagers who decide to play target practice with library windows. The final category of vandalism is malicious vandalism. These acts express rage or frustration (Goldstein). Examples a library might encounter include the clogging of toilets or sinks, setting off fire alarms or sprinkler systems, or urinating in public places (Lincoln). While the above categories have not been extensively tested so as to verify their comprehensiveness and reliability (Goldstein), they may be useful in designing appropriate prevention practices.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Vandalisme dalam Kalangan Remaja Faktor-faktor Berlakunya Vandalisme
i. Pengaruh Rakan Sebaya Pengaruh rakan sebaya boleh menyebabkan vandalisme. Golongan remaja biasanya lebih mudah meniru dan terpengaruh dengan rakan sebaya. Pengaruh rakan sebaya akan mencorakkan sikap, nilai dan tingkah laku remaja, lebih-lebih lagi remaja yang tercicir dan menghadapi masalah keluarga. Kebiasaannya, golongan remaja yang melakukan vandalisme merupakan remaja dalam kumpulan, Mereka tidak mempunyai tujuan dan apabila berkumpul timbullah pelbagai idea termasuklah menconteng harta benda awam dan merosakkannya.
ii. Ibu Bapa dan Keluarga Ibu bapa ialah pendorong kepada sifat vandalisme di kalangan remaja. Contohnya, ketika memandu ibu bapa membuang sampah atau kulit buah-buahan seperti rambutan dan limau di samping tidak menghiraukan papan tanda had kelajuan. Sesetengah remaja yang terjebak dalam gejala vandalisme berasal daripada keluarga bermasalah atau keluarga yang mengamalkan budaya hidup negatif. Menurut kajian yang dijalankan vandalisme dendam dilakukan oleh remaja yang ingin bebas dan berlatarkan keluarga yang bermasalah. Selain itu kurangnya kawalan dan bimbingan yang sempurna daripada ibu bapa juga antara faktor utama mendorong remaja terjebak dalam gejala negatif ini.
iii. Pengaruh Media Massa Media massa mempunyai pengaruh dan kesan yang amat kuat dan sukar sekali dielakkan dewasa ini. Paparan adegan-adegan negatif dari filem-filem atau rancangan dari barat yang mempunyai unsur-unsur perlakuan ke arah vandalisme boleh mempengaruhi remaja melakukan vandalisme. Golongan remaja lazimnya mudah meniru dan mengikut hal yang dilihat di sekeliling termasuk media massa, apatah lagi tanpa bimbingan dan tunjuk ajar sewajarnya.
iv. Sikap Apati ( tidak peduli), Individualistik dan Materialistik Masyarakat Remaja adalah produk sistem sesebuah masyarakat. Masyarakat yang pincang akhirnya akan melahirkan produk yang pincang.Sikap sesetengah masyarakat kini yang mementingkan soal kebendaan dan tidak ambil peduli terhadap isu-isu sosial sememangnya merumitkan masalah yang sedia wujud. Menurut kajian masalah vandalisme banyak berlaku di bandar. Golongan remaja menconteng dan merosakkan harta benda awam bukannya tidak terpelajar tetapi generasi yang dilahirkan di bandar sukar dikawal. Di kawasan bandar sesetengah penduduknya tidak ambil peduli terhadap apa yang berlaku di sekeliling mereka. Oleh itu golongan remaja merasakan diri mereka bebas untuk meneruskan gejala negatif ini tanpa menghiraukan rasa tanggungjawab terhadap harta benda awam.
Langkah-langkah
i. Penguatkuasaan Undang-undang Penguatkuasaan dan pelaksanaan undang-undang perlu dijalankan oleh pihak berkenaan. Di bawah Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 9 Undang-Undang Kecil Vandalisme 1991), sesiapa yang didapati merosakkan harta benda awam boleh didenda yang membabitkan RM 2,000 atau penjara tidak lebih setahun jika sabit kesalahan.Pelaksanaan undang-undang baru menetapkan pesalah-pesalah vandalisme menjalankan kerja-kerja khidmat masyarakat dan mereka juga akan menggunakan pakaian seragam pesalah vandalisme. (kerja ini dilakukan di tempat awam seperti pusat membeli-belah)Tindakan tegas perlu dikenakan kepada pesalah agar menjadi teladan kepada rakan-rakan.
ii. Peranan Ibu Bapa dan Keluarga Ibu bapa berperanan memberi tunjuk ajar kepada golongan remaja tentang falsafah kepentingan harta benda awam. Ibu bapa semestinya menerangkan kepada anak-anak tentang pentingnya menganggap harta benda orang lain sama seperti harta sendiri. Secara tidak langsung sekiranya anak sudah diingatkan dengan falsafah ini maka sudah tentu masalah vandalisme tidak seteruk hari ini. Ibu bapa perlu mengasihi dan mendampingi anak-anak mereka supaya tidak berlaku kebosanan dan kekosongan di hati remaja. Kesedaran perlu diterapkan untuk membentuk jiwa remaja yang sihat dan fikiran yang matang sebelum melangkah ke alam dewasa.
iii. Peranan Masyarakat dan Pihak Sekolah. Setiap anggota masyarakat perlu bersikap prihatin dan memberi perhatian kepada anak mereka agar tidak melakukan perbuatan yang salah ini dan masyarakat perlu peka terhadap apa yang berlaku di sekeliling mereka. Masyarakat perlu proaktif terhadap gejala vandalisme yang berlaku di kawasan mereka. Selain itu anggota masyarakat boleh memainkan peranan penting memberikan kefahaman betapa buruknya akhlak vandalisme. Pihak sekolah patut memberi nasihat dan bimbingan kepada pelajar mengenai kepentingan harta awam .Generasi muda perlu diterangkan dengan mendalam tentang tanggungjawab mereka terhadap harta benda awam. Terangkan kepada pelajar apa perasaan mereka sekiranya beg sekolah mereka diconteng atau dikoyak oleh mereka tidak bertanggungjawab Kesedaran seumpama itu akan sedikit sebanyak memberi gambaran tentang pentingnya sikap dan tanggungjawab.
iv. Peranan Media Massa Selain berfungsi sebagai media hiburan dan sumber maklumat terkini, media massa juga seharusnya ada tanggungjawab sosial kepada masyarakat. Media massa memainkan peranan dan mempunyai pengaruh kuat dari segi menanam kesedaran memperoleh kerjasama dan menyampai maklumat tentang vandalisme dalam apa bentuk rancaangan yang tersiar atau yang terdapat dalam media massa. Media massa juga berperanan membantu pihak kerajaan dari segi mengadakan kempen agar masyarakat faham dan menghayati kempen ” Harta Awam Milik Bersama” kerana dengan adanya iltizam dan komitmen daripada media massa maka kempen ini dapat direalisasikan keberkesanannya.
Vandalism is a major problem facing educators and taxpayers alike. The present investigation analyzed how vandalism costs and student disruption were related to the implementation of a training and consultation package designed to increase the reinforcing ambience of the school. A positive environment, it was posited, would displace previous events that may have set the occasion for vandalism, with cues to promote productive school performance. Eighteen elementary and junior high schools were involved over a 3-year period. Using a delayed treatment control design, treatment was delivered following either 4 or 13 months of baseline. During treatment, teams of school personnel attended training workshops in behavioral strategies for reducing vandalism and disruption by students in school. Each team also met regularly on its campus to plan and implement programs on a schoolwide basis. To demonstrate that reinforcing procedures were actually implemented and accompanied by change in student performance, these variables were periodically probed throughout the study. Project staff also provided consultation. Vandalism costs decreased significantly (p less than .05) more in treatment than control schools, with an average reduction of 78.5% for all project schools. Rates of praise delivered by project teachers and other randomly selected teachers in the school increased significantly (p less than .05), and rates of off-task behavior by students decreased significantly (p less than .05) following treatment. The staff development model used in this study appeared to be both feasible and economical.
