Law - Criminal Short assignment

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjqy20

Justice Quarterly

ISSN: 0741-8825 (Print) 1745-9109 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjqy20

The Centrality of Theory in Modern Day Crime Prevention: Developments, Challenges, and Opportunities

Brandon C. Welsh, Gregory M. Zimmerman & Steven N. Zane

To cite this article: Brandon C. Welsh, Gregory M. Zimmerman & Steven N. Zane (2018) The Centrality of Theory in Modern Day Crime Prevention: Developments, Challenges, and Opportunities, Justice Quarterly, 35:1, 139-161, DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2017.1300312

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1300312

Published online: 17 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 416

View related articles

View Crossmark data

The Centrality of Theory in Modern Day Crime Prevention: Developments, Challenges, and Opportunities

Brandon C. Welsh, Gregory M. Zimmerman and Steven N. Zane

Theory matters in crime prevention. Indeed, but this is hardly the full story. Crime prevention is oftentimes viewed as atheoretical—not grounded in the etiology of crime and offending. Reasons abound for this view, and the recent interest in an evidence-based approach to policy-making has been at the forefront. This article reviews the role that theory plays in modern day crime prevention, with a special focus on the three main crime prevention strategies: developmental, community, and situational. The review identifies a number of key challenges and opportunities for making theory more central to crime prevention. It suggests that the classification system employed in situational crime prevention has allowed for a more

Brandon C. Welsh, PhD, is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, the Director of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences Visiting Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement in Amsterdam. His research focuses on the prevention of delinquency and crime and evidence-based social policy. His latest book is Experimental Criminology: Prospects for Advancing Science and Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2013). Gregory M. Zimmerman, PhD, is the Graduate Program director and an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. His research interests focus on the person–context nexus, specifically on how exposure to crimino- genic conditions in various social contexts interacts to produce problem behaviors. He has recently been published in Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Social Science and Medicine, and Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Steven N. Zane is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. He holds a JD from Boston College Law School. His research interests include juvenile justice, juvenile transfer policy, crime prevention, and evidence-based social policy. Recent articles have appeared in Criminology & Public Policy, Jus- tice Quarterly, British Journal of Criminology, and Journal of Criminal Justice. Correspondence to: Brandon C. Welsh, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Churchill Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

� 2017 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Justice Quarterly, 2018 Vol. 35, No. 1, 139–161, https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1300312

explicit connection between sound theory and prevention techniques, and may provide important lessons for developmental and community crime prevention.

Keywords: crime prevention; theory; theory failure; classification; public policy

Introduction

Over the last several decades, the high degree of emphasis that has been placed upon identifying “what works” and promoting an evidence-based

approach to policy-making has seemingly obscured the critical relevance of theory to crime prevention. Many scholars have raised this concern with

respect to the more general field of crime prevention (e.g. Sampson, Winship, & Knight, 2013; Wikström, 2012). Social constructions, valuing research meth-

ods in the natural sciences, as compared to theory and methods in the social and behavioral sciences, and political pressures also play a role in downplaying the import of theory in crime prevention. It could very well be that our need

for empiricism over explanation, as well as our need for immediate returns (politically and economically) over enduring effects, is compromising the

design and implementation of crime prevention programs that are grounded in sound theory. What was once seen as a vibrant interchange of the theoretical

and the pragmatic—think of Shaw and McKay’s (1942) Chicago Area Project and Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) influence on New York City’s Mobilization for

Youth program—has become far more utilitarian, perhaps even approaching the likes of a managerial criminology (Garland, 1996).

How do we reconcile this state of affairs with continued calls for greater

understanding of the role of theory in the prevention of delinquency and crime (see Fagan, 2013; Fagan & Eisenberg, 2012; Long & Sullivan, 2016; Sullivan,

2013)? In prevention science, for example, there are explicit standards for this. The Society of Prevention Research’s updated “standards for evidence related

to research on prevention interventions” states (in the context of efficacy trials) that, “The causal theory of the intervention should be tested”

(Gottfredson et al., 2015, p. 902; emphasis in original). Of course, testing of the intervention theory is no small matter, and comes with its own set of

challenges. It just may be that Lewin’s (1943, p. 118) famous quote about the value of theory in psychology—“there is nothing as practical as a good theory”—is more important today than ever before.1

The main aim of this article is to review the role that theory plays in modern day crime prevention. A key question motivates our inquiry: What is

1. Fifty years later, using a similar title, Weiss (1995) explored the role of theory-based evaluation in the social and behavioral sciences.

140 WELSH ET AL.

the state of theoretical development of the major crime prevention strategies? Guided by the crime prevention literature, we focus exclusively on criminal

activities that are of a personal or household nature (e.g. robbery, assault, burglary, theft). Excluded are traffic, corporate, and state crimes. With

respect to theory, our coverage can be broadly categorized as scientific theories, which “make statements about the relationship between observable phenomena” and can be falsified (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2016, p. 4).

Crime Prevention in Context

This article adopts the view that crime prevention is best understood and uti-

lized as a unique social and environmental strategy for reducing crime, one that is distinct from crime control or punishment. It is argued that it is not the outcome (the prevention of crime), but the approach taken that characterizes

crime prevention. Here, crime prevention refers to efforts to prevent crime or criminal offending in the first instance—before the act has been committed.

Crime prevention and crime control share a common goal of trying to prevent the occurrence of a future criminal act. What further distinguishes them is

that prevention originates outside of the formal justice system,2 because one of its goals is to prevent young people from coming into contact with the for-

mal justice system.3 As noted by Waller (2006), prevention is considered the fourth pillar of crime reduction, alongside the institutions of police, courts,

and corrections. Here, crime prevention is viewed as an alternative approach to the more traditional responses to crime. Moreover, from a taxonomy per- spective, this view of crime prevention conforms somewhat to Foxcroft’s

(2014) proposed new prevention classification system, with its dual focus on form (i.e. universal and selected, but excluding indicated) and function (i.e.

situational and developmental, with the addition of community). In one of the first scholarly attempts to differentiate crime prevention from

crime control, Lejins (1967, p. 2) espoused the following: “If societal action is motivated by an offense that has already taken place, we are dealing with

control; if the offense is only anticipated, we are dealing with prevention.” What Lejins, along with others (e.g. Weis & Hawkins, 1981), was trying to indi- cate was the notion of “pure” prevention, a view that had long existed in the

2. Excluding justice personnel is not the intention of crime prevention programs. Many types of programs involve justice personnel such as police, prosecutors, or probation officers working in close collaboration with prevention practitioners in education, health care, recreation, and social services. For example, some elements of problem-oriented policing subscribe to this view. Later in the article we discuss problem-oriented policing in the context of situational crime prevention. 3. This derives from a long-standing concern over the effects of labeling, something that was cru- cial to the development of two of the earliest and most well-known delinquency prevention pro- grams: the Chicago Area Project (Shaw & McKay, 1942) and the Cambridge–Somerville Youth Study (McCord & McCord, 1959).

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 141

scholarship and practice of criminology in the United States and in some other countries (Welsh & Pfeffer, 2013). While the approach taken—rather than the

outcome—is crucial to shaping this concept of prevention, it is important to acknowledge that there can be a series of outcomes, including reducing crime

or criminal activity; mitigating the damage of crime or lessening the severity of criminal activity; eliminating the crime or criminal behavior altogether; and displacing the crime or criminal activity.

Broadly, three main types of crime prevention can be delineated (Welsh & Farrington, 2012; see also Tonry & Farrington, 1995). Developmental preven-

tion involves interventions designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals, especially those targeting risk and protective factors

discovered in studies of human development (Tremblay & Craig, 1995). Community prevention involves interventions designed to change the social

conditions and institutions (e.g. families, peers, social norms, organizations) that influence offending in residential communities (Hope, 1995). Situational

prevention involves interventions with a focus on preventing the occurrence of crimes by reducing opportunities and increasing the risk and difficulty of offending (Clarke, 1995a).

Sound Theory as a Starting Point for Effectiveness

The importance of theory to crime prevention can also be viewed through the

lens of evaluation research (see Long & Sullivan, 2016). When a crime prevention program fails to show a desirable effect, there is a good chance that it is due to implementation failure, under which sound theory is not prop-

erly executed (Ekblom & Pease, 1995; MacKenzie, 2006). Perhaps less well known is the next most common explanation for why a

crime prevention program fails to show a desirable effect: theory failure, or the “basic idea or mechanism of prevention was unsound” (Ekblom & Pease,

1995, p. 594). While the prevalence of theory failure is not known, serving as the next most important explanation suggests that theory is being given some

serious consideration in the practice of crime prevention. One element of good public policy is that it is based on sound theoretical

understanding of the phenomena it addresses. As Green (2000, p. 125) notes,

“empirical evidence alone is insufficient to direct practice, and that recourse to the explanatory and predictive capability of theory is essential to the design

of both programs and evaluations.” Indeed, the first step to planning an effec- tive prevention program involves a solid theoretical foundation on which to

base the preventive approach (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). This should include a theory of program change: How will the preventive approach elicit

change in the treatment group compared to the control group? The importance of program theory has led to developments in the evaluation literature such as

logic models, which describe how a program works (or is supposed to work) in

142 WELSH ET AL.

terms of inputs, resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and long-term impact (Mertens & Wilson, 2012).

In the absence of sound theory, social programs stand little to no chance to bring about social good and may even cause harm (i.e. have iatrogenic

effects). Here are Ekblom and Pease (1995, p. 596) commenting on the policy significance of both sound theory and implementation in evaluating crime pre- vention programs: “A close a priori linkage with theory, and the collection of

diagnostic information on implementation and the processes hypothesized to have been influenced by the intervention, serve as an insurance policy against

the hazard of negative findings.” Recent research on iatrogenic effects of crime prevention and crime control

programs identified a number of modalities that could be characterized by full or partial theory failure (Welsh & Rocque, 2014). Most of these modalities

were of a crime control orientation. For example, Scared Straight, which involves subjecting youths—some with no prior contact with the juvenile

justice system—to confrontations with violent, adult inmates and realistic and graphic depictions of prison life, is an example of full theory failure. Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, Hollis-Peel, and Lavenberg’s (2013) systematic

review and meta-analysis, which included nine high-quality studies, found evidence of an overall harmful effect. Here, theory failure was supported over

alternative plausible explanations (i.e. deviancy training, implementation failure, and measurement failure).

Partial theory failure may be best exemplified by correctional boot camps. According to MacKenzie (2006, p. 279), military-style boot camps in juvenile

and adult correctional settings “were not developed based on a coherent theoretical model.” With some ties to the social control perspective (i.e. skills training to help control impulsive behavior) and social learning theory (i.e.

learning basic life skills to help return to the community), the overriding consideration of boot camps is strict discipline and rigorous physical activities.

Wilson, MacKenzie, and Mitchell’s (2008) systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 32 high-quality studies, supported this view. It also found evi-

dence of an overall null effect on recidivism. Mixed effects across the studies, with the control condition receiving enhanced treatment in some cases, sug-

gested that there was more at work here than theory failure.

Crime Prevention Strategies and the Role of Theory

In this section we return to the key question that guides our substantive

inquiry: What is the state of theoretical development of the major crime pre- vention strategies? Figure 1 provides a simple illustration of the three main

crime prevention strategies and their key theoretical influences. To address this question, we use as a starting point the first volume that introduced these

crime prevention strategies and that is considered the leading scholarly work on the subject: Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 143

Prevention, by Tonry and Farrington (1995). Importantly, theory is featured

prominently in the volume. We also draw upon more recent works on theory as they relate to crime prevention. While striving for a high degree of coverage

of the relevant literatures was crucial to our approach, it is important to note that our review is by no means exhaustive; for example, we did not conduct a

systematic review of all scholarly work available in published as well as unpub- lished sources.

Developmental Crime Prevention

Background

Developmental crime prevention (DCP), also known as risk-focused prevention, is targeted on risk factors for and protective factors against delinquency and later criminal offending. It is informed generally by motiva-

tional or human development and life-course theories on criminal behavior, as well as by longitudinal studies on the development of offending (Farrington,

1995).

Theoretical developments and progress

Theory plays a central role in Tremblay and Craig’s (1995) expansive review of DCP. In addition to the usual assessment of what works, the authors were keen

Crime Prevention

Developmental Crime Prevention

- cumulative effect model

- life course theories - some elements of

early self-control theory (Cullen et al., 2012; Tremblay & Craig, 1995)

Community Crime Prevention

- social disorganization theory

- community disorder theory

- community empowerment theory (Bennett, 1998; Hope, 1995; Messner & Zimmerman, 2012)

Situational Crime Prevention

- rational choice perspective

- routine activities theory

- crime pattern theory (Clarke, 1995a; Smith & Clarke, 2012)

Figure 1 The three main crime prevention strategies and their key theoretical influences.

144 WELSH ET AL.

to “investigate how much support is provided for different models of antisocial behavior development” (p. 161). They focus their attention on three types of

developmental theories or models that had gained prominence at the time: (a) self-control theory, exemplified by Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general

theory of crime; (b) multiple pathways model, first introduced by Loeber (1990); and (c) the cumulative effect model (Yoshikawa, 1994).

Tremblay and Craig rightly note that each one of these theories serves as

the foundation for “somewhat different” developmental prevention modalities (p. 161). Behavioral parent training, with its focus on appropriate rewards and

punishments in order to nurture child self-control from an early age, is at the heart of self-control theory. For the pathways model, the authors propose a

range of interventions tailored to the different paths to delinquency, with a specific focus on age-graded risk and protective factors from early childhood

to mid-adolescence. In contrast, the cumulative effect model calls for a multi-modal approach that is focused on early childhood. Here, a combination

of interventions could be targeted at multiple risk factors in one or a number of different domains, including the individual (e.g. preschool intellectual enrichment, social skills training), family (e.g. parent training, home visita-

tion), and school (e.g. anti-bullying, instructional support) (Farrington & Welsh, 2007).

Tremblay and Craig found that there is a high level of influence of theory on DCP programs. However, the key test for the authors was the extent to which

this body of knowledge provided support for the three types of developmental theories. They found the following: modest support for self-control; no support

for multiple pathways (owing to no specific tests of the hypothesized sequence of events in each pathway); and substantial support for the cumulative effect model.

In a more recent review, Cullen, Benson, and Makarios (2012) provide insights on the major theories that contribute to a developmental view of

offending. On the matter of the advancement of developmental theories, Cullen et al. (2012) are generally optimistic, but they are also keenly aware of

the unevenness in how some of these theories have progressed over time. For example, empirical tests of self-control theory have by no means abated, while

research on cognitive transformation may benefit from a greater focus on qualitative studies. Moreover, these tests have proliferated despite the fact

that researchers have used different conceptual and operational definitions of self-control, and utilized different methodological approaches to study the effects of self-control. Nonetheless, an impressive empirical literature has

linked low self-control to an array of adverse youth developmental out- comes, and several meta-analyses have documented a robust relationship

between low self-control and crime and analogous behaviors (de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Miller & Lynam, 2001;

Pratt & Cullen, 2000). There is also evidence to suggest that modest advances have been made to

the findings reached by Tremblay and Craig (1995). For example, there is some

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 145

empirical support for the role of early self-control improvement programs in preventing antisocial behavior and delinquency. A recent systematic review

and meta-analysis of 41 evaluation studies of early self-control improvement programs found some evidence of effectiveness in promoting self-control and

reducing delinquent behavior among children and adolescents (Piquero, Jennings, Farrington, Diamond, & Gonzalez, 2016). Variability in the type of intervention modality (e.g. social skills development, cognitive coping skills,

immediate/delayed rewards) seemingly complicates the aggregate findings for these self-control programs, including the need to disentangle the independent

effects of the multi-modal interventions. Empirical support for the cumulative effect model has only grown stronger

over the last two decades. In their review of preschool programs, Schindler and Yoshikawa (2012) found a sizeable body of evaluation studies that target

multiple risk factors in different domains and produce desirable effects on antisocial behavior and delinquency:

For example, social skills curricula that target both teachers and parents for change in preschool settings have proved successful in reducing aggressive behaviors. … Two-generation programs for families in poverty, targeting both parenting processes and child verbal ability, have shown promise in reducing childhood externalizing behaviors and even in some cases juvenile and adult crime. (p. 81)

The cumulative effect model also receives support from the evidence on the

effectiveness of early parent training and family-based programs more gener- ally (Fagan, 2013).

Disappointingly, less is known about the potential influence of the key path

models on DCP. This includes one by Loeber (1990) as well as Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy perspective, which identifies two distinct groups of

offenders that develop in different ways: adolescent-limited and life-course persistent.

Key challenges

For the academic community, the influence of theory on DCP also comes with

some clear challenges. In commenting on the path models, Tremblay and Craig (1995, p. 161) note that, “Preventive experiments to test these models, or

simply to use their conceptual framework, clearly need to be much more com- plex than those that start from the Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) model.”

Their simple linear model (poor child-rearing → low self-control → crime) is insufficient to deal with the multiple sequences of events over multiple path- ways for different offender types. In many respects, this highlights the differ-

ent needs between static and dynamic theories (Farrington, 2003). Yet another challenge concerns the cumulative effect model, specifically, the difficulty in

isolating the independent or interactive effects of the different components of

146 WELSH ET AL.

programs (Farrington, 2000). Future experiments are needed that attempt to disentangle the different elements of effective multi-modal programs. While

this holds scholarly interest, it also carries important implications for develop- ing and implementing the next generation of effective DCP programs built on

the cumulative effect model. More broadly, there are also the critiques that have been leveled at risk-focused prevention,4 which undergirds a range of developmental and life-course theories (see Haines & Case, 2008). A major

problem with this approach is to establish which risk factors are causes and which are merely markers or correlates. The difficulty of establishing causes,

not to mention the co-occurrence of risk factors, is a major impediment to understanding and replicating effective DCP programs.

Community Crime Prevention

Background

Community-based efforts to prevent crime are sometimes seen as a combina- tion of developmental and situational prevention (Bennett, 1998). Difficulties

in defining community crime prevention (CCP) and the types of programs that populate it come about because of two dominant perspectives that have informed this strategy. One is focused on the social conditions of crime and

the ability of the community to regulate them, and the other perspective holds that “it operates at the level of whole communities regardless of the types of

mechanisms involved” (Bennett, 1996, p. 169). Hope’s (1995) definition that CCP involves actions designed to change the social conditions and institutions

that influence offending in residential communities goes some way toward rec- onciling these views, and this is the definition we adopt here.

Theoretical developments and progress

Beginning with Rosenbaum’s (1988) and Hope’s (1995) classic reviews of CCP,

there has been for many years a real sense that programmatic efforts under this approach are largely atheoretical. This view is grounded, at least in part,

in the idea that there is disconnect “between [the] causes and cures” of com- munity violence (Sherman, 1997, chapt. 3, p. 2). Hope (1995) argues that this

disconnect results, at least in part, from the difference between vertical and horizontal CCP efforts. Horizontal prevention emphasizes the role of commu- nity residents in crime prevention, primarily via informal social control. Con-

versely, vertical prevention focuses on connecting the community to goods and

4. The basic idea of this approach involves identifying the key risk factors for offending and imple- menting prevention methods designed to counteract them.

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 147

services provided by collectivities outside of the neighborhood. The difference is reflected in theoretical underpinnings about private, parochial, and public

control, as discussed in Bursik and Grasmick’s (1993) systemic model of crime. According to Hope (1995), horizontal CCP efforts designed to build and fortify

private and parochial control have not succeeded; and, vertical prevention approaches designed to address public control have been relatively limited, despite theory that has highlighted the importance of addressing social, eco-

nomic, and cultural isolation in lower-class communities (e.g. Wilson, 1996). In addressing the idea of a disconnect between the causes and cures of com-

munity offending, Sherman (1997) uses as a case in point the community pre- vention of gang violence. The traditional social intervention approach to

reducing gang violence comes in the form of street work, outreach, or crisis intervention (Spergel, 1995). But, research suggests that much of the “gang

proliferation problem is reflective of larger social ills.” Therefore, “merely addressing gang problems through gang intervention, be it street work or sup-

pression, won’t have much effect” (Klein, 1995, p. 205). Indeed, through the middle 1990s, evaluations of community gang prevention efforts were gener- ally negative, in part because most programs did not “address the underlying

community risk factors” associated with gang violence, thereby neglecting the- ory in program design and implementation (Sherman, 1997, chapt. 3, p. 18).

Messner and Zimmerman (2012) distinguish theories focusing on social struc- tures from those linking social processes to offending behavior in local neigh-

borhoods. Similarly, Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2000) developed three theoretical models for understanding the mechanisms through which neighbor-

hood effects operate: institutional resources, relationships, and norms/collec- tive efficacy. Linking these theoretical distinctions to CCP efforts, Hope (1995) and Bennett (1998) provide a useful system of categorization: community orga-

nization, community defense, and community development. The intellectual foundations upon which early community organization

efforts were based included criminological theories such as Shaw and McKay’s (1942) social disorganization theory and Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) differential

opportunity theory. A more recent example includes the Cure Violence pro- gram, first started in Chicago and now operating in a number of developed and

developing countries across the world. One of the essential elements of Cure Violence is to mobilize the community to change norms inside-out, by engaging

community leaders and organizing the community through block clubs, tenant councils, and neighborhood associations. Promoting informal social control through community organization is a key concept of social disorganization

theory and notions of collective efficacy (David-Ferdon & Simon, 2014). Crime prevention efforts in the vein of community defense focus as much

on potential victims of crime as on potential offenders. Disorder policing, aris- ing in the 1980s and still popular today, is an example of community defense

prevention and is grounded squarely in broken windows theory. The theory pur- ports that physical disorder (e.g. graffiti) and social disorder (e.g. loitering)

provide visual cues that social control is weak, crime is tolerated, and

148 WELSH ET AL.

deterrence is minimal, thereby breeding an environment conducive to criminal activity (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Key concerns include whether the relation-

ship between disorder and crime is context-dependent (see Sampson et al., 2013) as well as causality and endogeneity.

There are a number of types of community development efforts, including architectural improvement, community empowerment, socio-economic regen- eration, and housing allocation policies (see Bennett, 1998). In reference to

the latter, we consider the case of the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) experiment of the late 1990s. MTO randomly assigned 4,600 low-income

families to two treatment groups—one receiving vouchers to relocate to low- poverty neighborhoods and one receiving these vouchers plus counseling—and

a no-treatment control group. The experiment was implemented in five cities across the US, and evaluations, which have revealed effect heterogeneity (see

Sampson et al., 2013), provide some evidence of effectiveness. The experi- ment was well-grounded in social isolation theory (Wilson, 1996), a widely

accepted theory about challenges to economic resources and opportunities and cultural and social isolation in poor, urban neighborhoods.

For some time, the extent to which community-level theories of crime have

contributed to CCP efforts has been understood to be quite limited (see Hope, 1995; Sherman, 1997). This view may be shifting somewhat. In the last two

decades there have been some programmatic examples in the literature that link the “cures” to the “causes,” not to mention some theoretical develop-

ments. For example, while early research on neighborhood effects focused primarily on social structures relevant to offending, more recent research has

identified theoretically relevant neighborhood mechanisms (e.g. social ties and cohesion, attenuated culture, and collective efficacy) linked to criminal offending (see Sampson, 2006; Warner, 2003). There is also a growing aware-

ness that individual and community causes of crime are interconnected, and progress has been made toward integrating levels of analysis theoretically as

well as methodologically via multilevel analyses (Messner & Zimmerman, 2012). Such theoretical and methodological advancements should be welcomed

by prevention scientists wishing to pursue theoretically grounded social inter- ventions.

Key challenges

The theoretical and methodological advancements discussed above are accom-

panied by some key challenges. Theoretically, CCP efforts should be cognizant of the linkages between individual- and community-level processes, rather

than “controlling out” individual-level variation in implementing community- based programs. Some research examining cross-level moderating effects has

made strides in this direction (see Wikström, 2006, 2010). Nevertheless, CCP scientists need to theorize more explicitly and comprehensively about how selection processes and neighborhood-level influences act in concert to

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 149

structure the observed residential landscape of different communities. Methodologically, researchers should continue to embrace analytical programs

and techniques that make it possible to simultaneously examine the effects of CCP programs and individual change. Multilevel analysis is becoming more com-

monplace, but obstacles prevent it from becoming more widely used. Perhaps the most formidable impediment to methodological progress is the paucity of data collection procedures that take into account the naturally occurring hier-

archical social structure. Such procedures require information on individuals and the communities in which they are situated, in particular relational net-

works across neighborhoods.

Situational Crime Prevention

Background

Situational crime prevention (SCP) has been defined as “a preventive approach

that relies, not upon improving society or its institutions, but simply upon reducing opportunities for crime” (Clarke, 1992, p. 3). This is brought about by

modifying or manipulating the physical environment in order to directly affect offenders’ perceptions of increased risks and effort and decreased rewards, provocations, and excuses (Cornish & Clarke, 2003). These different

approaches serve as the basis of a highly detailed classification system of SCP techniques that has evolved over the years (as discussed below). This includes

a wide variety of techniques, including target-hardening, assisting natural surveillance, concealing or removing targets, avoiding disputes, and setting

rules or posting instructions (Smith & Clarke, 2012).

Theoretical developments and progress

Clarke’s (1995a) review of SCP makes clear that: (a) theory is integral to the practice of SCP, and (b) a classification system is fundamental to this strategy,

linking theoretical and empirical developments to advance scientific knowledge and inform policy and practice. As Figure 2 shows, the classification system,

which was started in the late 1970s, was rather simple, with eight crime- reducing techniques organized around two conceptual categories: (1) make it

more difficult to commit crime, and (2) manipulate the costs and benefits of crime (a 2 × 4 table; Hough, Clarke, & Mayhew, 1980). As the state of theoretical and empirical knowledge increased, Clarke (1992) expanded the

classification system to include 12 techniques within three categories: (1) increase the effort; (2) increase the risks; and (3) reduce the rewards

(a 3 × 4 table). A few years later, the classification scheme was again reformu- lated to include 16 distinct techniques within four categories, with the addi-

tional conceptual category oriented around removing excuses and inducing

150 WELSH ET AL.

shame or guilt (a 4 × 4 table; Clarke & Homel, 1997). The most recent itera-

tion now includes 25 techniques within five categories: (1) increase the effort; (2) increase the risks; (3) reduce the rewards; (4) reduce provocations; and (5) remove excuses (a 5 × 5 table; Cornish & Clarke, 2003). The formulation of

these newest two categories (points 4 and 5) was heavily influenced by the theory of “situational precipitators,” as outlined by Wortley (2001).

The evolution of the SCP classification system was greatly influenced by opportunity theory (Newman, Clarke, & Shoham, 1997; Smith & Clarke, 2012).

Unlike criminological theories focusing on distal causes of crime (e.g. disposi- tional and structural causes), opportunity theory takes these as background

factors and focuses instead on the proximate or situational cause of a crime event at a particular time and place (Newman, 1997). The theory holds that

the offender is “heavily influenced by environmental inducements and opportu- nities and as being highly adaptable to changes in the situation” (Clarke, 1995b, p. 57). Opportunity theory forms the basis of several more specific

theories, including the rational choice perspective (Cornish & Clarke, 1986), routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), and crime pattern theory

(Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993). Rational choice is perhaps the clearest extension of opportunity theory,

positing that an agent’s “behavior is instrumentally organized to achieve a specific task” and that making the achievement of this task more difficult will

reduce its likelihood (Newman, 1997, p. 7). Rooted in an economic approach to thinking about crime (see Becker, 1968), the rational choice perspective

2 x 4 table (Hough et al., 1980)

1. Increase effort (4 techniques)

2. Manipulate costs/benefits (4 techniques)

3 x 4 table (Clarke, 1992)

1. Increase effort (4 techniques)

2. Increase risks (4 techniques)

3. Reduce rewards (4 techniques)

situational precipitators (Wortley, 2001)

5 x 5 table (Cornish & Clarke, 2003)

1. Increase effort (5 techniques)

2. Increase risks (5 techniques)

3. Reduce rewards (5 techniques)

4. Remove excuses (5 techniques)

5. Reduce provocations (5 techniques)

4 x 4 table (Clarke & Homel, 1997)

1. Increase effort (4 techniques)

2. Increase risks (4 techniques)

3. Reduce rewards (4 techniques)

4. Remove excuses (4 techniques)

peer influence and public shaming

moral commitment

neutralization theory

Figure 2 Evolution of SCP classification system.

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 151

involves the insight that “crime is purposive behavior designed to meet the offender’s commonplace needs for such things as money, status, sex, and

excitement, and that meeting these needs involves the making of (sometimes quite rudimentary) decisions and choices, constrained as these are by limits of

time and ability and the availability of relevant information” (Clarke, 1995a, p. 98). Importantly, this decision-making process will differ based on the speci- fic type of crime, because different crimes involve different opportunities in

different settings (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Rather than presenting an alternative to rational choice, routine activities

theory can be seen as a complementary framework of crime events in the aggregate (see Pease, 1997), describing the minimal necessary elements of a

situation in which a crime opportunity will be present: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians (Clarke & Felson, 1993;

Cohen & Felson, 1979). Likewise, rational choice takes the framework of rou- tine activities and “looks at the world through the eyes of the motivated

offender,” adding more detail about the nature of offender perception of opportunity, risks, and rewards (Pease, 1997, p. 237). Finally, crime pattern theory builds upon routine activities and attempts to explain why crime is not

evenly or randomly distributed across different places or settings, and to describe the logic of these regularities (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993;

Clarke & Eck, 2005). SCP can be viewed as a practical extension of these theories: how to take

advantage of opportunity theories as a means of reducing crime. Since perception of opportunity to commit specific types of crime is a function of

environmental factors (e.g. risks and rewards) in the immediate setting of the criminal event, the theoretical development of SCP has largely been a develop- ment of conceptualizing this situational opportunity and how it can be effec-

tively reduced (Smith & Clarke, 2012). While a key insight of SCP is that the most effective approach to crime pre-

vention will occur outside the formal criminal justice system (see Newman, 1997, p. 19), there has been a parallel development in problem-oriented polic-

ing. This is a proactive strategy of responding not to criminal incidents but to the underlying problems that give rise to the incidents (Goldstein, 1979, 1990).

As Goldstein (1979, p. 242) observes, this approach involves the fundamental insight that the “police job requires that they deal with a wide range of behav-

ioral and social problems that arise in a community—that the end product of policing consists of dealing with these problems,” which are highly specific to community context. Like SCP more generally, such an approach shifts focus to

the problems in communities that may produce specific criminal opportunities —rather than the general (and distal) causes of criminal offending.

The theoretical development of SCP has consisted largely of improved understanding of situational opportunities, often by adding to or improving

upon existing typologies. The movement from the first to the most recent classification system is in part based on psychological insights about the proxi-

mate decision-making of a potential offender; specifically, that perception of

152 WELSH ET AL.

criminal opportunity is based not only on objective factors about the environment (e.g. risks, rewards, physical effort), but also on subjective fac-

tors such as provocation and excuse-making. Reducing provocations draws on Wortley’s (2001) discussion of learning theory and environmental psychology,

while reducing excuses draws upon “neutralization theory that distortions to moral reasoning provide excuses that facilitate involvement in crime” (Smith & Clarke, 2012, p. 304). These developments have incorporated a more sophisti-

cated understanding of human behavior, reflecting a modern psychological assessment of rationality as bounded or limited (Smith & Clarke, 2012).

Bernard et al. (2016) note that SCP, rather than directly test its underlying theoretical foundations, has largely influenced programs and policies based

loosely on those theories and then tested their effectiveness as evidence of the underlying theoretical mechanisms. For example, in a systematic review of

SCP programs, Guerette and Bowers (2009) found an equal likelihood for observing crime displacement and diffusion of crime prevention benefits. The

authors go on to say that “the findings support the notion of reasoning and rationality among offenders,” because offenders altered their behavior in pre- dictable ways (Guerette & Bowers, 2009, p. 1354). Similarly, their findings

support the premise (based on routine activities theory) that crime opportuni- ties can be reduced and are not infinitely available. If the rational choice per-

spective and routine activities theory were unfounded, Guerette and Bowers (2009) posit that there should be significantly more evidence of displacement

and less evidence of diffusion.

Key challenges

SCP may continue to advance by incorporating an increasingly sophisticated understanding of human behavior as well as situational opportunities, build-

ing upon the success of the SCP taxonomy and possibly suggesting alterna- tive conceptions (see e.g. Ekblom & Hirschfield, 2014). As Smith and Clarke

(2012) observe, however, advances within SCP (including to its classification system) face one overarching limitation: efforts to change the dispositional (or motivational) characteristics of offenders do not belong within the SCP

theoretical framework. This is not because SCP and its proponents deem such changes impossible, but because they are simply outside the scope of

the theory (see also Cornish & Clarke, 2003). This raises a fundamental obstacle for SCP: it stands in stark contrast to most criminological theory,

with SCP focused on the potential criminal event rather than the potential criminal offender (Freilich, 2015). Another obstacle to theoretical

development within mainstream criminology is that SCP has always been a highly policy-oriented approach to crime prevention. Because of this, SCP is

sometimes falsely criticized as neglecting a sound theoretical basis (see Clarke, 2005).

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 153

Discussion and Conclusions

This article set out to review the role that theory plays in modern day crime

prevention, with a specific focus on the three main crime prevention strate- gies: developmental, community, and situational. We were not prompted to

investigate this topic because of some crisis in criminological theory or uphea- val in crime prevention research or practice. Instead, we were motivated to

understand just how much theory matters in crime prevention as well as to identify key challenges and opportunities for making theory more central to crime prevention.

Broadly speaking, it is our assessment that theory plays an influential role in crime prevention literature today, and seemingly has a more central role than

for which it is given credit. This is not meant to negate the astute critiques that have drawn attention to a range of problematic issues facing the prevention of

crime more generally (e.g. need for immediate results, valuing empiricism over explanation) as well as concerns about an over-emphasis on evidence-based

policy-making (Sampson et al., 2013; Wikström, 2012). But any suggestion of crime prevention writ-large being atheoretical is clearly off the mark.

A focus on theory with respect to each of the three main crime prevention strategies provides a somewhat more nuanced view on the development of theory. For SCP, it appears that theory is highly developed in the literature.

Moreover, theory has not only clearly contributed to the development of SCP, but has arguably done so in a more direct fashion than the other crime preven-

tion strategies. This has much to do with the early development and continued refinement of a classification system of SCP techniques. We do not think it is a

stretch to say that the classification system is the lifeblood of SCP. For DCP, it appears that theory is becoming more developed in the litera-

ture; empirical support for the cumulative effect model and some elements of early self-control are particularly telling. Our slightly tempered view of the theoretical development of DCP could be owing to a couple of factors. First,

with developmental theory originating from multiple fields of study, including psychology, sociology, social work, education, and public health, bringing

together the literature of these theoretical perspectives around the outcome of crime or offending has proven more elusive (compared to SCP and CCP).

Moreover, fewer evaluations of developmental prevention programs include a measure of crime and, when crime is measured, it may not be treated as a

primary outcome—meaning that less attention is given to it in the reporting of the evaluation findings. Second, there is no classification system of DCP

modalities. For CCP, it appears that theory is also well developed, yet its influence on

the programmatic literature is mixed at best. One partial explanation for its

limited influence may arise from CCP being less well defined than its counter- parts and thus, is far more difficult to operationalize (i.e. in connecting the

“cures” and the “causes”).

154 WELSH ET AL.

Limitations

The present review has some key limitations. First, our focus on theory within

the three main crime prevention strategies is quite broad. Rather than see this as an end in itself—and with no prior reviews on the topic—we view this broad

approach as a starting point. Future research should examine more closely the influence of theory with respect to different prevention modalities within the

three strategies (e.g. parent training as part of DCP, improved street lighting as part of SCP, mentoring as part of CCP) as well as how some theories have evolved over time and influenced multiple crime prevention modalities within

a strategy. For example, what has been the breadth of influence of routine activities theory on SCP techniques in practice? And, has this influence changed

as the theory has evolved over time? A second limitation is that the review is restricted to an inquiry of theoretical

developments as they pertain to the scholarly literature on crime prevention. In no way can we suggest that the evaluation studies reviewed here are representa-

tive of the practice of crime prevention. These studies are more likely to be effi- cacy trials compared to effectiveness trials or broad-scale dissemination, with

the former expected to produce larger effect sizes (Fagan, 2013). As Sampson et al. (2013) note, isolating causal effects does not necessarily translate into successful policy intervention in the context of complex systems. Assessing the

potential influence of theory on crime prevention practice should be a priority for future research. It could begin with SCP, perhaps as a way to assess some of

the claims about the influence of theory on practice.

Advancing Theory

The challenges noted above, as well as others discussed throughout the article,

provide a good number of opportunities for future theoretical and empirical research to help further advance the influence of theory on crime prevention.

For instance, could DCP benefit from a classification system? We ask this ques- tion in recognition of the apparent benefits that have accrued to SCP theory

and practice in light of its robust classification system. By linking theoretical developments and empirical results, a classification system serves both schol-

arly and applied purposes. Smith and Clarke (2012, p. 299) provide a useful overview of its key purposes:

A classification system is a useful way of organizing crime-prevention techniques since it frames the discussion of individual measures in terms of the shared gen- eral, and more specific, mechanisms by which each operates to limit crime opportunities. In doing so, it systematizes knowledge in the area, clarifies links between theory and prevention practice, and can highlight gaps in the case stud- ies of particular techniques. It also provides a checklist for practitioners dealing with new problems. They can use it to consider measures set out in the classifica- tion scheme that might be usefully applied to their situation.

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 155

With some changes to the wording, it is not difficult to imagine how these details could be adopted for the development of a classification system of DCP

programs. Important to this system is the need to consider the different life- course stages that different modalities focus on as well as the targeting of

proximal or distal risk factors. These points speak to the time-scale of effects on criminal behavior (i.e. short-, medium-, and long-term). Consideration should also be given to the risk-level of the targeted population and the

presence of protective factors against offending (Fagan & Eisenberg, 2012). Turning our attention to CCP, it may be the case that this strategy could

benefit from a more robust classification system. Hope (1995) and Bennett (1998) offer a useful system, distinguishing among community organization,

community defense, and community development measures. Are there other elements that need to be added to this classification system to better link the-

oretical and empirical developments? The starting point for a more refined classification system may be a greater

explication of CCP. As noted above, community-based efforts to prevent crime are sometimes thought to be a combination of developmental and situational prevention. Another key question facing CCP is: Can progress on the program-

matic front keep up with its rich theoretical progress? One way to facilitate this is for researchers to test CCP modalities that are identified as promising. These

are programs for which the level of certainty from the available scientific evi- dence is too low to support generalizable conclusions, but where there is some

empirical basis for predicting that further research could support such conclu- sions (Farrington, Gottfredson, Sherman, & Welsh, 2006). After-school programs

and community-based gang violence prevention are just two examples of such promising CCP programs. As with DCP, there is no shortage of opportunities for future research to help advance the influence of theory on CCP.

More generally, evaluation research in criminology could benefit from fol- lowing the Society of Prevention Research’s “standards for evidence related to

research on prevention interventions” (Gottfredson et al., 2015). This begins with a detailed description of the theory connecting the intervention’s core

components and the outcomes (see Olds, Kitzman, Cole, & Robinson, 1997). The standards also call for further theoretical precision by way of testing, in

that the intervention theory is made up of two types: action theory and con- ceptual theory. The former pertains to “how the treatment will affect media-

tors” and the latter pertains to “how the mediators are related to the outcome variables” (Gottfredson et al., 2015, p. 903). Regardless of the crime prevention strategy, describing and testing the intervention theory should

become routine practice.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their especially helpful comments.

156 WELSH ET AL.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Steven N. Zane http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-5236

References

Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Politi- cal Economy, 76, 169-217.

Bennett, T. H. (1996). Community crime prevention. In T. Trenczek & H. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Kommunale kriminalprävention (pp. 169-183). Bonn: Forum Verlag Godesberg.

Bennett, T. H. (1998). Crime prevention. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 369-402). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. L. (2016). Vold’s theoretical criminology (7th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activ- ity and rational choice. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 5, pp. 259-294). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Clarke, R. V. (1992). Introduction. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (pp. 3-36). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, R. V. (1995a). Situational crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention (pp. 91-150). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, R. V. (1995b). Opportunity-reducing crime prevention strategies and the role of motivation. In P.-O. H. Wikström, R. V. Clarke, & J. McCord (Eds.), Integrating crime prevention strategies: Propensity and opportunity (pp. 55-67). Stockholm: National Council for Crime Prevention.

Clarke, R. V. (2005). Seven misconceptions of situational crime prevention. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 39-70). Portland, OR: Willan.

Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services.

Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (1993). Introduction: Criminology, routine activity and rational choice. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice: Advances in criminological theory, Vol. 5 (pp. 1-24). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Clarke, R. V., & Homel, R. (1997). A revised classification of situational crime preven- tion techniques. In S. P. Lab (Ed.), Crime prevention at a crossroads (pp. 17-27). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York, NY: Free Press.

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 157

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators, and criminal deci- sions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. In M. J. Smith & D. B. Cornish (Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention (pp. 41-96). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Cullen, F. T., Benson, M. L., & Makarios, M. D. (2012). Developmental and life-course theories of offending. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 23-45). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

David-Ferdon, C., & Simon, T. R. (2014). Preventing youth violence: Opportunities for action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76-99.

Ekblom, P., & Hirschfield, A. F. G. (2014). Developing an alternative formulation of SCP principles: The Ds (11 and counting). Crime Science, 3(2). doi:10.1186/s40163-014- 0002-5

Ekblom, P., & Pease, K. (1995). Evaluating crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime pre- vention (pp. 585-662). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fagan, A. A. (2013). Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency: A case where science and policy can find common ground. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 617-650.

Fagan, A. A., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Latest developments in the prevention of crime and anti-social behaviour: An American perspective. Journal of Children’s Services, 7, 64-72.

Farrington, D. P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Jour- nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 929-964.

Farrington, D. P. (2000). Explaining and preventing crime: The globalization of knowl- edge. Criminology, 38, 1-24.

Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology, 41, 221-256.

Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2006). The Maryland scientific methods scale. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (Revised edition. pp. 13-21). New York, NY: Routledge.

Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Foxcroft, D. R. (2014). Can prevention classification be improved by considering the function of prevention? Prevention Science, 15, 818-822.

Freilich, J. D. (2015). Beccaria and situational crime prevention. Criminal Justice Review, 40, 131-150.

Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in con- temporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 445-471.

Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delinquency, 25, 236-258.

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gottfredson, D. C., Cook, T. D., Gardner, F. E. M., Gorman-Smith, D., Howe, G. W.,

Sandler, I. N., & Zafft, K. M. (2015). Standards of evidence for efficacy,

158 WELSH ET AL.

effectiveness, and scale-up research in prevention science: Next generation. Prevention Science, 16, 893-926.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Green, J. (2000). The role of theory in evidence-based health promotion practice. Health Education Research, 15, 125-129.

Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 47, 1331-1368.

Haines, K., & Case, S. (2008). The rhetoric and reality of the “risk factor prevention paradigm” approach to preventing and reducing youth offending. Youth Justice, 8, 5-20.

Hope, T. (1995). Community crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention (pp. 21-89). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hough, J. M., Clarke, R. V., & Mayhew, P. (1980). Introduction. In R. V. Clarke & P. Mayhew (Eds.), Designing out crime (pp. 1-17). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Klein, M. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence and control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lejins, P. P. (1967). The field of prevention. In W. E. Amos & C. F. Wellford (Eds.), Delinquency prevention: Theory and practice (pp. 1-21). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309-337.

Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. The Journal of Social Psy- chology, 17, 113-131.

Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1-41.

Long, J., & Sullivan, C. J. (2016). Learning more from evaluations of justice interven- tions: Further consideration of theoretical mechanisms in juvenile drug courts. Crime & Delinquency. doi:10.1177/0011128716629757

MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McCord, J., & McCord, W. (1959). A follow-up report on the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 322, 89-96.

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A com- prehensive guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Messner, S. F., & Zimmerman, G. M. (2012). Community-level influences on crime and offending. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 155-172). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765-798.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

Newman, G. R. (1997). Introduction: Towards a theory of situational crime prevention. In G. R. Newman, R. V. Clarke, & S. G. Shoham (Eds.), Rational choice and situa- tional crime prevention: Theoretical foundations (pp. 1-23). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Newman, G. R., Clarke, R. V., & Shoham, S. G. (Eds.). (1997). Rational choice and situational crime prevention: Theoretical foundations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 159

Olds, D., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., & Robinson, J. (1997). Theoretical foundations of a program of home visitation for pregnant women and parents of young children. Jour- nal of Community Psychology, 25, 9-25.

Pease, K. (1997). Predicting the future: The roles of routine activity and rational choice theory. In G. R. Newman, R. V. Clarke, & S. G. Shoham (Eds.), Rational choice and situational crime prevention: Theoretical foundations (pp. 233-245). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., Hollis-Peel, M. E., & Lavenberg, J. G. (2013). Scared straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delin- quency. Campbell Systematic Reviews. doi:10.4073/csr.2013.5

Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Farrington, D. P., Diamond, B., & Gonzalez, J. M. (2016). A meta-analysis update on the effectiveness of early self-control improve- ment programs to improve self-control and reduce delinquency. Journal of Experi- mental Criminology, 12, 249-264.

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.

Rosenbaum, D. P. (1988). Community crime prevention: A review and synthesis of the literature. Justice Quarterly, 5, 323-395.

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sampson, R. J. (2006). Collective efficacy theory: Lessons learned and directions for future inquiry. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 15, pp. 149-167). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Sampson, R. J., Winship, C., & Knight, C. (2013). Translating causal claims: Principles and strategies for policy-relevant criminology. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 587-616.

Schindler, H. S., & Yoshikawa, H. (2012). Preventing crime through intervention in the preschool years. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 70-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L. W. (1997). Communities and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. C. Gottfredson, D. L. MacKenzie, J. E. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. D. Bushway, Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (Chap. 3, pp. 1-49). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.

Smith, M. J., & Clarke, R. V. (2012). Situational crime prevention: Classifying tech- niques using “good enough” theory. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 291-315). New York, NY: Oxford Univer- sity Press.

Spergel, I. A. (1995). The youth gang problem: A community approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, C. J. (2013). Enhancing translational knowledge on developmental crime pre- vention: The utility of understanding expert decision making. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 343-351.

Tonry, M., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (1995). Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tremblay, R. E., & Craig, W. M. (1995). Developmental crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention (pp. 151-236). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Waller, I. (2006). Less law, more order: The truth about reducing crime. Westport, CT: Praeger.

160 WELSH ET AL.

Warner, B. D. (2003). The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory. Criminology, 41, 73-98.

Weis, J. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (1981). Preventing delinquency. Washington, DC: National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65-92). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of crime preven- tion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Welsh, B. C., & Pfeffer, R. D. (2013). Reclaiming crime prevention in an age of punish- ment: An American history. Punishment and Society, 15, 534-553.

Welsh, B. C., & Rocque, M. (2014). When crime prevention harms: A review of system- atic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 245-266.

Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2008). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews. doi:10.4073/csr.2003.1

Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 211, 29-38.

Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Knopf.

Wikström, P.-O. H. (2006). Individuals, settings and acts of crime: Situational mecha- nisms and the explanation of crime. In P.-O. H. Wikström & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime (pp. 61-107). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wikström, P.-O. H. (2010). Situational action theory. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 1000-1007). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wikström, P.-O. H. (2012). Does everything matter? Addressing the problem of causation and explanation in the study of crime. In J. M. McGloin, C. J. Sullivan, & L. W. Kennedy (Eds.), When crime appears: The role of emergence (pp. 53-72). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wortley, R. (2001). A classification of techniques for controlling situational precipitators of crime. Security Journal, 14, 63-82.

Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family sup- port and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.

CRIME PREVENTION THEORY 161