Crime Prevention Practice Research Articles

A Letter from Australia: Doing Crime Prevention Research: A Personal Reflection

It is important for the criminologist to be conscious of the challenges policy makers and practitioners face in translating official policy statements and theories of crime prevention into working practices, and to empathise with the crisis they face. Doing so does not diminish one's objectivity, but can actually enhance comprehension of the contingent nuances of crime prevention policy and practice. The work of C. Wright Mills provides a framework for attaining such insights. In a similar vein the ‘what works’ paradigm needs to pay far greater attention to the inherently contingent nature of crime prevention, with the delivery of programmes and strategies being far harder than assumed. The weakness of the position is that it ignores the ‘enabling conditions’ which need to exist to ensure ‘best practice’ is followed in practice. The examination of these issues is grounded in the author's own experience and observations of conducting research on crime prevention in the Australian state of Victoria from the late 1990s to early 2000.

Communities, Crime Prevention and the Politics of Articulation: A Reply to Kit Carson

This article is a rejoinder to Kit Carson's seminal two-part essay, Is communalism dead? Reflections on the present and future practice of crime prevention. It aims to foster further debate on “the communal” in the field of crime prevention specifically, and in criminology more generally. In the first part of the article, an argument is made for a progressive discourse on communities built around the theory and practice of radical communitarianism. In the second part of the article, a debate is opened up on the continuing salience of appeals to communities in the contemporary governance of crime, disorder and safety. In particular, two questions — or provocations — are briefly explored in terms of “the instabilities of community governance” and what we may term the problem of “the stranger in community safety”. Finally, the article argues for the rethinking of the relationship of the communal and the critical criminological imaginary.

Communities, Crime Prevention and the Politics of Articulation: A Reply to Kit Carson

This article is a rejoinder to Kit Carson's seminal two-part essay, Is communalism dead? Reflections on the present and future practice of crime prevention. It aims to foster further debate on “the communal” in the field of crime prevention specifically, and in criminology more generally. In the first part of the article, an argument is made for a progressive discourse on communities built around the theory and practice of radical communitarianism. In the second part of the article, a debate is opened up on the continuing salience of appeals to communities in the contemporary governance of crime, disorder and safety. In particular, two questions — or provocations — are briefly explored in terms of “the instabilities of community governance” and what we may term the problem of “the stranger in community safety”. Finally, the article argues for the rethinking of the relationship of the communal and the critical criminological imaginary.

Is Communalism Dead? Reflections on the Present and Future Practice of Crime Prevention: Part Two

This paper, of which this is the second part, takes up a strange paradox or dissonance that characterises contemporary crime prevention, particularly perhaps in Australia. On the one hand, there is an ample literature pointing out the conceptual and practical drawbacks of community, or more broadly of communalism (incorporating social capital), in crime prevention; on the other, policy and practice seem largely oblivious to these difficulties and hence, by extension, to the need for more appropriate conceptual formulations upon which to base collective approaches to crime prevention. Part One of the article (Carson, 2004) traced the allure and the difficulties of communalism in general and in crime prevention in particular. Part Two takes up the challenge of developing new and more appropriate foundations for a collectively-based approach in this policy arena. This it does by drawing selectively on the insights of radical communitarianism (shorn of its utopian communal overtones), on attempts to go beyond the close ties of social capital to a looser collective efficacy, and on discursive possibilities that address issues of difference, rights and democratisation in relation to crime prevention. By this means, it is argued, crime prevention may be reconnected to questions of social justice and collective capacity without surrendering to the false attractions of an anachronistic communalism.

Is Communalism Dead? Reflections on the Present and Future Practice of Crime Prevention: Part Two

Is Communalism Dead? Reflections on the Present and Future Practice of Crime Prevention: Part Two

Is Communalism Dead? Reflections on the Present and Future Practice of Crime Prevention: Part One

This article takes up a strange paradox or dissonance that characterises contemporary crime prevention, particularly in Australia. On the one hand, there is an ample literature pointing out the conceptual and practical drawbacks of “community” or more broadly of “communalism” (incorporating social capital) in crime prevention; on the other, policy and practice seem largely oblivious to these difficulties and hence, by extension, to the need for more appropriate conceptual formulations upon which to base collective approaches to crime prevention.The article is in two parts. The first traces the allure and the difficulties of communalism in general and in crime prevention in particular. In traversing what may be in some respects well enough known terrain, it underlines that until we recognise the innate difficulties with this conceptual framework, crime prevention will not face up to the challenge of developing new and more appropriate foundations for a collectively based approach in this policy arena. An attempt to address this challenge is taken up in the second part of the article.

Is Communalism Dead? Reflections on the Present and Future Practice of Crime Prevention: Part One

Is Communalism Dead? Reflections on the Present and Future Practice of Crime Prevention: Part One

The Adoption of ‘What Works’ Principles in Crime Prevention Policy and Practice

The Adoption of ‘What Works’ Principles in Crime Prevention Policy and Practice

Criminological Research and the Insurance Industry

A major objective of criminology must surely be to make a difference to levels of crime—by helping with an understanding of its causes and by suggesting ways in which it can be prevented. A problem faced by criminologists, though, is how to translate their research into crime prevention action. At least in the field of property crime, a delivery mechanism already exists in the shape of the insurance industry, which is uniquely positioned to motivate its clients to take crime prevention measures; the missing ingredient, on the part of the industry, is knowledge of the criminological research which might help insurers to direct their activities. This paper emphasises the importance of research into repeat victimisation and the identification of features which make properties vulnerable to crime, and makes a plea, in the interests of better delivery of crime prevention practice, for the opening of a dialogue between criminologists and the industry.

Structuration, human development and desistance from crime

Understanding how and why offenders stop committing offences is crucial for the development of effective crime prevention and criminal justice practices. Yet desistance has been the subject of little empirical research and relatively neglected by theory. In this article, the authors attempt to move beyond existing approaches to desistance which are limited by a tendency to focus on either aspects of human agency (e.g. decision making) or aspects of social structure (e.g. employment status and family responsibilities). Drawing on structuration and human development theories, and an examination of existing research on the ending of criminal careers, this article works towards an integrated theory of desistance. Empirical data drawn from a study of 34 life histories are used to illustrate the potential of a theory that combines an analysis of individual decisions and structural constraints. The authors present evidence to suggest that changes in the relative level and nature of individual power offers a new avenue of research for those wishing to explain desistance.

Community safety and the quest for security: Holding back the dynamics of social exclusion

This paper casts a deliberately critical eye over the government's ‘community safety'proposals as outlined in the UK Crime and Disorder Act 1998, their philosophical origins, their ambiguities and their potential for social exclusion. After an evaluation of some specific proposals in the Act, the paper goes on to suggest that community safety elements within the Act and associated policy initiatives embody three principal dynamics, namely appeals to community, managerialism and inter‐organisational partnerships. Within and between these dynamics lie deep ambiguities and conflicts, which may encourage, rather than hold back, the dynamics of social exclusion. It is argued that the government's proposals — under the influence of a certain brand of communitarian thought — display much confusion as to how ‘communities’ can contribute to the construction of social order. Moreover, the notion of community collides with existing social fragmentation and the commodificalion of security, which may fuel exclusionary elements of community safety practice. The paper goes on to consider the existence of important tensions between the managerialist preoccupations of policy and the rhetoric of ‘partnerships’, which pervade community safety. These can serve to undermine the intentions of legislators. Within the dynamics of crime prevention practice and appeals to ‘community’ there are dangers that ‘security differentials’ become increasingly significant characteristics of wealth and status. For community safety to hold back the dynamics of social exclusion, both government and local community safety practitioners will need to foster the conditions in which partnerships can flourish and to nurture forms of co‐operation, rooted in mutual acceptance of difference and inter‐organisational trust.

PATTERNS OF VICTIMIZATION FEAR OF CRIME, AND CRIME PRECAUTIONS IN NON-METROPOLITAN NEW MEXICO

Abstract As society becomes increasingly urbanized, the continued importance of rural-urban distinctions in understanding crime has become subject to debate. The effects of rural and urban residence on victimization rates, fear of victimization, and crime prevention practices are studied using data from a sample survey of eastern New Mexico residents. Urban residents were found to be more fearful of victimization, particularly in the community (as opposed to at home) and at night. Urban residents were also more likely to have taken behavioral but not household precautions in the recent past. Even controlling for demographic variables, urban location and, unexpectedly, education were consistently related to victimization. The general conclusion is that the rural-urban distinction appears to be meaningful in understanding victimization rates, fear of crime, and precautions taken against crime in eastern New Mexico.