The targeting of crime prevention efforts is nowhere more evident
than under the rubric of situational crime prevention. Many of the
prevention techniques discussed under primary prevention form the
basis of interventions discussed in this chapter. Instead of attempting
to make sweeping changes in an entire community or neighborhood,
situational prevention is aimed at specific problems, places, persons,
or times. The situational approach assumes that a greater degree of
problem identification and planning will take place prior to program
implementation and that the impact will be more focused. The
identification of places, individuals, and things at risk of
victimization, especially focusing on repeat victimization, are central
to a great deal of situational prevention. This chapter outlines the
growth of situational crime prevention since the early 1980s,
discusses the various traditional rationales on which it is based, and
provides examples of situational techniques in action.
The Growth of Situational Prevention
The root ideas for situational crime prevention can be traced largely to the crime prevention
work of the British Home Office in the 1970s (Clarke, 1983). In pursuit of interventions that
could successfully address different crime problems, the Home Office undertook a wide array of
projects aimed at reducing factors specific to different crimes, places, and situations. Clarke
(1995) points out that much of this work grew out of the recognition that crime often reflects the
risk, effort, and payoff as assessed by the offender. In essence, offenders make choices about
which opportunities are the most profitable and will act in accordance with that assessment.
Clarke (1983, p. 225) offers the following definition of situational crime prevention:
situational crime prevention can be characterized as comprising measures (1) directed at highly
specific forms of crime (2) that involve the management, design, or manipulation of the
immediate environment in as systematic and permanent a way as possible (3) so as to reduce the
opportunities for crime and increase the risks as perceived by a wide range of offenders.
Implicit in this definition are a number of assumptions about the offender and the crime
commission that appear in various theories and theoretical perspectives. The key part of the
definition is the third caveat—“reduce the opportunities” and “increase the risks as perceived by
offenders.” Situational prevention rests on the idea that it is possible to make changes in the
environment that will make offending less attractive to potential offenders. This assumes that
offenders do not simply act on impulse, and they have control over whether they take action or
not. There is a clear belief that offenders make choices. Cusson (1993) argues that crime is
deterred because the offender perceives risk in a given situation. As a result, offenders seek out or
respond to places, times, and potential victims that offer the least risk.
The Theoretical Basis
Rational choice, routine activities, the lifestyles perspectives, and
crime pattern theory are important considerations for situational
prevention. Each set of ideas provides insight into the ability of
offenders to respond to crime opportunities. Although it is common
for discussions of these perspectives to focus on potential offenders,
the potential victim is also an important part of the equation.
Rational Choice Theory
The cornerstone of situational crime prevention is the belief that offenders respond to
opportunities and make choices in offending. Rational choice theory posits that individuals make
decisions on whether to commit an offense based on an array of inputs, including the effort
involved, the potential payoff, the degree of peer support for the action, the risk of apprehension
and punishment, and the needs of the individual (Clarke and Cornish, 1985; Cornish and Clarke,
1986a, 1986b). This does not mean that individuals commit an offense every time an opportunity
presents itself. Rather, potential offenders make a calculated decision about crime based on the
available choices and the risk, effort, and payoff involved.
Research on burglars serves as a good example of the issues involved in rational choice.
Bennett (1986) and Wright and Decker (1994) point out that burglars often commit their crimes in
order to fulfill other needs and desires. These may be immediate needs, such as cash for drug
purchases or meeting expectations of one’s peers, or longer term desires for property or status. In
attempting to satisfy these drives, the offender may consider a wide range of targets and methods.
Among the physical and social factors that affect a burglar’s decision may be the level of
concealment, the amount of light, the presence of locks, evidence of valuable property,
surveillability from other places, and the presence of other people (Bennett, 1986; Bennett and
Wright, 1984; Cromwell et al., 1991; Nee and Taylor, 1988; Rengert and Wasilchick, 1985;
Wright and Decker, 1994). It is important to note that throughout these discussions there is at least
a tacit recognition of the limited nature of the offender’s choices. Indeed, many of the choices
may be made with little or no conscious decision making by the individual at the time of the
offense (Wright and Decker, 1994). While it may appear that rational choice is not taking place,
the decisions may have been fashioned through a variety of past experiences, activities, and
inputs. This same process should not only apply to burglary, but also to other offenses.
The appearance that offenders’ behavior is based on little conscious thought or choice may be
due to the fact that individuals rely on crime scripts that drive their actions. Cornish (1994, p.
159) notes that scripts are “a useful analytic tool for looking at behavioral routines in the service
of rational, purposive, goal-oriented action.” A crime script outlines the steps and actions required
to commit a crime, including the responses that are needed to complete the act (Cornish and
Clarke, 2008). A simple example of script steps and actions for auto theft is presented in Table
10.1. The script scene represents the steps, and the script actions are the actual behaviors at each
point in the scene. Different crimes will have different scripts. Although scripts are typically
developed over time through experience and practice, they can become second nature, requiring
little, if any, conscious thought. A potential offender, therefore, happens across a situation offering
all the elements outlined in a successful script and decides to act with little apparent decision
making.
Table 10.1 Crime Script for Auto Thef
Script Scene Script Action
Preparation Gather Tools
Entry Enter Lot
Precondition Loiter Unobtrusively
Instrumental Pre-Condition Select Vehicle
Instrumental Initiation Approach Vehicle
Instrumental Activation Break into Vehicle
Doing Take Vehicle
Postcondition Reverse Out of Parking Space
Exit Leave Lot
Routine Activities Theory
One source of the information upon which an offender builds scripts and bases decisions,
whether consciously or subconsciously, is his daily routines. Routine activities theory argues
that the daily activity of individuals results in the convergence of motivated offenders with
suitable targets in the absence of guardians (Cohen and Felson, 1979). This convergence provides
opportunities for crime to occur. Cohen and Felson (1979) demonstrate the importance of routine
activities by showing that increases in the number of unoccupied homes during the day and the
greater availability of portable valuables during the 1960s help to explain increases in residential
burglary. Increasing mobility in society serves to bring targets and offenders together with greater
frequency than ever before. Both the opportunity and the choices for offending are enhanced.
Where routine activities deal with both the offender and the victim, the lifestyle
perspective specifically focuses on the activity of the victim as a contributing factor in criminal
acts. Hindelang et al. (1978) suggest that an individual’s lifestyle and behavioral choices help
determine whether he or she will be victimized. For example, frequenting a bar in which violent
fights are common increases the risk you will be involved in such a confrontation. Similarly,
working in a convenience store located in a high-crime neighborhood enhances the possibility of
being a robbery victim. In both situations, the individual’s lifestyle has an impact on the potential
of becoming a victim or a repeat victim.
It is possible to broaden the lifestyle ideas to consider both victimization risk and opportunity
provision. That is, one’s lifestyle has the potential to offer opportunities to commit crime, as well
as become a victim. A lifestyle that offers little structure, such as a job where you are
unsupervised and are greatly mobile, may place you in situations where targets are identifiable
and guardians are absent. Consequently, the individual has the choice of either committing a
crime or refraining from doing so. The combination of lifestyle and routine activities ideas is a
natural extension of both perspectives and offers a broader view of potential choice parameters.
Crime Pattern Theory
The rational choice, routine activities, crime scripts, and lifestyles theories/perspectives fit
nicely with crime pattern theory. This theory argues that criminal behavior fits patterns that can
be understood in terms of when and where crime occurs (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1993b).
It is through daily activities that individuals develop templates about the social and physical
environment within which they operate. This information is important for identifying both targets
as well as threats for potential offenders. Likewise, studying the behavior of offenders and
analysis of past offending provides insight into the crimes and potential prevention mechanisms.
Summary
This brief review of rational choice, crime scripts, routine activities, lifestyle, and crime pattern
theories/perspectives illustrates many of the issues underlying situational crime prevention ideas.
In each case, deviant activity can be seen as a result of converging factors that influence
opportunities for and the decision to commit a crime. Actions that limit those choices, therefore,
hold the potential to reduce crime and fear of crime.
Situational Typologies
The growth of situational crime prevention can be seen in the ongoing development of a
situational typology. In one of the earliest presentations on situational prevention, Clarke (1983)
provided a simple three-pronged approach to interventions:
Surveillance
Target hardening
Environmental management
Surveillance included many of the ideas discussed in earlier chapters, including the concepts of
natural surveillance, formal surveillance, and surveillance by employees (see Clarke and Mayhew,
1980). Target hardening included interventions such as locks, unbreakable glass, safes, and other
security devices. Environmental management referred to making changes that reduce the
opportunity for crime.
The Initial 12 Situational Techniques
As one would expect, the original three categories quickly became too simplistic and confining
as the number of situational crime prevention interventions grew. In 1992, Clarke offered an
expanded classification of situational techniques that reflected three very general orientations:
“increasing the effort,” “increasing the risk,” and “reducing the rewards.” Within each of these
categories, Clarke (1992) outlined four subgroups of prevention approaches, yielding a total of 12
situational prevention techniques (see Table 10.2).
Many of the techniques are self-explanatory or rest on ideas introduced earlier in this book.
Under “Increasing the effort” are target hardening, access control, deflecting offenders, and
controlling facilitators. “Deflecting offenders” involves actions that offer alternatives to
undesirable behavior. Examples would include providing a board on which graffiti can be painted
or a meeting place for youths away from open businesses or public thoroughfares (Clarke, 1992).
The idea of “controlling facilitators” deals with limiting or eliminating situations or items that
contribute to crime, such as guns, alcohol, or public phones (which may be used for drug sales).
Methods for “Increasing the risk” rest mainly on formal or informal surveillance efforts.
“Entry/exit screening” is a form of surveillance that allows the detection of potential offenders.
The screening of passengers at airports and placing electronic sensors in merchandise to prevent
its theft are two examples of entry/exit screening. The final category of “Reducing the rewards”
includes target removal, identifying property, removing inducements, and rule setting. “Target
removal” reflects actions such as limiting the cash kept in the checkout register and requiring
exact fare on buses. In both cases, the potential payoff from a robbery or theft is limited.
Similarly, “removing inducements” means eliminating attractive targets such as a sports car
parked on a public street or the wearing of popular sports team jackets to school. Finally, Clarke
(1992) offers “rule setting” as a means of setting a standard of conduct for employees and the
public and placing people on notice that their behavior is being monitored for compliance.
Table 10.2 Clarke’s (1992) Situational Prevention Techniques
Increasing the
Effort
Increasing the Risk Reducing the
Rewards
1. Target Hardening 5. Entry/Exit Screening 9. Target Removal
2. Access Control 6. Formal Surveillance 10. Identifying
Property
3. Deflecting
Offenders
7. Surveillance by
Employees
11. Removing
Inducements
4. Controlling
Facilitators
8. Natural Surveillance 12. Rule Setting
Source: Adapted by the author from Clarke (1992).
Throughout these techniques, Clarke attempts to show the breadth of possibilities for crime
prevention. He notes that relying on prevention activities that rest solely on making changes in
hardware is too simplistic and shortsighted (Clarke, 1992). Instead, prevention needs to consider
broader social bases for interventions, which situational prevention techniques offer. Any
examination of Clarke’s 12-stage typology can easily lead to interventions that are dominated by
physical changes in the environment. Based on Clarke’s (1983) definition, which proposes the
“management, design, or manipulation of the immediate environment,” a physical interpretation is
not surprising. A closer look, however, that considers opportunity and the “choice” dimension of
situational prevention argues for a broader interpretation of situational interventions.
Expanding the Typology
Clarke and Homel (1997) responded to concerns and limitations in the original 12-cell typology
by proposing an expanded list of 16 situational techniques. The expansion sought to address two
key issues (Clarke and Homel, 1997). First, several of the original categories could be divided to
enhance the internal consistency of the ideas (Clarke and Homel, 1997). For example,
“controlling facilitators” was divided into “controlling facilitators” (such as guns and other items
that make crime easier) and “controlling disinhibitors” (factors that reduce the social and
psychological barriers to crime commission, such as the use of alcohol and other drugs). Second,
the original 12 categories failed to include techniques that focused on the social and psychological
contexts of offending. Clarke and Homel (1997) added categories that addressed guilt, shame, and
embarrassment. Guilt and similar feelings may emerge because of the incongruence individuals
see between their actions and the moral code they hold or the view of significant others in their
lives (Clarke and Homel, 1997).
This expanded typology shifted situational prevention away from
the heavy emphasis on physical changes toward a greater reliance
on psychological and social factors. For example, each of the original
categories was relabeled to reflect the offender’s perceptions
—“Increasing Perceived effort,” “Increasing Perceived risks,” and
“Reducing anticipated rewards.” In each case the new categories
recognized both an actual change in effort, risk, or
reward and altered perceptions (Clarke and Homel, 1997). It is
possible that a situational technique has little physical impact but a
major psychological impact.
Table 10.3 Precipitators of Crime
Prompts Events or situations that may support the opportunity for
crime, such as open doors or others committing crime
Pressures More direct stimuli that lead to action, such as deviant
peers, going along with the crowd, or following orders
to do something wrong
Permissibility Situations or beliefs that place criminal behavior into an
acceptable light, such as the belief that everyone breaks
the law or that the victim had it coming
Provocation Factors that make an individual uncomfortable, frustrated,
irritable, or otherwise aroused to the point of taking
some form of action
Source: Compiled by the author from Wortley (2001).
Despite these changes, Wortley (2001) argued that the typology
was still not complete. In particular, the area of “inducing guilt or
shame” was not exhaustive. He posited that guilt and shame are not
the same things and that these concepts need to be separated. He
also argued that the matrix of situational prevention overemphasized
elements that can control or inhibit offending while ignoring the
factors that precipitate or lead to crime. He offered four categories of
precipitators: prompts, pressures, permissibility,
and provocation (see Table 10.3).
The addition of guilt, shame, and precipitating factors suggests
that Clarke and Homel’s (1997) social and psychological dimensions
of both prevention and crime causation were underdeveloped. Clarke
and Homel (1997), however, argued that Wortley’s (1996) initial
suggestions broaden situational prevention beyond a “situational”
approach. They point out that a basic assumption underlying
situational prevention is that there are always individuals who are
willing to offend. A motivated offender is a given. Cornish and Clarke
(2003) noted that Wortley’s (1996, 2001) arguments take the
opposite position that offenders are not always motivated. Instead,
there are factors that will provide the needed motivation for criminal
activity. Attempting to address Wortley’s (2001) concerns, Cornish
and Clarke (2003) offer a new situational typology that includes cues
that may motivate individuals to offend.
The typology appearing in Table 10.4 attempts to incorporate
elements of precipitation into the general situational crime
prevention framework. The original ideas of taking actions to alter
the real and perceived effort, risks, and rewards from criminal
behaviors are maintained, with expanded techniques under each
heading. Techniques addressing guilt and shame are maintained
primarily under the heading of “Remove Excuses,” as are Wortley’s
(2001) ideas of reducing permissibility. Methods to address the
precipitating factors of prompts, pressures, and provocations appear
under the “Reducing Provocations” heading. Cornish and Clarke
(2003) note that the addition of motivational factors to the more traditional
opportunity factors in the matrix allows the techniques to address the behavior of various
individuals with different levels of motivation to commit crime.
Table 10.4 25 Techniques of Situational Prevention
Increase the
Effort of
Crime
Increase the
Risks of
Crime
Reduce the
Rewards
Reduce
Provocatio
ns
Remove
Excuses
1. Harden
Targets:
• Steering
column
locks and
immobiliz
ers
•
Antirobbe
ry screens
in banks
and post
offices
• Bullet
resistant
shields for
cab
drivers
6. Extend
Guardianshi
p:
• Take routine
precautions
such as
leaving
signs of
occupancy
when away
from the
house,
carrying a
cell phone
and going
out at night
in a group
• “Cocoon”
neighborhoo
11. Conceal
Targets:
• Off-street
parking
for cars
attractive
to
joyriders
• Gender-
neutral
phone
directorie
s
• Unmarked
armored
trucks
16. Reduce
Frustration
and Stress:
• Efficient
lines and
polite
service
• Expanded
seating
capacity
• Soothing
music and
muted
lighting
21. Set
Rules:
• Rental
agreement
s
•
Harassme
nt codes
• Hotel
registratio
n
d watch
2. Control
Access to
Facilities:
• Entry
phones for
apartment
complexes
• Electronic
card
access to
garages
and
offices
• Defensible
space
designs
for public
housing
7. Assist
Natural
Surveillance
:
• Improved
street
lighting
• Defensible
space
design
•
Neighborho
od watch
and
informant
hotlines
12. Remove
Targets:
• Removable
car radio
• Women’s
shelters
• Prepaid
cards for
payphone
s
17. Avoid
Disputes:
• Separate
enclosures
for rival
soccer fans
• Reduce
crowding
in pubs
• Fixed cab
fares
22. Post
Instructio
ns:
• “No
Parking”
• “Private
Property”
•
“Extingui
sh
campfires
”
3. Screen
Exits:
• Ticket
needed to
exit
• Export
documents
• Electronic
tags for
stores and
libraries
8. Reduce
Anonymity:
• Cab driver
IDs
• “How’s my
driving?”
decals
• School
uniforms
13. Identify
Property:
• Property
marking
• Vehicle
licensing
and parts
marking
• Cattle
branding
18. Reduce
Arousal
and
Temptation
:
• Controls on
violent
pornograph
y
• Prohibition
on
pedophiles
working
with
children
• Advice
about
avoiding
sexual
victimizati
on
23. Alert
Conscienc
e:
• Roadside
speed
display
boards
• Signatures
for
customs
declaratio
ns
•
“Shoplifti
ng is
stealing”
4. Deflect
Offenders:
• Separation
of rival
fans in
stadium
9. Use Place
Managers:
• Train
employees
to prevent
crime
14. Disrupt
Markets:
• Checks on
pawn
shops
• Controls
19. Neutralize
Peer
Pressure:
• “Idiots drink
and drive”
• “It’s OK to
24. Assist
Complian
ce:
• Easy
library
checkout
• Street
closures
• Separate
bathrooms
for women
• Reward
vigilance
• Support
whistleblow
ers
on
classified
ads
• License
street
vendors
say No”
• Disperse
troublemak
ers at
school
• Public
lavatories
• Litter bins
5. Control
Tools and
Weapons:
• Safer guns
• Toughened
beer
glasses
• Stop
incoming
payphone
calls to
foil drug
dealers
• Photos on
credit
cards and
thumbprin
ts on
checks
10. Strengthen
Formal
Surveillance
:
• Speed
cameras and
random
breath
testing
• Video
surveillance
of
downtowns
• Focused bike
patrols in
parking lots
15. Deny
Benefits:
• Ink
merchand
ise tags
• Graffiti
cleaning
• Disable
stolen cell
phones
20.
Discourage
Imitation:
• Rapid repair
of
vandalism
• V-chips in
TVs
• Censor
details of
modus
operandi to
avoid
“copycat”
crimes
25. Control
Drugs and
Alcohol:
• Blood
alcohol
self-
testing in
bars
• Server
interventi
on
• Alcohol-
free
events
Source: Compiled by the author from Clarke and Eck (2005).
The situational typology serves various purposes. First, the typology places the great array of
situational crime prevention activities and programs into a theoretical framework. Many specific
interventions, such as the installation of locks and lights, take place with little understanding of
the underlying rationale for why they should work. While there are implicit theoretical arguments
in many of the programs, understanding why a program does or does not work requires more
explicit recognition of the mechanisms at work. The situational typology helps to organize those
discussions. Second, the cataloging of the diverse prevention efforts into a classification system
helps to identify the potential causal factors at work. That is, the underlying theories gain support
when it is possible to demonstrate their applicability and usefulness. The rational choice, routine
activities, and lifestyle perspectives all contribute to the development of the situational techniques
and benefit from the alignment of different studies into a coherent typology. The recent addition
of techniques for addressing precipitating factors broadens the theoretical traditions and causal
mechanisms under consideration in prevention initiatives. Finally, on a very practical note, a
classification scheme such as this serves as a simple reference tool for those attempting to
implement prevention programs.
Issues and Concerns With Situational Prevention
As with any topic, there are a number of concerns and unresolved issues. First, the general
categorizations are not mutually exclusive. That is, various interventions may influence more than
one factor (both objectively and subjectively). A technique that increases risk also may increase
the effort. For example, the presence of security guards or closed-circuit television (CCTV)
increases the risk of being caught. These actions, however, also increase the effort needed to
successfully complete an offense. At the same time, successfully completing a crime despite high
risk and effort could lead to greater (psychic) rewards (or monetary gain if the presence of
protection reflected greater value). The fact that the categories are not mutually exclusive does not
negate the usefulness of the classification scheme. Rather, it suggests that the underlying
mechanisms are more complex than they first appear in the typology.
Second, the typologies are incomplete and in need of further explication. Clarke and his
colleagues view the typology as a dynamic undertaking that will require modification as research
and theory emerge. The very fact that the typology evolved from 12 to 25 general techniques over
roughly a 10-year period attests to the dynamic nature of the undertaking. Indeed, an attempt to
finalize a typology could be viewed as limiting its usefulness.
Clarke (2005) addresses seven common misconceptions about situational crime prevention and
offers rebuttals to each (see Table 10.5). Critics often note that situational prevention addresses
symptoms rather than the causes of crime (Clarke, 1995; Crawford, 1998; Kleinig, 2000) and this
may result in only temporary, short-lived solutions to immediate problems. They also argue that
situational interventions fail to consider more basic social and cultural problems, such as poor
education, unemployment, and discrimination. Clarke (2005) counters that, despite this fact,
situational crime prevention provides clear benefits to society, and does not preclude simultaneous
efforts to address other causes of crime. A second major criticism is that situational crime
prevention is atheoretical. Such arguments fail to note the rich and developing theoretical
arguments (e.g., routine activities and crime pattern) that direct a great deal of prevention activity.
Critics also argue that some situational techniques may be overly intrusive and border on “Big
Brother” watching everyone’s activities (Clarke, 1995; Crawford, 1998; von Hirsch, 2000).
Indeed, the use of CCTV, electronic tagging, and other surveillance measures allows greater
oversight of people. Interestingly, the use of technology (such as CCTV and x-ray technology at
airports) for crime prevention has found widespread acceptance among the public. Critics who
argue that there is little evidence that situational prevention techniques are effective ignore the
fact that many programs have successfully reduced crime. Arguments that situational
interventions work against already marginalized groups and build barriers between citizens and
the community (Crawford, 1998; von Hirsch, 2000) fail to note that situational techniques can be
used to protect both the rich and the poor and may include activities that bring citizens together in
cooperative endeavors.
Table 10.5 Seven Misconceptions of Situational Crime Prevention
Criticism Rebuttal
1. It is simplistic and
atheoretical
It is based on three crime opportunity
theories: routine activities, crime pattern,
and rational choice. It also draws on social
psychology
2. It has not been shown to
work; it displaces crime
and often makes it
worse
Many dozens of case studies show that it can
reduce crime, usually with little
displacement
Table 10.5 Seven Misconceptions of Situational Crime Prevention
Criticism Rebuttal
3. It diverts attention from
the root causes of crime
It benefits society by achieving immediate
reductions in crime
4. It is a conservative,
managerial approach to
crime
It promises no more than it can deliver. It
requires that solutions be economic and
socially acceptable
5. It promotes a selfish,
exclusionary society
It provides as much protection to the poor as
to the rich
6. It promotes Big Brother
and restricts personal
freedoms
The democratic process protects society from
these dangers. People are willing to endure
inconvenience and small infringements of
liberty when these protect them from crime
7. It blames the victim It empowers victims by providing them with
information about crime risks and how to
avoid them
Source: Clarke (2005).
A last issue is the failure of situational crime prevention to address the fear of crime. By
focusing on the perceptions of potential offenders, situational techniques are geared mainly
toward the reduction of criminal activity, and evaluations typically ignore the issue of fear. Any
impact on fear would appear mainly to the extent that fear is directly related to the level of crime.
This does not mean that some situational techniques would not affect fear. As interventions are
implemented, particularly by residents and other legitimate users, fear may be
reduced. Unfortunately, this possible outcome is rarely addressed.
Implementing Situational Prevention
Besides offering an extensive typology of potential interventions, situational prevention
distinguishes itself by approaching problems in a very systematic fashion. Situational prevention
has borrowed the SARA process from problem-oriented policing as the model for problem
solving. Proposed by Eck and Spelman (1989), SARA stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response,
and Assessment. Under scanning, situational prevention starts with a specific, identifiable crime
problem. That problem is then subjected to analysis, drawing on as wide an array of information
and perspectives as possible. This stage offers an important distinction from many other crime
control efforts that rely on traditional police and criminal justice system responses to solve
problems. Under situational prevention, formal social control agents are only one source of input.
Based on the findings of the analysis, a response (intervention) is identified and implemented. At
this point, the prevention process continues with an assessment of the program’s impact, with the
intent of making changes in the response, if necessary. Situational prevention, therefore, is a
dynamic process of problem identification, response identification, program implementation, and
evaluation and adjustment.
ON THE WEB
More information on the SARA model can be found on the Center for Problem-Oriented
Policing website at https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/sara-model-0
Figure 10.1
The Relationship Between SARA and the 5Is
Source: Adapted by the author from Ekblom (2011a).
While SARA is the most recognized approach, Ekblom (2002)
proposed the 5Is as an alternative model for problem solving that is
receiving increased attention in situational prevention.
The 5Is are Intelligence, Intervention, Implementation, Involvement,
and Impact. The relationship between the 5Is and the more
recognized SARA process is depicted in Figure 10.1. The greatest
distinction to note is the greater detail introduced by breaking down
the Response into Intervention, Implementation, and Involvement.
Intervention represents the identification of actions and methods to
“block, divert or weaken the causes, and attend to risk and
protective factors, of future criminal events and careers or of wider
community safety problems” (Ekblom, 2011a, p. 85). Once the crime
prevention action is identified, Implementation represents the actual
tasks of putting the plan into action. The third aspect, Involvement,
focuses on marshalling the participation of other people and
organizations in the intervention. Ekblom (2011a) argues that the
greater emphasis on knowledge generation in the 5Is makes them
useful for not only situational crime prevention but also policy
making and beyond.
Regardless of the differences and similarities between SARA and
the 5Is, both models set a framework for situational crime
prevention. They require clearly identifying the problem and
appropriate responses. Once responses have been implemented,
they are subjected to analysis and an evaluation of their impact. The
outcome of this process is either sustaining the program due to its
effectiveness or changing the program to address limitations or
failures in the project.
More recently, Ekblom and Hirschfield (2014) suggest that, while
the 25 situational crime prevention techniques offer a nice potpourri
of potential interventions, they are too broad and not as easily
applied as one may think. They argue that there is a need for a
design which is more applicable and action-oriented for those who
have to implement prevention and security interventions. The key is
to identify what the perpetrator is trying to achieve, how that will be
done, and how you can anticipate, recognize, and control the
behavior (Ekblom and Hirschfield, 2014). In essence, it is necessary
to think like the perpetrator. “The offender’s behavior is both
situationally caused … and causing of criminal … events” (Ekblom
and Hirschfield, 2014, p. 6; emphasis in original). The authors
propose the 11Ds (see Table 10.6). These are intervention principles
that focus on the situation and the potential offenders, relying on the
25 situational crime prevention categories, SARA, the 5Is, and other
approaches.
Table 10.6 The 11Ds Principles
Defeat Physically block access and movement or block/obscure
information that offenders want
Disable/Deny Equipment helpful to offenders such as bugs or cameras
Direct/Deflect Offenders towards/away from places or behavior
Deter–Known Offenders know the risk of exposure and abandon/abort
the attempt
Deter–
Unknown
Offenders are uncertain what control methods they are up
against, and judge the risk of exposure as unacceptable
Discourage Offenders perceive the effort as too great and/or the
reward as too little, relative to risk, so abandon/abort
attempt
Demotivate Awakening, within offenders, motives/emotions contrary
to the mission (e.g., empathy with potential victims,
removing excuses, coward image)
Deceive Offenders act on wrong information concerning risk,
effort, reward thus increasing chances of arrest or
altering decision to act
Disconcert Causing offenders to make overt involuntary movement
or otherwise become startled
Detect Passive and active exposure; offenders self-expose
making legitimate presence/behavior distinctive;
improving capacity of people to detect
Detain Trace, catch, and/or hold identified offenders
Source: Adapted by the author from Ekblom and Hirschfield (2014).
The 11Ds fall within three basic, overlapping modes of action
(depicted in Figure 10.2). These modes are Practical (where the
environment is altered to limit perpetrator action), Psychological
(actions that impact the thought processes of the perpetrator), and
Personal (involving identifying, tracking, and catching perpetrators;
Ekblom and Hirschfield, 2014). The overlap in the modes indicates
that specific Ds/interventions may impact the perpetrator/event in
more than one way.
The D principles reflect a need to provide prevention and security
professionals with steps for turning situational prevention techniques
into action. These principles are midrange between theory (such as rational
choice and routine activities) and extended lists of potential interventions (such as the 25
situational techniques). Ekblom and Hirschfield (2014) suggest that this approach offers
professionals a useful framework for identifying appropriate interventions for different situations.
The 11Ds can be viewed as a refinement of the broader situational crime prevention ideas.
Figure 10.2
Modes of Action of the 11Ds
Source: Ekblom and Hirschfield (2014).
Situational Prevention Studies
The balance of this chapter offers a brief overview of studies examining the implementation of
various situational crime prevention techniques. For most of the discussion, the emphasis is on the
impact of various prevention techniques. In some cases, the examples highlight suggestions for
situational prevention for specific crime problems. It is not possible to provide example studies
for each of the 25 techniques offered by Cornish and Clarke (2003). Instead, the studies reviewed
here should provide the reader with some insight into the types of initiatives/approaches that have
been undertaken and the breadth of the problems to which situational techniques have been and
could be applied. A broader array of studies can be found in other forums (e.g., see Clarke, 1992,
1993, 1996).
Fare Avoidance and Vandalism of Transit Systems
The failure to pay fares is a common problem on public transportation and a single response is
not possible due to the diversity in types of transit system (bus, train, etc.) and the means by
which offenders evade payments. An assessment of fare evasion on the British Columbia transit
system identified various methods of fare evasion, which formed the basis for a redesign of ticket
machines and passes, promotions encouraging the purchase of transit passes, and focused
investigations of counterfeit fare media (DesChamps et al., 1991). An evaluation of the
intervention revealed significant drops in the level of fare evasion. In an evaluation of the Dutch
transit systems, van Andel (1989) found that fare evasion on buses often occurred due to the
ability of riders to enter and exit the buses through a rear door, thus avoiding the driver. In
response, the system introduced monitors on the buses and a change in procedure that required
passengers to enter the bus near the driver and prove payment (van Andel, 1989). Fare evasion
significantly fell from the pre-intervention levels.
Actions taken to address fare evasion in the London underground transit system and the New
York subway system also have proven effective. The London system instituted a new ticketing
system and installed automatic gates at select stations. Comparing postintervention to pre-
intervention ticket sales, Clarke (1993) reports reductions in fare evasion of almost two-thirds.
The New York subway system introduced new ticketing systems, along with physical barriers and
increased staff control of entrances (Weidner, 1996). Evaluating the impact by comparing the
number of arrests and summonses after the changes to those before, Weidner (1996) reports a
small but clear decline in the target station, with increases in neighboring stations.
Public transportation systems also suffer an undue level of vandalism. In one of the most
widely cited studies, Sloan-Howitt and Kelling (1990) reported on the efforts to eliminate graffiti
from New York subway trains. Numerous attempts to thwart graffiti artists, through such efforts
as using graffiti-proof paint and securing rail yards, failed to have an impact. In a true situational
approach, an assessment of why graffiti artists insisted on using the trains found that what was
important to the artists was for their work to “get up” and for people to see it (Sloan-Howitt and
Kelling, 1990). The logical solution to the problem, therefore, was to devise a means whereby no
one would ever see the work, thus depriving the artist of his audience. Consequently, the subway
system instituted a policy of cleaning up each train car. Once cleaned, the car was not allowed in
service (and was immediately taken out of service) if it was ever vandalized by graffiti. This
eliminated the ability of the artists to “get up” on the trains and eventually stopped further graffiti
vandalism (Sloan-Howitt and Kelling, 1990).
Poyner (1988) reports on a different approach to curbing vandalism on double-decker buses in
one area of England. An analysis of the problem found that offenders tended to be school-age
boys and vandalism occurred on buses with only a driver. The lack of surveillance was addressed
by installing video cameras on several buses, although only two buses had functioning cameras.
An important companion to the hardware introduction was heavy publicity and an educational
program aimed at youths. The project resulted in a significant drop in repair costs (by roughly
two-thirds) for the entire fleet of 80 buses (Poyner, 1988).
Motor Vehicle Theft
Efforts to limit auto theft have included changing the design of parking decks and parking
areas, increasing the use of security cameras, and introducing patrols. Poyner (1991) reports on
prevention efforts in two different parking areas—a parking deck in town and a university parking
lot. For the parking deck, it was determined that physical changes aimed at restricting access to
the vehicles were the key to prevention, along with improved lighting and increased presence of
legitimate users. The evaluation showed significant reductions in auto thefts after program
implementation, as compared to two other area parking lots. The university project implemented
improved lighting, CCTV monitoring, and changes eliminating obstructions to observation. The
lot receiving closed-circuit equipment showed the greatest drop in auto thefts, and there was some
evidence that a nearby lot also benefited through decreased thefts (a possible diffusion effect;
Poyner, 1991). A study of the impact of bicycle patrols on auto theft in Vancouver uncovered a
large drop in thefts during the month of patrol operation, as well as after the patrol was
discontinued (Barclay et al., 1996).
Motorcycle theft prevention has employed efforts that raise the visibility of the crime.
Legislating the use of helmets is one effective strategy (Mayhew et al., 1989). The need for
helmets should reduce opportunistic theft because most offenders do not have a helmet available
to them, thus making them easily recognizable to others. Evaluations in England, the Netherlands,
and (the former) West Germany all find reduced motorcycle theft after the initiation of helmet
laws (Mayhew et al., 1989).
Theft Offenses
Situational techniques have been used in relation to a wide array of other theft offenses. The
impact of electronic tagging of property has been demonstrated in a number of studies. In one
analysis, Scherdin (1986) found that the tagging of books in a university library resulted in both a
significant decrease in lost books and an increase in the number of items processed through
circulation. Perhaps of greater impact was the simultaneous reduction in lost audiovisual materials
that could not be tagged (Scherdin, 1986). This suggests a diffusion of benefits from the books to
other library holdings. Farrington et al. (1993) report that electronic tagging significantly reduced
the level of retail shoplifting. Similarly, Handford (1994) indicates that computer stores using
electronic tagging experience low theft levels relative to national data for comparable stores.
The marketplace also offers targets other than the stores themselves. Poyner and Webb (1992)
report on efforts to eliminate thefts from shopping bags in a crowded marketplace. An analysis of
the problem suggested that an important contributing factor was the congestion caused by narrow
aisles. The solution, therefore, was to widen the aisles, thereby relieving the congestion and
increasing the surveillance opportunities. Their evaluation of the changes showed great reductions
in the level of thefts after the redesign efforts (Poyner and Webb, 1992). Holt and Spencer (2005)
report on efforts to reduce robberies at ATM locations. Based on interviews with convicted street
robbers, the authors worked with banks to make ATMs safer by demarcating safe zones around
the cash dispensers. This approach established a psychological barrier between potential victims
and offenders. Holt and Spencer (2005) note a significant reduction in robberies at the marked
ATMs compared to the control ATMs, which were unchanged.
Product Design
One important aspect of situational crime prevention includes
designing or redesigning at-risk products for crime prevention. It is
possible to consider physically designing products in ways that
protect them from theft or being used in other offenses. As Clarke
and Newman (2005) point out, the targets of crime are everyday
objects. It is possible to alter the design of objects to make them less
amenable to crime.
Many products lend themselves to crime. These so-called hot
products which are highly targeted by thieves may be characterized
by being CRAVED—
Concealable, Removable, Available, Valuable, Enjoyable
and Disposable (see Table 10.7) Clarke, 1999). In essence, these are
products desired by people because of their construction or makeup
and are easily targeted by offenders. For example, electronic devices
such as MP3 players and personal digital assistants (PDAs) are easily
concealed, expensive, small enough to carry away, and easily
disposable. At the same time, automobiles are not easily concealable
or even disposable, but they are a common theft target. It is also
possible with modern technology to take seemingly low-risk items
and make them more susceptible to theft. This can include making
fraudulent credit cards, drugs, designer bags, and food (to name a
few).
Table 10.7 The CRAVED Model for Targets of Thef
Concealable Ability of thief to hide items during the crime
Removable Size and weight make some items more portable than others
Available The item must exist and be available to be stolen
Valuable Items that hold more value will be targeted
Enjoyable The items must bring enjoyment to the offender
Disposable There must be a market for the stolen items
Source: Compiled by the author from Clarke (1999).
Table 10.8 Products and Misdeeds
Examples
MISappropriated Theft of the product itself
MIStreated Vandalism or destruction of items
MIShandled Returning of stolen goods, use of counterfeit currency,
use of fake documents
MISused Use of a product for illegal purposes such as
prescription drugs or weapons
MISbehaved
with
Contamination of products, the ability to set off false
alarms without being observed
Source: Constructed by the author from Ekblom (2008).
Ekblom (2008) points out several ways in which products play a
role in crime beyond simply being a target for theft. Presented in
terms of a Misdeeds and Security framework, products can be the
target of an offense or used within offending behavior (see Table
10.8). In each case, the design of a product either makes the product
a viable target for an offense, or the product facilitates some other
offense. Following the CRAVED idea, many objects are targeted for
their value. Other items may invite vandalism. Yet others can be
used in the commission of other crimes, such as altering a document
to allow an underage person to purchase alcohol. The key throughout
these ideas is the need to recognize the potential problems with
products and make appropriate design changes.
Ekblom (2005) outlines several methods for securing products
through design. First, he suggests that it is possible to make products
inherently secure. This can be done by making them less attractive
or distinctive and thus less likely to be targeted by offenders. A
product can also be designed in such a way that it actually protects
other property, such as chairs which can secure purses from theft.
Second, product design may incorporate prevention/security devices
within the product or its display. Ink tags on clothing or the use of
cable locks are examples of this approach. The third approach is to
restrict offender access to the target or tools used to target a product
(Ekblom, 2005). Other ways of securing products against crime
include adding security devices to products (such as security cables
or alarms), securing the environment in which the product is located
(such as by using safes or a measures), and employing remote
security interventions (such as restricting access to tools needed for
crime or controlling the outlets for stolen goods; Ekblom, 2008). The
approach or mechanism to use in protecting products is dictated by
both the product itself and the situation in which the product is
targeted.
Automobile Design
A wide range of products has been the subject of design changes for prevention purposes. The
automobile is a prime example of redesign for crime prevention (see Table 10.9). A number of
changes have been made in autos to prevent their theft or the theft of items from them (Clarke and
Newman, 2005). Ignition locks and steering column locks are universal in new cars and have been
found to reduce auto thefts (Mayhew et al., 1976; Webb, 1994). Alarms and locator devices are
also common, particularly in more expensive autos. Since the mid-1990s, increased use of
automobile immobilizers has been undertaken to avert auto theft. Immobilizers are electronic
devices that, in the absence of the key, prevent the car from operating (Brown, 2004). These
devices have been required in all new cars in the European Union since 1995. Analysis of
immobilizers in the United Kingdom reveals clear reductions in auto theft (Brown, 2004).
Removable radios or radio faces, stronger door locks, and the marking of auto parts with
identification numbers all address theft from autos.
Table 10.9 Changes Made at Manufacture to Cars and Crimes Prevented
Crime Device or Redesign
Unauthorized Use
and Joy-Riding
Ignition locks; improved door locks; steering
column locks; alarms; immobilizers
Theft of Cars or
Major Body
Parts
As above but also: parts marking; GPS (global
positioning system) locators; tamper-proof license
plates; microdots
Theft from Cars Stronger door locks; alarms; lockable gas caps;
redesigned emblems; security coded radios;
removable radios; dispersed audio system
Vandalism Retractable aerials
Assassination Armor plating; ram bars
Illegal Use of
Rental Car
GPS locators to detect speeding
Source: Clarke and Newman (2005).
Credit Card/Identity Theft
A major product design initiative has been the introduction of EMV. EMV (named for
Europay, Mastercard, and Visa) is a system that embeds computer chips into credit and debit
cards. The goal of these cards is to prevent identity theft, eliminate the unauthorized duplication
of credit cards, and reduce fraudulent purchases with credit cards. Although this technology has
existed in Europe for over a decade (the United Kingdom adopted it in 2005; Francis and Kim,
2015), it was introduced in the United States in late 2015 and was supposed to be fully adopted by
the end of 2018. At this time, it is not in universal use even in those areas/businesses where it was
supposed to be operational. Use of the EMV technology is voluntary and relies on businesses
shifting to card readers that can access the chip technology and assign a unique transaction
number to each sale. The U.S. program is not mandated by law. Instead, the new card simply
shifts the losses from fraudulent purchases from the issuing bank/financial institution to the
businesses that opt not to use the EMV technology (McQuay, 2018). Banks no longer reimburse
for losses as they did when credit cards had only a magnetic strip, which can be easily cloned and
from which personal identification information can be stolen (Ganotis, 2018).
There are several shortcomings and limitations with the EMV technology in the United States.
First, the EMV cards are not paired with a PIN (personal identification number) as in the United
Kingdom and many sites no longer require a customer signature with the transaction. Both these
would provide a further level of security. Second, the EMV does not work with debit cards. It
only works with credit sales. Third, the EMV chips are only applicable at the point of sale. This
means that Internet and online purchases do not benefit from the added security. This is especially
problematic at a time when Internet and online purchasing is growing at an exponential rate.
The impact of the move to EMV equipped credit cards in the United States is unknown at this
time. It is simply too new, and many businesses are still not actively using it to undertake any
meaningful assessment. Evidence from the United Kingdom reveals positive results. The UK
Cards Association (2016) reported that counterfeit card fraud fell by 63 percent and that lost and
stolen card fraud fell by 48 percent over the first 10 years of operation. At the same time, there is
evidence of significant increases in online fraud, with losses increasing by 120 percent (Francis
and Kim, 2015). The extent to which these results will appear in the United States is uncertain,
but there are reasonable expectations that with the failure of pairing the chip with PINs, the
growth of online sales, and the voluntary use in the United States, the impact will not be as great.
The fraudulent use of credit and debit cards is only one example of identity theft. Identity theft
is a major problem in modern society, particularly given the Internet and other technologies that
allow for impersonal commerce to take place. Berg (2008) demonstrates a variety of situational
techniques that should be effective at combating identity theft. Among the suggestions are
employing antivirus programs to block the theft of personal information from a computer, data
encryption to make stolen information and computers useless, physical security of computers,
banning the use of portable devices (e.g., memory sticks) that can capture data from computers,
and stronger methods to validate the identification of an individual attempting to make a purchase
(Berg, 2008). Other effective interventions are the use of fraud alerts (e.g., calls to card owners
when unusual activity is noted on an account) and more in-depth identity checks when an
individual applies for credit or forms of identity (e.g., passports; Levi, 2008). All of these rely on
new projects and systems to prevent offenses. Many of these are driven by the private sector and
not the government. The drive behind the private sector is the financial benefit from the efforts.
The incentive for the banks is to reduce the level of loss they absorb and shift losses to the
businesses and point of sale. This is an example of the private sector being the driving force
underlying crime prevention efforts.
Other Products
There are a number of other examples of product design for prevention purposes (Clarke and
Newman, 2005). Theft of small items from stores can be made more difficult by putting the item
in large packages that are more difficult to conceal. Purse snatching can be prevented by
designing them with stronger straps that cannot be cut or broken. Computer hacking has been
made more difficult with the introduction of special software. Caller ID has helped to stem
telephone harassment (Clarke and Newman, 2005). The design of smart guns recognize the
owner and will only discharge if used by that person (Lester, 2001). These and many other
examples of product design changes are made for the purpose of preventing different types of
crimes.
Redesign of bicycle parking stands has received a great deal of attention in Europe due to the
heavy use of bicycles for transportation. Thorpe et al. (2012) discuss seven different designs used
in London to secure bicycles. Similarly, shopping carts incorporating a secure basket/safe and
table clips have been designed to protect handbags from theft (Ekblom et al., 2012; Sidebottom et
al., 2012). Other projects have introduced digital DNA (a unique nonsequential numerical code),
holograms, watermarks, and bidirectional barcoding (which includes 10–30 times the information
found in regular barcodes) affixed to products as means of deterring counterfeiting (Segato,
2012).
Issues with Product Design
Cozens (2014) notes that there is a crime life cycle for products that is tied to the market for
each type of product. The first stage is the introduction of a new product. The product is relatively
rare and has little market share or recognition; thus, it is not a high target for theft. This moves to
the growth stage, where sales are increasing and knowledge and demand are on the upslope. The
third stage is the mature stage. Here the product is well known and desired. There are a lot of the
items available for theft and the demand leads to theft for both use and sale to others. This is the
peak period for crime. The final stage is decline, where the product has either saturated the market
or is being replaced with new products. Theft falls off in this stage. Some products go through this
cycle quickly, some very slowly, and others may not fit the cycle at all (Cozens, 2014). It is not
unusual that public pressure or government intervention is needed to help interrupt this cycle and
force project changes.
While the idea of product design for prevention purposes has been gaining attention, relatively
few initiatives have been subjected to evaluation (Clarke and Newman, 2005). There are
evaluations that often involve weak research designs with no control groups for comparison
purposes. Evaluations that have been completed typically suggest that the design changes are
effective in bringing about significant reductions in crime (Clarke and Newman, 2005). Stronger
evaluation, however, needs to be undertaken.
A number of other problems and issues face the movement toward product design for
prevention. One primary concern is the fact that most designers are not trained with an eye toward
crime prevention, thus making the design process difficult at the outset (Learmont, 2005). Second,
the prevention features must be understood by the users/consumers and be simple enough to
guarantee that they are employed (Ekblom, 2005; Lester, 2001). Basically, the features need to be
user-friendly. Third, any changes need to adhere to the aesthetic features of the product. Fourth,
there may be both legal and ethical questions to be addressed. The incorporation of electronic
tracking devices, for example, raises issues of privacy (Ekblom, 2008; Lester, 2001). Yet another
concern with product design involves the issue of increased costs due to the extra features
(Ekblom, 2008). It is possible that product redesign can result in costs that are prohibitive.
Despite these (and other) concerns, product design for prevention is a growing area of interest that
should receive increased attention, particularly for its impact on the level of crime.
Other Crimes
The offense categories discussed earlier are just a sample of the many applications of
situational techniques. The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has produced guides addressing
80 types of offenses, ranging from check and card fraud to street racing to gun violence to elderly
abuse. In each guide, situational techniques form a core of the discussion and recommendations
for prevention.
Summary
Several observations can be drawn from studies of situational prevention. First, although there
is an emphasis on property crimes, situational crime prevention is applicable to personal offenses
(see the materials on the textbook website for additional materials). Second, a wide array of
interventions appears in the literature and this diversity is evident both across different crime
problems and within the same offenses. What this suggests is that the prevention initiatives truly
are “situational” in nature and cannot simply be applied to the same crime that appears in different
places at different times. Third, research successfully demonstrates the effectiveness of programs
that target effort, risk, and reward, and there is emerging evidence on the use of guilt and shame.
Fourth, the focused nature of situational prevention efforts may help maximize the success of the
programs. Programs that attempt to make modest changes in specific problems at specific times
and places should be more successful than multifaceted programs aiming for large-scale changes.
Situational crime prevention offers an approach that seeks to target specific problems with
individualized interventions. As such, these techniques epitomize the ideas of secondary
prevention. This does not mean that we are looking at entirely new forms of interventions. Indeed,
many of the actions discussed in the later part of this chapter are the same ideas we discussed
under primary prevention. The success of situational approaches has moved these ideas into the
forefront of many crime prevention discussions and will continue to receive a great
deal of attention in the future. In many analyses of situational crime
prevention there is evidence of either displacement or diffusion, despite the
fact that many of the research designs do not specifically test for them. It is
important to note that displacement is never 100 percent. The next chapter
addresses crime displacement and diffusion.
Chapter 11 Displacement and Diffusion
Learning Objectives
Outcome/impact evaluations of crime prevention focus on changes
in the level of the targeted crime, fear of crime, and/or citizen
behavior. The obvious expectation/hope is that crime and fear
decrease as a result of the preventive action. The evidence
presented throughout the previous chapters demonstrates that many
prevention interventions have had a desired effect. The results,
however, are not universal and not absolute. Crime prevention
programs could have an impact beyond that which is intended. The
other changes could be either positive or negative. Throughout many
of the earlier discussions, particularly those dealing with
environmental design, neighborhood crime prevention, and
situational techniques, many evaluations raised the possibility of
either crime displacement or diffusion of benefits. The crime
prevention techniques may unintentionally result in increased crime
in another area, on other targets, or at different times. In essence,
levels of crime or fear may simply shift in response to the prevention
efforts. This shift in crime is referred to as crime displacement. The
opposite may also occur. Crime prevention efforts targeted at a
specific problem in one location may have a positive impact on other
locations or crimes. That is, there may be a diffusion of benefits.
Unfortunately, evaluations generally fail to consider the possibility
of either displacement or diffusion. This is due to the fact that such
assessment is a difficult task. When they do consider displacement,
the focus is generally on changes from one area to another. As we
will see, this is a very limited and narrow view on possible
displacement or diffusion. The focus on movement from place to
place makes sense when considering neighborhood prevention
initiatives. The focus of prevention on specific products or problems,
as in situational prevention, suggests that crime may be impacted in
other ways besides simply moving to another location. Fortunately,
there is a growing recognition of the need to examine displacement
and diffusion in evaluations. The purpose of this chapter is to outline
the concepts of crime displacement and diffusion, discuss the
potential of offenders to shift their crime-related activities along a
variety of dimensions, and review the literature on displacement and
diffusion.
Crime Displacement
Crime displacement represents a change in crime due to the preventive actions of the
individual or society. Most discussions of displacement focus on the shift of crime from one place
to another (often called crime spillover). The assumption is that many crime prevention actions
simply move the crime around instead of eliminating the overall amount of crime. For example,
an increase in police presence in one neighborhood may reduce crime in that area but cause an
increase in crime in a contiguous neighborhood. Displacement, however, can take forms other
than just the geographical movement of crime.
Types of Displacement
Reppetto (1976) offers five forms of displacement—territorial, temporal, tactical, target, and
functional (see Table 11.1). Territorial (spatial) displacement is the most frequently discussed
and represents a movement of crime from one location to another. Temporal displacement, the
movement of offending to another period while remaining in the same area, may manifest itself
through a shift in larcenies from the late evening to the early morning. Under tactical
displacement, the offender utilizes new means to commit the same offense. A shift in burglary
from entering through unlocked doors to breaking windows for entry represents a tactical change
in the offense. Target displacement involves a choice of different victims within the same area.
For example, an increase in the use of weapons by store owners may force robbers to choose
elderly pedestrians as victims. Reppetto’s final form of displacement, functional displacement,
suggests that offenders change to a new type of offense, such as shifting from larceny to burglary
or burglary to robbery. Each of these forms of displacement represents a change in offense
behavior on the part of the offender. Barr and Pease (1990) offer a sixth form of displacement—
perpetrator. Perpetrator displacement occurs when one offender ceases his deviant behavior,
only to be replaced by another offender. Crime prevention techniques are a logical cause of any of
these types of displacement.
Table 11.1 Forms of Displacement
Territorial Movement of crime from one area to another, typically contiguous, area
A neighborhood watch program is started and the burglars move to another neighborhood
Temporal A shift in offending from one time to a different time, such as from day to night
A citizen patrol is instituted at night, thus prompting burglars to work during the morning hours
Tactical Changing the methods used in the commission of a crime
The installation of deadbolt locks on doors results in burglars forcing open windows to gain entry
Target Choosing a different victim within the same area
A neighborhood watch program is started but only half the homes participate, thereby leading offenders to target nonparticipating homes
Functional The offender stops committing one offense and shifts to another
When burglary becomes more difficult due to target hardening devices the offender decides to commit robbery instead
Perpetrato
r
One offender ceases activity only to be replaced by another offender
While crime prevention actions cause an individual to desist from further offending, another individual sees opportunities and begins
offending
Table 11.2 Displacement Assumptions
1. Crime is inelastic.
2. Offenders have mobility.
3. Offenders make rational choices.
4. Alternative targets and choices are available.
Assumptions
Displacement makes a number of assumptions about both the potential offender and his target
(see Table 11.2). The degree to which these assumptions are accurate will have an impact on the
degree to which displacement can and will occur.
Crime Inelasticity
Displacement assumes that crime is inelastic. That is, offenders are driven to commit a certain
number of offenses over a given period of time (Reppetto, 1976). If crime is inelastic, it is not
eliminated by crime prevention activities. Rather, it is simply moved along one of the
displacement dimensions. Offenders are motivated to commit crime and will seek out
opportunities to offend. One key to displacement, therefore, is available opportunities. Felson and
Clarke (1998) argue that opportunities are (or can be) limited, thus having an impact on the
possibility of displacement.
Potential Offender Mobility
Displacement assumes mobility on the part of the offender (Reppetto, 1976). The mobility can be
across time, place, tactic, or any displacement dimension. Not all potential offenders, however,
have the same level of mobility (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1984). For example, youthful
offenders may not have access to transportation (limiting territorial displacement), or they may be
tied to school and curfews (limiting temporal displacement). Race may inhibit individuals from
entering areas populated by other racial or ethnic groups. Some offenders may not be
psychologically able to shift from one type of crime to another (functional displacement).
Although such factors may limit displacement, they will not eliminate it for all potential
offenders.
Mobility is not determined solely by the characteristics of the potential offenders. It may also be
limited by features of the surrounding environment (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2003;
Brantingham, 2010). This is primarily true in relation to territorial (spatial) displacement,
although it is not limited to the spatial domain. The ability of an offender to shift to another
location/time/offense may be limited by the options available to the offender. For example, efforts
taken in a small isolated community may not allow for territorial displacement because there are
no alternatives for offending nearby. A neighborhood may also be somewhat isolated even within
a large city because it has major barriers surrounding it, such as a river on one side and a major
interstate highway on another (see Figure 11.1). Individuals who offend in the bounded area of
town have limited options for where to move for future offending, while those on the other side of
the river have more options. Boundaries may not make displacement impossible, but they limit
the directions any offenders can take if they are to be displaced (Brantingham and Brantingham,
2003).
While mobility may be limited by place, the characteristics of an area may enhance the possibility
of offending (Brantingham, 2010). An individual who lives near an area with many targets (such
as mixed-use areas with homes, businesses, and entertainment close at hand) may benefit from a
wide range of differing opportunities for crime commission. Actions that limit household burglary
may simply force the offender to pilfer from stores or rob shoppers in the local commercial strip.
In essence, physical location can shut down some opportunities while enhancing others.
Figure 11.1
Example of a City With a Geographically Bounded Neighborhood
Rational Choice of Offenders
A very important third assumption involves the level of volition held by potential
offenders. Rational choice theory has become a central focus in the study of crime (Clarke and
Cornish, 1985; Cornish and Clarke, 1986a). This theory assumes that potential offenders make
choices based on various factors in the physical and social environment. Offenders respond to
payoff, effort, peer support, risks, and similar factors in making decisions to commit a crime
(Cornish and Clarke, 1986b). Displacement views the offender as being a rational individual who
is capable of making informed, free-willed choices. The offender is able to evaluate the costs and
benefits inherent in his or her choice and circumstances and can make decisions based on those
factors.
The ability to make informed choices is required for displacement to occur. The inability to make
rational decisions would negate displacement due to crime prevention measures. A seeming
contradiction appears between this assumption and the earlier assumption concerning the inelastic
nature of offending. The need to commit crime and the ability to choose which crime and where it
is to be committed, however, are not exclusive of one another. It is very possible that an offender
sees no alternative to crime but is capable of molding his actual criminal behavior around
available choices.
Target/Choice Availability
A final assumption is that alternative targets and choices are available to the offender. From a
crime prevention perspective, this assumption is easy to accept because program implementation
is never complete. Some individuals decide not to participate, some targets are not hardened,
some actions fail to have an impact, and some ideas are not well suited to a given problem. More
importantly, crime prevention programs generally focus only on limited areas or crimes. This
results in alternative choices for potential offenders.
Displacement: Benign or Malign?
The tenor of most discussions of displacement is clearly one of disappointment or dismay at the
thought that crime is simply being moved across one of the displacement dimensions.
Displacement, however, can be positive. Barr and Pease (1990) divide displacement into two
types—“malign” and “benign.” Malign displacement leads to undesirable outcomes. Efforts
aimed at reducing burglary may prompt an increase in robberies and accompanying levels of
assault. Another case of malign displacement would be an offender’s need to increase the number
of crimes in order to offset the reduced payoff garnered from each offense (Gabor, 1990). A third
possibility is shifting crime to another area that is unprepared to respond. Such malign
displacement may not be tolerable to society.
Benign displacement suggests that changes from displacement may benefit society. For example,
the new crime or tactics that are utilized by the offenders may be less serious and offer less danger
to the potential victims. Robbery becomes burglary, assault with a deadly weapon becomes simple
assault, burglary becomes petty theft, and so on. Displacement may also bring about reduced fear
of crime that offsets the problem of actual crime (Barr and Pease, 1990).
Barr and Pease (1990) also propose that displacement can “be used to achieve a spread of crime
that can be regarded as equitable.” Crime is not evenly spread across the social spectrum, which
leads to an unequal burden from crime and fear of crime. Barr and Pease suggest that society,
either consciously or unconsciously, has allowed certain areas or neighborhoods to become what
they call crime fuses. In the same manner that electrical fuses will carry the dangerous burden
and signal a problem by blowing out before the problem spreads to the rest of the system, the
crime fuse is an area where crime is allowed to operate without bothering the rest of society until
it explodes in the area. The solution is then targeted at the point of the problem before it does
major harm to the entire community. Displacement may be benign if crime is moved to a “fuse”
location. It would not be benign, however, for those living at the crime fuse. A true benign
displacement would be one that provides a more even or equal spread of victimization across the
community (Barr and Pease, 1990). For Barr and Pease, the question of displacement deals with
redistributing crime and victimization in society.
Diffusion
Another possible effect of crime prevention programming is the diffusion of benefits. Clarke and
Weisburd (1994, p. 169) define diffusion of benefits as
the spread of the beneficial influence of an intervention beyond the places which are directly
targeted, the individuals who are the subject of control, the crimes which are the focus of
intervention or the time periods in which an intervention is brought.
Rather than shifting the crime, diffusion assumes that prevention efforts will benefit people and
places other than those targeted. Diffusion is discussed under a variety of names, including “halo
effect” (Scherdin, 1986) and “free bonus effect” (Sherman, 1990).
What accounts for diffusion? Clarke and Weisburd (1994) offer two potential sources for diffusion
—deterrence and discouragement. Deterrence can have an impact in various ways. While many
prevention efforts are short-lived, the impact on crime often outlasts the period of intervention.
Similarly, targeting one location or certain merchandise may result in protecting other targets. In
each case, there is an assumption that the chances of being apprehended are heightened and
potential offenders are deterred by the risk of being caught. Discouragement works by reducing
the payoff and increasing the effort needed to commit a crime (Clarke and Weisburd, 1994).
Both displacement and diffusion have received increased attention in recent years and many
evaluations now make claims about apparent displacement or diffusion. Unfortunately, the
difficulties inherent in assessing displacement and diffusion mean that these issues are not central
to many evaluations. In every case, the degree to which displacement or diffusion occur is related
to the degree to which offenders can and do make judgments about offending.
Offender Choice and Mobility
Offenders do not commit offenses totally at random. They do not simply walk down the street and
attack people, commit robberies, break into homes, or act in other criminal ways with no reason.
If offenders acted completely at random, committing crimes with no thought and at any moment,
all of our streets would be rife with crimes at any time and nothing anyone could do would have
an impact on crime. Thankfully, we know that many places and times are free from crime, and
many things can be done to prevent crime. This means that offenders, at least to some degree,
make decisions on what to do, when, where, and how. The key for prevention, therefore, is to
understand the factors that go into those decisions.
Felson and Clarke (1998) argue that opportunity is the cornerstone for all criminal behavior.
While opportunity alone is not sufficient for a crime, it is certainly necessary for its commission.
In their words, “[i]ndividual behavior is a product of an interaction between the person and the
setting” (1998, p. 1). Felson and Clarke outline 10 principles of opportunity (see Table 11.3) that
attempt to specify how opportunities shape and mold criminal behavior. Many of these principles
deal with the variation in opportunities across time, space, and circumstances. They also suggest
that reductions in opportunity can reduce crime, with little displacement.
Underlying these 10 principles of opportunity are three primary theoretical orientations—routine
activities, rational choice, and crime pattern theory. Felson and Clarke (1998) see each as a form
of opportunity theory. The possibility of displacement and diffusion rely on implicit assumptions
about the offenders and decision making that appear in these theoretical perspectives.
Table 11.3 Ten Principles of Opportunity and Crime
1. Opportunities play a role in causing all crime.
2. Crime opportunities are highly specific.
3. Crime opportunities are concentrated in time and place.
4. Crime opportunities depend on everyday movements.
5. One crime produces opportunities for another.
6. Some products offer more tempting crime opportunities.
7. Social and technological changes produce new crime opportunities.
8. Opportunities for crime can be reduced.
9. Reducing opportunities does not usually displace crime.
10. Focused opportunity reduction can produce wider declines in crime.
Routine Activities
The routine activities theory argues that the normal movement and activities of both potential
offenders and victims play a role in the occurrence of crime. Cohen and Felson (1979) outline
three criteria that must exist for crime to occur. There must be (1) a suitable target, (2) a motivated
offender, and (3) an absence of guardians. The authors believe that much crime is due to
opportunity. That does not mean that offenders do not seek out opportunities. Rather, it implies
that the actual choice and commission of an offense is determined by the mutual occurrence of the
three conditions.
The routine activities of people have greatly changed over the years. Since World War II, many
households have moved to two-earner incomes, which leaves many homes unoccupied during the
day and, therefore, unguarded (Cohen and Felson, 1979). Increased mobility of the population has
led to the establishment of “bedroom communities” which are removed from the watchful eyes of
workers and pedestrians. Time spent away from home, either at work or in recreation, opens up
opportunities for crime.
Another important change involves the increased availability of suitable targets for crime. The
risk of a target is directly related to Clarke’s (1999) discussion of hot products, or items that
attract attention and are targeted by offenders. Such products meet the tenets of being CRAVED.
As noted in Chapter 10, products that are CRAVED are desired by the offender or others, are
visible to potential offenders, and are easier to conceal, transport, and dispose of. What has value
today may not be of interest tomorrow. This could be due to the maturation of the offender, the
saturation of the item in society, changes in taste, or other factors (Clarke, 1999). The extent to
which a target meets the CRAVED criteria will have an impact on the chances of an offense
occurring.
Most tests of the routine activities hypothesis focus on property crimes, although the chances of
personal crime also increase through changes in routine activities. Cohen and Felson (1979) find
that the amount of time spent away from home is significantly related to the level of property
crime. Similarly, Mustaine and Tewksbury (1998) report that theft is influenced by activity
outside the home, the number of precautions (guardianship) taken, and the types of outside
activities in which victims partake. The same factors related to property crime also apply for
enhancing the possibility of physical confrontation between individuals. Personal predatory
crimes, such as robbery and sexual assault, are also influenced by routine activities.
Rational Choice
An implicit assumption in routine activities is that offenders make rational choices about when
and where to offend. In order for crime prevention activities to have an impact, offenders must be
making (somewhat) rational decisions based on their perceptions of needs, risks, payoffs, and
other factors. Whether offenders make choices in their offenses can be answered both intuitively
and through the literature. On an intuitive level, most people believe that human beings are free-
willed. At the same time, however, people recognize that the available choices are limited by time,
place, or circumstance. This implies a sort of soft determinism. That is, individuals make choices
but only within the realm of available opportunities. This is true in all behavior and not just
criminal activity. For example, every individual may wish to be comfortable in his or her daily
existence. One person may be independently wealthy while another must work. Furthermore, the
choice of work relies on the physical and mental abilities of the individual, the state of the
economy in the area, the competition for jobs, and a host of other factors. The fact that everyone
makes choices in life leads to the belief that criminals make similar choices. Additionally,
offenders spend the majority of their time participating in normal, socially accepted activities
within which they make choices. It would be naive to think that this ability to make choices is
removed when criminal behavior is contemplated.
Numerous studies provide evidence that offenders make rational decisions. Studies of both
incarcerated and active burglars in England reveal that offenders favor homes with a rear access,
cover, isolation from other homes, a lack of nearby surveillance, the absence of alarms and
closed-circuit television (CCTV), and that are unoccupied (Nee and Taylor, 1988; Taylor and Nee,
1988). Research also notes that offenders are attracted by visual signs of wealth, such as well-kept
homes and items that can be seen through open windows (Hearnden and Magill, 2004; Nee and
Taylor, 1988). Based on interviews with 31 incarcerated burglars in the United States, Rengert
and Wasilchick (1985) find that offenders commit their crimes when residents are away from their
homes—mainly midmorning and early afternoon. Importantly, burglars typically rely on an
established set of “opportunity cues” to identify appropriate targets. Among the cues are closed-
up homes without air conditioning in warm months, an absence of cars at home, the entire family
leaving together, available concealment, visual signs of wealth, and easy access to the home
(Rengert and Wasilchick, 1985).
Wright and Decker (1994), in a large-scale study of burglars in St. Louis, uncover a mixture of
planning and spontaneity in offending. They report that many burglars have a potential target in
mind prior to the actual decision to commit the crime. The offenders are always “half looking” for
targets, and use various cues for deciding on appropriate targets, such as signs of valuables, the
condition of the property, the type of car in the drive, signs of occupancy, and surveillability.
Bennett (1986) notes that burglars make what appear to be quick, uninformed decisions that, in
reality, are rational choices based on prior experience and general knowledge. Indeed, Cromwell
et al. (1991), asking burglars to “re-create” their past offenses, report that they make rational
choices based on surveillability, occupancy, and accessibility. The reconstructions, however,
suggest a more “limited rationality” similar to that proposed by Clarke and Cornish (1985).
Offenders tend to point out opportunistic features of various targets and react to situations that
arise during normal activity. That is, they “happen upon” vulnerable targets as they go about their
daily routine (Cromwell et al., 1991). The offenders appear to respond to a set of internalized cues
based on past experience and planning rather than on specific, detailed planning for each event.
Although the foregoing discussion focuses on burglary, choice behavior is not restricted to those
offenses. Tunnell (1992) reports on the activity of repeat property offenders, which included
burglars, robbers, forgers, and others. He notes that criminal activity is a rational response to
situations in which the offender finds himself. Research also suggests that more serious persistent
offenders undertake more planning and tend to choose targets where the chances of observation
are small (Feeney, 1986; Shover, 1991; Tunnell, 1992). Robbery, auto theft, and forgery also show
evidence of offender planning and rational decision making (Fleming et al., 1994; Gill and
Matthews, 1994; Lacoste and Tremblay, 2003; Morrison and O’Donnell, 1996; Petrosino and
Brensilber, 2003).
Various studies portray offenders as rational decision makers who base their actions on the costs
and benefits they perceive in the contemplated activity. At the same time, the research suggests
that offenders do not necessarily construct detailed plans for each and every offense. Rather, the
rational choices and preconceived plans may be set into motion when the offender happens on a
situation or target that fits the general description of an appropriate target. Time, place, target,
surveillability, and other factors are all considered in a shorthand version of making a rational
choice. Indeed, many daily, noncriminal decisions are made more on the subconscious, rather than
the conscious, level.
Crime Pattern Theory
Brantingham and Brantingham’s (1993b) crime pattern theory proposes that crime and criminal
behavior fits patterns that can be identified and understood when viewed in terms of where and
when they occur. They argue that crime patterns can be understood because of similarities that
emerge when you consider
the specific criminal event, the site, the situation, the activity backcloth, the probable crime
templates, the triggering events, and the general factors influencing the readiness or willingness of
individuals to commit crimes. (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1993b, pp. 284–285)
Two keys to understanding patterns are understanding the environmental backcloth and the
social/crime template of the offender. The environmental backcloth refers to the social,
economic, cultural, and physical conditions within which people operate. While these dimensions
are constantly changing, it is possible to discern patterns from them. The social/crime template is
the idea that people have templates that outline expectations of what will happen at certain times
and places given certain behavior by the individual. In essence, the template tells an offender
what should occur in a certain place, time, or situation. Understanding how people learn about the
environment and how they construct these templates is an important endeavor for understanding
the occurrence of crime.
At the outset, the routine activities of individuals expose them to different times and places. Their
normal daily activities as they go to and from work, do their shopping, socialize with others, go to
school, and any other routine activities allow them to build knowledge of their environment.
Urban communities of today greatly contribute to the routine activities of individuals. Modern
cities and urban areas are conglomerations of smaller, specialized land use areas that provide
varying needs and activities for residents. The availability of private and mass transportation
allows citizens to live, work, shop, and recreate where they choose. People simply commute
between various locations. These locations can be considered nodes of activity (see Figure 11.2;
Brantingham and Brantingham, 1993a, 1996). The transit routes between the nodes are referred to
as paths. The extent to which an individual utilizes each node and takes various routes (paths)
between the nodes contributes to his awareness space. Andresen (2014) notes that as an
individual’s knowledge and attachments to different nodes and paths increase, he or she becomes
more comfortable in the area.
Another consideration of how individuals learn about the environment involves cognitive maps.
Smith and Patterson (1980) argue that individuals create cognitive maps (mental images) of the
environment that are used in making behavioral choices. There are four aspects to cognitive
mapping: recognition, prediction, evaluation, and action. Recognition refers to being able to
identify your location and various features in the area. Recognition leads to prediction, which
involves making connections between the identifiable objects in the area and possible lines of
behavior. During evaluation, the individual uses the information gathered in the earlier stages and
determines which options are acceptable modes of behavior. It is based on the information gained
in the first three steps that an individual decides on an appropriate action. In essence, cognitive
mapping entails changing nodes and paths into awareness space. To the extent to which it
removes fear and uncertainty about locations, cognitive mapping helps the individual make
informed choices and turn the location into an activity space.
Figure 11.2
Simplified View of a Multinuclei Community With Nodes and Paths
The farther from a node or path an individual moves, the less is known about the area and the
individual lacks a meaningful cognitive map. Thus, the chances for action (criminal or legitimate)
are diminished. Potential offenders tend to search in the nodes and paths with which they are
familiar. Besides the nodes and paths, activity space also includes edges of the areas, which may
enhance or hinder deviant behavior. Edges can be physical, social, or economic (Brantingham,
2010). Physical edges may limit movement of potential offenders and victims. As such, these
edges may limit offending by inhibiting the awareness space. Conversely, social and economic
edges can enhance anonymity between strangers. These areas are frequented by diverse users,
which bring together potential victims and offenders with limited guardianship (Brantingham,
2010). Greater diversity in people and activity from both sides of the edge enhances the
possibility of offenses (see Brantingham and Brantingham, 1981, 1993a, 1993b, 1996, for more
in-depth discussions of these ideas).
Beyond providing a framework for developing cognitive maps/awareness space/activity space,
nodes can serve to promote crime in other ways (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1996). Some
nodes may act as crime generators by drawing potential victims to the area. They also may
be crime attractors. These are areas to which potential offenders and victims are drawn, such as
drug markets, sites of street prostitution, and/or adult clubs and bars. Finally, a node may serve as
a hunting ground for offenders. That is, offenders recognize that potential victims frequent an
area, there is a lack of guardians at that location, and, consequently, the offender follows the
victims to that place.
An emerging possibility for the development of cognitive maps and information on potential
targets has been the advent of the Internet and its widespread accessibility. Today, a wealth of
information, including visual depictions, can be found online. Programs such as Google Maps,
Google Streetview, and government property websites provide varying levels of detail about
different addresses and areas. Google Streetview, for example, allows the user to look at an
address from the main street, take a 360-degree look at the area, move up and down the street, and
zoom in to look at property details. While this information reflects only a single point in time, it
provides a basis of information on the area. Publicly accessible government documents also
provide details of homes and businesses, including room layouts and sizes. All this information
can be used by potential offenders to build mental maps of a target, the surrounding area, and
other useful planning information without ever leaving home and visiting the area. As such, the
potential to plan crimes outside the assumptions of routine activities and crime pattern theories is
greatly enhanced.
Although discussions of cognitive mapping usually center on territorial or spatial features of
behavior, the extension to other dimensions is straightforward. The same process that provides
templates of safe areas can provide information on the most suitable targets, tactics, crimes, and
times within a given setting. The prediction and evaluation stages of cognitive mapping suggest
that each of these decisions is to be considered in the movement to criminal action.
Summary
Research provides strong evidence that crime is not totally opportunistic. Rather, criminal
behavior appears to be a rational decision based on situations in which the offender finds him- or
herself. While offenders may not spend a great deal of time planning specific offenses,
information gained through normal daily activity or interaction with others can guide the
“unconscious” decision making of the offender, just like most people make noncriminal daily
choices. These facts suggest that both displacement and diffusion are potential responses to
prevention behavior.
Evidence of Displacement and Diffusion
While displacement and diffusion are possible results of prevention activities, they are rarely
directly examined in evaluations. Much crime prevention research tends to ignore the issue of
displacement and diffusion or consider them only as an afterthought to the research. Claims that
displacement does or does not occur are probably ill advised. Even in studies that include an
analysis of displacement at the outset, basic flaws in the investigations limit the ability to make
strong claims.
Displacement Effects
Assessments of displacement need to consider a number of factors. First, all the forms of
displacement should be open to examination. Most analyses only consider territorial displacement
and totally ignore the other forms. Second, each crime/problem being targeted by the prevention
initiative should be examined in detail to answer a number of questions, such as Who are the
likely offenders? When are the offenses taking place? How are the crimes being committed?
Where are they occurring? What purpose does the crime serve (i.e., why does it happen)? and
similar concerns. The answers to these questions are crucial for both the selection of crime
prevention measures and the potential for displacement. Interestingly, while most crime
prevention programs answer these questions when developing the intervention, they are typically
ignored when discussions of displacement occur. This is unfortunate because answers to these
questions would inform expectations about the type and extent of possible displacement.
Take, for example, the development of a crime prevention initiative to attack residential burglary.
An examination of crime data shows an increase in residential burglary taking place in mid- to
late mornings during the workweek. The homes are being entered through unlocked doors or by
breaking the locks on doors. Items that are taken tend to be jewelry, silverware, and high-end
electronics. The police suspect that the offenders are adult professional burglars. Based on this
information, a prevention program is initiated that includes the installation of stronger locks, the
marking of property, the initiation of increased police patrols during the day, the start of a
neighborhood watch group, and midday citizen patrols. The same information provides insight
into the possible types of displacement that may emerge. To the extent that the offenders are
indeed adult professional thieves, it is wise to assume that territorial displacement is a strong
possibility. There may also be temporal displacement to nights or afternoons when the patrols are
not as prevalent. The offenders may change targets and focus on the homes without the new locks.
Any evaluation of the prevention activities should use this insight to build in an assessment of the
different forms of displacement. Unfortunately, most crime prevention evaluators look only for
territorial displacement to an immediately adjacent neighborhood. No attention is paid to other
forms or areas.
Attempts to assess displacement need to explicitly consider the potential offenders, the type of
offense, the location, the victims, and other factors involved in the existing criminal activity
(Hamilton-Smith, 2002). In-depth knowledge of the event and actors will allow the crime
prevention planner and evaluator to model the potential for displacement and build in the
appropriate intervention or evaluation methods (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2003; Hamilton-
Smith, 2002).
There is little reason to ever expect total displacement of crime, regardless of the type of
displacement considered. At the same time, assuming that there will be no displacement may be
just as naive. Displacement should be considered as a possible confounding factor in every
evaluation.
Journey to Crime
The fact that offenders will travel to commit crimes is known as the journey to crime and is well
established. The distance traveled varies by the type of crime, the physical characteristics of the
area, and the demographic characteristics of the individual. The distance traveled can be measured
in two ways. First is by Euclidean distance, which measures in a straight line from the start to
the end point. The problem with this approach is that it ignores the fact that physical features
(such as buildings, rivers, and highways) make such travel impossible. Instead, people follow
roadways, generally selecting those that reduce both distance and travel time. Measures of
distance in this way are called Manhattan distance.
Beyond how distance is measured, it is important to note that there is a pattern of distance decay.
This means that the commission of crime decreases as the distance from the offender’s home
increases. Individuals have the greatest cognitive maps for the area around their homes; thus, it is
in this activity space that they commit more offenses. These are short journeys to crime. Elfers et
al. (2008) argue that distance decay occurs partly due to the presence of opportunities that exist
between the offender’s starting point and the intended ending point of travel. Bernasco (2010)
adds an interesting dimension to the discussion of crime centering on one’s home. He examines
crime around the offender’s current home as well as around an immediately past residence, using
a two-year window around residency. Offenses are 22.5 times more likely around the current or
former residence, with the odds of offending around former homes diminishing over time
(Bernasco, 2010). This shows that crime is likely in an individual’s awareness space, and this
awareness shifts over time.
While distance decay is an important factor in distance traveled, opportunities, potential payoff,
and ability to travel play a role in long distances. Property offenses, which have a greater chance
of being planned, tend to have longer travel averages (Pyle, 1974; Rhodes and Conley, 1981;
White, 1932). The expectation and size of offense payoffs also result in longer journeys (Morselli
and Royer, 2008; Snook, 2004; Van Daele and Vander Beken, 2011). Research demonstrates that
the distance traveled increases when transportation and road access are more readily available
(Bicheler et al., 2012; Snook, 2004; Van Daele and Vander Beken, 2011; Vandeviver et al., 2015).
Personal crimes tend to be more spontaneous and occur between family members or friends, thus
mitigating long travel distances (Amir, 1971; Bullock, 1955; White, 1932).
The greater distances associated with property crimes are especially important for the discussion
of community crime prevention because these programs usually target property offenses. Distance
also tends to increase with the offender’s age due to the increased mobility that comes with
growing older, leaving school, living on one’s own, and ownership of some means of
transportation (Nichols, 1980; P.P. Phillips, 1980). Additionally, younger individuals probably
hold more limited cognitive maps on which to base offense decisions. Having established the
existence of offender mobility, it is reasonable to assume that territorial displacement is a possible
consequence of prevention efforts.
Territorial Displacement
The most common form of displacement considered in evaluations is territorial/spatial
displacement. Several studies claim evidence of territorial displacement. Fabricant (1979) claims
that juvenile arrests cause youthful offenders to move to neighboring locations. Crime prevention
programs in Dallas appear to shift some offenders into surrounding suburbs (Dallas Area Criminal
Justice Council, 1975). Specifically, changes in Dallas are accompanied by greater increases in six
of nine Dallas suburbs. Forrester et al. (1988), investigating the effects of target hardening and
social crime prevention measures, claim that the 60 percent decrease in burglary is partially offset
by a 25 percent increase in burglary in the surrounding area. Barclay et al. (1996), studying the
impact of bicycle patrol on auto theft in one crime hot spot, show large increases in auto theft in
two adjacent areas during the project period. The increases also persist after the program ended.
Displacement is the best explanation for these findings. Braga et al. (1999), in an analysis of a
police crackdown in Jersey City, New Jersey, report evidence of property crime displacement. In
an analysis of CCTV in town centers, Brown (1995) indicates that both robbery and personal theft
are displaced to other areas. Territorial displacement is also evident in the Kirkholt and Safer
Cities burglary prevention efforts (Ekblom et al., 1996a; Tilley, 1993), in some of the Burglary
Reduction Initiative sites (Bowers and Johnson, 2003; Home Office, 2003d), in Philadelphia’s
Operation Safe Streets project (Lawton et al., 2005), and in Rotterdam’s efforts to curb thefts from
autos (Hesseling, 1995a).
Not all research finds territorial displacement, even when the project actively searches for it.
Ditton and Short (1999) and Farrington et al. (2007), examining the impact of CCTV, report no
evidence of displacement. Armitage et al. (1999) also find no territorial displacement as a result of
CCTV installations in three police beats. Evaluating the impact of police enforcement of carrying
concealed weapons laws in Kansas City, Sherman and Rogan (1995) uncover no evidence of
displacement from target areas to a matched control area. Weisburd and Green (1995) report no
displacement resulting from police targeting of drug hot spots in Jersey City. Similarly, Braga et
al. (1999) find no shift in calls about robbery, assault, drug offenses, street fights, or disorder
incidents from the targeted hot spots to the control areas. Weisburd et al. (2006), in a study
designed specifically to test for territorial displacement, find no such displacement in either
prostitution or drug offending. It is evident that territorial displacement appears in some analyses
and not in others. Finally, McLennan and Whitworth (2008) find displacement in only 2 percent
of 383 tests of the New Deal for Communities Program in the United Kingdom.
The discrepant results from study to study may be due to the use of different displacement areas
in the analyses. Bowers and Johnson (2003) note that the selection of areas into which
displacement may occur is critical to the analysis. Although most analyses look at an immediately
adjacent area, it is not appropriate to assume that the closest neighboring area is the best selection
for assessing territorial displacement (Andresen, 2010). It is advisable to identify several buffer
zones around the target or experimental area, as well as a central area, and measure changes in
zones at different distances from the intervention site (Bowers and Johnson, 2003). In their
evaluation of alley gating, Bowers et al. (2003) find no displacement into the areas immediately
around the experimental site but do report displacement to areas farther away. One key to
uncovering territorial displacement, therefore, may be correctly specifying the potential
displacement zone.
Temporal Displacement
Several studies make explicit note about possible offense shifts across time. Two studies claim
that, while street lighting reduces the incidence of crime in the relit areas, there is a corresponding
increase in daylight crime rates within the same areas (Wright et al., 1974). This suggests the
possibility that the offenses simply moved from night to day. Hesseling (1995b) reports finding
temporal displacement resulting from increased surveillance in inner-city areas. Conversely, in the
Barclay et al. (1996) study of auto theft, an explicit attempt to identify temporal changes fails to
show any such displacement.
Tactical Displacement
Crime prevention efforts can make criminal work harder. This is evident through the use of new
methods of committing the same crimes on the same targets. One example of this is a shift in
burglary from entering through open doors to breaking windows for access. Interviews with
burglars indicate that offenders are willing to seek out and utilize different methods when
confronted with barriers to committing the crime (Bennett and Wright, 1984; Cromwell et al.,
1991; Reppetto, 1974). Crime prevention efforts in Seattle reveal a shift in burglary methods from
hardened doors and windows to unlocked entrances (Seattle Law and Justice Planning Office,
1975). Similarly, alley gating has moved the point of entry for burglary from the rear of buildings
to the front of homes (Bowers et al., 2003). Allatt (1984) finds that target hardening leads to
greater instances of forced locks and broken windows. Weisburd et al. (2006) report evidence of
tactical displacement based on interviews with offenders.
As noted in the last chapter, EMV (Europay, Mastercard, and Visa) chips have been introduced to
curb fraudulent credit card use. Although the new cards have had a positive impact, they have led
to alternative means of committing credit fraud. Finch (2011) reports increased theft of cards and
passwords, as well as other methods, to commit these crimes. Francis and Kim (2015) noted that
online card fraud, which mitigates the value of embedded chips and does not require a signature,
has seen a 120 percent increase since the introduction of the EMV chips. The impact of the chips
has led to tactical displacement in how credit card fraud is committed.
Target Displacement
Target displacement appears in various studies of crime prevention. Gabor (1981) specifically
investigates the shift in offending from one set of victims to another set of potential victims. He
finds that the Operation Identification program appears to have shifted offending away from
program participants to individuals who have not joined the project. This remains true even after
controlling for the preprogram victimization rates of the subjects. Offenders also shift from
residential areas to commercial establishments as a result of property marking (Gabor, 1981).
There is evidence that offenders target objects that are not as easily marked by the owners. Tilley
and Webb (1994) report similar target displacement from property marking efforts. Allatt (1984)
finds the unreinforced structures experience higher levels of burglary after the installation of
target hardening devices in neighboring buildings. Similarly, Miethe (1991) notes that target
hardening devices displace crime to nonhardened targets in the same area of Seattle. Evidence
from the Kirkholt burglary project shows that efforts to prevent repeat victimization result in a
move to more “new” victims who are not as involved in the program (Forrester et al., 1990). The
Reducing Burglary Initiative in Stirchley also reports a shift in burglaries away from homes to
nondwelling structures (Home Office, 2003b).
There is evidence that interventions to reduce auto theft have caused some displacement. One
form of displacement is to older cars that have not been outfitted with steering column locks or
immobilizers (Brown, 2004; Mayhew et al., 1976; Webb, 1994). Brown (2004) also noted
evidence of tactical displacement (movement to stealing keys) due to the introduction of
immobilizers. Displacement has also appeared in increased thefts of motorcycles and mopeds
(Mayhew et al., 1976; Webb, 1994). The bicycle patrol in Vancouver uncovered large increases in
auto thefts for adjacent areas during the month of the intervention (Barclay et al., 1996). It would
appear that displacement is evident in some evaluations of efforts to prevent auto theft.
Functional Displacement
This final form of displacement manifests itself in terms of changes in offenses committed by the
offender. The usual way of investigating such displacement is through comparison of different
individual crime rates from before and after program implementation. Arthur Young and Co.
(1978) report that the crime prevention program at the Cabrini-Green housing project resulted in
increased levels of assaults and robbery and decreased numbers of burglaries and thefts. This
suggests that the efforts, which deal more with property security, precipitate more personal
contact offenses. Allatt (1984) makes similar claims of functional displacement in connection
with target hardening efforts in a housing project. Letkemann (1973) shows that bank burglars
shift to bank robbery as a response to target hardening undertaken by banks, and Laycock (1984)
reveals that efforts to target harden pharmacies results in an increase in the level of pharmacy
robberies and other drug offenses. Research on CCTV programs in city centers also shows shifts
from motor vehicle theft to theft from motor vehicles (Brown, 1995). Felson et al. (1996) note
that improvements in the New York City bus terminal greatly reduced most crime and disorder.
There was some evidence, however, of functional displacement to minor property offenses (a
form of benign displacement; Felson et al., 1996). Finally, Finch (2011) reports that property
offenders shift from credit card fraud to other forms of theft as a result of introducing PINs and
chips to credit cards.
Displacement Summary
This review finds that displacement does appear in various forms. It is important, however, to
note that displacement is not an inevitable outcome of prevention initiatives. When displacement
does occur, it is not 100 percent. Displacement is a viable concern for discussions of crime
prevention. Although the list of studies reporting, or not reporting, each type of displacement is
limited, this is probably due to the failure of most evaluations to consider displacement.
Interestingly, two reviews that claim to find little evidence of displacement and argue that it
should not be a major concern (Eck, 1993; Hesseling, 1994) actually uncover a significant level of
various forms of displacement. Both Hesseling’s (1994) and Eck’s (1993) analyses reveal that
roughly half of the studies show evidence of displacement, particularly the territorial and target
forms. The fact that the authors do not find 100 percent displacement, or displacement in all
studies, leads them to conclude it is not a major problem. This is an unrealistic criterion and any
evidence of displacement should be a concern to be addressed.
Guerette and Bowers (2009) examined 102 studies with a total of 572 tests for displacement or
diffusion. As can be seen in Table 11.4, displacement appears in 26 percent of the tests. Temporal
displacement is the most common type uncovered (36 percent), with tactical being the least
common (22 percent). While not 100 percent, at least one out of five tests for any type of
displacement reports positive results. In a meta-analysis of those studies providing enough data
for testing, Guerette and Bowers (2009) find that 42 percent of the observations uncover
displacement. These findings show that displacement is indeed a common occurrence, although
not all programs find displacement, and the displacement does not negate the positive impact of
the prevention activities.
It is very important to note that the level of displacement is typically a small proportion of the
total decrease in crime attributed to crime prevention measures. The finding of displacement
qualifies the impact of the preventive program, but it certainly does not negate the positive results
attributable to the intervention. Indeed, displacement findings show that prevention programs are
capable of altering the behavior of the offenders. The offenders respond to the actions of
legitimate users and limit their criminal behavior in relation to the various targets. The problem is
that the only way of truly knowing if crime is displaced is to interview offenders and ask them if
the crime prevention measure altered their behavior.
Table 11.4 Displacement and Diffusion by Type
Type N Displaced Diffused
Territorial 272 62 (23%) 100 (37%)
Target 80 26 (33%) 19 (24%)
Temporal 31 11 (36%) 5 (16%)
Tactical 49 11 (22%) 6 (12%)
Functional 140 36 (26%) 22 (16%)
Total 146 (26%) 152 (27%)
Source: Adapted by the author from Guerette and Bowers (2009).
Diffusion Effects
Offsetting displacement may be a diffusion of benefits. As noted earlier, diffusion of benefits
means that areas, items, or individuals not targeted by a crime prevention program also benefit
from the intervention. For example, if half of the homes in a neighborhood join block watch, mark
their property, and take part in surveillance activities, and everyone in the neighborhood
experiences reduced victimization and fear, it is probable that the crime prevention of the
participants had an impact on the nonparticipants. This would be a diffusion of benefits. Not
unlike displacement, however, measuring diffusion is very difficult.
The typical approach to measuring diffusion is to examine the change in crime and fear in areas
contiguous to the target area. Reductions in the contiguous areas could be due to diffusion effects
(Clarke, 1995). At the same time, however, the reductions in both the target and control areas
could be a result of general decreases in society. Rather than a diffusion effect, the crime
prevention intervention has no impact. Determining whether there is no change or if the changes
are due to diffusion would require additional comparison areas (or targets) that would not be
expected to experience diffusion due to distance or other circumstances (see Bowers and Johnson,
2003).
Another problem with identifying a diffusion effect would appear when both displacement and
diffusion occur at the same time, resulting in no apparent change in the nontreatment area
(Weisburd and Green, 1995). In this case, the crime prevention program is successful at reducing
crime and/or fear in the target area. At the same time, some of the reduction is the result of
displacing offenses to another area, which would normally mean that crime and/or fear in the
other area increases. A simultaneous diffusion effect of equal magnitude, however, would offset
the increase and show no net change in crime and/or fear.
Despite these concerns with identifying diffusion effects, evaluations are beginning to pay more
attention to the possibilities of diffusion in their designs and analyses. Green (1995a), analyzing
the impact of a program dealing with neighborhood drug problems, reports a diffusion impact in
areas surrounding the targeted sites. The two blocks around the target sites show reductions in
deviant behavior, although smaller in magnitude to the experimental sites. Miethe (1991) notes
that neighborhood watch efforts in Seattle appear to diffuse to nonparticipating targets in the same
area. Painter and Farrington (1999b), in an analysis of street lighting projects, find decreases in
daytime offending for the relit areas, thus suggesting temporal diffusion. Diffusion also is
apparent in the Safer Cities program, particularly in areas where the prevention efforts are
intensively implemented (Ekblom et al., 1996a, 1996b), and in the New Deal for Communities
program, where 23 percent of 383 comparisons show the diffusion of benefits (McLennan and
Whitworth, 2008). Guerette and Bowers (2009) also provide evidence of diffusion in their review
of situational crime prevention, finding that 27 percent of the tests exhibited diffusion (see Table
6.5). The meta-analytic results also reveal diffusion in 42 percent of the comparisons.
Felson et al. (1996) report that diffusion may actually occur in the opposite direction. That is,
changes occurring outside the target area may have an impact on the target, leading to the
appearance of program effectiveness. In their study of the New York City bus terminal, Felson et
al. (1996) note that reductions in crime outside the terminal, dating from prior to the terminal
improvements, may be contributing to the crime reductions inside the terminal. In essence, the
external changes in robbery and assault may be diffusing into the terminal (Felson et al. (1996)
note that the reductions are greater in the terminal, thus indicating a programmatic impact beyond
any possible diffusion).
While concerns about displacement have existed for some time in the literature, diffusion is a
more recent topic. Diffusion should be considered as a counterbalancing force to displacement
(Clarke and Weisburd, 1994). Indeed, in some instances, displacement and diffusion both emerge
in studies and, in essence, cancel out one another. Given the fact that both forces could be at work
in a project, it is important to design projects that can uncover each of these possible factors. The
inability to identify displacement and diffusion would result in an incomplete analysis of program
effectiveness.
Implications of Displacement and Diffusion
The possibility of displacement and diffusion is an outcome of crime prevention that should be
considered in any program. Studies aptly illustrate that displacement is a plausible outcome of
crime prevention programs. At the same time, it would be naive to assume that all crime reduction
in an area is due to simple displacement to another place, time, or method, or that programs
cannot have a larger impact beyond the immediate target. The amount of displacement is far from
100 percent and typically reflects only a portion of the crime that is prevented in the target area.
Diffusion is also a possibility that needs to be considered. Future research needs to pay particular
attention to both displacement and diffusion in order to adequately assess their impact on
prevention programs.
Chapter 12 Partnerships for Crime
Prevention
The inability of the police to handle the crime problem alone and the
recognition that crime and disorder cannot be dealt with solely
through the arrest and prosecution of offenders have led to the
development of alternative responses and methods. Partnership
initiatives are at the forefront of these activities. While many of the
ideas and interventions found in partnerships are similar to those
found in general citizen crime prevention, the onus for action is on
the police and social service agencies to work in cooperation with
one another and the public. These endeavors often seek to target
specific problems. The underlying philosophy is to encourage
interaction and cooperation among police officers, residents,
community groups, and other agencies to solve problems.
Rosenbaum (2002, p. 180) notes that
the value of partnerships in theory lies in their responsiveness to the etiology of complex
problems, their ability to encourage interagency cooperation both inside and outside the criminal
justice system, their ability to attack problems from multiple sources of influence and to target
multiple causal mechanisms.
In many respects, partnerships mirror ideas found in situational
prevention. A key assumption is that there are factors underlying the
crime and disorder problems in the community. The typical police
response to the problems, that being arrest and prosecution, does
little to address the causes of the problems. Arrest and prosecution
deal mainly with the overt symptoms. These new approaches seek to
identify problems and potential solutions, as well as implement
interventions. As such, partnerships fall squarely in the realm of
secondary prevention. They target high-risk situations.
In the United States, the most recognized partnership effort is
community policing (although community policing is not always
called a partnership). Because of its high profile, community policing
receives a great deal of attention in this chapter. After discussing the
problems of defining community policing and identifying how
community policing should work, the chapter turns to evaluating the
effectiveness of community policing programs and partnership
initiatives.
Community Policing
Understanding community policing requires some knowledge of the more traditional view of
what the police are and what they should do. For most people, the formal police role is to answer
calls about crime, undertake investigations, make arrests, and assist in the prosecution of
offenders. Fighting crime (and crime prevention) is primarily the responsibility of the police.
Consequently, the police are often judged by the level of crime in the community. Arrests are the
benchmark by which the public judges police effectiveness.
The police also are called on to provide order maintenance, that is, functions that do not deal
with an immediate criminal action. Order maintenance includes responding to disabled autos,
escorting funerals and parades, dealing with barking dogs, responding to false alarms and noise
complaints, and delivering messages. Various studies show that these activities consume the
majority of police time, with the police spending roughly 20 percent of their time on actual law
enforcement efforts (Kelling, 1978; Lab, 1984; Walker, 1983; Wilson, 1968). While critics argue
that the police should not be involved in order-maintenance activities, Hoover (1992) argues that
order maintenance is a key part of traditional policing and serves to keep society functioning in an
orderly fashion. As such, order maintenance enhances the law enforcement efforts of the police.
Precursors to Community Policing
Trying to respond to all the desires of the citizenry is not an easy task and is one possible
reason for the inability of the police to control serious crime. Criticism of the police and the
apparent failure of past police practices to stem the crime problem have led to the introduction of
different strategies. One approach was the revival of foot patrol. Research shows that foot patrol
has had a mixed impact on crime (Bowers and Hirsch, 1987; Esbensen, 1987; Police Foundation,
1981; Trojanowicz, 1983), although it appears to reduce the level of citizens’ fear and improve
attitudes toward the police (Brown and Wycoff, 1987; Police Foundation, 1981; Trojanowicz,
1983). The police are also a key ingredient of both the establishment and maintenance of
neighborhood watch and citizen crime prevention initiatives. Underlying these activities has been
the recognition that the police cannot solve crime on their own or address the increased calls for
assistance by the public. The police need to build better relations with citizens and increase the
involvement of citizens in crime prevention and crime policy.
Defining Community Policing
The fact that elements of community policing appear in past practices demonstrates that
community policing is not a totally new idea, although the term community policing entered the
policing lexicon in the 1980s. At that time there was a shift in the basic orientation of everyday
police activity to the rubric of “community policing.” This shift was from the traditional view of
“crime fighting” through arrests to a view that fighting crime involves a broader set of
interventions.
Arriving at a single definition of community policing continues to be an elusive goal. Most
definitions reflect the fact that community policing is more of a philosophy of policing, rather
than a clearly definable method (see, for example, Greene and Mastrofski, 1988; Trojanowicz and
Bucqueroux, 1989; Walker, 1999). The Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) within the U.S. Department of Justice defines
community policing as follows:
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the
systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the
immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear
of crime. (COPS, 2014)
Beyond the basic philosophical shift, the various definitions
of community policing generally include several essential features.
These are community involvement, problem solving, a community
base, and redefined goals for the police.
Community Involvement
First, community policing requires cooperation between the police and other members of the
community. The community members may be individual citizens, citizen groups, business
associations, legislative bodies, and other local agencies (such as health departments, building
inspectors, and community development offices). Community involvement does not stop at the
point of calling the police when something occurs. Instead, citizens must be involved in
identifying and solving all sorts of community problems—not just criminal acts.
Problem Solving
The emphasis on problem solving is perhaps the most important element of community
policing. Rather than simply dealing with the crime that occurs through investigation and arrest,
community policing challenges officers to identify the underlying causes and contributors to the
crime and seek out solutions to those problems. Community policing, therefore, sees crime as a
symptom of more basic concerns. The police can either deal with the symptom or try to address
the ultimate cause. While law enforcement should do both, the community policing orientation
shifts the primary attention to the underlying problems.
This orientation also appears under the name problem-oriented policing. Problem- oriented
policing means approaching issues and problems differently based on the uniqueness of each
situation. This is a drastic shift from the traditional view that the police should use the criminal
code to respond to calls for service. If the code prohibits the activity, the police can (and should)
make an arrest and set the criminal justice system in motion. At best, this response will eliminate
further criminal behavior through either its deterrent or incapacitative effect. Events that are not
proscribed in the criminal code can be ignored. The problem-oriented approach argues that
invoking the criminal code is only one avenue for dealing with societal issues. Instead, different
problems require alternative solutions or interventions. The police, therefore, need to identify and
pursue solutions to the root problem.
The difference between problem-oriented policing and community policing is not always clear
or great. One potential differentiating element is the explicit reliance on the community in
community policing. This is not an absolute difference because many “problem-oriented”
approaches also rely on community involvement. At the same time, police sweeps and intensive
patrol can be considered problem-oriented responses that do not need or require citizen
participation. Second, Hoover (1992) suggests that problem-oriented and community policing
differ in the duration of police intervention. Problem-oriented policing involves sustained order
maintenance focusing on specific problems and needs over a limited period. Conversely,
community policing sets up the police as community managers who are involved in wide-ranging
community issues over an extended period (Hoover, 1992). This distinction highlights the central
role of the community in community policing.
Community Base
Critical to community policing is the decentralization of the police operation. Community
policing typically means assigning officers to a specific neighborhood. This may be done in a
variety of ways, including the establishment of neighborhood stations, storefront offices, foot
patrol, and others. The assignments are long term, with the expectation that the officers will
intimately get to know the community, its problems, and its citizens. Community policing
assumes that the failure of the police to identify problems and relate to citizens, among others, is
due to the distance that central stations and patrol cars place between officers and citizens. The
daily interaction with the community should alert the officer to the problems and needs of the
residents. The expected result is increased goodwill on the part of residents and an increased
desire by citizens to assist and involve themselves with the police.
Redefined Goals
The fourth major element of community policing involves altering the goals of policing. In one
sense, this is closely allied to the idea of identifying and attacking the root causes of problems. At
the same time, however, this could mean a great shift in how the police are judged. Most
departments are judged, both by themselves and by the citizenry, in terms of the number of arrests
made. Community policing initiatives, to the extent that they deal with underlying causes and
involve officers in nonarrest activities, require that the department and officers be held to different
standards. In addition to arrests, community policing programs can be judged by reduced crime,
the elimination of problem properties, increased feelings of safety, less neighborhood disorder,
community cohesion, and many other outcomes. It is important to note that community policing
should emphasize the ends, rather than the means to the ends. That is, instead of focusing on how
things get done, the primary concern is the elimination of the root problem.
Summary
Other key features of community policing offered in the literature include a less rigid
organizational structure, a focus on disorder, different training for officers, collaboration, de-
emphasizing calls for service or arrests, and recognizing the complexity of criminal behavior
(Carter, 1995; Eck and Rosenbaum, 1994; Hope, 1994; Walker, 1999; Watson et al., 1998;
Wilkinson and Rosenbaum, 1994). Many of these ideas are implicit in the four major themes
listed earlier. They also reflect the three key components of community- oriented policing as set
forth by the COPS office (see Table 12.1). It is important to note that all these ideas must work in
unison. Just having one component, such as community offices, is not enough. Community
policing requires fundamental changes in philosophy, strategy, and programming (Cordner, 1995).
Table 12.1 Key Components of Community Policing
Community Partnerships
Community policing—recognizing that police rarely can solve public safety problems alone— encourages interactive partnerships with
relevant stakeholders. The range of potential partners is large, and these partnerships can be used to accomplish the two interrelated goals of
developing solutions to problems through collaborative problem solving and improving public trust.
Organizational Transformation
The community policing philosophy focuses on the way that departments are organized and managed and how the infrastructure can be
changed to support the philosophical shift behind community policing. It encourages the application of modern management practices to
increase efficiency and effectiveness. Community policing emphasizes changes in organizational structures to institutionalize its adoption
and infuse it throughout the entire department, including the way it is managed and organized, its personnel, and its technology.
Problem Solving
Community policing emphasizes proactive problem solving in a systematic and routine fashion. Rather than responding to crime only after it
occurs, community policing encourages agencies to proactively develop solutions to the immediate underlying conditions contributing to
public safety problems. Problem solving must be infused into all police operations and guide decision-making efforts. Agencies are
encouraged to think innovatively about their responses and view making arrests as only one of a wide array of potential responses. A major
conceptual vehicle for helping officers to think about problem solving in a structured and disciplined way is the SARA (scanning, analysis,
response, and assessment) problem-solving model.
Source: Compiled by the author from Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2014). https://ric-
zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf
It is also possible to identify what community policing is not. Community policing is not
police–community relations. While community policing should build better rapport and relations
between the police and the public, that effort is not enough to qualify as community policing.
Another common misconception is that moving police officers to foot patrol, storefront offices, or
other methods of decentralization is the same as community policing. Unfortunately, unless there
is a corresponding change in the other elements of community policing, these efforts only change
the location of traditional policing. Community policing also is not simply targeting a problem or
location using traditional police techniques. These efforts may be new for the police organization,
but they do not involve other societal members in the problem solving. Indeed, many traditional
police activities can masquerade as community policing by shifting officers and using new names.
It is important, however, to make more fundamental changes in the organization’s operations.
Problem Identification
A cornerstone of community-oriented policing is the identification of problems and their
solutions. Eck and Spelman (1989) offer a four-step process for problem solving that has been
incorporated into the COPS office. These steps are referred to
as SARA: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. Scanning involves the identification of
the problems, issues, and concerns in the community. This information may arise from the
observations officers make as they work in the community, from residents or businesses who
bring problems to the officers, from other agencies (such as schools or hospitals) in the
community, or from the systematic study of data and information on the area. One primary
method used in scanning involves computer-generated analyses of when and where crime occurs.
The analysis of crime “hot spots” (Sherman, 1995) and the generation of crime maps represent
two such attempts. Other efforts may involve the analysis of calls for service, systematic
observation of the community, or surveying citizens or community groups. In every case, the
police should be working in partnership with others to identify problems that need to be
addressed.
The second stage is the analysis of the problem. It is particularly important that more than just
the police are involved in this activity. An array of individuals and agencies should participate in
the analysis. For example, if drug dealing is centered in a house, apartment, or public housing
building, the police, landlords, housing authority personnel, the health department, and/or the city
attorney need to be involved in the problem analysis. If the drug activity centers on youths, it may
be advisable to include the schools, probation office, or youth groups in the process. The intent is
to bring together a diversity of expertise and insight. This diversity will bring different
information and viewpoints and assist in understanding what factors are involved in the problem.
It is from this cooperative interaction that different responses will emerge. Who is involved in
implementing the response will vary greatly. In some cases, the police may have little day-to-day
involvement in the intervention because the identified response requires expertise and abilities
that the police do not have. An example of this would be the use of civil litigation against owners
of property where drug use is allowed to continue. While the police can deliver summonses, much
of the work will be conducted by lawyers for the jurisdiction and other departments that can help
to shut down the building (such as a health department).
The final, but essential, step is assessment. Eck and Spelman (1989) note that this entire
process can succeed only if the interventions are evaluated for their effectiveness. This evaluation,
however, is not meant simply as a means of gauging success. Rather, its importance is found in
the feedback it provides to the process and to improving (or altering) the intervention. A graphic
depiction of the process can be seen in Figure 12.1.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police incorporate community-oriented policing as a cornerstone
of its Cadet Training program and has adopted a slightly different problem-solving approach from
SARA known as CAPRA. CAPRA stands for Clients, Acquiring and analyzing
information, Partners, Response, and Assessment (RCMP, 2017). The CAPRA variation of SARA
was introduced in 1991 (Deukmedjian, 2006). What makes CAPRA especially noteworthy is the
very explicit incorporation of clients and partners. Clients include anyone who is affected by a
problem. This includes direct victims of crime (individuals, groups, organizations, etc.) and
indirect clients (those hearing about the problems, the larger community, vicarious victims, etc.).
Partners include anyone who can contribute to solving crime problems through a range of
activities, such as providing or pooling resources, supplying personnel, and employing
technology. Acquiring and analyzing information includes elements of both scanning and analysis
from SARA, while Response and Assessment are directly related to those elements in SARA.
Figure 12.1
The SARA Process
SARA, CAPRA, and other systematic problem-solving processes that involve the community
are essential for community policing partnering. No matter what technique or approach is used,
the effort revolves around dealing with the causes of the problems, not the symptoms.
Consequently, assessment of the intervention requires looking at more than just reduced crime,
increased arrests, or other outcomes typically relied on by the police.
Partnership Efforts and Assessment
Partnership programs have grown throughout the United States,
Canada, the United Kingdom, and many other countries. Under the
heading of community policing, Wycoff (1995) reports that
approximately 800 law enforcement agencies in 1993 had
implemented community policing in the United States. As of 2001,
more than 10,000 law enforcement agencies report more than
113,000 community police officers on duty in the United States
(Zhao et al., 2002). The COPS office has allocated more than $14
billion since 1994 to support community-oriented policing, including
funds for hiring police officers, establishing partnerships, evaluating
programs, and other efforts. Besides community-oriented policing,
partnerships appear under a variety of headings and involve police in
a wide range of capacities. These partnerships vary greatly, largely
due to the emphasis on identifying interventions that address a
specific problem. In the following pages, various partnership
initiatives are discussed.
Community Policing
The Chicago Alternative Police Strategy (CAPS) is perhaps the best example of successfully
implementing a community-oriented policing approach. Chicago opted to move its entire police
force into community policing. CAPS began in five of the city’s 25 police beats in 1993 with the
support of the police administration and the mayor (Hartnett and Skogan, 1999). Key aspects of
the program include assigning officers to permanent neighborhood beats, the involvement of
residents in the identification of problems and potential solutions, and the reliance on other
agencies (both public and private) to address identified issues. Citizen interaction is the
cornerstone of the program and the police meet with neighborhood residents to engender
meaningful interaction. These meetings identify a wide range of local problems, including gangs,
drugs, graffiti, burglary, and physical and social disorder (Skogan and Hartnett, 1997).
Interestingly, Graziano et al. (2014) note that fewer than 1 percent of Chicago citizens participate
in the CAPS program.
As expected under community policing, CAPS responses vary from neighborhood to
neighborhood. Improved police enforcement appears throughout the project and often focuses on
drug problems. Efforts to clean up problem locations and generally improve the physical
conditions of neighborhoods represent a major initiative in the program. The ability to improve
the areas is directly related to the ability to mobilize other city services that are suited to those
efforts. Mobilizing residents to provide surveillance, work with one another, call the police, and
take other actions also appear throughout the project (Skogan and Hartnett, 1997). Efforts to
educate residents on neighborhood problems is a cornerstone of successful participation, although
police often fail to impart that information (Graziano et al., 2014). These actions have
successfully reduced the signs of physical decay, have had an impact on the extent of visible gang
and drug activity, have reduced area crime rates, and have improved resident’s attitudes and
assessments of the police and the city (Skogan and Hartnett, 1997). Unfortunately, CAPS is an
exceptional case amid many others in which community policing is little more than a means for
hiring more officers and building good public relations.
Community policing programs rarely undergo any form of rigorous impact evaluation. At best,
evaluations tend to be process evaluations that look at the number of community policing officers
hired and put on the street or the assignment of officers to “community” or neighborhood offices
or beats, thus making them community police officers. Most evaluations fail to assess the degree
of problem-solving taking place, the number and breadth of community members or agencies
involved in the problem identification and problem solving, or the changes in crime, fear, or
disorder related to the problem-solving efforts.
Evidence does exist that the police can build cooperative partnerships with citizens and other
agencies, but when outcome evaluations are completed, the results are typically modest. Zhao et
al. (2002, 2003), analyzing the impact of community policing, report that cities receiving
community policing funds make a significantly greater number of arrests and experience
significantly lower levels of violent and property crimes. What these analyses do not reveal is the
actual community policing activities and the types of partnering efforts that bring about these
changes. It does suggest, however, that community policing creates positive change.
Hot-Spots Policing
The recognition that crimes often cluster in place and time has led to specific efforts to address
that crime convergence, an approach called hot-spots policing. Attacking hot spots requires
analysis of the locale and the generation of interactions appropriate for the problem. This can
include everything from traditional policing to problem-oriented policing to situational crime
prevention techniques. As illustrated in Chapter 9, the confluence of crime by time and place
means that prevention efforts have the potential to have a major impact.
Numerous evaluations report positive results of hot-spots policing. Braga and Bond (2008)
compare different problem-oriented policing activities at 17 hot spots in Lowell, Massachusetts.
Most of the interventions rely on situational crime prevention techniques. Their analysis shows 20
percent fewer calls for service than in the control areas not receiving services. More important,
robbery is down by 40 percent, with burglary and assault down by 33 percent (Braga and Bond,
2008). Taylor et al. (2011), investigating violent crime hot spots in Jacksonville, Florida, uncover
mixed results. The authors compare three groups of hot spots: controls, those receiving
saturation/directed police patrol, and those getting problem-oriented policing/situational crime
prevention. Compared to the control areas, the problem-oriented policing hot spots experience a
significant drop in violent crime. Interestingly, saturation/directed patrol hot spots show increased
crime (Taylor et al., 2011).
Another evaluation reports on the impact of hot-spots policing in Philadelphia. Groff et al.
(2015) conducted a randomized field experiment. The authors looked at the impact of problem-
oriented policing (using the SARA approach), foot patrols, and offender- focused policing
(targeting repeat offenders) in 60 violent crime hot spots (with 20 hot spots randomly assigned to
each condition) and 21 control hot spots. The offender- focused approach has the greatest impact,
reducing crime by 42 percent. Neither the problem-oriented policing nor the foot patrols have a
significant impact on crime (Groff et al., 2015). The authors claim the failure of the problem-
oriented policing activities may be due to poor implementation. Telep et al. (2014), studying
proactive policing in Sacramento, California hot spots, report significant reductions in both calls
for service and Part I crime in experimental areas.
Two reviews provide support for hot-spots policing. A National Research Council review notes
that hot-spots policing is effective at reducing crime (Skogan and Frydl, 2004). Braga et al. (2014)
identify 16 studies with data available for analysis. They report that 85 percent of the results show
that hot-spots policing is effective when compared to control settings. Pooling the individual
study results, Braga et al. (2014) report a significant mean effect of hot-spots policing. Problem-
oriented policing approaches show twice the impact of traditional policing. The results of these
reviews, along with individual study findings, show that hot-spots policing is effective at reducing
crime, although the extent of the impact varies by type of intervention and crime.
Civil Abatement and Injunctions
An interesting partnership for dealing with problems, particularly drug issues, involves the use
of civil abatement and injunction procedures. Civil abatement uses mainly civil and
administrative law and codes to control locations and behavior at locations. These activities may
involve landlords, citizens, health departments, zoning boards, the police, and city/county
attorneys. Injunctions involve court orders placing rules and/or restrictions on the behavior of
individuals. Civil gang injunctions may prohibit gang members from associating in public,
marking territory, trespassing, loitering, or other similar activities. The advent of these efforts can
be traced to work in Portland, Oregon, in 1987 (Davis and Lurigio, 1998).
Two notable areas in which abatement has been used involve gang behavior and drug offenses.
In terms of drug crimes, abatement efforts seek to eliminate the use of locations for drug sales or
drug use. Property owners can be fined, buildings can be confiscated or boarded up, tenants can
be evicted, or structures can be demolished as a result of abatement procedures (Mazerolle and
Roehl, 1998). In terms of gang behavior, injunctions seek to ban gangs from congregating in
public as a group, thus impacting offending behavior. Violating an injunction can result in arrest
(O’Deane, 2012).
Oakland’s Specialized Multi-Agency Response Teams (SMART) is a prime example of civil
abatement. SMART relies on the cooperation of police, citizens, and other groups to solve
neighborhood problems. Civil court remedies are a cornerstone of the project, although police
enforcement and patrol are important components. In a series of reports, Mazerolle and her
colleagues (Green, 1995b; Mazerolle and Roehl, 1999; Mazerolle et al., 1998) demonstrate the
effectiveness of the program. One hundred target sites, divided evenly into experimental and
control groups, formed the basis of the evaluation. At experimental sites, landlords were contacted
by police and received assistance (from the police and other agencies) in dealing with problem
tenants, including evicting intransigent individuals. Civil proceedings could be brought against
both the landlords and the tenants. Data from calls for police service, interviews, and observations
over more than three years reveal significant declines in signs of physical and social disorder,
decreased drug sellers, and increased levels of civil behavior (Green, 1995b; Mazerolle and
Roehl, 1999; Mazerolle et al., 1998). Control areas showed increased problems or little change in
key outcomes.
Two other examples of civil abatement are San Diego’s Drug Abatement Response Team and
Project TOUGH in Los Angeles. The Drug Abatement Response Team (DART) works to
compel landlords to take action against properties and tenants involved in drug offending (Eck,
1998; Eck and Wartell, 1998, 1999). Project TOUGH (Taking Out Urban Gang
Headquarters) does the same in relation to gang headquarters and other gang hangouts. Both
programs seek to force owners to take responsibility for their property. Cristall and Forman-
Echols (2009) note that the use of civil suits is in some ways easier than invoking the criminal
code because the burden of proof is “preponderance of evidence” rather than “beyond a
reasonable doubt” and there is no right to a jury trial. An evaluation of the DART program using a
randomized control trial in problem neighborhoods showed the greatest improvement at full
DART intervention sites, and the results persisted across a 30-month follow-up period. Evictions
were more evident in the treatment group, as were lowered levels of crime and drug problems
(Eck, 1998; Eck and Wartell, 1998, 1999).
Injunctions have been used extensively to address gang problems, particularly in California.
Project TOUGH utilizes injunctions to keep gang members away from certain properties and
locations (Cristall and Forman-Echols, 2009). O’Deane (2012) compared 25 gang injunctions to
25 matched controls using one-year pre- and postinjunction data. Calls for service for Part
I crimes fell almost 12 percent, and calls for service for Part II crimes fell almost 16 percent in the
injunction areas (O’Deane, 2012). There was no decline in the control areas. Other research also
reveals positive results in terms of reduced crime and fear in injunction target areas (Grogger,
2002; Maxson et al., 2004).
These results show that civil abatement projects and injunctions can be successful at building
coalitions of citizens and agencies that are effective at curbing the target problem. At the same
time, however, civil abatement can be a long, cumbersome process, particularly if the property
owner opts to fight the procedures through the courts. Smith and Davis (1998) note that, while
many landlords comply with abatement, there are significant costs associated with legal
procedures, lost rental income, salaries for security guards, and other interventions. Consequently,
landlords often oppose the programs and perceive themselves to be victims in the process.
Injunctions require the identification of a specific problem, location, and remedy. In addition, the
targets of the injunction must be notified in order to be held accountable (O’Deane, 2012). Each
of these factors can pose problems for their use.
CCP, SACSI, and PSN
Three major U.S. initiatives for partnership building are the Comprehensive Communities
Program, the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative, and Project Safe
Neighborhoods. Each of these projects has similar features. The Comprehensive Communities
Program (CCP) was initiated in 1994 as a partnership-building initiative to fight crime and
improve the quality of life in communities (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Fifteen
communities participated in the project. The major key to CCP was to use a problem-solving
approach that included a wide array of community individuals, agencies, and groups. Of particular
interest was to bring the individuals and groups most affected by crime into the project. Materials
available on the CCP spend a great deal of time describing the activities of the partnerships in
each site, with special attention paid to the coalition-building activities (see Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 2001; Kelling, 1998). Few of the sites provided outcome measures on changes in
crime, and those that did generally failed to provide data for comparable control areas (Bureau of
Justice Assistance, 2001). It is not possible, therefore, to know whether the results were due to the
CCP initiative or some other cause.
The Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) project was initiated in
five sites in 1998 to fight primarily violent personal crimes. The lead agency in the SACSI sites
was the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, which attempted to build partnerships consisting mainly of
other criminal justice agencies. In addition, each partnership included a local research team whose
task was to analyze the problem in the community, participate in selecting the appropriate
response, and evaluate the operations of the SACSI team. Local, state, and federal law
enforcement agencies, probation and parole offices, local, state, and federal attorneys, and social
service agencies formed the primary core of participants. Most material available on the SACSI
project was restricted to process evaluations, which showed that partnerships can be successfully
established, although a concerted effort is often needed to sustain them. One analysis of SACSI in
St. Louis (Decker et al., 2005) did look at the reduction in the target behavior (gun crime) and
noted that homicides decreased after the initiation of the project. An evaluation of the TimeZup
SACSI program in New Haven uncovered decreased levels of violent gun crimes, calls for
service, and numbers of guns seized. Other positive results included a reduced fear of crime and
an increased confidence in the police (Hartstone and Richetelli, 2005). An impact evaluation of
Chicago’s Project Safe Neighborhoods presented significant reductions in homicide, gun-related
homicides, and aggravated assaults, although no impact on gang-related homicides (Papachristos
et al., 2007). Finally, Rosenbaum and Roehl’s (2010) national evaluation of SACSI revealed
decreases in homicide and violent crime in 10 program cities compared to all cities of 100,000
population or more.
The most recent federal effort at establishing partnerships to fight crime is the Project Safe
Neighborhoods (PSN) project. Started in 2000, PSN can be considered an outgrowth of SACSI
and it focuses primarily on reducing firearms violence (PSN, 2003). PSN continues to be a
funding focus by the National Institute of Justice (Lab, 2018). The project has five core
components: partnerships, strategic plans, training, outreach, and accountability. Like SACSI, the
project, led by the U.S. Attorney in each judicial district, attempts to bring together law
enforcement and other criminal justice agencies in order to focus on identifying problems and
initiating solutions. Each district is expected to have plans that fit the unique situation in the area.
The public is involved mainly through an educational outreach plan. In an evaluation of violent
crime trends in 82 PSN cities compared to 170 control cities, McGarrell et al. (2010) report a drop
of 4.1 percent in PSN cities and a 0.9 percent drop in the controls. This represents a statistically
significant impact for PSN, with the results being more striking in PSN sites receiving a greater
dosage of the programmatic intervention.
Operation Ceasefire
Several partnerships have addressed gun violence, particularly among juveniles and gang
members. Perhaps the most well-known of these is Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Begun in
1996, the project had several key features. Perhaps the most important feature was the creation of
an interagency working partnership. The task for the group was to assess the nature of the gun
problem and the dynamics of youth violence in Boston and to identify and implement an effective
intervention (Kennedy et al., 2001). The outcome of the planning was a set of interventions aimed
primarily at gangs and gang members. Utilizing the manpower and resources of the police,
probation, parole, and district attorney’s office, the project used a strict enforcement policy for all
individuals and groups involved directly or indirectly in gun violence. Dubbed “pulling levers,”
the project would take any and all actions possible against violators. That meant that any gun
violence would result in the immediate arrest and full prosecution of violators. Probation and
parole violators were vigorously prosecuted for any violation of the conditions of their release.
Gangs and gang members were notified of the project and the potential consequences of their
actions (Kennedy et al., 2001). Social service agencies and federal agencies (such as Immigration
and Naturalization, which was used to deport noncitizen offenders) were also included in the
project.
An evaluation of Operation Ceasefire shows overwhelming positive results. Braga et al. (2001)
report a 63 percent drop in monthly juvenile homicides after initiation of the project. Similarly,
calls to the police about shots being fired decreased by 32 percent and there was a corresponding
drop of 25 percent in assaults with guns (Braga et al., 2001). Although it is not possible to claim
that the drop in firearm offenses is due solely to Operation Ceasefire, there is reason to believe
that the project was a major contributor to the declines.
Operation Ceasefire has been replicated in other cities. In Los Angeles, among the groups
participating in the partnership were the local police departments, probation, parole, various
prosecutors’ offices, community centers, job training programs, churches, and school groups. Tita
et al. (2005) note that violent crime fell as a result of the enforcement tactics, while a small
change was found in gun and gang crime. Prevention measures had little impact. Replication in
Indianapolis finds similar positive outcomes. Corsaro and McGarrell (2009, 2010) and McGarrell
et al. (2006) report significant reductions in homicides, gang-related homicides, and homicides
among 15- to 24-year-olds. Atlanta focused on juvenile firearms violence and relied on similar
partners to those in the other programs. Both prevention and enforcement tactics appear in the
project (Kellermann et al., 2006). The results, however, fail to show support for the program.
Decreases in homicide cannot be attributed to the intervention (Kellermann et al., 2006). Despite
the negative findings in Atlanta, it is evident that the “pulling levers” approach can be effective.
Crime and Disorder Partnerships
The passage of the U.K. Crime and Disorder Act in 1998 mandated the establishment of
community partnerships to combat crime and related problems. These partnerships were meant to
include the local police and a variety of community constituencies, including housing authorities,
victims, health professionals, probation officers, and others. Newburn (2002) notes that the goal is
to address “multi-dimensional problems with multi-dimensional responses.” Crime was not the
only problem to be tackled, thus the need for wide participation by varied groups other than law
enforcement. More than £925 million was spent funding partnerships between 1999 and 2005
(Ellis et al., 2007).
A key component of the Crime and Disorder Act was that each partnership was to carry out a
crime audit (data collected for planning and evaluation purposes) every three years, based on data
for the prior three years. Information should come from a variety of sources, such as police
statistics, victimization surveys, probation data, education, and environmental health. The police
were required to consult with the partnership and use the data to form prevention strategies and
evaluate those strategies (Walklate, 1999). Several authors point out that some attempts to form
partnerships met with less than full success, the police were often the major contributor to the
process, and the exact role of the participants was often poorly outlined (e.g., see Hughes, 2002;
Phillips, 2002; Tierney, 2001). Hughes (2002) points out that many partnerships targeted crimes
that were easier to address (such as burglary) while ignoring more difficult crimes and social
problems that were harder to change. A good deal of the published work about the Crime and
Disorder Act examines the politics surrounding the act and the development of crime audits (see
Crawford, 2001; Gilling, 2005; Hughes et al., 2002). The National Audit Office (2004) noted
large reductions in reported crimes since the initiation of partnerships; however, it was not clear to
what extent the partnerships caused the reductions. Consequently, it is unclear to what extent
these new partnerships were having a significant impact on crime and disorder.
Gang Suppression Programs
In the mid-1990s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) initiated
the Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program. The
program aimed to initiate a comprehensive set of strategies including suppression, opportunities
provision, and social interventions. OJJDP funded program implementation and evaluation in five
cities (Bloomington-Normal, IL; Mesa, AZ; Riverside, CA; Tucson, AZ; and San Antonio, TX).
Each of the programs drew on the expertise of law enforcement, schools, employment
organizations, and other social service agencies.
Several factors emerge across the evaluations. First, several cities struggled with building
programs that included grassroots community organizations. Most of the participants remained
official criminal justice agencies and other social service providers (Spergel et al., 2001, 2002,
2004a, 2004b). Second, suppression remained the primary response in at least three cities (Spergel
et al., 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b). Finally, the more successful programs offered a wider array of
activities that could be considered opportunities provision and social interventions, such as
counseling, referrals, and job training.
The program’s impact on gang membership and crime is also mixed. The evaluations of the
Bloomington-Normal, Mesa, and Riverside programs report reduced offending and reduced
arrests among youths in the experimental neighborhoods (Spergel et al., 2001, 2002, 2003). While
the Bloomington-Normal program appears to have reduced the level of gang participation
(Spergel et al., 2001), there was no apparent impact in Riverside, Tucson, or San Antonio (Spergel
et al., 2003, 2004a, 2004b). Despite the mixed results of the programs, the evidence suggests that
a successfully implemented program that targets a wider array of interventions than just
suppression activities has the ability to positively affect the level of gang crime and gang
membership.
Another major gang suppression initiative is the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative
(CAGI). This program was developed by the U.S. Department of Justice in response to the earlier
“community-wide” program and PSN. As with the earlier initiative, CAGI seeks to build a
coalition of agencies, including law enforcement, prosecutors, social services, governments,
community groups, schools, and others. CAGI addresses enforcement, prevention, and reentry
(McGarrell et al., 2012). A total of 12 cities received funding for program implementation.
Based on the partnership approach, different CAGI cities utilize varied interventions. Directed
police patrol, enhanced probation/parole supervision, active contact with gang members,
enhanced enforcement, new services for gang prevention, and educational programming are the
most common activities (McGarrell et al., 2012). An evaluation of the program compared the
CAGI sites to 249 comparable cities. Results show an 11.9 percent decline in gun homicides the
year after CAGI was initiated, with greater impact emerging in cities with higher levels of
enforcement (McGarrell et al., 2012). The authors note that the results vary by city, with some
reductions not achieving statistical significance. McGarrell and colleagues call for continued
funding of these efforts and the use of expanded planning for the programs.
Problems and Concerns
Many studies that show the potential positive impact of partnerships also demonstrate some
stumbling blocks and weaknesses. Implementation is often a problem due to the change in
philosophy being imposed on the police (Bennett, 1994; Eck and Rosenbaum, 1994; Rosenbaum,
2002; Sadd and Grinc, 1994) and other organizations. Meyer and Mazerolle (2014) note that there
needs to be a philosophical fit between the police and the partners. Crawford (2001) notes that
clear power differentials often exist between participants, which makes cooperation difficult and
the participants cautious about their roles. Participants need to understand the roles,
responsibilities, and expectations of all partners in order to build trust and meaningful operations
(McCarthy and O’Neill, 2014; Meyer and Mazerolle, 2014). There are also differences in the
levels and types of resources that the various partners can contribute, thus raising the possibility
that those with greater expertise and more resources have more input into the selection of
problems and their solutions (Crawford, 2001; Meyer and Mazerolle, 2014; Tilley, 2005).
Rosenbaum (2002) notes that some people are concerned that partnerships are dysfunctional and
tend to act too slowly. Critics also claim that partnerships tend not to be truly representative of the
community, thus defeating the intended purpose of having community input (Rosenbaum, 2002).
At the same time, participants who are involved tend to develop a positive attitude toward
partnership efforts (Rosenbaum, 2002; Skogan, 1995). While there remains a large number of
evaluations questioning the efficacy of partnerships, the evidence appears to be turning in favor of
partnership efforts. The key is to develop successful partnerships.
Successful Partnerships
The research on partnerships illuminates several keys to building successful partnerships
(see Table 12.2). One of the most important factors is identifying and recruiting strong leaders and
managers (Brown, 2006; Hedderman and Williams, 2001; Homel et al., 2004; Scott, 2006). These
individuals are essential for maintaining focus for the partnership and promoting enthusiasm over
time. The failure to adequately identify the target problem and the appropriate intervention is a
common problem. Building agreement is not an easy task (Homel et al., 2004; Kelling, 2005).
Researching the problem to truly understand its extent and causes greatly assists in the building
agreement, as well as subsequent activities (Kelling, 2005; Scott, 2006). Once the problem and
intervention are identified, it is necessary to recruit qualified staff for implementing the project
(Homel et al., 2004; Hedderman and Williams, 2001; Scott, 2006). Training and education of the
various participants in partnerships are essential to both the effectiveness of the efforts and their
acceptance (Sadd and Grinc, 1996; Skogan, 1995; Skolnick and Bayley, 1988). Members of the
partnership need to be educated about community outreach, coalition building, and problem
identification.
Table 12.2 Features of Successful Partnerships
1. Identify strong leaders and managers.
2. Agree on the problem and intervention.
3. Recruit qualified staff.
4. Research the problem.
5. Build grassroots support.
6. Identify adequate funding and resources.
7. Provide good oversight of project implementation.
8. Evaluate the efforts.
Successfully proceeding with the intervention requires a number of other actions. Foremost
among them is building grassroots support in the community (Scott, 2006). Interventions have a
better chance of success if the public cooperates rather than fights the efforts. Many partnership
initiatives become unilateral activities by the police or are poorly coordinated and implemented
(Buerger, 1994; Moore, 1994; Sadd and Grinc, 1994, 1996; Skogan, 1995, 1996). Community
support also contributes to identifying and securing adequate resources and funding (Homel et al.,
2004; Scott, 2006; Tilley, 2005). Without resources, projects cannot function. Once a project is
operating there is a need for good project oversight (Brown, 2006; Hedderman and Williams,
2001; Homel et al., 2004). A final key to success is including a meaningful process and impact
evaluation (Scott, 2006). This evaluation should be conducted by researchers or agencies not
involved in the program delivery (Homel et al., 2004).
Summary
A major argument underlying partnerships entails the fact that crime and community problems
are beyond the ability of the criminal justice system to solve by itself. The police and other
criminal justice agencies need to partner with social service agencies, community groups, and the
citizenry if they are to have an impact on the underlying causes of crime. These collaborations
have the potential to bring a wide array of new and innovative ways of looking at problems, as
well as proposing solutions to those problems. They also bring different skills, abilities, and
resources that can be used to implement the proposed solutions. Unfortunately, up to this point
there have been relatively few good outcome evaluations conducted on community policing and
partnership initiatives. What has been produced are extensive process evaluations that point out
the issues and concerns with building and operating a coalition. The next step is to evaluate
whether they have a significant impact on crime and fear.
Chapter 13 Substance Use, Crime, and
Crime Prevention
After reading this chapter you should be able to:
Provide insight into the extent of drug use in society and among offending populations.
Demonstrate your knowledge of key sources of data on drug use.
Diagram the possible relationships between drug use and crime, and discuss the evidence on
each.
Tell what a psychopharmacological explanation of the drugs–crime relationship is.
Identify different forms of drug treatment.
Discuss NIDA’s principles of effective treatment.
Talk about maintenance programs and their impact on drug use.
Explain what a therapeutic community is and the extent of its effect.
Define detoxification and relate its ability to affect drug use.
Discuss NIDA’s principles of effective prevention.
Discuss D.A.R.E. and its new version Keepin’ It REAL: what it is and what impact it has had.
Explain the purpose behind education/information/knowledge programs and their impact on
drug use.
The relationship between substance use and crime is a persistent
concern in society. The role of alcohol in criminal events has long
been a subject in the criminological literature. Wolfgang (1958), in an
analysis of Philadelphia homicides over a five-year period, reported
that alcohol consumption by the offender and/or the victim was a
common occurrence in the events. This finding has been confirmed
in numerous analyses over the years. Since the 1970s, attention has
turned to the discussion of illicit drug use and crime. Violent crime
stemming from the drug trade has been a regular feature on the
evening news and in the print media. Over the past two years, the
opioid crisis has had an impact on all facets of U.S. society from
those who use the drugs to those who create programs and projects
to address the problem.
While the focus today tends to be on “drugs,” many discussions
inappropriately tend to ignore or downplay alcohol. It is important to
note that alcohol is a drug with many of the same or similar
consequences of “illicit” drug use. Users can become addicted, and
its use is often related to unacceptable antisocial behavior. In this
chapter, unless otherwise noted, the terms drugs and drug
use included alcohol.
The issue of drug use is best addressed within the framework of
secondary prevention. For many individuals, itself is not a concern.
Those who use drugs do so voluntarily. They purchase the drug and
use it themselves. At no point do they forcibly make another
individual use drugs. In this respect, drug use is a victimless crime.
Both the offender and the victim are the same individual. Most
individuals do not know of anyone who uses illicit drugs on a daily
basis or, at least, are not aware that someone they know is a daily
user. Consequently, actual drug use is not a concern.
Societal concern arises from problems and issues related to drug
use. Crimes committed as a direct result of drug use are one cause of
societal concern. Crimes committed to provide funds for drugs
become a problem affecting more than the consensual user. Society
often bears the costs related to caring for a user’s family or handling
addicted individuals. There is also evidence of pressure on youths to
participate in drug use. Such pressure may force an impressionable
individual into use and other related problems. The drug problem,
therefore, includes more than just the individual choice to use a
drug.
Drug use is one means of predicting or identifying potential
problems in society. Targeting those involved in drug use may serve
to alleviate the problems (crime and otherwise) that stem from drug
use. As with many interventions, those tied to drug issues do not fall
exclusively in the realm of secondary prevention. Efforts to work with
current users are themselves tertiary in nature. Other methods
aimed at preventing initial use may be construed as primary
prevention, especially if implemented on a broad scale. The fact that
the actual concern in dealing with drugs lies with the related crime
and societal problems, however, means that drug issues are most
properly dealt with in terms of secondary prevention.
In discussions of the drug problem, there are a number of
unresolved issues. The first deals with the actual level of drug
use/abuse in society and changes in drug use over time. Second,
implicit in the concern about drug use is the assumption of a clear
drug–crime connection. The common belief is that drug use causes
other criminal behavior. A third issue involves the effectiveness of
different interventions. What impact do law enforcement, treatment,
and other preventive approaches have on the level of drug use and
related crime? Answers to this question may suggest the proper
means of dealing with drug use in the future.
The Scope of Drug Use
The extent of drug use is somewhat difficult to gauge due to the
difficulties of measuring private behavior. Unlike most other crimes,
drug use has no victim independent of the offender—they are one
and the same. Available data rely on self-reports of drug use in the
general population or on information on known offenders. A
discussion of both these sources is presented in the following in
order to gain some understanding about the drug problem.
Self-Reported Drug Use
Perhaps the most well-known survey of drug use is the Monitoring the Future (MTF)
project carried out by Johnston and associates. This project consists of surveying representative
high school students (8th, 10th, and 12th graders), college students, and young adults (Johnston et
al., 2014). “Young adults” refers to high school graduates within 10 years of leaving school.
While the survey probes a variety of factors, the most important set of information deals with the
level and type of drug use. Table 13.1 presents information on lifetime, annual, and past-month
drug use for high school seniors, college students, and young adults in 2017. It can be seen that
drug use varies by type of drug.
Looking at the data for all age groups in 2017, the most prevalent drug is alcohol. This is true
for all three time frames—lifetime, annual, and past month. Alcohol is used by more than 60
percent of the 12th graders and roughly 80 percent or more of the college and young adult
respondents over their lifetime, with 33 percent of 12th graders and two-thirds of college students
and young adults claiming alcohol use during the past month. Marijuana is the next most
prominent drug for all age groups over all periods. The remainder of the drugs is used by
relatively few respondents. This is particularly pronounced in the “past-month” category, where 3
percent or fewer of any age group admit to using any drug besides alcohol or marijuana. Although
lifetime use is higher (as expected in light of the longer time frame), it is frequent use that should
be of greatest interest, thus the focus on the past-month category.
Another source of information on drug use is the National Survey on Drug Use and Health,
which is conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA). This survey covers a representative sample of U.S. respondents aged 12 and
older. Table 13.2 provides data for four adult age groups. As in the MTF, alcohol is the most
commonly used drug across all age groups and time frames. Marijuana is the next most
commonly used drug, followed by hallucinogens and cocaine. The percentage claiming use
hallucinogens and cocaine drops significantly when considering the last-year or last-month
periods. For most drugs, few individuals report use in any time category.
The figures in Tables 13.1 and 13.2 are interesting for several reasons. First, drugs that are of
the most concern to society are used by a small percentage of the population. Cocaine, crack,
heroin, and the other drugs are not the most prevalent drugs in use. Alcohol, a legal drug for
adults, is the most commonly used substance. Second, data based on drug use in the past year and
last 30 days show the same depressed level of illicit drug use among all groups of respondents.
Lifetime and past-year use should not be used as an indicator of a drug “problem” because such
use may simply reflect ordinary experimentation (Stephens, 1987). The low figures in the tables
suggest mainly experimental use of illicit drugs. Third, the use of most drugs has generally
remained stable with some small increases and decreases over time (trend data not shown). These
self-reported data suggest that the drug problem (at least in terms of illicit drugs) is relatively
minor, although the recent increases need to be carefully monitored.
The self-reported figures must be considered cautiously, however, for a variety of reasons.
First, the numbers only reflect the use of drugs, they do not offer insight into the consequences of
drug use. Perhaps the most illustrative example of this is the data on drug overdose deaths. Data
for 2017 reveals more than 72,000 overdose deaths in the United States (National Institute on
Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2018). This is an increase of more than 50,000 deaths compared to 1999
data. Almost 7 out of 10 overdose deaths involve fentanyl, a synthetic opioid (an increase of
roughly 23,000 deaths in four years). While a relatively small proportion of the population sues
fentanyl, its impact is substantial.
Second, there are questions of generalizability in some self-reported data. The MTF data are
not representative of the entire population. The fact that the high school and college students are
(or were) attending school ignores the fact that many youths drop out of high school or do not go
to college. Dropping out is especially great among inner-city youths, where the drug trade appears
to be most concentrated. Johnston et al. (1989) point out that roughly 15 to 20 percent of high
school students drop out and are not included in the survey each year, and that dropouts tend to
use drugs more often than non-dropouts. In a study of runaway/homeless youths, Fors and Rojek
(1991) find that these individuals report two to seven times the level of substance use/abuse of
school youths. These facts suggest that the MTF data underreport the level of drug use.
Self-report figures, such as those presented here, suggest that the drug problem, particularly
more serious illicit drug use, is not running rampant in society. Relatively few individuals use
illicit drugs with even the grossest measure of regularity (within 30 days). Figures for daily use
fall to almost zero for most illicit drugs. This is not to suggest that drugs are not a problem. Many
individuals die from the use of drugs. Those who drop out appear to use drugs at a much higher
rate than high school graduates. Finally, criminal offenders may be more involved in drugs than
non-offenders. The extent to which drugs are used by offenders can be examined through other
sources of information.
Drug Use Among Offending Populations
It is commonly assumed that many offenders are regular users of drugs and that drug use is
intricately related to the commission of a crime. Support for such a contention comes from
various studies of offenders. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program (1998–
2004) and its predecessor the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (1987–1997) systematically
gathered in-depth information on drug use by offenders. The original programs gathered self-
reports and urinalysis data from arrestees in up to 35 cities. ADAM ceased data collection in
2003. ADAM II, a scaled-down version of the original ADAM program, which gathered data
from 10 cities between 2007 and 2012. Only five cities were used in the final year of the ADAM
II project (2013).
In the DUF and ADAM programs, arrestees voluntarily agreed to be interviewed and give a
urine sample for testing. The urinalysis is tested for 10 different drugs (including cocaine, opiates,
marijuana, methadone, benzodiazepine [Valium], phencyclidine [PCP], propoxyphene [Darvon],
barbiturates, and amphetamines). All information was anonymous. The data provided information
on the type of drug use, changes in use over time, the age and race distribution of users, and arrest
charges related to different drugs (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2014). See Table 13.3.
ADAM II results show that drug use is very common among arrestees. Urinalysis from five
sites in 2013 reveals that better than 60 percent of all arrestees test positive for recent drug use of
any type. In four cities, greater than 70 percent test positive for some drug type. Cocaine and
marijuana are the most prevalent drugs according to test results. Drug use also varies from city to
city.
Table 13.3 Percentages of Arrestees Testing Positive for Select Drugs, 2013 (ADAM II)
Drug use figures are also available for inmates of correctional institutions and those in court.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA; 2010) at Columbia University
analyzed data on federal and state inmates and uncovered significant levels of alcohol and drug
use. Almost 85 percent of the inmates (1.9 million) were involved with some substance, including
78 percent of violent crime offenders and 83 percent of property crime offenders (CASA, 2010).
In addition, alcohol was involved in 57 percent of the actions for which inmates were incarcerated
and illicit drugs were involved in 76 percent of the cases. Hochenberry and Puzzanchera (2018)
report that, in 2016, 13 percent of all youths in juvenile court are there for drug offenses and that
16 percent of those are placed in some type of out-of-home facility. While these figures based on
offending populations provide support for a relationship between drug use and crime, there are
potential problems to keep in mind. First, this information reflects only the individuals who are
caught by the system. It is possible that the use of drugs increases the risk of apprehension. Those
not apprehended may not use drugs or, at least, not at the same level. Second, the DUF and
ADAM data reflect drug use in major urban areas. Consequently, the results are only
generalizable to other comparable large cities. Drug use probably differs between large and small
communities, just as crime differs.
Official statistics, such as those referenced above, tend to focus on illicit drug use by offenders.
A wider range of analyses assess the use of alcohol in offending. These studies typically involve
the secondary analysis of crime reports or surveys of some groups of respondents. Several studies
(Brookman, 2005; Dobash et al., 2004; Miles, 2012; Shaw et al., 2006) reveal that a large
proportion of homicides involve alcohol use by the offender and/or the victim (similar to
Wolfgang, 1958). Popovici et al. (2012) report that alcohol consumption is related to greater
chances of being involved in criminal activity, particularly predatory crime. In a meta-analysis of
studies, Exum (2006) claims there is a clear causal relationship between alcohol and aggression.
Summary
The data on drug use, both from self-reports of the general population and from offending
groups, provide valuable information. The general population data suggest that illicit drug use is
not as widespread as the media portrays. Most drug use appears to be experimental or occasional
in nature. The data on offenders point out that drug use is common among those who are
apprehended for crimes. Although not necessarily representative of all offenders, those who are
caught make up a large group of individuals. The results, therefore, should not be dismissed
simply due to low clearance rates or lack of representativeness. Drug use may be considered a risk
factor in other criminal behavior. That is, the use of drugs may be a predictor of other deviant
activity. This fact receives further support when considering the relationship between drug use
and crime, which is taken up next.
The Drugs–Crime Connection
The connection between drug use and crime has received a great deal of attention. A simple
inspection of data reveals a strong correlation between drugs and crime. Situations in which many
of the offenders test positive for drug use provide a strong basis for claiming a causal relationship.
Simple correlations, however, are not enough to establish clear evidence of causation.
The relationship between drug use and crime has been hypothesized to take a variety of forms.
White (1990) outlines four possible models for the relationship (see Figure 13.1). First, drug use
causes criminal activity. Second, criminal activity causes drug use. Third, there is a reciprocal
relationship in which both drug use and criminal activity cause one another. Finally, the
relationship between the two is spurious with other factors (possibly the same ones) causing drug
use and crime. Various studies have attempted to untangle which causal sequence is correct.
The first model attempts to show that drugs cause the user to commit other crimes. Crime may
be the result of a psychopharmacological reaction, economic need, or simple participation in the
drug trade (Goldstein, 1989). The psychopharmacological explanation suggests that various
drugs have a direct impact on the user, both physically and psychologically, which impels the
individual to act in such a way that society deems unacceptable. The intent of the individual may
not be to commit a crime. The drug simply determines the action, which may or may not be
criminal. The economics of drug use can also lead to deviance. The increasing need for money to
secure drugs can lead to property crimes. Various studies show that drug users are often involved
in property offenses (Anglin and Speckart, 1988; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; Collins et al., 1985;
Harrison and Gfroerer, 1992; Johnson et al., 1985, 1988; National Institute of Justice, 1990).
Participation in drug use also may lead to systemic violence (Goldstein, 1989). Systemic
violence refers to violence resulting from competition among drug dealers, retaliation for poor
drug quality or high prices, robbery of drug dealers or users, and other factors related to the drug
trade. Using New York City data, Goldstein et al. (1992) report that 74 percent of all drug- related
homicides are due to systemic factors of the drug trade. To the extent that crime fits one of these
categories, the first model finds qualified support. Of the three potential arguments, the
psychopharmacological explanation is the most difficult to prove and has been criticized for
ignoring evidence that much drug use actually reduces physical action and violent tendencies and
only appears in interaction with specific dispositions and social/cultural settings (McBride and
Schwartz, 1990). The economic and systemic arguments require attention to the temporal order in
the drugs–crime relationship.
Figure 13.1
Possible Relationships Between Drug Use and Delinquency
Drug Use Causes Crime
Studies claiming support for drug use causing crime typically rely on studies of drug addicts or
high-rate users of drugs. Ball et al. (1983), studying 354 heroin addicts, note that their crime rate
is four to six times higher when they are actively using drugs. Similarly, Collins et al. (1985)
report that daily heroin/cocaine users tend to commit property offenses at a substantially higher
rate than weekly users or nonusers. Drug use, especially involving expensive drugs and drug
habits, necessitates the commission of “income- generating crimes” in order to maintain the
pattern of use (Collins et al., 1985). Anglin and Hser (1987) and Anglin and Speckart (1988) note
that arrests and self-reported crimes increase at the onset of first narcotics use and first daily use
and decrease at last daily use. Use also declines during treatment and increases when subjects
leave treatment (Anglin and Hser, 1987; Anglin and Speckart, 1988). Huizinga et al. (1994) note
that changes in substance abuse precede changes in the levels of other delinquent activity.
Crime Causes Drug Use
The second possibility is that involvement in crime causes drug use. Numerous studies suggest
that involvement in criminal behavior precedes drug use. Using longitudinal data on almost 2,000
high school graduates in the Youth in Transition project, Johnston and associates (1978) report
that general delinquency predates most drug use. The authors argue that youths turn to drug use as
an extension of other deviant behavior. Data from the National Youth Survey (NYS), an ongoing
longitudinal panel study, reveal essentially the same result. Information on delinquency, drug use,
and demographic factors for the first six waves of data collection (1976–1983) shows a general
progression in behavior starting with minor delinquency and leading to alcohol use, index
offenses, marijuana use, and polydrug use, in that order (Huizinga et al., 1989). Except for the
early appearance of alcohol, illicit drug use temporally follows delinquent/criminal behavior.
Indeed, the authors note that minor delinquency precedes polydrug use 99 to 100 percent of the
time (Huizinga et al., 1989). Chaiken and Chaiken (1990), examining data from the NYS, a
survey of prison inmates, and a sample of New York City drug addicts, note that delinquency
predates drug use at least 50 percent of the time. The same pattern of drug use following
delinquency is reported by Inciardi et al. (1993) in a study of serious inner-city delinquents. Other
authors (Anglin and Hser, 1987; Anglin and Speckart, 1988; Elliott and Ageton, 1981; Elliott et
al., 1989; Hunt, 1990; Johnson et al., 1985) also note that drug use follows crime. The typical
explanation for this finding is that drug use is simply another form of deviant behavior, and
involvement with delinquency/criminality provides the resources and contacts necessary for
entering into drug use.
Reciprocal Relationship
Given the studies reporting a different sequencing in the drugs–crime relationship, it is
plausible to argue that the actual relationship is reciprocal. That is, criminal activity leads to drug
use and drug use leads to criminal activity. Support for a reciprocal relationship can be found in
many studies. Nurco et al. (1988) note that addiction increases crime by “previous offenders.”
Studies of drug addicts typically relate that arrests “increase” after drug use or intensified use,
leading to the conclusion that the subjects committed offenses prior to that point in time (Anglin
and Hser, 1987; Anglin and Speckart, 1988; Collins et al., 1985). Hunt (1990) points out that,
while prostitution increases with drug use, a substantial number of female drug users participated
in prostitution and other offenses prior to drug use. Finally, van Kammen and Loeber’s (1994)
analysis of data for Pittsburgh youths shows that property offending predicts the onset of drug
use, although drug use escalates the commission of personal crime. It would appear that,
regardless of which came first, drug use and crime may contribute to each other. Drug use leads to
crime and crime leads to drug use.
Spurious Relationship
The argument that seems to be gaining the strongest support is the claim that the relationship
between drug use and delinquency is spurious. This simply means that, while use and crime exist
at the same time and vary in a similar fashion, neither is the ultimate cause of the other. Rather,
they are caused by either the same common factors or by different factors. Huba and Bentler
(1983) and Kandel et al. (1986) claim that there is no causal relationship between drug use and
crime. Rather, these two sets of behavior are caused by other similar factors. White et al. (1987),
using self-reported data for almost 900 youths, point out that there are common causes of
delinquency and drug use. Foremost among these factors are peer and school influences. The
same analysis of the NYS data, which points out a sequence of behavior beginning with minor
offending and ending with polydrug use (Huizinga et al., 1989), concludes that the actual cause of
the behaviors probably lies with a common set of spurious influences. Other research leads to the
same conclusion (Collins, 1989; Elliott et al., 1979, 1985; Fagan and Weis, 1990; Hawkins and
Weis, 1985; Kandel et al., 1986; Loeber, 1988; White, 1990).
Summary
The fact that drug use is related to criminal activity cannot be
disputed. The causal relationship, however, is unclear. The inability
to definitively identify a causal sequencing does not render the
relationship useless to crime prevention. A strong correlation
between the two behaviors means that drug use can be used as a
predictor of other criminal behavior (Elliott and Huizinga, 1984;
Kandel et al., 1986; Newcomb and Bentler, 1988). Miles (2012)
makes the case that alcohol is not a cause of homicide. Rather,
alcohol use increases the risk and opportunities for homicides due to
contextual situations.
The research cited earlier also suggests that each behavior contributes to the other, thereby
providing insight for intervention and treatment. It may be possible to attack crime by attacking
drug use. Certainly, targeting drug users for intervention means dealing with those who are at
higher risk of participating in other criminal activities. Intervening with drug users will also
reduce crime to the extent to which drug use does contribute to criminal activity.
Interventions and Prevention
Interventions aimed at limiting drug use and related crime take a variety of forms. Most of the
approaches fall under three general areas—law enforcement, treatment, and prevention. The great
number and diversity of possible responses to the drug–crime problem cannot be adequately
discussed in the space available. Indeed, some of the proposed solutions do not fit in the present
discussion. The following discussion, therefore, is somewhat selective. Among the topics not
covered here (or covered in abbreviated fashion) are efforts at drug interdiction and foreign policy
issues, targeting organized crime, drug testing, decriminalization, and legalization. While each of
these topics is worthy of discussion, they are beyond the scope of the present work.
Law Enforcement Efforts
The ongoing “drug war” is primarily an effort that uses law enforcement techniques as the main
weapon against drug use. This is evident in the federal government’s budgetary priority favoring
law enforcement over treatment or prevention programs. Underlying law enforcement actions is
the assumption that drug use and related crime can be limited or eliminated by supply reduction.
Taking drugs off the street will make it more difficult for users to locate the drugs, and if the
drugs can be found, the price will be driven so high that many potential users will simply abstain.
In essence, these approaches assume that the demand for drugs is a factor of the supply.
Police crackdowns on drug availability are common responses. New York City’s Operation
Pressure Point involved saturating the Alphabet City area on the Lower East Side of Manhattan
with police officers and resources. Drug buyers could shop around different dealers, often in plain
view, in order to secure the best price and quality in the area (Zimmer, 1987). The police
operation was credited with thousands of arrests, the elimination of the drug supermarket, and
significant reductions in robbery, burglary, and homicide (Kleiman, 1988). Unfortunately, the
program led some dealers and buyers to find new means for doing business (i.e., displacement),
and the program lasted only as long as the police maintained their heightened presence (Johnson
et al., 1990; Kleiman and Smith, 1990). Similar results appeared in an evaluation of a police
crackdown in Lynn, Massachusetts.
The fact that gangs have become more involved in drug use and sales has led various
jurisdictions to jointly target gangs and drugs. Los Angeles’s Community Resources Against
Street Hoodlums (CRASH) program is a prime example of police targeting of gang behavior.
These efforts, however, have not shown an impact on the drug problem or other gang behavior,
including gang homicides (Kleiman and Smith, 1990). As noted in the last chapter, the police also
have been intimately involved in abatement programs that target drug locations.
The targeting of locations is not restricted to drug markets. The concentration of bars and other
alcohol outlets is also related to crime (Gmel et al., 2016). Wheeler (2018), analyzing the location
of establishments with alcohol licenses and crime counts, uncovers that alcohol outlets have a
clear impact on crime. This is particularly true for thefts, assaults, and robberies. This finding
mirrors those of other authors (Bernasco and Block, 2011; Pridemore and Grubesic, 2013; Murray
and Roncek, 2008). These results suggest increased police attention to locations of concentrated
alcohol establishments.
Perhaps the most recent police response to drug use shifts officers from law enforcement to
medical first responders. Police are expected to take appropriate actions to assist opioid overdose
victims, despite the fact they are not trained medical personnel. Some law enforcement officers
have received basic training in the use of naloxone. Naloxone is a prescription drug that quickly
reverses the impact of opioids, thus restoring normal respiration and reviving the person who has
overdosed. Accompanying this first responder approach has been the emergence of “good
Samaritan” laws related to drug overdoses. Under these laws, law enforcement is prohibited from
arresting the individual if the person agrees to seek out assistance for his or her addiction.
Unfortunately, actually undergoing treatment is not a requirement and there is little or no follow-
up by the police or prosecution.
The size and scope of the drug problem appear to be more than basic police enforcement can
handle. Attacking alcohol establishments and/or the retail level of the drug chain may result in
many arrests but will probably have little impact beyond overburdening the already overcrowded
criminal justice system (Belenko, 1990). Similarly, acting as medical first responders does little, if
anything, to alter drug use. Assumptions that law enforcement efforts will significantly reduce
access to alcohol or drugs for any long period are ill conceived. There is a need for an
accompanying reduction in the demand for drugs.
Treatment of Drug Users
Drug treatment can take a wide variety of forms and may involve greatly divergent approaches.
Research on treatment programs has provided some insights regarding what is most effective. The
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) offers a list of 13 principles of effective treatment
applying to all drugs, including alcohol (see Table 13.4). These principles address the general
issues that can be applied across different programs in ways that respond to the unique needs of
the clients. The wide array of factors contributing to drug use/abuse means that treatment needs to
comprehensively address the problems. Figure 13.2 provides a comprehensive model for drug
abuse treatment.
Table 13.4 NIDA’s 13 Principles of Effective Treatment for Drug Abuse
1. Addiction is a complex but treatable disease that affects brain function and behavior.
2. No single program is appropriate for all individuals.
3. Treatment needs to be readily available.
4. Effective treatment attends to multiple needs of the individual, not just his or her drug abuse.
5. Remaining in treatment for an adequate time is critical.
6. Behavioral therapies—including individual, family, or group counseling—are the most commonly used forms of drug abuse treatment.
7. Medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially combined with counseling and other behavioral
therapies.
8. An individual’s treatment and services plan must be addressed continually and modified as necessary to ensure it meets his changing
needs.
9. Many drug-addicted individuals also have other mental disorders.
10
.
Medically assisted detoxification is only the first stage of addiction treatment and by itself does little to change long-term drug abuse.
11. Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
12
.
Drug use during treatment must be monitored continuously, as lapses during treatment do occur.
13
.
Treatment programs should test patients for the presence of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases as
well as provide targeted risk-reduction counseling, linking patients to treatment if necessary.
Source: NIDA (2018). Retrieved from https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/675-
principles-of-drug-addiction-treatment-a-research-based-guide-third-edition.pdf
Most interventions can be grouped into one of four general types. These are maintenance
programs, detoxification, therapeutic communities, and outpatient drug-free programs. Although
each of these groupings promotes a different major emphasis, many similarities and common
features appear across the programs. For example, counseling and therapy of one sort or another
appear in virtually all the programs.
Maintenance Programs
Maintenance programs, a common intervention for addicted individuals, seek to establish a
steady state in which the individual does not experience withdrawal symptoms when the drug
begins to wear off (NIDA, 2018). Consequently, the user will be able to function more normally
and participate in everyday activities without the constant need for the drug (Stephens, 1987). The
most common form of maintenance program is methadone maintenance. This involves the
provision of methadone to heroin/opiate addicts. Methadone is an oral substitute for heroin and
opioids, which needs to be taken only once in a 24-hour period. Buprenorphine is another
synthetic opioid that operates in a similar fashion to methadone (NIDA, 2018). Over time, those
on maintenance will no longer experience the highs and lows of addiction to other drugs. A
primary assumption underlying these programs is that the patient is unable to function without
some form of drug use and that methadone is an acceptable substitute for other, more damaging
drugs.
Figure 13.2
Components of Comprehensive Drug Abuse Treatment
Most methadone maintenance programs include a variety of components. Periodic urinalysis is
used to check that patients are not using other drugs while receiving methadone. Counseling, both
individual and group, along with guidelines for behavior and sanctions for violations, is common
(Anglin and Hser, 1990). Some programs attempt to slowly detoxify their patients. That is, they
attempt to reduce the methadone dosage and wean the subjects from the need for any drug use.
The level of these various components, however, varies greatly from program to program (Ball et
al., 1986).
Evaluations of the effectiveness of methadone maintenance programs show generally positive
results (NIDA, 2018). Various researchers (Anglin and McGlothlin, 1984; Ball et al., 1987; Hser
et al., 1988) report that methadone patients use fewer illicit drugs, commit fewer crimes, and are
arrested less often than when not on the program. Additionally, the termination of methadone
maintenance shows a return to preprogram levels of drug use and criminal activity (Anglin et al.,
1989; McGlothlin and Anglin, 1981). It would appear from these results that maintenance is a
feasible approach to the drug–crime problem. The programs, however, are not without critics.
Stephens (1987) points out that these programs are applicable only to narcotics and ignore the
much larger numbers of other drug users. Additionally, the patients are often nonproductive and
on welfare. They do not necessarily reenter the job market and become productive societal
members. Anglin and Hser (1990) further point out that the research typically fails to use
adequate control groups. The results, therefore, are subject to much criticism.
Detoxification
Closely related to maintenance programs is detoxification. Detoxification uses drugs in a short-
term program of controlled withdrawal. The basic idea is to wean the client from the addiction
with a minimal amount of discomfort and pain. These types of programs can be found in many
hospitals and facilities throughout the country and target a wide range of drugs from alcohol to
heroin. Naltrexone is one example of a drug used in detoxification (NIDA, 2018). Detoxification
needs to be accompanied by counseling, referral, or other services to address the social,
psychological, and related issues to the abuse (NIDA, 2018). Anglin and Hser (1990) point out
that while short-term follow-up shows that detoxification is successful at eliminating drug use,
detoxification has not been adequately evaluated over the long term. Bellis (1981) notes that
detoxification is used by some addicts to reduce the need for massive amounts of a drug in order
to get high. The detoxification simply allows the addict to start the cycle of addiction over again
by achieving a high with smaller amounts of the drug.
Therapeutic Communities
Therapeutic communities emphasize providing a supportive, highly structured atmosphere
within which individuals can be helped to alter their personality and develop social relationships
conducive to conforming behavior (Anglin and Hser, 1990). These residential programs operate as
surrogate families for clients. In many cases, therapeutic communities are run by current or past
clients. The daily routine is often very structured and includes intensive group sessions. Programs
may also include education, vocational training, or mandatory employment (NIDA, 2018).
Examples of therapeutic communities are Synanon, Daytop Village, and Phoenix House.
The research on therapeutic communities consistently shows lowered drug use and criminal
activity (Anglin and Hser, 1990; Coombs, 1981; DeLeon, 1984; DeLeon and Rosenthal, 1989).
The Integrated Multi-Phasic Program Assessment and Comprehensive Treatment (IMPACT)
program deals with single, unemployed, minority males with long criminal histories. The program
results indicate that recidivism is tied to the length of treatment, with longer treatment resulting in
lower recidivism (Swartz et al., 1996). Inciardi (1996) reports on the KEY program, which is a
prison-based therapeutic community in Delaware. Both 6- and 18-month follow-up data show that
many more program clients remain drug- and arrest-free than do control group clients (Inciardi,
1996). These studies bolster the claims of program success.
Outpatient Drug-Free Programs
Outpatient programs often resemble therapeutic communities in most respects except for the
residential component. Individual and group counseling is the cornerstone of these programs and
may involve professionals or simply other group members. Social skills training, vocational
programming, social interaction, referral to other sources of assistance, and possibly short-term
drug maintenance are also common components (Anglin and Hser, 1990). Alcoholics Anonymous
and Narcotics Anonymous are well-known examples of this type of program. The impact of these
programs is highly questionable. The primary concern with most evaluations is the fact that
clients can drop out at any time. These outpatient programs are more likely to suffer from client
mortality than are other interventions (Anglin and Hser, 1990). Hubbard et al. (1984) note that the
programs have a marginal impact on crime due to their open nature. Evaluations based only on
those individuals who remain in treatment may result in artificially high success rates. The actual
success based on all clients who enter the program, whether they complete or not, would be less
impressive.
Summary and Further Comments
It is generally accepted that most forms of treatment are effective at reducing the use of and
need for drugs (Fareed et al., 2011; Visher, 1990). Indeed, Simpson and Sells (1982), studying
data from the Drug Abuse Reporting Program, report that all four types of treatment
(maintenance, therapeutic communities, out-patient, and detoxification) achieve lower drug use,
lower criminal behavior, and improved employment status from four to six years after treatment.
These results are significantly different from a nontreatment control group. Research also
suggests that, while forced treatment has less impact than voluntary treatment (Anglin, 1988;
DeLong, 1972; Maddux, 1988), it does reduce the daily use of drugs and criminal activity (Anglin
and McGlothlin, 1984). Thus, the new drug courts should be able to affect drug use and related
criminal behavior. The impact of court-ordered programs may be attributable to the longer time
spent in treatment that is typical of these programs (Visher, 1990). At the very least, the impact of
enforced treatment provides further support to the claim that treatment has a positive impact on
use and crime.
Prevention Programs
Prevention programs that aim to keep individuals from initially using drugs (primary
prevention) usually target juveniles. It is during adolescence that most people experiment with
and enter into patterns of drug use. Prevention modalities cover a range of issues and approaches,
including the dissemination of factual information about drugs and their consequences, the
building of self-esteem, taking responsibility for making choices, and learning how to handle peer
pressure. Most often, prevention programs incorporate more than one approach. In a similar
fashion to treatment programs, NIDA outlines 16 principles for effective prevention programs
(see Table 13.5). The following discussion is divided into the two most prominently promoted and
evaluated prevention techniques. These are the information/education/knowledge programs and
the resistance skills techniques.
ON THE WEB
Table 13.5 NIDA’s 16 Principles of Effective Prevention for Drug Abuse
1. Prevention programs should enhance protective factors and reverse or reduce risk factors.
2. Prevention programs should address all forms of drug abuse, alone or in combination, including
underage use of legal drugs; the use of illegal drugs; and the inappropriate use of legally obtained
substances, prescription medications, or over-the-counter drugs.
3. Prevention programs should address the type of drug abuse problem in the local community, target
modifiable risk factors, and strengthen identified protective factors.
4. Prevention programs should be tailored to address risks specific to population or audience
characteristics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity.
5. Family-based prevention programs should enhance family bonding and relationships and include
parenting skills, practice in developing, discussing, and enforcing family policies on substance abuse,
and training in drug education and information.
6. Prevention programs can be designed to intervene as early as infancy to address risk factors for drug
abuse, such as aggressive behavior, poor social skills, and academic difficulties.
7. Prevention programs for elementary school children should target improving academic and social-
emotional learning to address risk factors for drug abuse, such as early aggression, academic failure, and
school dropout.
8. Prevention programs for middle or junior high and high school students should increase academic and
social competence.
9. Prevention programs aimed at general populations at key transition points, such as the transition to
middle school, can produce beneficial effects even among high-risk families and children.
10
.
Community prevention programs that combine two or more effective programs, such as family-based
and school-based programs, can be more effective than a single program alone.
11. Community prevention programs reaching populations in multiple settings—for example, schools, clubs,
faith-based organizations, and the media—are most effective when they present consistent, community-
wide messages in each setting.
12
.
When communities adapt programs to match their needs, community norms, or differing cultural
requirements, they should retain core elements of the original research-based intervention.
13
.
Prevention programs should be long-term with repeated interventions to reinforce the original
prevention goals.
14
.
Prevention programs should include teacher training on good classroom management practices, such as
rewarding appropriate student behavior.
15
.
Prevention programs are most effective when they employ interactive techniques, such as peer
discussion and parent role-playing, that allow for active involvement in learning about drug abuse and
reinforcing skills.
16
.
Research-based prevention programs can be cost-effective.
Education/Information/Knowledge Programs
Education/information/knowledge programs focus their efforts on providing subjects with
factual information about drugs, drug use, and the consequences of drug use. Such programs
attempt to teach subjects about the different drugs, how they work, and their effects on the user.
Information may also include data on the extent of drug use and what happens if an individual is
caught and processed in the criminal justice system. The basic assumption is that such knowledge
will allow the individual to make an informed choice about drug use. Proponents assume that,
armed with these facts, most individuals will opt to avoid drugs.
Evaluations provide mixed results concerning these programs. Botvin (1990) points out that
these programs are effective at increasing subjects’ knowledge about drugs. Schaps et al. (1986)
also claim that drug education reduces the use of alcohol and marijuana by females but has no
impact on comparable males. The change in use, however, is short-lived, and no effect is noted
one year after the program ended. Tobler (1986), analyzing results from 143 drug prevention
programs for youths, notes that information (knowledge) techniques have no impact on behavior.
Other authors (Abadinsky, 1989; Botvin, 1990; Botvin and Dusenbury, 1989; Eiser and Eiser,
1988; Hanson, 1980; Kinder et al., 1980; Swadi and Zeitlin, 1987; Weisheit, 1983) report similar
negative results and even suggest that the knowledge leads many youths to experiment with drugs
in order to “find out for themselves” about drugs. The programs appear to pique the curiosity of
some youths and prompt an increased, rather than decreased, use of drugs.
Resistance Skills Training
Resistance skills training comes under a variety of names with the
most well-known being the “Just Say No” campaign and the D.A.R.E.
(Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program. While many individuals
view this as too simplistic an approach, resistance skills
training involves a set of ideas dealing with recognizing problematic
situations and issues, dealing with peer pressure, recognizing
pressure from media presentations, knowing proper responses to
temptations, building self-esteem and assertiveness, and knowing
how and when to take a stand. The implicit assumption in this type of
prevention is that drug use is largely a function of situation and peer
involvement. Youths need to learn how to recognize peer pressure
and how to make proper decisions in the face of that pressure. These
programs may also provide factual information about drugs within
the larger discussion of resisting temptations to participate in drug
use. A key part of any information presented deals with the actual
levels of use in society, emphasizing the fact that most individuals do
not use illicit drugs. This provides youths with data that say they are
in the majority if they resist drugs.
Research on the impact of resistance skills training is mixed. Botvin
and associates have conducted a series of studies on the impact of
Life Skills Training (LST) on subsequent tobacco, alcohol, and
marijuana use (Botvin and Eng, 1980, 1982; Botvin et al., 1983;
Botvin et al., 1984). The reports show that the LST program is
successful at reducing the number of youths who smoke, drink, and
use marijuana. The program appears to be most effective at reducing
the use of tobacco (Botvin and Dusenbury, 1989). The longevity of
the impact may be somewhat at issue with the longest follow-up
being only two years. Other studies have reported similar positive
results, especially for tobacco use (Botvin, 1990; Luepker et al.,
1983; McAlister et al., 1980; Telch et al., 1982).
Perhaps the most recognized intervention is D.A.R.E. Begun in Los
Angeles in 1983, D.A.R.E. targets elementary school youths through
a police-officer-taught curriculum. In recent years D.A.R.E. has
expanded to junior and senior high schools, as well as implementing
a parent program. Today, D.A.R.E. is found in three-quarters of the
U.S. school districts and in 52 different countries (D.A.R.E., 2018).
Various methodologically rigorous evaluations of the original D.A.R.E.
program failed to find any significant impact on drug use behavior.
Ringwalt et al. (1991), Clayton et al. (1991), and Rosenbaum et al.
(1994), looking at schools from different jurisdictions, all reported no
impact on substance use. Rosenbaum and Hanson (1998) conducted
surveys on D.A.R.E. participants and control youths for more than a
six-year period. The authors reported that D.A.R.E. had little impact
on attitudes, beliefs, or social skills directly addressed by the
program. More important, D.A.R.E. had no significant impact on any
measure of drug use. For suburban subjects, there was some
evidence of higher drug use among D.A.R.E. participants
(Rosenbaum and Hanson, 1998). Wysong et al. (1994) also found no
impact in a similar longitudinal analysis.
Due partly to these negative evaluations, D.A.R.E. has been reimaged as Keepin’ It REAL.
This 10-session curriculum is still taught to children and adolescents in schools by law
enforcement officers. The focus of the program is on resistance skills. REAL stands for Refuse,
Explain, Avoid, and Leave, and provides skills for youths to address situations, events, and people
who promote or encourage them to use drugs or participate in other problem behaviors. The
program is based on the NIDA prevention principles (refer to Table 13.5). The new program’s
effectiveness is currently under review. Day et al. (2017) offer some promising early results and
suggest that the use of interactive exercises, rather than a primarily didactic approach, is a key to
success.
Given the lack of positive results, how do you explain the popularity and persistence of
D.A.R.E.? There are several possible explanations. First, D.A.R.E. has a strong national
organization behind it. Second, the program is minimally intrusive into the lives of the youths,
primarily due to its presentation in schools. Third, the ability to bring police and juveniles
together in a nonthreatening situation has a great deal of appeal. Finally, the program may
contribute to a more positive school environment.
Summary of Prevention Programs
The evidence on prevention programs suggests that the impact is often minimal. Resistance
skills training presents mixed results. Programs that emphasize providing factual information
about drugs fail to have much impact. In fact, these efforts may cause an increased curiosity on
the part of adolescents and subsequent experimentation and use of illicit drugs. Other programs
that stress self-esteem, self-awareness, and interpersonal growth in the absence of specific
strategies for dealing with drugs (typically referred to as affective education programs) also
demonstrate minimal influence on drug use (Botvin, 1990; Schaps et al., 1986; Tobler, 1986).
While there appears to be hope for the prevention of drug use, most of the programs need to be
evaluated with longer follow-up periods and better research designs, particularly using adequate
comparison groups.
Drugs and Crime Prevention
The relationship between drug use and criminal activity is a complex one. The extent to which
drug use causes crime or crime causes drug use is not clear. There is certainly a strong correlation
between the two activities. This suggests that knowledge of one can be used to attack the other.
From the standpoint of secondary crime prevention, drug use can be used as a predictor of
individuals at a higher risk of committing other criminal acts. While not every user commits other
offenses, the evidence shows that those who regularly use alcohol, illicit drugs, and/or use a large
amount of drugs are more disposed to criminal behavior. At the very least, drug use can identify
individuals for further intervention.
To the extent to which drug use is a cause or contributor to criminal activity, drug prevention
and treatment programs may be effective at limiting or eliminating other crime. The treatment and
prevention proposals and programs discussed in this chapter show that effective strategies do
exist. Most need further analysis over longer periods in order to definitively outline their impact
and potential. In a strict sense, the treatment programs are tertiary prevention programs—they
deal with individuals who have already entered into drug use. Likewise, the prevention programs
fall into the realm of primary prevention due to their implementation in schools and the targeting
of all youths. If the emphasis is simply on targeting drug use with no concern for related
problems, these efforts belong under the headings of primary and tertiary prevention.
The emphasis of the present discussion, however, is on the role drug use plays in contributing
to and/or causing other criminal acts. This brings the topic squarely into the realm of secondary
crime prevention. Arguments about the victimless status of drug use, possession, and other drug
crimes are automatically beyond the concerns of secondary prevention. The criminal status of
drug use does not affect its place as a tool in secondary prevention. Consequently, other
arguments, such as those over legalization and decriminalization, are not germane to the
discussion. These topics are left for other authors to consider.
Chapter 14 The School and Crime Prevention
The school has a long history in discussions of crime and
delinquency. Many discussions view schools as a prime actor in the
development of delinquent behavior. As a consequence, many
responses to delinquency have involved suggestions to change
schools and educational processes as a means of preventing youths
from becoming delinquent. In addition to possible contributions to
future delinquency and crime, schools provide an arena for various
forms of victimization. Indeed, many citizens equate schools with
deadly violence due to school shootings. Shootings, however, are not
the only forms for aggression or crime/delinquency occurring in
schools. A wide array of crimes and antisocial behavior occur in
schools.
This chapter examines the role of schools in crime and delinquency
and as an agent of secondary prevention. First, the chapter explores
the scope of victimization in schools, ranging from school shootings
to bullying. Second, it explores the theoretical bases for the role
schools play in delinquency. Third, the specific aspects of the
educational process that are important for discussing delinquency
are examined. Finally, the chapter examines responses and
preventive programs that have been established to intervene in the
problems. Special attention is paid to programs demonstrating an
impact on subsequent delinquency and in-school misbehavior.
Crime and Victimization in Schools
Victimization in schools takes a wide array of forms. The most serious and attention- grabbing
is school shootings, particularly mass shootings. A second form includes various delinquency and
criminal acts that take place in and around schools. Another general category involves bullying
behavior. Each of these is discussed here.
School Shootings
Concern over school shootings has been a major topic in the news and in society since the
shootings at Columbine High School in 1999. The killings at Columbine, Jonesboro (Arkansas),
Sandy Hook Elementary, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and others attract a great deal
of media attention and claims of “crises” facing schools. The reality, however, is that such events
are rare. In 2018, there were 25 school shootings with a total of 61 injuries and 33 deaths (Cox et
al., 2018). This was the largest number of school shootings, injuries, and deaths over the past 20
years. Looking at homicides of children aged 5 to 18 at schools compared to those in the general
population (see Figures 14.1 and 14.2) illustrates the rare nature of deaths at school. These figures
reveal that homicides of youths, both in school and away from school, have been on a downward
trend, despite the “mass” shootings at schools over the years. With few exceptions, homicides in
schools (which includes school shootings) have dropped from roughly 30 per year in the 1990s to
fewer than 20 per year in recent years.
Figure 14.2
Total Number of Homicides for Youths Aged Five to 18
Shootings and homicides in schools form the basis of a great deal of fear among students,
families, and the general citizenry. Dvorak (2018) notes that more than 220,000 students have
been exposed to gun violence at school since 1999 and more than 4.1 million students participated
in school lockdowns during the 2017–2018 academic year. The events underlying these figures
often appear in national news reports that play repeatedly over many days. These reports lead to a
great fear of crime and the belief that these events are inevitable. The figures on homicide and
related reports, however, need to be placed into context.
The 25 schools that experienced shootings in 2018 are a very small proportion of the more than
130,000 elementary and secondary schools in the United States. The schools with shootings
amount to roughly 0.0002 percent of all the schools. Since 1999, only 0.002 percent of all schools
(229 out of more than 130,000) have experienced shootings. The 220,000 students exposed to gun
violence is roughly 0.004 percent of the 56.6 million students enrolled in primary and secondary
schools in the United States. While any shooting or homicide at schools is problematic, compared
to the total number of homicides of youths in the population, youths are much safer at school.
Delinquency and Crime at Schools
The U.S. Department of Justice routinely collects data on crime and victimization in schools.
Figures from 2016 (Table 14.1) show that a total of almost 750,000 crimes were committed
against students at school (Musu-Gillette et al., 2018). This represents 29 offenses for every 1,000
students. Violent crimes are not uncommon, with more than half of the reported victimizations
(more than 455,000). In light of media accounts of violent acts in schools (especially homicides
and shootings), it is important to note that a good deal of in-school violence appears as threats and
minor acts, including pushing and shoving (Anderson, 1998; Lockwood, 1997).
Table 14.1 Student Victimization at School 2015–2016 Academic Year a
Total Theft Violent CrimesbSerious Violent Crimesc
Number 749,000 294,000 455,000 71,700
Rate per 1,000 Students 29.3 13.1 25 2.8
a Data for students aged 12 to 18.
b Violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
c Serious violent crimes include violent crimes except for simple assault
Students are not the only individuals victimized at schools. Teachers and staff are also subject
to crime and subsequent feelings of fear. During the 2015–2016 school year, more than 370,000
teachers (9.8 percent) reported being threatened with injury by a student during school (Musu-
Gillette et al., 2018). Over 220,000 teachers (5.8 percent) were actually the victim of physical
attack by a student at school. The number of teachers physically attacked has steadily increased
over time and being threatened with injury has trended up since its low point in 2003–2004
(see Figure 14.3).
Bullying
A major topic of concern for many youths and their parents is the problem of bullying. The
issue of bullying has received a great deal of attention over the past decade. This is partly due to
the events at Columbine High School and other schools, where part of the blame/explanation for
the behavior was attributed to past bullying. While most bullying does not lead to such levels of
retaliatory violence, it clearly has an impact on the victim.
Bullying behavior can be classified into four types: verbal, physical, social, and cyberbullying.
Too often it is assumed that bullying is primarily verbal, such as teasing and name-calling. It is
important to note that many forms of bullying involve physical confrontations that are actually
forms of criminal victimization. Included here are hitting, shoving, and punching. Starting rumors
about someone or ostracizing them from participating in events are examples of social bullying.
The final major form, cyberbullying, involves the use of the Internet and other technologies to
attack the victim. This can occur through posts on social media (such as Facebook, Myspace, and
so on), texts, sexting, and unwanted Internet contacts.
Information on the extent of bullying generally comes from survey data. The 2015 NCVS
provides a breakdown of types of bullying at school and cyberbullying in any setting as reported
by youths aged 12 to 18 (see Table 14.2). Almost 21 percent of the students report being the
victim of at least one form of bullying at school. The most common form of reported bullying is
being made fun of, insulted, or called names (13.3 percent of respondents). An additional 12
percent are the subject of rumors, and 5 percent are physically bullied or purposefully excluded
from activities. Cyberbullying, which is not restricted to the school setting, is reported by 7
percent of the students.
Table 14.2 Students (Aged 12–18) Reports of Bullying (Percentage)
Bullying at School
Total
Made Fun of/Called Names/Insulted
Subject of Rumors
Threatened with Harm
Pushed/Shoved/Tripped/Spat On
Tried to Make Do Things they Did not Want to Do
Excluded from Activities on Purpose
Property Destroyed on Purpose
Cyberbullying Anywhere
Total
Harmful Info on Internet
Private Information Purposefully Shared
Harassing Instant Messages
Harassing Text Messages
Harassing E-mails
Harassment While Gaming
Excluded Online
Source: Compiled from Musu-Gillette et al. (2018). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018036.pdf
Other Indicators of Problematic School Issues
Other information indicating problematic behaviors and issues is available besides self-reports
of victimization by students and teachers. Musu-Gillette et al. (2018) note that almost 80 percent
of schools report that they have experienced criminal acts in school (see Figure 14.4). More than
one-fourth of students note the presence of hate- related graffiti in school, and more than 20
percent report problems with bullying and drug availability in school. These figures demonstrate
that while not all students and teachers are direct victims of crime and antisocial behavior, the
environment of the school is often not conducive to learning and may lead to fear and anxiety.
Summary
The foregoing discussion illustrates the fact that students, teachers, and schools experience a
range of aggressive delinquent and criminal behavior. This fact sets the stage for intervention and
preventive actions. At the same time, the school may contribute to delinquent behavior in and
around the school through its processes and procedures.
School problems are one set of indicators of possible future delinquent or criminal activity both
inside and outside of school. It is important to consider the school factors that exacerbate
delinquency and later criminality before exploring interventions and prevention.
Figure 14.4
Percentage of Schools or Students Reporting Problems at School, 2015
Source: Constructed by the authors from Musu-Gillette et al. (2018).*Items reported by schools. All others
are student responses.
School Contributions to Antisocial Behavior
The relationship between school and delinquency is not always easy to understand. Many of the
associations are indirect and must be understood within the context of the educational mission and
the form of society. One approach to this topic is to consider theoretical arguments of education’s
contribution to behavior. There are also an array of educational factors and practices that have
been related to delinquent behavior. One result of school practices is the attempt by some students
to gain recognition and status through alternative, albeit unacceptable, behavior. School
misbehavior leads to further alienation, exclusion from the mainstream student body, and further
acting out. It also leads to an atmosphere in which education becomes secondary to security. The
following discussion probes the role of education and schools in antisocial behavior.
Theoretical Views
Many theorists emphasize the importance of schools in developing behavior. Cohen (1955),
Cloward and Ohlin (1960), and Merton (1968) point to blocked attainment and feelings of failure
as a source of deviant behavior. Each of these theorists claims that an individual faced with little
or no chance of success in legitimate endeavors will turn to deviant avenues for sources of success
and support. For juveniles who have not yet entered the adult world, the school becomes the
setting for gauging success and failure. For example, a juvenile who is faced with failing grades
while his or her friends are successful in their studies may be labeled as a failure by those same
friends and/or teachers. The lack of success may push a youth to seek out others having the same
difficulties. In an attempt to regain some feeling of status and success, failing youths may turn to
deviance and acting-out behaviors.
The actual causal process relating schools and delinquency can take a variety of forms. Hirschi
(1969) claims that diminished academic ability results in poor academic achievement. Failure in
school can foster dislike for school attendance, a lack of concern for societally proscribed
behavior, and eventual movement into delinquent behavior. Incompetence as a student can lead to
failed aspirations and success expectations that, in turn, result in being excluded from more
successful students and student activities (Gold, 1978). This exclusion invariably lowers a youth’s
self-image and feelings of worth, resulting in associating with other marginal youths or deviant
behavior as a means of salvaging a positive self-image. Gold (1978) refers to this choice of
deviance as an ego defense, which acts to counterbalance the negative feedback experienced in
the school setting. Although only examples, these processes are indicative of how schools and the
educational process can influence behavior.
Many studies support the school failure–delinquency relationship. Polk and Hafferty (1966)
note that students who do poorly in school and are not committed to scholastic achievement admit
to higher levels of deviant behavior. Hirschi (1969), studying approximately 4,000 boys, finds that
youths with low commitment to school and educational achievement display higher levels of self-
reported delinquency. Thornberry et al. (1985) show that students who drop out of school exhibit
higher levels of delinquency and adult criminal behavior than do high school graduates. Jarjoura
(1993) specifies the dropout effect by demonstrating that the dropout–delinquency relationship
only holds when the reason for dropping out is related to school problems. Studies by Gold and
Mann (1972), West and Farrington (1973), and Jerse and Fakouri (1978) report that delinquents
generally achieve lower grades than do nondelinquents. A wide variety of other studies, using
both self-reported and official measures of deviance and various measures of academic
achievement, support the academic achievement—delinquency relationship (Empey and Lubbeck,
1971; Kelly and Balch, 1971; Kelly and Pink, 1975; Phillips and Kelly, 1979; Polk and Schafer,
1972; Polk et al., 1974; President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of
Justice, 1967).
Educational Factors and Delinquency
The relationship between educational achievement and delinquency is not a simple one.
Various intervening variables enter into the formula. The ability of the student prior to entering
school can affect academic success. One possible measure of ability is the IQ test. Another set of
influences, such as tracking, in-school indicators of success, and the quality of the teachers and
resources, can affect student outcomes.
IQ and Delinquency
The role of intelligence in the etiology of deviant behavior has been a matter of debate for
many years. The early IQ tests were used to screen entrants to the United States in order to keep
the mentally deficient out of the country. The so-called feeble- minded (those with low IQs) were
viewed as a threat to the moral and intellectual life of the nation. It was assumed that these
individuals would disproportionately contribute to the level of delinquency and criminal activity.
These early fears have found much support in later research. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977), in a
review of the major research in the area, establish that IQ is an important correlate of delinquency.
A variety of studies substantiate that low IQ is positively correlated to higher levels of official
delinquency (Reiss and Rhodes, 1961; Short and Strodbeck, 1965; Wolfgang et al., 1972) and
self-reported measures of delinquency (Hirschi and Hindelang, 1977; Weis, 1973; West, 1973).
The major question unanswered in most of these analyses is whether IQ is a direct causal factor or
simply lays the groundwork for other factors to intervene. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) claim
that IQ is not a direct causal factor. Instead, low IQ leads to a number of other events that, in turn,
facilitate the acquisition of delinquent behavior. Among the intervening factors suggested by these
authors are school achievement, academic performance, and attitude toward school. The
introduction of these factors into the IQ–delinquency relationship as control variables tends to
eliminate the relationship (Hirschi and Hindelang, 1977; West, 1973; Wolfgang et al., 1972). The
influence of IQ, therefore, appears only in those instances when IQ affects other school variables.
School Practices
Achievement in school emerges as the key element in the relationship between school and
delinquency. The failure to succeed in school leads to frustration, withdrawal from the institution,
and an increased potential for deviant behavior. A variety of school practices can operate against
success and school attachment and lead to delinquency. Among these practices is tracking, poor
instruction, irrelevant instruction, and methods of evaluation.
Tracking refers to the process of assigning students to different classes or groups based on the
perceived needs of the student. Some school districts, or groups of districts, have established
magnet vocational high schools devoted to training and deemphasizing postsecondary education
for some youths. This is an extension of the old placement of students into “college preparatory”
or “vocational” groups. Schafer et al. (1971) show that students in the vocational track, regardless
of their social class, prior grades, or IQ score, respond with lower grades. In addition, these
students typically participate in fewer activities and are more likely to drop out of school,
misbehave, and commit delinquent acts. The reasons for the lower achievement lay in the
expectation, by both teachers and students, that lower track students will not succeed, are not in
the educational mainstream, and are not worth as much as college-bound students (Kelly and
Pink, 1975; Schafer et al., 1971).
Many students also are faced with poor and/or irrelevant instruction. Views that lower class and
minority students are not college material often result in the assignment of less competent
teachers to schools and classes serving these youths (Schafer and Polk, 1967; Schafer et al.,
1971). In addition, these schools typically receive less financial support. As a result, the students
develop a sense of failure and a lack of self-esteem, and may become dissatisfied and bitter
toward the system. The practice of segregating some youths and implicitly labeling them as
second class (particularly if they are in special classes within a larger school) can result in a self-
fulfilling prophecy. They are expected to do worse, and thus, they live up (down?) to this
expectation.
The irrelevance of instruction for some students grows out of the types of materials they are
being taught, especially in the vocational education tracks (Wertleib, 1982). Schools are seldom
able to keep up with the rapid changes and modifications in jobs and the workforce. The materials
being taught in the school are outmoded before the youths have the opportunity to use the
information. Vast changes in production and technology have established jobs for which many
youths are unqualified and have eliminated jobs that previously employed hundreds or thousands
of people. Instruction becomes more irrelevant when students cannot find employment upon
leaving school. These factors make the instruction irrelevant and obsolete (Papagiannis et al.,
1983). Students often are trained in very specific tasks that they cannot use outside of the school.
At the same time, they are not prepared to enter college, undertake further instruction, or secure
other jobs.
The emphasis on testing invariably leads to feelings of failure. For the “A” student, grades are a
reward for hard work and indicate positive achievement. The movement toward proficiency tests
(mandated for promotion and graduation in many states) often results in resentment on the part of
those students who do not pass the tests. The failing student may be held back or placed into
special classes that segregate and label him or her. Slow and failing youths may be excluded from
many of the extracurricular activities that can help make school a fun, enjoyable experience.
Failing students may be humiliated in front of other students, may not be expected to achieve, and
are often considered second-class citizens within an institution they are forced to attend (Schafer
and Polk, 1967).
Summary
Schools contribute to the problems that appear within them. The problems are not entirely a
function of outside events and factors brought into the school building. School problems and
educational issues contribute to and are indicators of possible future delinquency and criminal
activity both in and out of school. Schools, student, teachers, and society employ a number of
responses and preventive actions to deal with problem behavior related to schools.
Responses to In-School Victimization
Victimization has the potential of eliciting a variety of responses, many of which are
debilitating or may lead the victim into criminal or delinquent behavior. One immediate response
is fear. Musu-Gillette et al. (2018) note that more than 3 percent of students report being afraid of
being attacked or harmed at school. Lab and Clark (1996), studying junior and senior high schools
in one large Midwestern county, found that more than 11 percent of the students fear being
attacked at school. Additionally, 16 percent rate their school as “unsafe” or “very unsafe.” This
fear of school leads students to avoid school or take what they see as protective actions.
Table 14.3 presents data on the avoidance behaviors due to fear among students aged 12 to 18
over a six-month period (Musu-Gillette et al., 2018). A total of 4.9 percent of students report
avoiding school or places at school. Students avoid specific places in school due to fear, including
hallways, restrooms, and the cafeteria. Other studies also show that a small but significant number
of youths (10 percent or more) either stay home or avoid certain places/events at school due to
fear of assault or theft (Kaufman et al., 1998; Lab and Clark, 1996; Lab and Whitehead, 1994;
Metropolitan Life, 1993, 1994; Ringwalt et al., 1992).
Another student response to crime and fear is to carry weapons to school for protection. Musu-
Gillette et al. (2018) report that 4.1 percent of youths in grades 9 through 12 carried a weapon in
the past month at school and 1.8 percent carried six or more days. Lab and Clark (1996) report
that 24 percent of junior and senior high school students have carried a weapon to school for
protection at least once over a six-month period. Studies focusing on inner-city schools report
even higher levels of weapons in school (Sheley et al., 1995).
For many youths, joining a gang is perceived as a way to garner protection and support in the
face of threats. If a youth is victimized by gang members, either directly or by mistake, his or her
joining a gang further becomes a self-defense mechanism. It is natural for people to seek out
support from those around them. Most victims will turn to family members for such assistance.
Another source of support is close friends and peers. Joining gangs as a response to victimization,
however, is a double-edged sword. While the gang may supply some sense of protection, it
typically demands participation in illegal behavior and conflict with other gangs and individuals.
These demands often result in further victimization of the individual rather than protection from
victimization. At the same time that gang membership may alleviate victimization, joining a gang
can also contribute to an individual’s ongoing victimization, albeit as a member of a group and
not just as an individual.
Table 14.3 Percentages of Students Avoiding School or Activities Due to Fear of Attack or Harm, 2015
Total
Avoided School Activities
Avoided Class
Avoided One or More Places
Entrances to School
Hallways/Staircases
Cafeterias
Restrooms
Other Places
Source: Compiled by the author from Musu-Gillette et al. (2018) and from Robers et al. (2012). Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf
The level of misbehavior, victimization, fear, and safety responses by students in schools is a
concern for various reasons. First, these concerns detract from the primary mission of educating
youths. Time spent on crime and disruption means less time spent getting an education. Similarly,
avoiding school means the youths are missing out on important classroom time. Second, many of
the responses to victimization and fear are more inappropriate than appropriate. Certainly, the
presence of weapons offers the possibility of more serious confrontations and problems, not to
mention the illegality of bringing weapons to school. The failure to address these problems will
simply add to the other deleterious aspects of schools.
Responding to School Shootings
School shootings and deaths at schools give rise to a range of calls to do something. At the
most basic level are efforts to control access to schools. These ideas include locking all exterior
doors so that they open only from the inside, putting up fences around schools and school
grounds, and installing metal detectors to catch weapons being brought in to the schools.
Adding police to schools is another common response in many places. In 2015–2016, more
than 50 percent of schools had security staff, with 47.7 percent of schools having law enforcement
officers. School Resource Officers (SROs) are found in 42 percent of schools (Musu-Gillette et
al., 2018). Two-thirds of secondary schools and one-third of elementary schools have sworn law
enforcement officers in them. Most police in schools were involved in traditional police functions,
including patrolling, making arrests, and providing security (see Table 14.4). At the same time,
many police officers in schools, particularly those serving in an SRO capacity, provided
mentoring and referrals, training to teachers and parents, taught programs such as Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), and chaperoned school events (Travis and Coon, 2005). Indeed,
McDevitt and Finn (2005), in a survey of SROs, uncover that two-thirds of the officers report
performing law enforcement activities in the schools, with less than one-third reporting activities
such as mentoring or counseling. May et al. (2014) note that most SRO activity involves
monitoring the campus. Others contend that the widespread introduction of police into the school
setting criminalizes school discipline.
Table 14.4 Activities of Law Enforcement in Schools
Law Enforcement Advise/Mentor Teaching
Patrol Advise Staff D.A.R.E.
Operate Metal Detectors Mediate Disputes Antigang Classes
Conduct Safety Advise Students Antihate Classes
Inspections Work with Parent–Teacher Law-Related Education
Table 14.4 Activities of Law Enforcement in Schools
Law Enforcement Advise/Mentor Teaching
Respond to Crime/Disorder Groups Firearm Safety
Reports Advise Athletic Teams Crime Awareness and
Make Arrests Mentor Students Prevention
Write Reports Chaperone Events Conflict Resolution
Perform Drug Sweeps Present Awards Problem-Solving
At the same time as police have been introduced to school, there has been an introduction of
zero-tolerance policies whereby students are suspended or expelled for certain behaviors such as
bringing a weapon to school. Critics contend that the introduction of police resource officers and
zero tolerance policies are signs of criminalization in schools (Rich-Shea and Fox, 2014). In other
words, instead of seeing discipline problems as requiring solutions by teachers and principals,
these practices treat students as quasi-criminals and mandate quasi-criminal justice solutions and
thereby label youths as criminals. Interestingly, there is a lack of evidence on the impact of law
enforcement in schools on levels of in-school violence. What is known is that more is needed than
simply placing police officers in schools. Indeed, many school shootings occur in schools that
have law enforcement officers on duty (such as Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School).
A recent movement has been to arm school teachers and staff. While many states restrict the
carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds, mass shooting events prompt some to call for
changing the laws to allow those staff who are willing to carry a concealed weapon to do so. The
argument in favor of arming faculty and staff is that this will increase the number of individuals
who can quickly respond to lethal violence in kind. Arguments against this approach claim it
would increase the level of violence, place people with minimal training in a position to use
weapons in schools with children, and possibly result in accidental weapon discharges in schools.
The debate over arming faculty and staff has not been resolved and different school districts
take opposing positions. At this time, there is no evidence pro or con on the impact of arming
school faculty and staff.
Another contemporary response is to train students, faculty, and staff on how to respond to
violent events. The most well-known is ALICE training. ALICE stands for Alert, Lockdown,
Inform, Counter, and Evacuate. The process involves recognizing that danger exists (Alert),
securing your position with barricades and locked doors if evacuation is not immediately possible
(Lockdown), communicating with others as the situation allows (Inform), taking action to confuse
or disorient the shooter if directly confronted (Counter), and evacuating the grounds (Evacuation;
ALICE Training Institute, 2019). Training can be given to a wide range of organizations,
including schools, businesses, churches, and health care facilities. The training takes 15 to 30
minutes and has been given to 4,200 elementary/secondary schools and 950 institutions of higher
education (ALICE Training Institute, 2019). Despite its popularity, there is no empirical evidence
that the training has effectively curbed school shootings.
School Programs for Delinquency Prevention
A wide range of programs and educational strategies have been suggested to address
delinquency both in and outside of schools. Among these are the provision of relevant instruction,
the development of meaningful and useful instruction, tailoring teaching materials for students
from different backgrounds, the use of alternative grading strategies, and not alienating or
segregating students from the mainstream of the school (Schafer and Polk, 1967). Unfortunately,
many of these have received only cursory attention, and their impact on delinquency is unknown.
At the same time, several programs and strategies have received significant attention.
Elementary and High School Programs
Programs dealing with academic performance and school misbehavior can be found throughout
the educational system. Unfortunately, most of these efforts fail to address the impact of the
programs on subsequent delinquency and crime. Many researchers simply assume that changes in
achievement, self-esteem, and other school-based outcomes will, in turn, affect delinquency
(Gottfredson, 1987). Most programs that specifically address the question of delinquency are
those that appear in junior and senior high schools. The reason for this is simple—in general,
youths do not come to the attention of the juvenile justice system until they reach these grades.
Prior to that time, misbehavior is handled in the home or is simply ignored.
School Atmosphere
Altering the general school environment is one suggestion for addressing misconduct in
schools. Opening up participation in decision making (to both students and staff) allows everyone
to take ownership of both the solutions and the successes of controlling problems. Gottfredson
(1986a, 1986b) reports on the effectiveness of Project PATHE (Positive Action Through
Holistic Education) in Charleston, South Carolina. This project takes a broad-based approach to
the school environment by bringing teachers, administrators, students, parents, and agencies
together in making decisions about education and the school. Underlying this approach is the idea
that the various parties must see a stake in education and believe that education is important. The
parties will care more about education if they have some say in the educational process. Project
PATHE isolates a variety of factors including school pride, career-oriented programs, student team
learning, and individual services as targets for change.
Project PATHE was initiated in five middle schools and two high schools from 1980 to 1983.
Pre- and postprogram measures, as well as data from two nonequivalent comparison schools,
were used in an evaluation of the program. The results offered mixed support. Experimental
schools report higher test scores and graduation rates than the control schools (Gottfredson,
1986a). Attendance at school, however, did not seem to be affected by the program. Delinquency
measures showed the greatest degree of disparity across and within schools. At the school level,
there was some improvement in overall delinquency in high school but no significant change for
middle schools. The control schools also showed no change over the study period. Changes in
individual types of delinquency appeared in various schools. For example, drug use was reduced
in one school but not in others. Some teachers reported lower levels of victimization in individual
schools.
These results suggest that, while the program has no overall effect on the schools as a group,
improvements can be found in individual schools (Gottfredson, 1986b). The qualified success of
Project PATHE may be due to alterations in the school system and study design after the onset of
the project. Changes in the school administration, the closing and consolidating of some schools,
and the inability of some programs to be adequately implemented during the study suggest that
the project would produce better results in a more stable setting (Gottfredson, 1986b).
Lab and Clark (1996) also investigated the idea of altering the school environment through
cooperative decision making. Evaluating 44 junior and senior high schools, the authors note that
order and control in a school are engendered most effectively by bringing students, staff, and
administrators together. The traditional methods of administratively imposing strict control and
harsh discipline on students are not productive (Lab and Clark, 1996). The authors also find that
schools with lower victimization and problem behaviors are those that work to develop a
“normative” approach to discipline and control. This means that schools in which there is more
agreement on discipline and control measures experience fewer problems than schools in which
there is little agreement (Lab and Clark, 1996). Schools should strive, therefore, to build
consensus through inclusion in the decision-making process.
The Charlotte School Safety Program attempts to address the issue of school safety by
developing a cooperative problem-solving process that involves students, school staff, and police
(Kenney and Watson, 1998). The program emphasizes changing the school environment using
techniques similar to those found in community-oriented policing. Problem identification and
problem solving are key elements of the intervention and an attempt is made to integrate these
activities into the normal classroom curriculum. It is important to change the attitudes of the
students and to turn the student body into an agent for positive change in the school (Kenney and
Watson, 1998). The program was tested in the 11th-grade social studies classes of a single
Charlotte high school during the 1994–1995 school year. The problem-solving activities were
addressed one to two days each week within small groups of 6 to 10 students.
An evaluation of the Charlotte program indicates positive changes in the target school
compared to a matched control school. The evaluation used surveys of students at both schools,
interviews with school staff, observations within the school, and inspections of student problem-
solving worksheets. The first evidence of success is the ability of the students to identify and
agree on problems in the school, and their ability to suggest and implement changes in school
procedures. Kenney and Watson (1998) also note significant reductions in student’s fear of crime
at school, reduced fighting, fewer threats against teachers, lower numbers of suspensions for
violence, and fewer calls for police assistance. Little change in these items was evident at the
control school. Teachers also report fewer class disruptions and improved relations between
students and faculty (Kenney and Watson, 1998). The greatest concern with the evaluation is its
reliance on a single school and work with only those students in 11th-grade social studies. In
general, the results of research on changing the school environment suggest the efforts bring
about positive changes in the schools.
Conflict Management/Resolution
Teaching students how to handle conflict and make proper choices when faced with difficult
situations (such as peer pressure to use drugs or commit a crime) is a popular intervention that
takes a variety of forms. Conflict management/resolution is a common program in schools. These
programs appear under a variety of names, including dispute resolution, dispute mediation,
conflict resolution, conflict management, and others. The basic goal of these programs is to avoid
and/or resolve conflicts before they escalate into serious problems (such as physical
confrontations). School programs typically include a strong teaching component in which kids
learn that conflict is natural and that it can be managed through various processes (Ohio
Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management, 1993). A key component in many
programs is peer mediation, in which students are trained to assist one another in resolving
disputes in such a way that all parties to the dispute accept the resolution. Many elements of
school-based programs can be found in community mediation and dispute resolution programs
(see Garofalo and Connelly, 1980, for a discussion of these programs). The growth of programs in
the community and the generally positive evaluations of those programs (e.g., see Bridenback et
al., 1980; Coates and Gehm, 1989; Reichel and Seyfrit, 1984; Roehl and Cook, 1982) have
contributed to the establishment of school-based programs.
The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) in New York City included student
mediation as a core component of the intervention. This program includes programming in the
elementary, secondary, and special education curriculum, as well as a separate parent program
(DeJong, 1993). The elementary curriculum consists of 12 lessons dealing with issues of
communication, cooperation, feelings, diversity, peacemaking, and resolving conflicts. The entire
curriculum (in primary and secondary schools) consists of 51 lessons and includes a heavy
reliance on peer mediation and parental involvement. DeJong (1993) reports that students
successfully learn the lessons, are involved in fewer fights, and believe that they can handle
problems better as a result of the program. The impact of the program increases with the number
of lessons and the quality of the teacher training (Samples and Aber, 1998).
Similarly, the Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP) program targets sixth
graders and includes lessons on appropriate responses to conflict situations and how students can
avoid violence (Farrell and Meyer, 1997). Evaluations of the program show fewer discipline
problems, fewer suspensions from school, and less fighting by students participating in the
program. The state of Ohio initiated a number of demonstration projects in schools aimed at
providing students with problem-solving skills and instituting peer mediation programs in the
schools. Based on the first three years of the program, participating schools report reduced
suspensions and increased successful mediations. Students also report a greater willingness to
stop fights and talk out disputes as a result of the program (Ohio Commission on Dispute
Resolution and Conflict Management, 1993). Unfortunately, this program has not undergone a
rigorous evaluation.
The growth of conflict management/resolution programs in schools remains an important effort
in many places, despite the fact that many programs have not undergone rigorous evaluations and
many studies suggest that the approach may not have a great impact (Bynum, 1996). The reason
for this may be the fact that many programs do not reach a large enough portion of the student
body and the programs are not very well integrated into other school activities. School-based
conflict management programs are still relatively new and need to undergo further evaluation.
Peer Pressure
G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training) is a
well-known program targeting peer pressure and the tendency for
some youths to turn to gangs and gang behavior. Not unlike the Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program, G.R.E.A.T. is taught
by local police officers in middle schools. The original curriculum,
consisting of nine lessons, was expanded to 13 one-hour lessons and
is presented in middle schools (see Table 14.5). The goal of the
program is to “prevent youth crime, violence and gang involvement”
(Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005). The thrust of the program is to
provide youths with the necessary skills for identifying high-risk
situations and resisting the pressure/allure of taking part in gangs
and gang activity. Beyond targeting just ganging, program curricula
are geared toward increasing self-esteem, changing attitudes,
addressing peer pressure, and eliminating participation in violent
behavior. A key component of G.R.E.A.T. is to teach nonviolent
conflict resolution techniques to the youths.
Table 14.5 G.R.E.A.T. Middle School Component
1. Welcome to G.R.E.A.T.: A Gang and Violence Prevention Program
• Performance Objective: Students will identify the relationship among crime, violence, drug abuse, and gangs.
2. What’s the Real Deal?: The Real Deal on Gangs and Violence
• Performance Objective: Students will analyze information sources and identify realistic, normative beliefs about gangs and violence.
3. It’s About Us: Being Part of the Community
• Performance Objective: Students will define their roles and responsibilities in the family, school, and community.
4. Where Do We Go From Here?: How to Set Goals
• Performance Objective: Students will write realistic and achievable goals.
5. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: Making the Right Choice
• Performance Objective: Students will practice decision-making skills.
6. Do You Hear What I Am Saying?: How to Communicate Effectively
• Performance Objective: Students will practice effective communication skills.
7. Walk in Someone Else’s Shoes: Thinking of Others
• Performance Objective: Students will identify active-listening skills, how to recognize the emotional state of others, and how to
demonstrate empathy toward victims of crime and violence.
8. Say It Like You Mean It: Some Ways of Refusing
• Performance Objective: Students will practice effective refusal skills.
9. Getting Along Without Going Along: Dealing With Peers
• Performance Objective: Students will continue to practice effective refusal skills.
10. Keeping Your Cool: Managing Your Anger
• Performance Objective: Students will practice anger-management skills.
11. Keeping It Together: How to Calm Others
• Performance Objective: Students will identify how anger-management skills help prevent violence and conflicts.
12. Working It Out: How to Solve Conflicts
• Performance Objective: Students will practice conflict-resolution techniques.
13. G.R.E.A.T. Days Ahead: Applying Your G.R.E.A.T. Skills
• Performance Objective: Students will explain how their G.R.E.A.T. Project helped them develop a feeling of commitment and ownership
of their school and their community.
The G.R.E.A.T. program has undergone extensive evaluation. A
longitudinal evaluation of the original G.R.E.A.T. programs showed
positive outcomes. Esbensen et al. (2004), using data for four years
following program participation, reported less victimization, less risk-
taking behavior, improved attitudes toward the police, increased
numbers of prosocial peers, and more negative views about gangs
among those youths receiving the G.R.E.A.T. lessons. Unfortunately,
the evaluation failed to find any impact on the more important target
of the project—reduced gang participation. While this is
disappointing, the promising results led the sponsors of the G.R.E.A.T.
program to undertake a revision of the curriculum, which resulted in
the current 13-lesson scheme.
The revised curriculum has been the subject of rigorous national evaluation. A total of 195
classrooms in 31 schools in seven cities were included in the analysis, with a total of more than
3,800 students. One hundred thirty classrooms received the G.R.E.A.T. training, and 93
classrooms served as the controls. Data was gathered over a five-year period of time, including
four years’ postprogram participation (Esbensen et al., 2011). Preliminary results based on the
first year of follow-up data reveal overall positive results. Results show that participants are more
positive about the police, are less positive about gangs, more often use refusal skills they have
been taught, are better able to resist peer pressure, and are less involved in gangs (Esbensen et al.,
2011). Most important, the data reveal 39 percent less gang membership among G.R.E.A.T.
participants (Esbensen et al., 2013). These positive results are also sustained at four years
postparticipation. G.R.E.A.T. participants are still 24 percent less likely to be gang members and
they maintain positive attitudes toward police, use refusal skills, and hold more negative attitudes
toward gangs (Esbensen et al., 2013). All these results are significant.
Despite these positive results, the evaluation shows no impact on criminal and violent activity
(Esbensen et al., 2013; Pyrooz, 2013). This may be a result of the fact that G.R.E.A.T. targets
entire classrooms, which include youths at both low risk and high risk for gang membership. As a
result, G.R.E.A.T. may influence a youth’s self-identification as a gang member, but it may have
little impact on the level of attachment to gangs and criminal gang activity among those who join
(Pyrooz, 2013). While G.R.E.A.T. is a promising program, its full impact on behavior is not
known.
Antibullying Efforts
Bullying prevention is identified as an exemplary program for attacking violence by youths
(Elliott, 2000). The most notable of these efforts is that of Olweus and his colleagues (Olweus,
1994, 1995; Olweus and Limber, 2000). Bullying behavior includes both physical and verbal
aggression that is repeated over time and is meant to intentionally harm the victim (Olweus and
Limber, 2000). Studies in Norwegian, Swedish, and U.S. schools find that at least 15 percent of
the students report being either bullied or being the offender (Melton et al., 1998; Olweus, 1993).
Developed in Norway, the model antibullying program is aimed at the entire school and relies
on active student, teacher, and parent participation. The program attempts to raise awareness
about the problem of bullying, establish rules and regulations governing the behavior and
responses to offending, train staff on how to integrate discussions on bullying into the curriculum,
require meetings between parents and teachers, and hold meetings between bullies and their
victims. The program also works with the families of offenders to address the problems outside of
school. Based on survey data gathered before the onset of the program and periodically over a
two-year follow-up period, Olweus (1994, 1995) reports significant reductions in bullying,
classroom disruption, and general delinquency. Replicating the program in England, Whitney et
al. (1994) report similar positive results, particularly for students in younger grades. This suggests
that the intervention should be targeted at young students before bullying behavior becomes
ingrained in individuals. Melton et al. (1998), testing the program in South Carolina grade
schools, find significant reductions in bullying, as well as vandalism, general delinquency, and
school misbehavior. Finally, Limber et al. 2018), in an evaluation in Pennsylvania schools, found
significant reductions in bullying and being bullied, with the results being maintained over a
period of three years.
Other programs that address bullying or include bullying issues in the interventions also show
positive results. The KiVa antibullying program has reduced bullying by 14 percent, with the
strongest results occurring in grades 2 through 6 (Karna et al., 2011). The Positive Action
program deals with bullying within a larger concern with the school environment and a focus on
social-emotional learning. This program reveals lower self-reported bullying and parent reports of
bullying (Lewis et al., 2013). Finally, Steps to Respect incorporates a strong staff training
component with teaching social-emotional skills to address bullying. Brown et al. (2011) report
that the program results in fewer bullying problems and increased student intervention to stop
bullying events.
Antibullying programs appear promising as a means to prevent both the initial aggression and
subsequent offending and antisocial behavior. These programs appear to be more effective with
younger students, thus suggesting that earlier intervention is preferable over later projects
(Olweus and Limber, 2000). Programs also require significant time and effort on behalf of
teachers and parents and significant training of teachers and parents. Schools need to actively
include teachers, staff, parents, and students in addressing bullying problems.
Alternative Schools
Many school programs are targeted at specific groups of youths, rather than at the entire school.
Such programs may seek to remove those having problems from the school or may set up
individual classrooms or programs within the school. Alternative schools represent a major
attempt to dispel the negative experiences of many problem youths. The basic idea behind
alternative schools is the provision of a positive learning atmosphere that increases feelings of
success within an atmosphere of warmth and acceptance (Gold, 1978). The process involves
recognizing the needs of the individual student and meeting those needs through interventions
such as one-on-one instruction, unstructured grading practices, instruction tailored to the interests
of the student, the development of close relationships between students and teachers, the
involvement of the students in the instruction process, and advancement based on individual
progress.
Although alternative education programs have become commonplace, few evaluations of these
schools look at their effect on delinquent behavior, especially acts committed outside of the
school. Gottfredson (1987) reports on the effectiveness of 17 school-based delinquency
prevention programs in 15 high-crime communities. Most of the interventions entail alternative
schools or classrooms within mainstream schools. The programming within the schools includes
personalized instruction, student participation in decision making, the use of behavior
modification techniques, informal control, and peer assistance. Overall, the results show reduced
delinquency, improved school safety, reduced in-school victimizations, enhanced attachment to
school, and reductions in interactions with delinquent peers (Gottfredson, 1987). While not all of
the projects show the same degree of success, the pattern across the studies suggests that
alternative educational practices can make a difference. The results must be tempered somewhat
due to the lack of adequate comparison groups and the subsequent possibility of alternative
factors that may be influencing the results. The consistency of the results, however, suggests that
these problems may be minor.
Cox (1999) considers the impact of an alternative school program for middle school students
(grades 6–8). Youths attend the program for one semester and then return to their regular school.
While at the alternative school, students participate in activities aimed at improving their
academic performance and self-esteem, as well as lowering their delinquent behavior. The
program evaluation compared students randomly assigned to the alternative school and a control
group. The results show an immediate impact on self-esteem and grades. Unfortunately, there is
no change in self-reported delinquency, and the positive changes disappear after the subjects
return to their regular school. Cox (1999) speculates that a one-semester program may not be long
enough to ensure long-term change. Students may need prolonged exposure to the alternative
school format.
One meta-analysis suggests that alternative schools have little, if any, impact on delinquency. In
a meta-analysis, the data from different studies is reanalyzed in order to make direct comparisons
between the results. Cox et al. (1995) analyzed the results from 57 studies conducted from 1966
to 1993. The authors uncover some evidence that alternative school programs increase school
performance, improve attitudes toward school, and other similar outcomes. Unfortunately, they
are unable to find any significant improvement in client delinquency. Compounding these results
is the fact that the most methodologically rigorous studies show the least impact. Gold and Mann
(1983) also caution that alternative school settings may isolate youths from the mainstream
students and that this may cause other problems, particularly with later reintegration to regular
schools. It would appear, therefore, that further study and experimentation with alternative
schools are needed before making strong claims for their impact on subsequent delinquent
behavior.
Other Interventions
A wide range of other interventions is being used to alter youthful behavior, both in schools and
in the community. The U.S. Department of Education has initiated two programs in recent years
aimed at dealing with crime and other problem issues for youths. These are the Safe and Drug
Free Schools program and the Safe Schools/Healthy Children initiative. Although driven by
legislative mandates, the two programs incorporate a wide range of different interventions. Much
of the diversity rests on the decisions of the different school districts, who they include in the
planning of programs (e.g., parents, police, etc.), and what programs they decide to implement.
The programs have provided a great deal of funding and had a major impact on programming in
schools. Along with other agencies (including the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention), the Department of Education has undertaken various evaluations under these
programs. Unfortunately, the research has been focused primarily in two areas—measuring the
extent of victimization and fear in schools, and process evaluations of the implementation of
programs. Relatively little comprehensive outcome evaluation has been conducted.
Truancy reduction programs have received increased attention in recent years in many
jurisdictions. Many of these efforts involve a combination of picking up truant youths and
returning them to school (or taking them into custody) and holding parents accountable for their
truant children. Two underlying issues drive most of these efforts. First, removing truants from the
street eliminates any offenses those youths might have committed while out of school. The school
provides supervision, thereby reducing the level of crime during the school day. Second, reducing
truancy should lead to increased educational attainment and higher graduation rates. This should
lead to greater chances of (meaningful) employment and fewer chances of turning to crime in the
future. Clearly, the arguments underlying such initiatives make sense and easily lead to
antitruancy initiatives. The impact of such programs on crime (both current and long term),
however, is unknown. Most truancy reduction programs rely on process evaluations, which count
the number of youths handled and the methods used to dispose of the cases.
Another recent movement has been to establish after-school programs for youths. As with other
programs, these efforts have multifaceted goals. Perhaps the most common argument underlying
these initiatives is that keeping youths busy and supervised after school mitigates the possibility
of them getting into trouble. Indeed, there is clear evidence that youthful offending peaks in the
late afternoon and early evening, particularly on school days, with roughly 20 percent of all
juvenile violent crime occurring on school days between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (OJJDP, 1999).
Therefore, projects that can keep juveniles busy after school hold the potential of reducing the
level of crime in the community. This same argument underlies the calls for midnight basketball
leagues and other initiatives that occupy unsupervised free time. A secondary argument used to
support many after-school programs reflects the belief that educationally based programs can
increase the academic achievement of participating youths. Interestingly, despite the great interest
in these kinds of interventions, almost no evaluation has been conducted. Most of the existing
literature focuses on what these programs look like and how to initiate one, rather than on whether
they are successful at achieving their intended mission. This holds true for both crime and
educational outcomes.
A great deal of additional research is needed on these programs. While concerted efforts have
gone into developing these interventions and implementing the projects, relatively little time and
effort have gone into assessing the impact of the projects on delinquency and youthful
misconduct. Most of the evaluations are simple process studies that tell how the program was
initiated, who was involved, how many meetings took place, and how much money was spent.
What is needed now is to know how much delinquency was averted and to what extent the
schools are safer places.
The Future of School/Educational Programs in Crime Prevention
There is little doubt that schools hold a key position in the growth and development of youths.
Schools deal with virtually every child for a major portion of his formative years. The trend in
society has been to delay the entry of people into the societal mainstream and prolong the period
known as adolescence. As a result, schools have had to assume more and more responsibility for
the socialization of children. Increased responsibility for handling adolescents may prove to be a
mixed blessing. Schools have so far failed to adequately respond to juvenile misbehavior
displayed both in and out of school. To fault the schools, however, without considering the
position that has been thrust on them is not warranted. The schools have not expected or been
prepared to lead the fight against delinquent activity. The criticism that they have failed in
handling delinquency ignores this fact and the additional fact that they have not been given the
resources to adequately do their multifaceted job. Despite these facts, the school is a logical point
for intervention.
The programs that have been initiated and evaluated provide some hope that future deviant
behavior can be prevented. There are clear indications that some educational interventions are
effective at reducing recidivism. Antibullying and dispute resolution are two that show positive
results. Other promising approaches need to be subjected to thorough, long-term evaluations.
Educational programs aimed at stemming misbehavior should be allowed sufficient time to
operate prior to declaring them effective or ineffective. Just as society does not expect that an
individual can be educated in a short time span, neither should it expect that short-term programs
can reverse trends that have been growing for many decades. For example, the stigma of tracking
cannot be overcome in the span of a single year in alternative classes. Positive outcomes from
intervention programs should be used as a guide for expanding and altering the overall
educational system. A companion problem is the fact that many educational programs and
interventions have not undergone outcome evaluations. The Safe and Drug Free Schools program,
the Safe Schools/Healthy Children initiatives, truancy reduction efforts, and most after-school
programs have been the subject of process evaluations with little attention paid to their impact on
crime and delinquency. A great deal of attention should be paid to evaluating these efforts.
The educational system should continue to serve as a focal point for modifying behavior and
preventing deviant activity. Teachers and educators are in an ideal position to observe juvenile
behavior, providing assistance, and alerting others to potential problems. The failure to
incorporate the school and education system in crime prevention is to ignore a tool that has great
potential for success. The fact that schools and the criminal justice system can work together can
be seen in various programs that have established cooperative arrangements between these
institutions (Lindsey and Kurtz, 1987; Rubel, 1989). This does not mean that the solution to crime
has been found. It does suggest that one of the most important ingredients in crime prevention has
been underused.
