NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY MAY 13, 2019. ATTACHED ARE DOCUMENTS TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

3 How Theory and Research Inform the Science and Practice of Crime Prevention

Learning Objectives

Upon finishing this chapter, students should be able to:

· Understand the different criminological theories which inform crime prevention

· Identify the nine elements of the criminal career framework

· Summarize the public health and prevention science approaches to crime prevention

· Identify specific risk and protective factors related to involvement in crime

· Explain the differences between universal, selective, and indicated crime prevention

· Explain the differences between situational, contextual, and individually focused crime prevention approaches.

Introduction

The goal of this textbook is to describe the range of activities that can be considered “crime prevention” and to identify the effectiveness of these strategies in reducing rates of crime. In the last chapter, we reviewed the different ways societies have attempted to explain and prevent crime throughout time. History reveals that crime prevention efforts up through the twentieth century were most often based on deterrence theory and were rarely tested for their effectiveness. When evaluations were conducted, relatively few programs and practices were found to be effective. In fact, reviews of correctional and law enforcement program evaluations near the end of the twentieth century suggested that “nothing works.”

We noted in Chapter 2 that, in our opinion, the conclusion that nothing worked to prevent crime was overly pessimistic. Nonetheless, at the time of those reviews, credible, scientific evidence of effective crime prevention strategies was very limited. The good news is that, in recent years, theories about what leads to crime have become more sophisticated and there have been many more, and better conducted, scientific tests of these theories and of evaluations of crime prevention strategies guided by these theories. As a result, today we can identify a greater number of prevention programs, practices, and policies that have credible evidence of effectiveness. We also know a lot more now about how to create prevention strategies so that they have the strongest likelihood of achieving reductions in crime.

To summarize what we have learned over the years, first, we know that the most effective crime prevention efforts are based on criminological theories and that they try to change the specific factors described in those theories and shown in research studies to actually affect criminal behavior. For example, if studies testing strain theory show that poverty makes crime more likely, then prevention efforts should focus on helping individuals get better paying jobs. In contrast, if there is no evidence that crime is caused by poverty, then attempts to reduce poverty will not be effective in preventing crime. As became clear in Chapter 2 , different theories identify different factors as important in causing crime, which means that crime prevention can take many different forms. Because theories are tied so directly to the creation and effectiveness of crime prevention efforts, we begin this chapter by reviewing and updating information from Chapter 2 about the theories that are most widely endorsed in criminology and most often used to guide crime prevention.

Second, we know that crime prevention strategies can differ depending on the specific form or type of illegal behavior that a community is trying to reduce. For example, some programs are designed to prevent persons from committing their very first criminal act; that is, from making the transition from being a non‐offender to being an offender. Other strategies are designed to help offenders give up their involvement in criminal behavior. In this chapter, we will introduce the criminal careers framework, which has strongly influenced the ways modern criminologists define and conceptualize criminal behavior, and, correspondingly, the types of crime we might want to prevent and the individuals who should be targeted by prevention efforts.

Nothing is so practical as good theory.

Kurt Lewin, psychologist (1951: 169)

Third, it is now generally accepted that strategies designed to change individual involvement in crime should take into account the age of the person and the characteristics or experiences, which are called risk and protective factors, most likely to affect crime at each stage of life. This view, and its corresponding implications for crime prevention, is emphasized in the life course development paradigm, as well as in the public health approach to prevention and the emerging discipline of prevention science. Each of these frameworks will be described in this chapter and their impact on contemporary crime prevention strategies noted. The chapter will conclude by identifying a typology of prevention strategies that will guide this textbook and previewing the discussion of how preventive interventions are developed using logic models.

Theoretical Foundations of Crime Prevention

The development of any prevention program or strategy begins with two questions: (i) What causes individuals or groups to engage in criminal behavior? And, (ii) given some understanding of these causes, how can we intervene to eliminate or block them? The first question is a theoretical question. A crime theory proposes an explanation about the motive for committing a crime as well as the set of circumstances or conditions that connect this intention with actual criminal behavior. The logic of crime prevention is that if we know why an individual or group engages in criminal behavior, we can try to avoid, counteract, or eliminate these causes. Doing so will prevent crime. Theoretical explanations about the causes of crime underlie all prevention efforts. Even if the theory guiding the approach is not explicitly stated, which is frequently the case, it can be determined by reading the descriptions of the interventions and thinking about which causes of crime they seek to change.

As reported in Chapter 2, research that tests criminal theories demonstrates better support for some theories than others and for some specific causal claims (hypotheses) within theories than others. For example, there is little support for Lombroso’s (1911) theory that atavism or primitive physical features of an individual (e.g., overly long arms, misshapen noses, or large jawbones) are associated with crime. But, there is good support for Sutherland’s (1947) claim of differential association, that associating with criminals is causally related to criminal behavior. The stronger the research evidence supporting a causal claim hypothesized by a theory, the greater confidence can be placed in the expectation that eliminating or blocking that cause or set of causes will prevent criminal behavior. In other words, theories with stronger evidence should be those upon which crime prevention strategies are based.

It should be noted, however, that research evidence rarely meets the very high scientific standards required to demonstrate a true causal relationship described in a criminological theory. The evidence often shows that a natural change in the characteristic or condition hypothesized to be a cause predicts a subsequent change in criminal behavior. For example, studies have found that individuals who start spending time with friends who engage in crime become more likely to break the law themselves (Elliott and Menard, 1996). This is pretty good evidence of a causal relationship between having criminal friends and associates and being involved in crime. This research also supports Sutherland’s differential association theory. But, since the change in friendship was natural, meaning it was unplanned or accidental, and was not the result of an intentional or experimental manipulation, a causal claim about the effect of delinquent peers on delinquency cannot be made with certainty. As we will explain later in this chapter, given this uncertainty, we refer to the causal characteristics, conditions and processes derived from criminological theories and addressed by prevention programs as risk and protective factors. There is good but not conclusive evidence for their causal effects on crime.

The second question that guides crime prevention is a more practical one: having identified a risk factor(s) that increases the likelihood of crime, can we realistically expect to eliminate or change it, and, if so, what strategies and resources are needed to do so? Some risk factors will be easier to change or eliminate than others. For example, unemployment, poverty, child abuse, academic failure, and involvement with a gang are all risk factors for criminal behaviors. Yet, they are not equally amenable to change. The cost, resources, and time required to reduce or eliminate these conditions will vary considerably. In addition, the power of these risk factors to influence crime also varies considerably. Improving academic performance will have a much smaller effect on crime than breaking up a gang. The design of a prevention program or strategy involves the selection of a risk factor(s) to be reduced and/or a protective factor(s) to be increased and the design of a set of activities, policies, processes, and procedures to make these changes happen.

With this background in mind, what do theories say about the causal conditions that are most likely to lead to criminal behavior? And, how can this information help us develop effective crime prevention strategies? To answer these questions, we now review the theories most often discussed in criminology and used to create prevention strategies.

Deterrence theories guiding crime prevention by law enforcement agencies

Historically, deterrence and rational choice theories have been the main theoretical perspectives guiding crime prevention, particularly as undertaken by law enforcement agents. As described in Chapter 2, these theories assume that individuals are rational thinkers who consider the risks and rewards of their actions before making a decision to commit an illegal act. When the potential benefits of committing a crime are viewed as outweighing the potential risks, then individuals will be more likely to break the law. Where these theories differ is in the degree to which they focus on societal versus individual considerations of the benefits and risks of crime and the emphasis on the seriousness or certainty of punitive sanctions. Nonetheless, because they both assume that individuals are rational thinkers who will be deterred from offending when costs and punishments are high, they advocate similar types of crime prevention strategies. Routine activities theory also takes the perspective that offenders are rational thinkers and will consider the costs and benefits of crime prior to breaking the law, particularly the amount of effort needed to commit an illegal act and the likelihood of getting caught.

Of the three theories, deterrence theory takes the most macro or societal level view of crime and of crime prevention. This perspective emphasizes that societies must have punishments in place to deter would‐be offenders from breaking the law. Indeed, deterrence theory provides the foundation for virtually all law, law enforcement, and correctional systems. According to deterrence theory, public awareness of the fact that certain actions are illegal and that violation of these laws can result in specific punishments should be enough to prevent crime. If the rate of a specific crime in a society is going up, the prevention strategy would be to increase the seriousness and/or certainty of punitive sanctions for that crime. Prevention activities based on deterrence theory involve societal‐level strategies, especially the creation of laws that focus on the certainty, speed, and particularly the severity of punishment following the commission of a crime. Longer sentences for crimes involving the use of a firearm and “three strikes” laws that require a life sentence for a third felony offense are based on deterrence theory.

The concepts of general deterrence and specific deterrence refer to the types of individuals who will be prevented from breaking the law. Simply having laws and punishments in place creates a risk of punishment for offending that should be enough to deter the general public from committing crime; this is the concept of general deterrence. Once an individual breaks the law, is apprehended and punished, this experience will function as a deterrent for that person committing additional criminal acts; this is the concept of specific deterrence (Akers, 1997). There are different implied intervention targets and strategies for these two types of deterrence. General deterrence interventions will focus on general populations, persons who have not yet committed a crime. They can also include public awareness strategies which make the public aware of the law and potential punishment for violating it. For example, if you read in the paper that the local police will be conducting sobriety checkpoints and stopping drivers to assess if they are driving under the influence of alcohol, you can assume that law enforcement is using a general deterrence practice. Specific deterrence practices will focus on offenders, punishing them for breaking the law with the expectation that negative experiences in the criminal justice system will deter them from future offending.

Rational choice theory focuses more on individuals and individual decision‐making. It hypothesizes that if illegal behavior carries a certain punishment, and individuals believe they will face this punishment if they break the law, they will refrain from offending unless the reward for doing so outweighs the cost. Given this orientation, crime prevention based on rational choice theory will try to influence one’s decision‐making processes in order to reduce the perceived benefits of crime and increase the costs or pain thought to follow from illegal behavior. Examples include media campaigns showing the long‐term effects of drug use on one’s health or individual treatment programs which emphasize the consequences of offending or drug use on one’s scholastic and vocational achievements.

Routine activities theory considers both individual and societal opportunities for offending and prevention. It states that crime is most likely to occur when three factors are present at the same time and place: (i) a motivated offender, (ii) a suitable target, and (iii) an absence of capable guardians (Clarke, 1995). Although all three are considered important, crime prevention efforts do not focus on trying to change individuals, but rather try to reduce opportunities for offending, the attractiveness of a target and the lack of guardianship of a place or object. For example, installing time‐lock safes and bullet proof windows in banks should reduce robberies.

Have you ever spent time in a risky, high‐crime urban neighborhood such as those found in the south side of Chicago or upper east‐side of Detroit? How would you try to reduce crime in these neighborhoods? Another theory related to the deterrence perspective, and especially routine activities theory, is situational crime prevention. This theory focuses on how physical environments and geographical locations, rather than individual characteristics, influence crime. These theories might suggest that law enforcement agencies examine crime maps that show the geographical locations of every crime that has occurred in their district. After identifying the hot spots (Sherman and Weisburd, 1995) where rates of crime are highest, they will increase patrol and surveillance of these areas to deter would‐be offenders. Place‐based prevention activities might also be undertaken by law enforcement agents, business owners, or private citizens. These efforts focus on very small geographical units, such as individual buildings or streets that are known to be hot spots of crime (Eck and Guerette, 2012). The goal is to make these areas less attractive and more difficult targets for criminals; for example, by installing alarm systems in homes or buildings that have been repeatedly vandalized or broken into, increasing street lighting and using closed circuit televisions to increase surveillance of a particular block or building.

Developmental theories guiding community‐based crime prevention strategies

In the last few decades, crime prevention efforts have moved somewhat away from deterrence‐based theories and become more informed by developmental theories of offending. These perspectives recognize that crime is a complex behavior influenced by many factors, that there are multiple causal paths to crime, that individuals’ involvement in crime can develop and change over time, and that factors influencing offending can differ depending on characteristics of the individual, the physical and social environment and the type of crime being considered. Moreover, these theories locate prevention efforts primarily in families, schools, and the community rather than in the criminal justice system.

The theory that can absorb the greatest number of facts, and persist in doing so, generation after generation, through all changes of opinion and detail, is the one that must rule all observation.

Adam Smith

Yes, this makes for a complicated picture of crime. But, it is also true that crime is a complex social problem requiring comprehensive explanations. If criminal behavior was easy to figure out, we would have already solved the problem and eliminated crime altogether! Criminologists are increasingly acknowledging this complexity and adjusting their theoretical views on crime accordingly. Before describing the developmental theories guiding more contemporary and community‐based crime prevention, it is essential to understand the criminal career framework, which describes the kinds of behavior and dimensions of crime targeted by these prevention strategies.

The criminal career framework

In Chapter 2, we discussed the controversy over the terms “crime prevention” and “crime control.” The focus of this debate is whether crime prevention should be concerned only with the first crime a person ever commits (i.e., the transition from being a non‐offender to being an offender) or with preventing any criminal act, no matter how many the individual has previously committed. We have chosen to refer to crime prevention as interventions that seek to stop any criminal event, regardless of when it occurs in the series of crimes. But we acknowledge that the distinction between the first criminal behavior and repeated offending is important and that the prevention of an initial offense may require something different than that needed to prevent ongoing criminal behavior. But where a criminal act falls along a sequence of criminal activities is not the only type of distinction we might consider when describing criminal behavior and designing prevention programs, practices, or policies. What other dimensions of crime and criminal behavior do you think are important? Is the distinction between preventing aggravated assaults and vandalism an important one? What are the dimensions of crime that prevention programs should address?

Blumstein and his colleagues (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington, 1988; Blumstein et al., 1986) proposed the criminal career framework to identify and organize a set of concepts that distinguish between different types and levels of involvement in crime. Their framework was one of the first to view criminal behavior as having a definite progression, beginning with the initiation or first act of crime, continuing for a defined period, then ending. This view has expanded both theories about and research on crime. For example, it has led to new and more comprehensive measures of offending which move beyond the simple crime rates provided by the UCR and other official sources of crime data discussed in Chapter 1. It also has many implications for crime prevention programs, practices, and policies, as we will describe.

The main elements of the criminal career described by Blumstein and colleagues include onset, participation, frequency, seriousness, specialization, escalation, desistance, length, and termination (see Table 3.1 for brief descriptions of each). The criminal career begins with onset, the very first offense in a criminal career. The onset rate reflects the proportion of persons in a population (e.g., all youth in the United States or all adults in a particular city or state) whose initial offense occurs in a given year. Participation refers to the proportion of all people in a population who have committed at least one offense in a given time period (usually defined as one year). A lifetime participation rate would reflect the proportion of persons in a population that were involved in at least one crime during their lifetime. In any given year, the participation rate includes both those whose onset occurred in that year and those who initiated their offending earlier and also are active offenders in that period. All other dimensions describe the criminal involvement of individuals after onset: the frequency of their offending, the seriousness of their offenses, changes in that frequency or seriousness over time (escalation/de‐escalation), the number of years from the first to the last offense (length or duration), and the ending (termination) of all offending.

Table 3.1 Dimensions of the criminal career.

Source: Based upon Blumstein et al., 1986.

Dimension	Definition
Onset (initiation)	The beginning of the career; the point at which one’s first offense is committed
Participation	Percentage of the population who engages in crime during some time period
Frequency	Number of crimes per year committed by those who are actively participating in crime
Seriousness	The degree to which one commits predatory offenses, such as burglary, assault, or robbery
Specialization	Primarily engaging in only offense or one group of related offenses
Escalation	Increases in the number and/or seriousness of offending over time
De‐escalation or desistance	Decreases in the number and/or seriousness of offending over time
Length (duration)	The amount of time between an offender’s first and last crime
Termination	The end of the career; the point at which an offender’s last crime is committed

In developing this framework, Blumstein and colleagues (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington, 1988; Blumstein et al., 1986) were among the first to recognize what is now seen as an indisputable fact: that youth are much more likely to participate in crime than are adults. The strong relationship between age and offending, often referred to and visually displayed as an age/crime curve (see Figure 3.1), has been confirmed using official data and self‐reports of offending. Research has shown that the onset or initiation of offending usually occurs in early to middle adolescence, participation in crime increases from late adolescence to early adulthood and desistence begins after that. Although there can be some variation in these patterns across time periods, types of offenses (e.g., violent vs non‐violent crimes) and characteristics of offenders (e.g., males vs females), the age/crime curve typically tells the same story over and over again: adolescents are much more likely than adults to participate in offending.

Figure 3.1 The age/crime curve.

Source: Blumstein et al., 1988.

It is important to remember, however, that there are more adults than youth in every society; in the USA, only about 15% of the population is aged 14–24 (National Center for Educational Statistics; http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026.pdf). As a result, the total number of adult offenders will always be higher than the total number of youth offenders. But, the proportion of all adults who engage in crime will be lower than the proportion of all youth who engage in crime.

Additional research investigating the criminal career has indicated that for most offenders, participation in crime begins with the least serious types of offenses, such as minor forms of drug use and perpetration of minor assaults or thefts. Some offenders will escalate to more frequent and serious forms of drug use, non‐violent crimes and/or violence over time, but people are very unlikely to begin their criminal career by committing a very serious offense such as an aggravated assault, robbery, or murder (Blumstein et al., 1986; Elliott, 1994; Farrington, 2003). In addition, most serious offenders do not specialize in particular types of crime but are generalists, showing variation in the types of crimes they commit. For example, gang members may engage in drive‐by shootings but will also be likely to use illegal drugs, get into fist‐fights and/or commit vandalism.

Finally, evidence has shown that the earlier one’s age of onset, the more likely s/he is to engage in persistent, serious offending that continues into adulthood. For example, findings from a national self‐report survey showed that 45% of those whose first act of violence occurred before age 11 also committed violence during their 20s. However, only about 25% of those who initiated violence at ages 11–12 were violent during adulthood, and even fewer of those whose age of onset was later than 13 years continued to be violent as adults (Elliott, 1994). Table 3.2 shows similar statistics linking the age of onset among males in Denver to their later involvement in serious and chronic (i.e., of a long duration) offending.

Table 3.2 The relationship between age of onset and later offending.

Source: Adapted from Huizinga et al., 2003 (Tables 2 and 3); information is based on self‐reported information from males participating in the Denver Youth Survey.

Age of initiation	Percent who became serious offenders	Percent who became chronic violent offenders
Before age 9	67%	62%
Ages 12–14	53%	48%
Ages 15–17	27%	20%

What does information about the criminal career mean for crime prevention? First, if the age of onset is important in predicting serious and frequent offending and most individuals experience the onset of offending when they are adolescents, then prevention efforts that seek to delay onset and reduce participation in crime should probably be focused on children and those in the early years of adolescence. Since these interventions are targeting people before they become involved in crime, they will not be implemented by the criminal justice system. Instead, they will likely occur in a community setting with the general population. If the goal is to reduce frequent and serious crime among active offenders, then crime prevention efforts should focus on older adolescents and/or adults – those who are already participating in crime (Blumstein et al., 1986). These actions are likely to be initiated and overseen by the criminal justice system.

Second, Blumstein and colleagues (1988) speculated that different dimensions of the criminal career are influenced by different causal factors and so require different types of prevention strategies. For example, the factors that lead to the onset of crime (among youth) are likely to differ from the factors that influence the frequency of offending among serious (and older) offenders. Efforts to prevent or delay the initiation of crime might, then, try to minimize the influence of having delinquent peers or improve children’s success in school, while efforts intended to prevent recidivism may require more intensive and multicomponent prevention strategies.

To summarize, research on criminal careers suggests the following for crime prevention:

The onset, frequency, escalation/de‐escalation, and termination of crime may each have a unique set of causes requiring different prevention strategies.

Services to prevent criminal onset should focus primarily on youth.

Crime prevention efforts intended to bring about termination should focus on all active offenders.

Given the developmental progression of crime, prevention at early stages of the career should reduce the frequency and seriousness of crime and the length of one’s criminal career.

The life course developmental paradigm

Do you know what a “paradigm shift” is? In science, it refers to a very large change in how we view a particular event or set of events. What does this have to do with criminology and crime prevention? Our view, and that of some other criminologists (e.g., Cullen, 2011), is that criminology has recently experienced such a shift with the introduction of the life course development paradigm. The application of this view of human behavior to crime has had a strong impact on our understanding of the factors that lead to crime and the types of strategies that should be used to prevent illegal behaviors.

Backing up a bit, we should mention that a paradigm is a worldview or a research tradition within a scientific discipline (Laudan, 1977). It is a descriptive framework that identifies what types of things need to be observed or measured, what kinds of questions need to be answered, and what types of conclusions we should draw from research findings and integrate into any one discipline (Kuhn, 1996). The life course developmental paradigm is one such paradigm. It has its roots in several academic disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and biology, and is now gaining popularity in criminology. In a nutshell, this perspective considers personal growth and development to be a complex process that evolves and changes over time, particularly in response to the changing social environments we experience as we age (Elder Jr., 1995; Elder Jr. and Caspi, 1990). We repeat: this paradigm presents a very complex view of human development and behavior, so bear with us as we explain some of its key concepts. Do not worry: we will also describe exactly how this paradigm relates to crime prevention.

Concept #1: Person‐in‐context interactions. The life course paradigm sees human behavior as the result of many different individual characteristics (biological, psychological, and social) and experiences interacting with many different environments that are also changing over the life course. We move from the family environment in early childhood to family, school, and peer groups in adolescence, and to college, work, and marriage in adulthood. Individuals have agency, or freedom, to choose some environments but not others. For example, we actively seek out our friends – and we may choose delinquent friends or very conventional friends – but we have very little control over who makes up our family. All the environments that surround us affect our opportunities to engage in particular behaviors, the social roles we play (e.g., “girlfriend” or “parent”) and our understanding of social norms – what society considers to be acceptable and unacceptable, or approved of or not approved of, behaviors. Even though everyone experiences the same general contexts (e.g., school or work), individuals are different. Each individual brings particular skills, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences into each context, and the particular behavior that emerges is the result of our personal characteristics and choices and the social roles, norms, and opportunities found in our social environments.

Concept # 2: Developmental stages. As we age, we move through distinct phases of the life course that are defined, in part, by our age; for example, infancy, childhood, early adolescence, late adolescence, early adulthood, and late adulthood. Movement from one stage to the next occurs when we experience changes in psycho‐biological processes (e.g., puberty, which indicates a movement from childhood to adolescence) and in social roles and statuses (e.g., becoming a legal driver or gaining more independence from parents). Development, then, is a continuous process of maturation and change. Changes in social contexts, social roles, norms, and demands or responsibilities all contribute to our development as human beings—and can affect involvement in crime. Problems arise for those who are not well equipped to meet the demands of or successfully complete important developmental tasks present in each stage of the life course (e.g., failing to graduate from high school on time). Those who do not progress normally, or on the expected timeline, can experience much personal stress. They may become marginalized or separated from their peers or others, they may experience a delay or failure to successfully complete important tasks in future stages, and they may be less able to attain conventional social roles and statuses.

Concept #3: Transitions and trajectories. Transitions are abrupt events or experiences that typically mark movement from one developmental stage to the next. Often, they represent changes in social status and/or roles (e.g., graduation from elementary to middle school, getting married, or getting arrested). Adolescence is the stage of maximum change. More changes in social contexts and more transitions occur in this stage compared to any other, making it a critical period of development. A trajectory is a long‐term sequence showing the pattern of transitions and changes that occur during one’s life. It is a history recording how individuals adapt to changes in social contexts and how well they navigate significant transitions and turning points.

Concept #4: Timing. If significant events, tasks, and transitions that should occur during a particular developmental stage do not occur – if they are “off time” or out of sequence – problems can arise not only during that particular period but also in future stages. For example, the timing of both puberty and employment are important for ensuring healthy development and one’s potential for crime. Girls who experience an early onset of puberty are at greater risk of delinquency than those with a normal or late onset (Zahn et al., 2008). Likewise, being employed prior to high school graduation is a risk factor for crime but not after graduation (Mihalic and Elliott, 1997).

Concept #5: Stability and change. The concepts of stability and change are central to the life course paradigm and refer to continuity or discontinuity in behavior across different developmental stages. According to this perspective, one’s behavior is not a stable personality trait or inherent propensity. Individuals are not born criminals; they do not have an inherent propensity to commit crimes. Instead, behavior can be stable or changing, depending on how one responds or adapts to each stage of life. If an individual shows stability in positive or negative behaviors, this stability cannot be attributed simply or solely to one’s genetics or biological tendencies. Instead, it may be that an individual responded in a certain way in one environment and decides to repeat the performance in another context, probably because s/he had similar opportunities to behave in that manner and/or was rewarded for doing so in both contexts (Elliott and Williams, 1995).

Now that we have explained the life course paradigm in some detail, it’s completely apparent how this perspective relates to criminal behavior and crime prevention, right? Not yet? Well, let’s think about it some more …

In the life course paradigm, crime is viewed as an adaptation made because one has not achieved the goals or successfully completed the demands faced at a particular stage. Or, crime occurs because one has not experienced important transitions or turning points at the right time. Remember that, in this paradigm, both individual characteristics and social environments affect behavior and development, which means that both personal and contextual factors, as well as their interactions, affect one’s likelihood of overcoming or failing to overcome challenges faced during the life course. A major goal of crime prevention programs is to provide individuals with the skills they need to successfully complete tasks, adapt to new circumstances and take on new responsibilities so that they do not resort to criminal adaptations. Recall that adolescence is the stage where most of these demands occur and crime is most likely to be initiated, which also makes it an important period for crime prevention. The specific individual and contextual risk and protective factors that affect adaptations and which can be targeted by prevention efforts are described in various developmental theories, which we will review in the next section.

Similar to the criminal career framework, the life course perspective considers and seeks to answer questions about how offending behavior can change over the life course but also investigates how these patterns may vary across individuals and contexts. Some of the questions that life course theories seek to answer include: How big a failure or departure from the normal course of development is required before crime becomes a likely adaptation? Why would an individual choose a criminal adaptation rather than some other non‐criminal adaptation (e.g., why react to a failure to meet goals with crime versus depression or just by lowering your goals or aspirations)? What personal traits, conditions, experiences, or interactions explain the specific form of crime one chooses to commit (e.g., violence compared to theft or drug use)? Why is involvement in crime temporary for some individuals but more stable or persistent for others? Is stability in offending likely to be the result of an accumulation of failures experienced across multiple stages of development, or is a critical failure experienced very early in life enough to create an ongoing pattern or trajectory of offending?

Also like the criminal career paradigm, the life course paradigm recognizes the definite relationship between age and crime, but also points out that the age/crime curve shown in Figure 3.1 reflects an aggregate or overall pattern, meaning that it is based on averaging crime rates across all individuals in a population. Presenting information in this way can hide differences in crime rates for particular individuals or groups of individuals. For example, Moffitt’s (1993) examination of offending rates has shown that although most offenders do limit their participation in crime to the adolescent period of life (and are, as a result, adolescent‐limited offenders), this is not true of all individuals. A small proportion of the population (5–10%) are life‐course persistent offenders (Moffitt, 1993; Sampson and Laub, 1993). As depicted in Figure 3.2, these individuals usually commit their first deviant or illegal behavior during childhood and are persistent offenders, continuing to offend through adulthood.

Figure 3.2 Two groups of individuals with different levels of participation in offending over the life course.

Source: Moffitt, 1993. Reproduced with permission of the American Psychological Association.

To further complicate matters, additional patterns of offending are also possible. For example, some studies have shown that there are distinct groups of individuals who: (i) initiate offending during adolescence and persist into adulthood, and (ii) have a delayed onset of crime, offending for the first time after age 20 (Jennings and Reingle, 2012; Nagin, Farrington, and Moffitt, 1995; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Moreover, even for life course persisters, involvement in crime can be unstable, increasing or decreasing depending on life circumstances.

This variation in offending means that there are many opportunities to prevent involvement in crime. We must provide services early in life before the age of onset has occurred as well as later in the life course to guard against a late onset of crime and to reduce recidivism among those who have already initiated. Crime prevention efforts must also consider the different developmental stages that individuals are experiencing and recognize that the factors influencing criminal adaptations will be different at different stages. That is, risk factors that are most important in childhood are likely to be different from those that are most important in adolescence and from those that are most salient during adulthood. This means that prevention services have to address the right factors at the right time. Similarly, because the circumstances that predict onset and persistence or which influence adolescent‐limited offending and life course persistent offending may differ, prevention programs will need to focus on different factors depending on the outcome one wishes to prevent and/or the types of individuals targeted for services.

As we have been emphasizing, different theories offer different explanations for criminal involvement. From a life course perspective, it is important to consider the degree to which theories take into account the age of the individual, the turning points and transitions affecting their involvement in crime and the degree to which they allow for different pathways to crime for different individuals. With these thoughts in mind, let’s review some of the theories we discussed in Chapter 2 and reflect again on their implications for crime prevention.

Theories within the life course development paradigm

Strain theories predate the emergence of the life course paradigm but nonetheless reflect some of its main principles. Strain theories assume that humans are basically law‐abiding and will engage in crime only when pushed to do so. The central proposition in strain theory is that crime is a response to the pain and emotions produced by stress, which can act as a turning point in the life course, especially if it results in the inability to successfully achieve important tasks and goals.

The primary theories in this tradition that guide current prevention efforts are Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) version of strain theory, sometimes called Opportunity Theory and Agnew’s (1991, 2006) General Strain Theory (GST). According to both these theories, an important motivation for involvement in crime is having limited access to conventional opportunities, which leads to an anticipated failure to achieve goals that are universally valued in society (e.g., a high‐quality education, a good job, accumulated wealth and social status, and a happy marriage). Agnew’s GST identified two other important types of stressors: (i) the loss of positive influences and relationships like close friends, a favorite teacher, or a beloved coach; and (ii) a dramatic negative event like the death of a loved one or exposure to violence and victimization. All of these experiences can evoke strong emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, or depression), which, in turn, prompt a search for ways to deal with this condition.

Strain theory views crime as one possible solution or adaptation to stressful situations. But according to Cloward and Ohlin (1960), choosing a criminal adaptation depends on access to criminal opportunities, those learning environments and subcultures where the required skills and knowledge to be successful in crime can be acquired. The specific form of criminal behavior is determined, at least in part, by the specific criminal subculture available. In addition, Agnew (1991, 2006) states that social support is very important in determining which adaptation is chosen: individuals with high levels of social support are less likely to respond to strain with crime compared to those with less social support.

What crime prevention strategies are suggested by strain theories? An obvious recommendation they would make is to reduce the occurrence of problematic strains in individuals’ lives. For example, we could provide housing subsidies for the poor, increase welfare programs, provide educational or job training programs, and seek to reduce or eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination. This theory would also advocate for programs that help individuals more positively cope with life stress. We might, for example, teach people how to recognize and respond to the physiological signs of stress (e.g., increased heartbeat, difficulty breathing) or anger (e.g., clenched fists, reddening of the face) in non‐violent and healthy ways.

Social learning theories assume that human nature is determined by socialization processes and that individuals are not inherently predisposed to either conventional or antisocial behavior. The central proposition is that children learn positive and negative behaviors, including crime, when interacting with others in social situations. Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory and Akers’ (1985, 2009) social learning theory are the primary criminological theories in this tradition. These theories both assert that the more one is exposed to criminal role models and to the attitudes and values they convey, the more likely one will be to engage in crime. Associations with criminals allow an individual to learn both the techniques necessary to engage in an illegal behavior (since you are not born knowing how to pick a lock or hack into someone’s bank account) and the attitudes that can promote and help to rationalize such behaviors. Learning processes also include imitation and reinforcement. In the first case, an individual who observes someone else commit an illegal behavior will be at risk for mimicking the behavior. Once participation in crime has occurred, its persistence is best explained by the extent to which it is reinforced – either encouraged, which leads to more offending, or discouraged, which should promote desistence.

Social learning theory serves as the foundation for many crime prevention programs, especially those that focus on minimizing exposure to risky family and peer influences – those social groups encountered relatively early in life and which are especially important to the individual. Programs for parents will emphasize the importance of modeling positive behaviors and refraining from committing illegal acts or sharing deviant attitudes with youth. They can also help parents be more aware of their children’s behaviors, more effectively discipline children and discourage children’s association with deviant peers. Schools can offer drug prevention curricula in order to adjust students’ perceptions about the numbers of people who drink or use drugs, so that it is not considered to be common and acceptable behavior. Likewise, these programs may have adolescents consider the negative consequences of using drugs (e.g., smoking makes you smell bad and cigarettes cost a lot of money) and practice declining a peer’s offer to use drugs.

Social control theories assume that humans are basically hedonistic and driven by the need to satisfy their own needs and desires, which creates a natural tendency to engage in crime. The central theories in this tradition are Hirschi’s (1969) social control/bonding theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime. The first focuses on the importance of having strong emotional attachments or bonds to others, which act as informal and indirect social controls. We are more likely to conform to the rules and expectations set by those we respect and care about even when they are not actively trying to control our behavior because we do not want to jeopardize our relationships or disappoint those who care about us. The second theory prioritizes the role of internal self‐control; people with strong self‐control should be able to stop themselves from acting on their desires and impulses and from committing crime when faced with opportunities to do so.

These theories have clear and logical applications for crime prevention: to prevent crime and/keep criminal impulses in check, we must externally apply controls, strengthen bonds, and/or create strong internal controls in individuals. Attempts to increase external controls may include formal actions by law enforcement officers or informal actions by teachers or parents who set and enforce rules for behavior. To increase bonds, we could increase individuals’ involvement in conventional activities and strengthen their beliefs in the norms and rules of society. To increase self‐control, we could help individuals better regulate their impulses and emotions and help them evaluate the consequences of their actions.

We discussed several examples of integrated theories in Chapter 2, including those proposed by Elliott and colleagues (Elliott, 1985; Elliott, Ageton, and Canter, 1979), Interactional Theory (Thornberry, 1987; Thornberry et al., 1991), and the Social Development Model (Catalano and Hawkins, 1996). The last two theories include an integration of social control and social learning theories, and Elliott and colleagues also include strain theory. It is easy to see how these theories are related to the life course developmental paradigm. They all describe a chain of events that unfolds over the early stages of the life course, in which significant experiences in specific social contexts constitute turning points that influence the development of crime. In addition, they recognize that different people can follow different life course trajectories and that they may be influenced by different causal factors that lead them into crime. These theories have been used to explain not only the initiation into crime, but also continuity and desistance from crime, as well as particular life course trajectories followed by individuals (Catalano et al., 2008; Elliott, Huizinga, and Menard, 1989; Thornberry and Krohn, 2008).

Prevention strategies based on integrated theories tend to be multifaceted and have the goal of implementing strategies recommended by all the theories included in the integrated model. In addition, they emphasize that these strategies take into account the developmental life stage/age of the individual and target the influences that are most likely to be affecting the particular population intended to receive services. (See Table 3.3 for a summary of all the theories that fall within the life course paradigm.)

Table 3.3 Theories within the life course developmental paradigm.

Theory	Definition	Crime prevention strategies suggested by the theory
Strain	Crime is produced by strains and stressors that create pressures that must be alleviated	School curricula to improve social‐emotional learning Job training programs
Social learning	Crime is learned through interactions with others	Drug or violence prevention curricula helping children resist peer or media influences to use drugs or be aggressive
Social control	Crime is more likely to occur when internal, external, and indirect controls are weak	Parent training programs that improve child management and discipline skills Mentoring programs
Integrated	Many factors influence crime and their effects may differ across individuals and stages of development	Multiple component programs targeting multiple causes of crime Developmentally sensitive interventions that address causal factors when they are most influential

A Public Health Approach to Crime Prevention

Although illegal behavior has always been the focus of law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies, crime is increasingly being considered a matter of public concern. This means that crime is now more likely to be viewed as having consequences for everyone. Clearly, crime is harmful to those who are victims of or commit illegal acts. Indeed, violence is responsible for 9% of all deaths worldwide among males aged 10–24 (Patton et al., 2009) and is the second leading cause of death of all those aged 10–24 in the USA (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). In addition, offenders are more likely to self‐report the use and/or abuse of illegal drugs compared to non‐offenders and to have mental and physical health problems. Those involved in the criminal justice system must also contend with the social stigma that follows from having a criminal record and from the subsequent lack of access to important services and/or social processes (e.g., being unable to vote, having more difficulty finding employment, etc.).

We also know that people do not have to directly experience crime, as perpetrators or victims, to be harmed by it. Given that significant tax dollars are spent to prevent crime and punish criminals, we all suffer when crime rates are elevated. There is also evidence that vicarious victimization (Agnew, 2006) – hearing about or witnessing crimes perpetrated against others – can cause stress, emotional trauma, and fear of crime, particularly when loved ones are victimized. For all of these reasons, crime can be seen as threatening the health and well‐being of the general public, similar to other serious problems such as poverty, obesity, and cancer.

Viewing crime as a public health problem has increased public support for crime prevention and generated demand for broader‐based actions to reduce crime that extend beyond law enforcement. Such efforts are modeled after the medical and public health approaches to reducing disease and other health problems. These perspectives emphasize the importance of early and proactive activities that will alter the factors that lead to disease or increase the risk of disease. This orientation is in contrast to reactive efforts that are implemented after problems have emerged. That is, instead of waiting until an individual becomes sick, then trying to treat the disease, public health approaches try to reduce the chance that illness will occur.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Ben Franklin

As an example, consider how we might prevent heart disease using a public health approach. First, we would identify the factors that scientific studies have shown to influence, either positively or negatively, the potential that an individual will develop this sickness. These factors include stress and poor diets, which increase the risk for heart disease, and regular exercise, which reduces its chances of occurring. Secondly, we would create and test a strategy designed to reduce the factors that make heart disease more likely and to increase the factors that make it less likely to develop. To prevent heart disease, then, we might teach individuals strategies to effectively manage stress (e.g., practice yoga, reduce caffeine intake, etc.) and encourage them to eat healthier meals and engage in regular exercise.

Extending this logic to the prevention of crime, rather than wait until crimes are committed and responding with punishments, we want to reduce the probability that individuals will break the law. Doing so requires that we first identify the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of illegal behavior and then create and test strategies to change these factors. In the next section, we will describe more fully the progress that has been made in identifying the causes of offending. For now, consider what preventive actions might be put in place if there was evidence that academic failure during elementary school increased the likelihood of adolescent delinquency. What might we do based on this knowledge? One strategy would be to encourage parents and schools to enroll children with low grades in tutoring programs. What action could be taken if it was clear that steady employment reduced the probability of offending? This information would suggest increasing access to educational and job training.

A Public Health Approach to Crime Prevention

Although illegal behavior has always been the focus of law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies, crime is increasingly being considered a matter of public concern. This means that crime is now more likely to be viewed as having consequences for everyone. Clearly, crime is harmful to those who are victims of or commit illegal acts. Indeed, violence is responsible for 9% of all deaths worldwide among males aged 10–24 (Patton et al., 2009) and is the second leading cause of death of all those aged 10–24 in the USA (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). In addition, offenders are more likely to self‐report the use and/or abuse of illegal drugs compared to non‐offenders and to have mental and physical health problems. Those involved in the criminal justice system must also contend with the social stigma that follows from having a criminal record and from the subsequent lack of access to important services and/or social processes (e.g., being unable to vote, having more difficulty finding employment, etc.).

We also know that people do not have to directly experience crime, as perpetrators or victims, to be harmed by it. Given that significant tax dollars are spent to prevent crime and punish criminals, we all suffer when crime rates are elevated. There is also evidence that vicarious victimization (Agnew, 2006) – hearing about or witnessing crimes perpetrated against others – can cause stress, emotional trauma, and fear of crime, particularly when loved ones are victimized. For all of these reasons, crime can be seen as threatening the health and well‐being of the general public, similar to other serious problems such as poverty, obesity, and cancer.

Viewing crime as a public health problem has increased public support for crime prevention and generated demand for broader‐based actions to reduce crime that extend beyond law enforcement. Such efforts are modeled after the medical and public health approaches to reducing disease and other health problems. These perspectives emphasize the importance of early and proactive activities that will alter the factors that lead to disease or increase the risk of disease. This orientation is in contrast to reactive efforts that are implemented after problems have emerged. That is, instead of waiting until an individual becomes sick, then trying to treat the disease, public health approaches try to reduce the chance that illness will occur.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Ben Franklin

As an example, consider how we might prevent heart disease using a public health approach. First, we would identify the factors that scientific studies have shown to influence, either positively or negatively, the potential that an individual will develop this sickness. These factors include stress and poor diets, which increase the risk for heart disease, and regular exercise, which reduces its chances of occurring. Secondly, we would create and test a strategy designed to reduce the factors that make heart disease more likely and to increase the factors that make it less likely to develop. To prevent heart disease, then, we might teach individuals strategies to effectively manage stress (e.g., practice yoga, reduce caffeine intake, etc.) and encourage them to eat healthier meals and engage in regular exercise.

Extending this logic to the prevention of crime, rather than wait until crimes are committed and responding with punishments, we want to reduce the probability that individuals will break the law. Doing so requires that we first identify the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of illegal behavior and then create and test strategies to change these factors. In the next section, we will describe more fully the progress that has been made in identifying the causes of offending. For now, consider what preventive actions might be put in place if there was evidence that academic failure during elementary school increased the likelihood of adolescent delinquency. What might we do based on this knowledge? One strategy would be to encourage parents and schools to enroll children with low grades in tutoring programs. What action could be taken if it was clear that steady employment reduced the probability of offending? This information would suggest increasing access to educational and job training.

Prevention Science

The multiple benefits of effective prevention are emphasized in the developing field of prevention science. Similar to the public health approach we described earlier, the goal of prevention science is to prevent major social problems and dysfunctions (Coie et al., 1993: 1013) such as crime, physical illness, mental health problems, substance abuse, obesity, and HIV/AIDS. According to this perspective, the best way to prevent these problems is to reduce the risk factors and strengthen the protective factors associated with these outcomes. Prevention science is also concerned with ensuring healthy outcomes and positive development among children and adults, which can also be achieved by lowering risk and increasing protection (Botvin and Griffin, 2005).

The field of prevention science has rapidly progressed over the last few decades. A professional organization (the Society for Prevention Research; http://www.preventionresearch.org /) has been formed to help academics, practitioners, and policymakers from diverse disciplines share their work with one another. These include criminologists as well as professionals working in education, medicine, psychology, public health, social work, and sociology. What unites all of these individuals is the use of a scientific approach to conducting research intended to prevent problems and improve well‐being.

The scientific approach to prevention means starting with theory. Prevention scientists draw from multiple theories to develop interventions that will attack the causes of crime and interrupt the processes that make offending more likely. That is, they create interventions that attempt to minimize risk factors and enhance protective factors identified as important in theory. The next step in the scientific process is to test the ability of these interventions to reduce crime and related problem behaviors in rigorous, well‐conducted experiments. As we will explain in Chapter 4 , methods for testing interventions can vary significantly in their quality. Prevention scientists use the most appropriate and strongest possible research designs to test programs’ effectiveness in order to increase public confidence in their results. They also use appropriate statistical procedures to identify whether or not and how much crime is actually reduced for those involved in the prevention program. Ideally, interventions are re‐tested under different conditions and with different populations to ensure their findings can apply in many different situations and for as many people as possible. The last steps in the prevention science approach are to compile the results of experimental studies, share information about what works with governmental and public agencies and use the findings to guide future research (Botvin and Griffin, 2005).

Types of Crime Prevention

Universal, selective, and indicated crime prevention strategies

Prevention strategies that are based on criminological theories and tested using scientific methods can take many different forms. One way of classifying interventions is according to the types of individuals or groups for whom they are intended. Following the public health and prevention science perspectives, we will classify interventions as universal, selective, and indicated, as defined in Table 3.5 (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009). Universal preventive interventions are intended for the general public or for all the individuals in a particular setting, regardless of whether or not they have begun to engage in crime or have experienced any risk or protective factors. For example, if a prevention program were offered to all students in a middle school, it would be considered to be universal. Similarly, universal prevention programs could be implemented with all students entering college or with all residents of a particular neighborhood. Selective preventive efforts are intended for individuals or groups considered to be at risk for engaging in crime because they are known to have already experienced one or more risk factors and/or to have low levels of protection. For example, students who are not doing well at school might be offered a selective tutoring program, and families living in high‐poverty and violent neighborhoods might be the focus of selective family‐focused or community‐based interventions. Indicated preventive strategies are offered to individuals who are already engaging in crime, but who are doing so at relatively low levels. For example, youth or adults who have had their first contact with the correctional system could participate in an indicated prevention program to increase the likelihood they will not continue or escalate their offending.

Table 3.5 Universal, selective, and indicated crime prevention strategies.

Type	Intended population	Examples of crime prevention strategies
Universal	All individuals in a general setting (e.g., a community, school, or demographic group)	School‐wide anti‐bullying program Neighborhood watch program
Selective	Individuals, groups, or settings known to have experienced one or more risk factors	Head Start educational services for low‐income families Mentoring for youth from single‐parent families
Indicated	Individuals who have already begun to engage in crime	Drug courts Boot camps

Prior to 1994, the fields of medicine and public health used a different classification of programs. They identified interventions as being primary, secondary, and tertiary (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994). In this classification, only primary programs were considered true prevention programs – interventions that tried to decrease the onset of crime and other physical and mental health problems. Secondary programs were considered “interventions” to be used with those already engaging in crime and/or displaying problems. Tertiary programs were “treatment” programs for those who had a definite disorder requiring intervention. The new classification system was developed to better clarify the differences in risk for engaging in crime across individuals, to better reflect the differences in service needs for different individuals and to expand the types of activities included in the prevention phase (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994). Thus, under the new system, universal, selective, and indicated interventions are all considered prevention options. The distinction between prevention and treatment has also been clarified, with treatment programs reserved for persons who have a formal diagnosis of a disorder; for example, those with an antisocial personality disorder, those with a substance abuse disorder, or those with a psychopath disorder.

Although the categories of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention have historically been used by criminologists to classify crime prevention programs (Lab, 2014; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001), we will use the new classification system differentiating universal, selective, and indicated interventions given its greater clarity, expanded recognition of prevention approaches and widespread usage in public health and prevention science. In Section III, we will identify effective prevention programs as being universal, selective, or indicated.

In Section IV, we will describe some of the challenges faced by communities when deciding whether it is best to implement universal, selective, or indicated strategies. There is debate about whether services should be directed at the general population, those at greater risk for becoming involved in crime, or those who are already engaging in serious, frequent offending. Those in favor of implementing universal interventions point out two main advantages: (i) Even if the majority of the population will not offend or will engage only in minor offenses, universal services can reach more individuals. In contrast, the higher risk individuals targeted by selective and indicated programs make up a relatively small percentage of the population (Rose, 1985). (ii) Universal interventions can affect the larger environments in which individuals reside without having to target and change particular individuals. For example, a school‐based bullying prevention program might be able to change the policies and climate of an entire school, reinforcing the message for all students that bullying will not be tolerated.

Those in favor of selective and indicated approaches also make two arguments: (i) Providing services to individuals who may never break the law is a waste of resources. In contrast, higher risk groups will likely see greater benefits from participation in a crime prevention strategy (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey, 2009), making this approach more cost effective (Aos et al., 2004). (ii) Society is obligated to provide services to at‐risk groups (e.g., members of racial/ethnic minority groups or those from low socioeconomic backgrounds), because doing so can help reduce social disparities and inequalities in those who are most likely to end up in prison (Frohlich and Potvin, 2008).

These controversies are difficult to resolve and each set of arguments has merit. In fact, the strategy we recommend is to offer a range of services that reaches all population groups, from those who may never participate in crime to those who are most likely to do so. In doing so, however, we must remember that it will be very difficult to identify with certainty who will become involved in crime, given that exposure to risk and protective factors does not automatically lead to offending (i.e., these factors are predictive but not proscriptive). Moreover, identifying and seeking out high‐risk groups for services can backfire. There is evidence that labeling individuals as potential or actual offenders can increase their future involvement of crime by negatively affecting their self‐concept and their interactions with others (Becker, 1963). Prevention efforts that focus on higher risk individuals must be careful to avoid stigmatizing these populations.

Situational/environmental, social context, and individual crime prevention strategies

A second way of categorizing crime prevention strategies, and how we will organize Section III of this text, is according to the setting or level at which they seek to make changes. Interventions can try to change: (i) the situations, physical environments or places in which crimes are likely to occur; (ii) the social contexts and/or social interactions that give rise to crime; and (iii) characteristics of individuals which affect their criminal behavior (see Table 3.6). The first group includes situational and environmental crime prevention practices and policies, such as place‐based interventions and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). These interventions try to change the physical features of places (neighborhoods, streets, or buildings) in which crimes are likely to occur. They may also focus on reducing opportunities that can give rise to crimes, making crimes more difficult to commit and increasing the likelihood of arrest. For example, efforts may be taken to make homes or commercial buildings more difficult to burglarize (by installing better locks or brighter lighting), bar fights less likely to occur (by increasing staff or educating servers about how to recognize intoxicated patrons), and neighborhoods less attractive to criminals (e.g., by tearing down abandoned buildings). Law enforcement practices and criminal justice policies which increase the probability that crimes will be detected and offenders punished can also fit under this heading.

Table 3.6 Situational/environmental, social context, and individual crime prevention strategies.

Type	Intended target(s)	Examples of crime prevention strategies
Situational/environmental	Changes in places (neighborhoods, streets, and buildings) to reduce opportunities for crime and in law enforcement practices to increase the likelihood that offenders will be caught and punished	Installing locks and improving security procedures in campus dormitories Installing ignition locks and Breathalyzers in cars Hot spots policing Increasing the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21
Social context	Changes in the organization, structure and/or relationships occurring in peer, family, school, and neighborhood groups	Parent training programs School climate change efforts Gang prevention programs
Individual	Changes in risk and protective factors that affect individuals	School curricula to improve child social skills or drug resistance skills Afterschool programming

The second category includes interventions designed to change aspects of the family, school, peer group, and community context which can affect crime. These strategies may focus on altering the organization of these groups or improving the social relationships and interactions that take place in these environments. For example, some family‐based programs teach parents and children to more effectively communicate; school‐wide interventions may try to change school rules, policies, or interactions between administrators, staff, and students; gang prevention programs try to weaken the gang’s structure and hierarchy and prevent youth from joining gangs; and neighborhood efforts may try to reduce social disorganization and improve residents’ trust and collaboration.

Finally, individually focused interventions seek to change individual risk and protective factors, improve how individuals respond to life events, and provide skills in how to effectively communicate and interact with others. For example, early childhood education programs provide children in nursery school with high‐quality educational services so they can be better prepared for later school experiences. Other individually focused programs help children, teenagers, or adults improve their ability to regulate emotions, respond to stress more effectively, make better decisions without acting impulsively and/or resist social influences to engage in offending.

These three types of crime prevention have some overlap, making these distinctions somewhat arbitrary. We will do our best to classify interventions into one category or another but will also indicate when interventions fit into multiple types of programming.

Programs, policies, and practices

One last way of classifying prevention efforts is to differentiate programs from practices and policies (see Table 3.7). These terms are often used interchangeably but they do refer to different approaches. A prevention program is based on one or more theories of crime and tries to change risk and protective factors and mechanisms shown to affect crimes among particular populations. Programs have specific delivery requirements that are clearly outlined for the program implementer to follow, including not only content or activities to be covered, but also protocols and procedures that should be followed during implementation (e.g., requirements regarding the credentials of program implementers, number of program lessons, number of participants per implementer, how often discussions or role plays must be incorporated into the intervention, etc.). Furthermore, programs should include a package of services that includes implementation manuals detailing program protocols, opportunities for implementers to be trained and to receive consultation from program developers or trainers during delivery, and tools that will allow them to monitor their performance, identify challenges if they arise and implement solutions to these problems (Elliott, 2013).

Table 3.7 Prevention programs, practices, and policies.

Type	Definition	Examples of crime prevention strategies
Programs	Set of specific activities with defined protocols, manuals, and methods of delivery	Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Functional Family Therapy Perry Preschool program
Practices	General type of approach which can be used as part of many specific programs	Mentoring Drug counseling Prison‐based vocational training
Policies	Regulations or laws intended to reduce crime across large populations	Increasing the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21 Three Strikes laws

Prevention practices are more general strategies, approaches, or procedures that utilize similar, but not necessarily the same activities to reduce crime or other problems (http://www.crimesolutions.gov/about_whyprogs_pracs.aspx). Tutoring, mentoring, and community policing can all be considered crime prevention practices. These practices may be incorporated into many different interventions in many different ways. For example, tutoring provides additional instructional assistance to students who are not doing well in school but specific tutoring interventions can differ in the number or duration of sessions being offered, characteristics of participants, credentials of implementers, and specific goals or outcomes targeted for change. Practices are considered effective when evidence from multiple evaluations of studies that involved implementation of the general practice indicates that the strategy was shown, on average, to reduce crime (Elliott, 2013).

Prevention policies seek broad reductions in crime across a large population. They are not directed towards individuals but try to affect much larger groups, such as all youth attending a school, all residents of a neighborhood, or all citizens of a country (http://www.thecommunityguide.org/uses/policy_development.html). Policies are usually enacted by local, state, or federal decision‐makers, such as heads of agencies (e.g., schools or philanthropic institutions) or law‐makers (Dickerson, Haggerty, and Catalano, 2011). They usually take the form of regulations and/or laws that govern the behavior of a particular population. For example, school rules against bullying, restrictions on alcohol sales and laws restricting gun carrying can all be considered prevention policies.

Although prevention programs, practices, and policies will all be reviewed in this book, more research has investigated the effectiveness of programs compared to practices and policies. As a result, more examples of the former than the latter will be identified. In Section III, when describing scientific studies testing the effectiveness of programs, practices, and policies, we will take care to use the term that best describes the type of strategy being reviewed. To avoid being too wordy or overly complicated, in the other chapters of this book, we will refer to preventive interventions, strategies, efforts, and actions. These are general terms that can indicate any type of prevention.

Crime Prevention Logic Models

In the next chapter, we will discuss in more detail how prevention strategies are created and tested. To preview this information, we want to introduce the concept of logic models. Logic models provide the foundation for all interventions and include a theoretical model and a change model. As you now know, to have the best chance of reducing crime, prevention efforts must be based on a theory that identifies the causal factors and processes that lead to criminal behaviors. So, when developing an intervention, one first decides on the theoretical model that will provide the foundation for the content of the program. The next step is to design an intervention that reduces the risk factors and/or enhances the protective factors identified in this theory. The specific factors to be changed, the processes that will be used to change them, and the participants or settings to be changed, should all be incorporated in this change model. The program designer defines these elements in advance and makes specific hypotheses regarding the particular attitudes and/or behaviors to be changed in the short term and long term. These hypotheses are then tested using strong scientific research methods.

It is useful for program developers to diagram their logic models in order to show visually both the content and targets of an intervention and its expected changes. Increasingly, funding agencies require that the logic model for a program be submitted with requests for a grant to implement or test it. Figure 3.3 provides an example of a crime prevention logic model for the Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND) program. The content of the 12‐lesson program is summarized on the left‐hand side of the model, along with a description of the length and delivery format of the sessions. The hypothesized changes in attitudes/motivations and skills are outlined in the middle of the logic model, representing the most immediate outcomes to be produced by the program. The longer term impact on risk and protective factors, as well as behavioral changes in substance use and crime, are shown on the right‐hand side of the logic model. Creating logic models such as this one allows the program developer to carefully consider how the components of the intervention will produce anticipated changes in behavior. Sharing the logic model with potential participants and implementers is also helpful, as it can quickly communicate the nature of the program and its expected benefits.

Figure 3.3 Example of the Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND) logic model.

Source: The Penn State Evidence‐based Prevention and Intervention Support Center (EPISCenter); http://www.episcenter.psu.edu/sites/default/files/EPISCenter%27s%20Project%20TND%20Logic%20Model_4‐4‐12LAC.pdf

When designing their programs and logic models, it is important for developers to consider the malleability of risk and protective factors associated with crime: that is, the degree to which these factors can actually be changed. As discussed earlier, certain demographic characteristics (e.g., age and gender) and genetic predispositions have been linked to offending, but we cannot alter these individual characteristics. Certain societal, structural, or cultural processes shown to affect crime may also prove very difficult to change, such as beliefs that individuals have the right to carry guns or the percentage of the population living in poverty. Even if these influences are identified as important causes of crime, it may not be feasible to design and test prevention programs that target these factors.

It is also important for the evaluation to assess whether or not the targeted risk and protective factors changed for those who received the intervention compared to those who did not, as well as whether or not crime was reduced. In our review, the final determination of whether or not prevention strategies are effective will be based on evidence indicating that they have been shown to reduce crime in high‐quality, well‐conducted scientific studies. If an intervention has affected only a risk or protective factor, but has not been shown to reduce offending, then it will not be considered effective and the validity of the underlying theory should be questioned.

Summary

What have you learned in this chapter? Most importantly, we hope you have become more convinced that crime can be prevented. In this chapter, we emphasized that the most effective crime prevention strategies will seek to change the risk and protective factors identified in criminological theories and shown in scientific research to influence offending. Many different criminological theories exist, many risk and protective factors are described in these theories and many different crime prevention strategies have been created to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors.

We also discussed the fact that historically, crime prevention has been considered the responsibility of law enforcement, but today, crime is seen as a social problem affecting everyone. Taking a public health approach to crime prevention means involving multiple agencies and individuals in the delivery of prevention services. Prevention efforts can thus take many forms and target many different types of individuals using a variety of strategies. Crime prevention should certainly focus on children and adolescents, given that involvement in crime is most likely to begin during these early stages of the life course. It is also important to offer services later in the life course, to help reduce persistence and severity in offending and increase the likelihood that individuals will terminate their criminal careers. We also want to implement prevention programs, policies, and practices that can change the physical and social environments in which crime occurs, as well as the risk and protective factors that shape individual behavior.

Finally, it is important to remember that all crime prevention efforts must be well evaluated, using the strongest and most appropriate research methods possible. Only those that show reductions in crime using high‐quality scientific evaluations provide convincing evidence of success. The next chapter will provide a crash course in research methods so that you become very familiar with what it takes to show success. Get ready!