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 differet 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...

…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.

Major Dilemma in Crime Prevention

The neighborhoods that are in the most need of crime prevention projects are also the ones that are most resistant to organizing and enabling programs to take root. It is essential, therefore, that social, organizational, and physical obstacles be removed by mobilizing the community, fostering social interaction and cohesion, and generating informal social control. Without taking these steps, crime prevention is unlikely to succeed.

The major dilemmas faced in crime prevention are a lack of willingness on the part of the community to cooperate and collaborate with law enforcement; a high rate of transience among the community, which prevents people from establishing roots in the community or caring enough to take part in community-driven crime prevention; a lack of budget for building out networking infrastructure, cleaning up parks, or providing events for the community that would otherwise promote solidarity; and a lack of leadership.

Among these obstacles, the lack of leadership can be one of the most daunting. In a community faced with high rates of crime, it takes a strong leader with a vision to motivate members of the community, to provide them with a reason for wanting to take responsibility for their community, and to encourage them to leave a life of crime behind in order to adhere to a life of law and order. If the culture of crime is already entrenched within a community, it is going to be seen as normative and therefore as an acceptable way of life. Police will be seen as outsiders or as enemies to that way of life, and a total cultural conversion is necessary. Leadership provides the nexus for transformation, but it requires an individual or group of individuals who are able to connect with other subpopulations, unite them under a single vision, motivate them through words and actions, and cement the changes that are necessary. Visionary leaders of this sort are not always common, but they too can be cultivated. It does require, however, a concerted effort of individuals at the grass roots level where a positive culture of community values can be preached, disseminated, and ultimately entrenched.

Conclusion

Community crime prevention is not an easy process but it is one rooted in sound etiological theories of crime, sociology, psychology, culture and policing. Communities have to be supported by informal social controls, wherein the members of the society know and understand what is acceptable behavior and what is not. This type of informal social control depends upon the establishment of a community culture that is social, principled, and consistent; otherwise, it can only be enforced through the formal means of policing. Policing can be an object of controversy, especially in communities that are most in need of crime prevention, as law enforcement relations with communities across the world are at significantly serious lows. Through community organization and the application of community crime prevention models, some…