FEELINGS OF SAFETY AT CENTER CITY MALL

Sue Wolff

Seminar in Sociology: Paterson
Dr. Vincent N. Parrillo
May 17, 2011
ABSTRACT
	The present study evaluated the perceptions people had of Center City Mall in Paterson, New Jersey and evaluated if those perceptions changed after visiting the mall for the first time.  The participants of this study were 51 individuals (23 males; 28 females) who had been to Center City Mall at least one time.  Participants were surveyed in an effort to understand their perceptions of the mall, as well as their feelings of safety while inside the mall.  Findings of the study reveal most visitors of Center City Mall experienced high feelings of safety while inside the mall.  It also indicates that perceptions of safety inside the mall were often changed after the first visit.

      
	Center City Mall is a newly constructed mall in the city of Paterson, New Jersey.  It is centrally located in the center, across the street from the court house.  The development of Center City Mall is at the heart of a redevelopment project in Paterson.  The mall consists of two floors of underground parking, and 320,000 square feet of retail space.  In one interview, Stacey Tsapatsaris, Project Manager at Center City Mall, stated that it will help change the perceptions people have of Paterson.  Because Paterson is the Passaic County seat, many people travel there on a daily basis.  Hopefully, as people see change and progress happening in Paterson, their perceptions of the city will change for the better.  When building Center City Mall, the architects put great thought and research in designing the mall in a way that made people feel safe.  The focus of this paper is to determine if they were successful.  Do people feel safe while inside Center City Mall?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Franklin, Franklin, and Fearn (2008) discuss three models that can account for the fear of crime individuals’ experience:  the vulnerability, disorder, and social integration models.  According to the vulnerability model, a positive relationship exists between feeling vulnerable, or unable to protect oneself, and the fear of crime one experiences.  People who believe they are better apt to protect themselves physically, socially, and emotionally, are likely to have less fear of crime than those who believe they are unable to protect themselves.  The disorder model states people are more likely to be fearful when  visible signs of disorder are present in the neighborhood.  This model has two types of disorder: social disorder and physical disorder.  Social disorder involves the social interactions of people; whereas the physical disorder involves the physical appearances of the neighborhood (Franklin et al. 2008).  Kohm (2009) also discusses this direct relationship between disorder and fear of crime.  The social integration model states that people with social connections within their neighborhood experience lower levels of fear than their counterparts who do not feel connected to their neighborhood (Franklin et al. 2008).
	Of the three models, Franklin et al. (2008) found that the disorder model is most likely responsible for higher levels of fear of crime within a city.  On the contrary, Fabiansson (2007) supports the social integration model.  She argues that for most people to feel safe in their community, they need to have a sense of belonging to that community.  It is possible for individuals to feel safe in a community that has high levels of crime; however, the presence of crime can increase feelings of insecurity.  When people are fearful in the community in which they live, they are less likely to participate in community events which can result in a lower sense of belonging.  For some people, the fear of crime results in a change of lifestyle.  If people are afraid of being victimized, they may avoid going to places that cause them fear.  As a result, they often spend more time inside their homes (Fabiansson 2007; Kohm 2009).  
	People who live in high-crime neighborhoods are at greater risk of becoming victimized.  However, it is possible that after living in high crime areas for an extended period of time, people can become desensitized to their surroundings and the risks involved.  This may result in lower levels of fear of crime even though they are at a higher risk of being victimized (Franklin et al. 2007). 
	Gender socialization is another aspect related to reported levels of fear of crime.  Men are often raised to be fearless, strong, and capable of protecting themselves.  As a result, males often do not like to admit that they are scared and are less likely to report being victimized to the police (Fabiansson 2007).  Being scared or victimized can be interpreted by some as a sign of weakness and males are socialized at a young age to be strong.  Children are also taught at a young age, that they should be afraid of strangers and should be cautious when they are outside of their home.  Consequently, young people often feel unsafe when they are out in public or around people that they do not know (Fabiansson 2007; Pain 2001).   
	Another variable related to the level of fear experienced by individuals is race.  Women are more likely to be afraid of people outside their race.  As a result, people living in diverse neighborhoods often have the highest level of fear of crime.  Both white and black women are afraid of sexual assault; however, black women are also fearful of other violent acts and racial harassment (Pain 2001).  Even though people are often more afraid of people outside of their race, most offenders commit crime against people who are similar to themselves.  	
According to Pain (2001), people usually view others as “threatening or threatened”.  Society often views women  feeling threatened but not as threatening, in other words  as potential victims of crime and not as potential perpetrators of crime.  On the other hand, society often views men as threatening but not as threatened.  Women, who are most fearful of sexual assault, are likely to be more scared in public places, even though most sexual assaults take place in the home (Pain 2001).  
	In an effort to reduce crime, criminologists formulated CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.  The goal of CPTED is to design buildings in a way that reduces crime and lessens the fear of crime.  CPTED has four main principles.  The first principle is people are less likely to commit crime if other people are around (Byrne 2010).  Routine activity theory supports this principle, stating that for the occurrence of crime requires three elements: an offender, a target, and lack of guardians.  The second principle is the importance of designing a building that allows people in the surrounding areas to see what is happening inside the building.  Designing a building in this manner provides an added sense of security because more people can see potential crimes, thereby increasing the likelihood it would be reported to the police, in turn increasing the chance of an offender being caught.  The third principle is people in the community need to care about what happens in their community.  The fourth and final principle of CPTED states it is important for people to feel as if they have a choice as to where they can go.  People need to be able to change direction, or chose a different route if they feel uncomfortable in their current location.  Designing buildings free of dead-ends, empty spaces, and hidden spaces accomplishes this goal (Byrne 2010).  
	The maintenance of a shopping center is just as important as the design of the center in preventing crime and lowering the levels of fear of crime.  If a shopping center has overflowing garbage, signs of vandalism, or other signs needed maintenance, people will experience higher levels of fear, and potential criminal offenders are more likely to commit crime.  On the other hand, by keeping up with the maintenance at the mall, shoppers will have a greater sense of security and will report lower levels of fear while inside the mall (Poyser 2004).  
	Paterson is  in Passaic County and is the third largest city in New Jersey.  The estimated 2006 population of Paterson is 148,708.  More than 50 percent of the people living in Paterson were of Hispanic or Latino origin, 32.9 percent were Black, and 30.8 percent were White.  More than 26 percent of the people in Paterson lived below the poverty level (www.census.gov).  The median household income of Paterson in 2009 was $29,637 and the median state income was $68,342, and  1,966 thefts and 1,241 burglaries occurred.  The crime index  was 404.5, compared to the US average of 319.2 (www.city-data.com/city/Paterson-New-Jersey.html).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
	The interactionist school of thought examines the role that daily interactions have on a person’s social behavior.  Based on John Dewey’s belief that we can best understand people’s actions only in relation to their environment, it holds that you need to look at how people’s daily interactions alter the way individuals establish meaning in their lives.  These meanings have a direct impact on an individual’s social behavior.  	
	The researcher proposes people with more daily interactions in the city of Paterson will report lower levels of fear at Center City Mall than individuals with less interaction within the city.  The purpose of this study is to find out the perceptions people have of Center City Mall.  Do visitors have a greater feeling of safety after going to the mall than they had prior to their first visit?  Were the developers successful in designing a mall that makes people feel safe?
METHODOLOGY
Participants were 51 individuals who had been to Center City Mall in Paterson at least one time.  The researcher selected 35 participants at random and surveyed them inside the mall.  Snowball sampling provided the remaining 16 participants from outside the mall.  All of the participants were at least 18 years of age and agreed to participate in the study.  The sample consisted of 23 males and 28 females.  Seven of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 29 (14 percent), 18 were between the ages of 30 and 39 (35 percent), 15 were between the ages of 40 and 49 (29 percent), six were between the ages of 50 and 59 (12 percent), and five were 60 and older (10 percent).  The racial breakdown of participants was as follows:  41 percent Caucasian, 37 percent Hispanic, 14 percent African American, and the remaining 8 percent consisted of smaller minority groups.  Forty-nine percent of the participants lived in Paterson, 51 percent worked in Paterson, and 69 percent either lived or worked in Paterson (Table 1).  
	Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants      
	Characteristic					       Number		       Percent
	
Gender
 Male							23			45
	 Female							 8			55
	Age
	 18-29							 7			14
	 30-39							18			35
	 40-49							15			29
	 50-59							 6			12
	 60 and older						 5			10
	Race	
	 Caucasian						21			41
	 Hispanic						19			37
	 African American						 7			14
	 Other							 4			 8
	Live in Paterson
	 Yes							25			49
	 No							26			51
	Work in Paterson
	 Yes							26			51
	 No							25			49
	Work or Live in Paterson
	 Yes							35			69
	 No							16			31

The researcher obtained approval for this research from the Institutional Review Board at William Paterson University and from one of the managers at Center City Mall.  The measured perceptions of Center City Mall and levels of fear experienced while inside it with a questionnaire.  Perception, as defined for this study, is a person’s understanding or view; it is based on an individual’s opinion and is not factual.  
The questionnaire used in this study consisted of 19 questions and three sub-questions.  The purpose of the first four questions was to obtain demographical data on the participants.  The next five questions, measured the participants’ exposure to the city of Paterson and Center City Mall.  The last ten questions measured the perceptions of the mall and the levels of fear experienced while visiting it.  
RESULTS
	The researcher found the majority of participants (86 percent)  unconcerned for their safety prior to going to Center City Mall.  Only nine of 51 participants reported a concern for their safety prior to their first visit.  Nonetheless, 57 percent of the participants reported having a greater feeling of safety while inside the mall than they had anticipated.  When analyzing the nine participants who reported concern for their safety prior to going to the mall, the researcher found that eight reported feeling safer once inside the mall than they had anticipated.  
The researcher was also interested in finding out how safe those nine participants felt once they were inside the mall.  Four said “very safe,” three said “safe,” one was neutral, and one felt “very unsafe.”  Table 2 reports that, regardless of their concerns prior to visiting Center City Mall, the majority of participants reported feeling very safe while inside the mall. Notably, the one participant who reported feeling very unsafe while inside the mall, also indicated she was concerned for her safety prior to going to the mall. 
Table 2
Concerned for Safety Prior to Coming versus How Safe Inside 	
	
Count

	How safe did you feel inside Center City Mall	Total	
	Very Safe	Safe	Neutral	Very Unsafe		
Were you concerned about your safety prior to coming?	Yes	4	3	1	1	9	
	No	20	17	5	0	42	
Total	24	20	6	1	51	
	
When comparing the concern people had prior to visiting Center City Mall with their exposure to Paterson, the results indicate that people’s exposure to Paterson affected their perception of Center City Mall.  Seven participants reported a concern for their safety prior to visiting the mall.  Of those seven participants, only one lived in Paterson and only two worked there.  This suggests that people who have more exposure to Paterson are likely to have a more favorable perception of the city than people with less exposure.  
	When analyzing the overall feelings of safety while inside Center City Mall, an overwhelming 86 percent of participants reported feeling safe or very safe while inside the mall.    As reported in Figure 1, forty-seven percent of the participants felt very safe, 39 percent felt safe, 12 percent were neutral, and two percent felt very unsafe.  None of the participants felt feeling unsafe.  

Figure 1.  Levels of Safety Experienced Inside Center City Mall
	Next, the researcher analyzed these experienced levels of safety inside Center City Mall against the demographics data to determine if a relationship existed between feelings of safety and living or working in the city of Paterson.  A chi-square test on how safe participants felt inside the mall, versus where the participants lived showed a chi-square of .569 at a .05 significance level.  A chi-square test on how safe participants felt while inside the mall, versus where the participants worked, showed a chi-square of .758 at a .05 significance level.  Therefore, no statistically significant difference existed between the overall feelings of safety while inside the Center City Mall and the participants’ exposure to Paterson.
The researcher was also interested in finding out if a correlation existed between males or females and their reported levels of safety while inside Center City Mall.  Surprisingly, the chi-square test represented in Table 3 reports a chi-square of .716 at a .05 significant level, which indicates no statistical significance between gender and levels of safety experienced inside the mall.  However,  the only participant who felt very unsafe was a female.
Table 3
Levels of Safety Inside versus Sex	
	Sex	
	Male	Female	
How safe did you feel inside Center City Mall?	Very Safe	11	13	
		47.8%	46.4%	
	Safe	10	10	
		43.5%	35.7%	
	Neutral	2	4	
		8.7%	14.3%	
	Very Unsafe	0	1	
		.0%	3.6%	
Total	23	28	
	100.0%	100.0%	

Chi-Square Tests	
	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)	
Pearson Chi-Square	1.356a	3	.716	
N of Valid Cases	51			
a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .45.
	
	In addition to the overall levels of safety experienced inside Center City Mall, the researcher sought to determine if a time ever existed inside the mall when the participants did not feel safe.  Twelve percent reported at least one such time.  When analyzing these results by sex, the results show a connection between gender, as  all those who answered affirmatively were females.  As reported in Table 4, the results show a chi-square of .018 at a .05 significant level, indicating a statistical significance.
Table 4
Ever Feel Unsafe Inside Mall by Sex	
	Sex	
	Male	Female	
Was there ever a time inside the mall you did not feel safe?	Yes	0	6	
		.0%	21.4%	
	No	23	22	
		100.0%	78.6%	
Total	23	28	
	100.0%	100.0%	

Chi-Square Tests	
	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)	
Pearson Chi-Square	5.586a	1	.018	
N of Valid Cases	51			
a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.71.
	
	In examining the circumstances in which participants did not feel safe while at the mall, the researcher learned one participant felt unsafe while shopping in AJ Wright, but stated overall she felt a little safer than she had anticipated.  (AJ Wright was an anchor store located in Center City Mall, but its parent company replaced it with another of its stores, Marshalls, which is slightly higher-end.)  Another participant reported that she was afraid of people stealing  her phone or money while she was there.  One of the other participants mentioned that she felt unsafe one time when in an adjacent parking lot she saw men who she thought were selling stolen goods.  The last two participants reported being afraid when going to the bathroom because it is down a long hallway.  One, who works in Paterson and frequents the mall for lunch, specified that the one time she felt unsafe was after five o’clock and many people were inside the mall.  The last participant did not elaborate on when she felt unsafe.  Of the six participants who reported a time where they felt unsafe inside the mall, four lived in Paterson.  However,  a chi-square of .357 at a .05 significance level suggests the relationship between experiencing an unsafe moment inside the mall and living in Paterson is not statistically significant.
	Because the presence of security makes people feel safer, the researcher sought to determine  if  a relationship existed between seeing security and the overall feeling of safety.  Seventy-eight percent of participants responded they noticed security personnel while inside Center City Mall.  However, the Pearson chi-square test in Table 5 shows a chi-square of .146 at a .05 significance level, revealing.  This indicates there is not a statistical significance between seeing security personnel and levels of safety experienced inside Center City Mall.  
Table 5
Overall feeling of safety vs. Security Presence 	
	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)	
Pearson Chi-Square	5.384a	3	.146	

				
a. 5 cells (62.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .22.
	
The researcher then compared the data to see if a relationship existed between seeing security personnel and experiencing a moment of feeling unsafe while inside the mall.  The chi-square test resulted in a chi-square of .756 at a .05 significance level, which once again is not statistically significant.  
Twenty-seven percent of the participants entered the mall through the parking garage, and they answered a question on how  safe or unsafe they felt while inside it.  Out of those 14 participants, 64 percent reported feeling very safe, 21 percent reported feeling safe, and 14 percent reported feeling neutral.  None of the participants reported feeling unsafe or very unsafe. One of the open-ended questions in the survey asked for first impressions of the mall once inside.  Overall, the first impressions of the participants were very positive.  Thirty-seven percent used the word nice in describing their first impression, five participants used the word clean, and three used the word beautiful. Two participants, who visited the mall soon after it opened, stated that their first impression was that the mall was not finished yet, although one added that it is now nice.  Six participants mentioned the need for more stores, and one of those six stated the mall was “sparse, I didn’t think it would survive”. Two people commented on the low number people inside the mall, whereas one participant found  it crowded.  One participant commented on the layout stating “very nice, food court could have more options.  Layout is a bit odd with an open bar upstairs and only one escalator going up and one going down”.  Other words used in describing first impressions of the mall included: exciting, great, neat, family oriented, well-spaced, plenty of walking room, big, impressed, lots of lighting, inviting, and very suburban looking.    These were all very positive comments.
When asked if any enhancements could make the participants feel safer while at Center City Mall, 88 percent of the participants responded “no.”  Of the 22 percent who responded yes, 45 percent stated the need for more security or police presence.  One participant specifically mentioned the need for security at the entrance, and another participant, who frequents the mall at lunchtime during the week, stated the need for “more security presence.  A lot of police eat lunch here – not on duty though”.  Two participants, who did not live in Paterson, stated that they would only go to the Center City Mall during the day.  One participant lived in Paterson and expressed an ongoing comfort level,  while another Paterson resident felt too much a part of the urban environment to judge, but said, “ It is safe during the day; in Paterson you have to be at the right place at the right time.”  These comments support the interactionist school of thought in that these participants believed their daily interactions within Paterson helped them to view the city differently than people with fewer interactions within the city.
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of the research was to find out if visitors of Center City Mall had a greater feeling of safety after going to the mall, than they had prior to their first visit.  One of the questions on the survey asked this specific question.  Fifty-seven percent of the participants reported a greater feeling of safety while inside the mall than they had anticipated.  Eighteen percent were concerned for their safety prior to  their first visit. Of those 18 percent, 89 percent reported greater feelings of safety once inside the mall than they anticipated.  Overall, the majority of participants had a greater feeling of safety after going to the mall.  These findings suggest that their perceptions of Center City Mall changed for the better once they were there. 
The second focus of the research was to find out if the developers of Center City Mall were successful in designing a mall that made people feel safe.  Eighty-six percent of the participants reported feeling safe or very safe inside the mall; whereas only two percent felt unsafe or very unsafe while inside the mall.  Moreover, 85 percent of the participants reported feeling safe or very safe inside the mall’s parking garage, with the remainder of the participants feeling neutral.  None felt unsafe or very unsafe inside the parking garage.  This data strongly indicates that the developers were indeed successful in designing a shopping mall, and parking garage, that makes people feel safe.  
Vulnerability Model
	The findings support the vulnerability model presented by Franklin et al. (2008).  The vulnerability model suggests that individuals, who believe they are capable of protecting themselves physically, socially, and emotionally, will experience lower levels of fear of crime than individuals who are not confident in their ability to protect themselves.  This suggests females are more likely to feel vulnerable than males.  The results of this study show 100 percent of the male participants felt safe at all times while inside Center City Mall.  Although the males did not feel vulnerable, in comparison, only 65 percent of the female participants felt safe the entire time they were inside the mall.  This suggests some of the females did feel vulnerable.
Disorder Model
	The disorder model suggests that people tend to be more fearful of crime when they see  visible signs of disorder.  Neither social nor physical signs of disorder are present at Center City Mall, something the participants noticed.  Forty-nine percent of the participants mentioned that the mall was nice, clean or beautiful when describing their first impression of Center City Mall, and 86 percent of the participants reported feeling safe or very safe while inside the mall.  These findings support the disorder model.  One of the participants, who worked inside the mall, indicated that he tries to prevent social disorder by asking people who are loitering outside his workplace to move along.
Social Integration Model
	The findings of this research neither support nor oppose the social integration model.  The social integration model suggests people who are well integrated in their community will experience lower levels of fear of crime than people who are not well integrated.  The researcher expected to find that people who lived or worked in Paterson would report lower levels of fear of crime than the people who did not live of work in Paterson; this did not occur.  However, this research did not examine how integrated the participants were within the community of Paterson.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
	The focus of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is to reduce crime and lessen fears of crime, by designing buildings around four main principles.  The findings suggest application of at least two of the four principles within Center City Mall.  According to Byrne (2010), the first principle is that people are less likely to commit crime if other people are around.  When people enter the parking garage at Center City Mall, they must pass through a security gate and get a parking ticket.  Security personnel standing at that security gate and additional personnel there to process the parking fee ensure that people  do not feel as if they are alone.  Other security personnel  walk throughout the mall or stand in front of the escalator outside of Marshalls.  Another staff person is at the information desk on the promenade level.  Aside from security, additional factors that promote the presence of other people, such as the two wide-open art galleries thatpermit people to see into and out of them at all times.  Also, the cash registers and counters of several of the restaurants face the center of the mall, allowing workers and passersby to see one another.  Because entrances exist on opposite sides of the mall, many people walk through the mall to get from one street to the next.  All of these things increase the amount of people who can be seen inside the mall.
	The second principle of CPTED is people in surrounding areas should be able to see what is going on inside the building (Byrne 2010).  This is especially evident on the main and promenade levels of Center City Mall, with their many different, wide glass entrances, which enable people outside of the mall to see into the mall itself or into several of the stores with their own separate glass door entrances and windows.  T  These many entrances and windows of Center City Mall are examples of the incorporation of the second principle of CPTED into the design of mall.  
	The third principle defined by Byrne (2010) is people in the community need to care about what happens in their community.  This study does not provide enough information to determine if the people in the community care about what happens there or not.  
	The fourth principle of CPTED emphasizes the importance for people to feel that they have a choice of where they can go (Byrne 2010).  If people see something ahead of them, that makes them feel uncomfortable, they should be able to change direction and go a different way.  Therefore, a building designshould eliminate empty areas, hidden spaces, and dead-ends.  This study found two areas inside the mall that go against this principle.  
The first one is the location of the bathroom, which is located at one end of the mall, down a very long, empty, white corridor.  Essentially, it is a hidden space.  If any persons were to walk down the corridor to enter the bathroom and suddenly feel uncomfortable, there would be no way to change direction except to go back out the way they came in.  The two participants who reported feeling unsafe identified that moment as when they went to the bathroom.  One mentioned that it was after five o’clock when  many people were inside the mall, and the other participant said she felt so uncomfortable walking down that corridor that she decided not to use the bathroom.   
The second area inside the mall that is a hidden space or an empty area is main level of the mall by the elevators.  When the elevator doors open, all that one sees is two walls of white empty space and an empty white platform.  From the elevators, you cannot see anything around the corner.  On two different ocasions, the researcher witnessed people press the button inside the elevator for the main level.  Then, when the doors opened to the empty space, they were confused and did not get off the elevator; instead they pressed the button for another floor.   Possibly those people did not get off the elevator because they experienced a level of fear when the doors opened and they could not see what, if anything, was around the corner, or else the lack of identifying signage confused them.   Escalators could get people down to this level; however, on several occasions the elevators were only running up to bring people to the higher floor and were not running in a downward direction.  Therefore, the only way for people to get to the main level from inside the mall, would be for them to get off the elevator and walk into the empty, hidden space.  One participant in the study commented that the layout on the mall is a bit odd with only one escalator going up and one going down.  
	Poyser (2004) argues that the management and maintenance of a shopping center is just as important as the design in both lowering the levels of fear experienced inside the shopping center, and in preventing crime from occurring.    The findings of this study support this theory.  As mentioned earlier, the most common words participants used to describe Center City Mall were nice and clean.  This indicates the management kept up with the maintenance of the mall, since both the inside and the outside of the mall looked clean, with no signs of graffiti, vandalism, or overflowing garbage in the mall.  This resulted in decreased levels of fear of crime while inside the mall.  
	The theoretical framework for this research was Interactionist Theory.  The researcher proposed that participants of this study who lived or worked in Paterson would report lower levels of fear than participants who did not live or work in Paterson.  However, the results indicate that living or working in Paterson had little to no effect on the level of fear participants experienced.  
The findings of this study suggest that the design of Center City Mall does people feel safe while inside it.  This is one step in the right direction for changing the perceptions people have of Center City Mall and the city of Paterson.
One major limitation to this study was the language barrier between the researcher and the people inside Center City Mall.  Many people spoke only Spanish and,  unfortunately, the researcher only spoke English.  When asked if they would be willing to participate in the study, many people stated they did not speak English.  Also, perhaps some participants whose first language was not English may have misinterpreted questions.  Another limitation to the study is the time of day the research was conducted.  In addition, the researcher only visited Center City Mall during the daytime and the people who visit Center City Mall at night may have a different perspective.
Future research should examine if the construction of Center City Mall has changed people’s perceptions of Paterson.  The current study suggests that people experienced a greater feeling of safety while inside the mall than they had anticipated .  It would be interesting to find out if having a positive experience inside the mall makes people feel safer while in the city itself.  

REFERENCES
Byrne, John. 2010. "Designing Safer Cities: CPTED." Geodate 23(4):6-9. 
Charlotte Fabiansson. 2007.  “Young People's Perception Of Being Safe - Globally & Locally.”  Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 31-49.
“Fact Sheet: Paterson city, New Jersey.” n.d. U.S. Census Bureau.  WEBSITE accessed April 30, 2011.     http://factfinder.census.gov. 
Franklin, Travis W., Cortney A. Franklin and Noelle E. Fearn. 2008. "A Multilevel Analysis of the Vulnerability, Disorder, and Social Integration Models of Fear of Crime." Social Justice Research 21(2):204-227. 
Kohm, Steven A. 2009. "Spatial Dimensions of Fear in a High-Crime Community: Fear of Crime Or Fear of Disorder?" Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice 51(1):1-30. 
Pain, Rachel. 2001. "Gender, Race, Age and Fear in the City." Urban Studies (Routledge) 38(5):899-913. 
“Paterson, New Jersey.” 2010. City-data.com WEBSITE accessed April 30, 2011. http://www.city.data.com/city/Paterson-New-Jersey.html.
 Poyser, Sam. 2005. "Shopping Centre Design, Decline and Crime." International Journal of Police Science & Management 7(2):123-136.