THE COMMUNITIES INCLUDED TWO COMMUNITIES WITH A HIGH FEAR OF CRIME, POOR NONWHITE RESIDENTIAL POPULATIONS, AND MUCH URBAN DECAY, AND TWO MORE AFFLUENT, MOSTLY WHITE COMMUNITIES CHARACTERIZED BY LOW FEAR OF CRIME. THE NEIGHBORHOODS WERE COMPARED WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME AND ACTUAL CRIME RATES FOR FOUR TYPES OF CRIME: BURGLARY, ROBBERY, ASSAULT, AND RAPE. NO SIMPLE RELATIONSHIPS WERE FOUND BETWEEN OFFICIAL CRIME RATES AND PERCEIVED RISKS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEAST FEARFUL NEIGHBORHOOD HAD THE SECOND HIGHEST CRIME RATE, WHEREAS THE MOST FEARFUL NEIGHBORHOOD RANKED THIRD IN CRIME RATE. THE VICTIMIZATION PERSPECTIVE WAS INADEQUATE BECAUSE FEAR SEEMED TO BE AFFECTED BY MORE THAN THE CRIME RATE. IN CONTRAST, THE SOCIAL CONTROL PERSPECTIVE WAS MORE USEFUL. IT SHOWED THAT FEAR LEVELS WERE THE RESULT OF PERCEIVED SIGNS OF DISORGANIZATION IN THE COMMUNITY. THUS, PROGRAMS TO REDUCE THE FEAR OF CRIME SHOULD FOCUS ON ENABLING COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY TO CONTROL VANDALISM, ABANDONED BUILDINGS, LOITERING, AND OTHER INDICATORS OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION. PLANNERS OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION EFFORTS MUST VIEW CRIME PREVENTION IN BROADER TERMS THAN THOSE USUALLY PRESENTED WITHIN THE VICTIMIZATION PERSPECTIVE. IN DISORGANIZED COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH CRIME RATES, EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS WHICH TRY TO REDUCE CRIMINAL OPPORTUNITIES WILL HAVE LITTLE IMPACT. TABLES AND CHARTS ARE INCLUDED.