Challenges of Community Crime Prevention

Community Crime Prevention

Introduction

Community crime prevention is a goal of many communities and law enforcement agencies around the world today. The idea is based on sociological, psychological, and criminal justice principles and theories about the way people interact in society, how trust is developed, what conditions tend to lead to crime, and how culture plays a part in preventing crime. This paper discusses the etiological theories supporting community crime prevention, as well as the essential components of community crime prevention. It identifies and describes different models for community crime prevention, community crime prevention organizations, and obstacles and challenges to the aims of community crime prevention.

Community as a Central Institution in Crime Prevention

Community is a central institution in crime prevention because it is the life of the society, where individuals interact, get to know one another, develop social bonds, grow organizations, and establish roots. Without community life, the environment is prone to deterioration, as there is no sense of accountability, no sense of responsibility, no initiative to improve surroundings, and no connectivity among stakeholders. Crime tends to proliferate in areas where there are opportunities for it to take hold. This is the basis of various etiological theories, such as broken windows theory, social control theory, and social disorganization theory. By establishing a culture of accountability within a community, the necessary social structure for encouraging responsible lifestyles can develop properly. The main challenge of crime prevention is to identify the underlying issues that lead to crime; by focusing on community life, the goal is to develop an infrastructure that facilitates a positive environment in which crime is discouraged through informal social controls, activism, community service, and community surveillance.

Etiological Theories Supporting Community Crime Prevention

Gibbs (1987) points out, “each theory should be limited to one type of crime if only because it is unlikely that any etiological or reactive variable is relevant for all crimes” (p. 830). However, Listwan (2013) states that “the cause of crime can be found in the environmental conditions within impoverished areas” (Listwan, 2013).

Social disorganization theory and social control theory help to explain why some types of crime may emerge, for instance. Broken windows theory offers another perspective that focuses more on the physicality of the community and argues that unkempt communities demonstrate a lack of care among the community and open the door to criminal enterprises. In any case, community is a focal point for both the causes and facilitators of crime and, thus, an arena for crime prevention. Social control theory holds that opportunities for control attract criminals who seek to profit from unethical decision-making (Takagi et al., 2016). Social disorganization theory holds that the more disorganized a community is the easier it is for criminal elements to take root in that community and exploit its weaknesses. Essentially, from the standpoint of these theories, crime results from the breakdown of the social “community” & the deterioration of the socio-economic & physical “community.” As informal social control breaks down, because of physical neglect of properties, because of a lack of community organization, or because of exploitable weaknesses in the formal systems of control, the community degenerates. Social disorganization thus has been found to lead to crime and disorder by way of the degeneration of the community culture (Sutherland et al., 1992).

Zones of transition further exacerbate the issue because they are areas in which there is high and often rapid population turnover; there is no laying down of roots, so families do not feel connected to or responsible for the community or its maintenance. They live there basically as transients, and this is where delinquency is often highest (Felson, 2018). Without effective socialization and control, there is no way out of this pathology. Solutions that have been implemented focus mainly on community development, such as is seen in the Urban Village Model and the Chicago Area Project or even in the Mesa, Arizona, Mesa Gang Intervention Program (MGIP), implemented by the Mesa Police Department in conjunction with community leaders and organizations in order to reduce delinquency-related gang problems and crime (Spergel et al., 2005). MGIP was a five-year program 5-year Program utilizing a case-management approach,

involving a team of gang police, probation officers, case managers and outreach youth workers. The key elements of its success were the coordination among community leaders, organizations and law enforcement agencies. Their combined and committed effort reduced crime by giving youths alternatives to crime via community organization and informal control.

Essential Components of Community Crime Prevention

Community crime prevention is community-based, meaning that the community is the focal point of effective crime prevention. Private citizens are expected to play a major role in maintaining order within their community. The success of community crime prevention depends upon their motivation to exert that maintenance, and thus from a crime prevention standpoint it is imperative that they be encouraged to assume responsibility for community safety. As was demonstrated in MGIP in Mesa, crime prevention efforts must bring together individuals and groups who represent the community, including civic leaders, professionals, coaches, educators, business owners, parents, social workers, and law enforcement officers. Partnerships and coordination between neighborhood residents, community groups, and police are essential. The community must be seen as a major crime prevention institution (just like the family, schools, places, labor markets, etc.).

Collective Effort of Local Residents

Local residents must act collectively, in a public-minded manner. Individualistic attempts at community reform fail to involve all aspects and members of the community. To turn a community around requires collective action, with everyone participating at different levels. The more people involved, the more likely the movement is to succeed, as there is strength in numbers. This is especially true in shared, public spaces, where crime and disorder can flourish if members of the community are unwilling to get engaged to show ownership of these spaces, which can include parks, basketball courts, street corners or swimming pools. Cleaning and maintaining these areas requires a community effort based on social interaction, social cohesion, and informal social control.

Behavioral Reinforcement/Modification

By modifying the behavior of potential victims within a community, crime can be prevented. To this end, the “implant” or “transplant” hypothesis can be applied, although it can be difficult to mobilize communities in crime-ridden areas (Schneider, 2020). To support this encouragement, some stability is needed or some investment that can either produce or strengthen the social environment so as to provide for informal regulation; clubs, organizations, extracurricular activities like sports for youths, can facilitate in this area: by giving vulnerable subpopulations an alternative to crime, disorderly behavior can be reduced. Through implanting social cohesion, informal social control can grow where it did not exist prior.

Informal Social Control

Informal social control represents social norms in which customs and common agreement have been established. It is difficult to accomplish informal social control in communities with high turnover because there is no way to establish continuity or consistency barring the existence of a local organizations or leaders who establish roots. To enforce local rules for community residents or to encourage appropriate public behavior, a grass roots environment must persist; if it is established, it can promote norms and standards of conduct that deter crime and disorder. Thus, informal social control is seen as a prerequisite for territoriality, vigilance, surveillance, and activism on the part of residents. Developing informal social control can proceed organically or artificially. Organic development requires minimal population movement so that patterns of association can be well established to facilitate social cohesion. Artificial development can proceed through transplant in areas where transience is high and where communities are disorganized (Schneider, 2020).

Situational Crime Prevention

Situational crime prevention depends upon social interaction, social cohesion, and informal social control. Neighborhood residents can be mobilized to participate in crime prevention through collective action. Their collective involvement should foster a stronger sense of community, whereby individuals assume a greater responsibility for the maintenance of their community and for the protection of property and the lives of others. The more socially interactive and cohesive the community becomes, the more it leads to informal social control, which in turn reinforces crime prevention. The essence of situational crime prevention is to focus on the environment, build bridges between members of the community, promote points of contact and inter-communication, and enhance the community spirit through positive intercourse and networking.

Theoretical Processes Underlying Community Crime Prevention

Crime pattern theory and routine activities theory are some of the theoretical processes underlying community crime prevention. As Bruce and Santos (2011) explain, a crime series is “a group of similar crimes thought to be committed by the same individual or group of individuals acting in concert” (p. 3). However, other theories are equally helpful, such as social bond theory and life course theory. Social bond theory posits that unless individuals cultivate necessary social bonding with others in the community they do not feel they owe anything to that community and do not feel they need to abide by its laws or rules. They feel outside the normal social fabric and thus engage in self-interested activities, including criminal activities, with disregard for how it negatively affects others or the community as a whole. To resist this kind of isolation, community outreach programs and social work can be advantageous, especially at the grass roots level, where churches and civic leaders can engage with community members at a person-to-person level. Leadership is required to bring people into a normal social bonding experience.

Life course theory posits that life events can derail a person from becoming a law abiding citizen; these can usually be traumatic experiences that set a person on a wrong track; or they can be an accumulation of small experiences that gradually push one into criminality. A proper life course development toward law and order has to be supported by peers, groups and media, and it is the accumulation of these three influential factors that can help to keep individuals on a proper life course.

Different Community Crime Prevention Models

Community crime prevention models focus on the necessary cultivation of social cohesion and stability. Two in particular that have been applied are the Urban Village Model and the Chicago Area Project. The former focuses on socializing residents; other variations on this model are the urban fortress model, which focuses on designing communities in such a way that the offer security and safe environments for outsiders to access. The Chicago Area Project focuses on juvenile delinquency prevention, similar to what was accomplished in Mesa through MGIP.

Urban Village Model

The urban village model promotes the socialization of residents by bringing them together through projects, recreational activities, events in parks and in other accessible urban areas, and fostering a spirit of community through these experiences. The more integrated people become, the more they take ownership of and pride in their communities. However, this model requires some investment, as organization and event hosting can be laborious and costly without volunteers or donations. The main drawback of the urban village model, therefore, is that investors want to see something in return for their investment, and this can sometimes lead to a program of gentrification taking place, that so transforms a community that much of the population ends up becoming displaced. In short, the problems of crime are not addressed but are rather transferred away to other neighborhoods and communities, which is the main danger.

Chicago Area Project

The Chicago Area Project was begun in 1934 as a way to reduce gang violence, substance abuse, delinquency and unemployment. Through active community self-development, grass roots organizations came together to provide the means and tools for young people to develop themselves and their skills. This is similar to what Mesa organizations, social workers, businesses and law enforcement did throughout MGIP: the basis of reducing juvenile delinquency and deterring people from a life of crime was to correct their behaviors before they became worse by giving them opportunities not present in the past. These opportunities come in the form of vocational training, team work through sports, educational assistance, employment guidance, and help with substance abuse. As this project has been underway for decades, it is difficult to reconcile its success with Chicago’s current crime problems; in short, unless there is equal focus on law and order by way of policing, gang violence and criminal activity are not going to be effectively countered simply by relying on community self-development initiatives, which can become derailed by unchecked rises in crime.

Community Crime Prevention Organizations

Operation Identification and Neighborhood Watch are two big community crime prevention organizations. Operation Identification involves people marking their personal property with an identification code, which reduces its value in the eyes of thieves and which can be used to help victims of theft identify their personal property if it is stolen. The organization began in California in the 1960s and today it is estimated that a quarter of all households in the US engage in this practice.

Neighborhood Watch programs are more pro-active in that they provide monitoring of the community so as to reduce opportunities for crime. By bringing residents together in a group, they can keep watch over their neighborhoods and one another’s property, and if they see anything suspicious they can alert police. They can also spread information that helps the community become better organized and take care of any negligent areas of the community that might benefit from being fixed up.

The Crime Prevention Coalition of America is another organization that focuses on uniting citizens to prevent crime in their communities. It is a national organization that consists of hundreds of different organizations at all levels of society, including state, local and federal levels as well as community-based organizations. By integrating organizations at all levels of society, a more holistic and structured approach to crime prevention can be achieved.

Critiques of and Challenges to Community Crime Prevention

Various challenges to community crime prevention arise due to lack of budget, lack of expertise, and lack of viable support for implementing a culture of social cohesion within a community (Morgan & Homel, 2013). Community crime prevention studies have indicated that success is not guaranteed in every case (Hope, 1995). In some cases, there is only modest or no impact on crime or the fear of crime within a community.

Community crime prevention programs are only as successful as the stakeholders who engage with them. If quality stakeholders are not found, consistency and uniformity often fails to manifest. In these occasions, community crime programs are unable to engineer the social and behavioral preconditions (i.e., collective action, social interaction, territoriality, etc.) necessary to reach their objectives.

Some of the more enduring problems that arise relate to the underlying culture within the community or the clash of cultures in diverse communities or where there is a high rate of transience. This is especially true when trying to implement transplant theory: neighborhoods in the most need of crime prevention projects, are often the ones that are most resistant to programs taking root when it is implemented by people or groups perceived to be outsiders.

Additionally, police and state agencies have been criticized for dominating community-based crime prevention programs and not delegating power to communities. When there is animosity toward police over perceptions of racial bias, criticism of racial profiling, or lack of community policing, community members are less willing to work with law enforcement to help prevent crime from occurring. They see it is as their community and their culture, and what appears as crime to outsiders or law enforcement appears to them as simply a way of life (Takagi et al., 2016).

There are some studies, however, that indicate government strategies that can work, such as home visits by social workers or educators or pastors, parent training, vocational training, nuisance abatement action on landlords, and rehabilitation programs (Sherman et al., 1998). Restorative justice is another approach that has been found to be effective at building bonds between members of the community: instead of relying on punitive sentencing, restorative justice provides convicted criminals the opportunity to make good with their community by performing some community service as a form of restitution. Restorative justice programs have been found to reduce rates of recidivism and to appease victims of crime more than would be the case were punitive justice to be implemented (Johnson et al., 2015). One reason restorative justice works from a theoretical perspective is that it facilitates the development of social bonds that were lacking prior: the convict doing community service develops a sense of self-worth through participation in society and begins to recognize his or her relationship to that community.