FEELING UNSAFE IN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD
Recently, I have been feeling unsafe in my neighbourhood. This angst followed reports of two stabbings, someone getting shot close to where I live, innumerable reports of property crime and being harassed on the street. This is the same neighbourhood where I used to see seniors strolling in the dark; a place where diversity is something we pride ourselves on. A close knit and caring community.
My city, like many others, is facing issues associated with homelessness and the opioId crisis. Evidence-based practices such as Housing First, Safe Injection Sites and Supported Mental Health programs need to be seriously ramped up, in my opinion. Implementing these programs will require government and non-profit support, funding and an understanding that addressing core problems such as trauma, substance abuse and homelessness will help everyone.
On a neighbourhood level, I wondered if there was something that could be done to help people feel safer. As a Community Psychologist, this means that I explored evidence-based best practices (see below) as well as engaged community members about their thoughts and recommendations.
Community Engagement
So, I asked my neighbours a few questions along with recommendations for ideas or suggestions on three neighbourhood online platforms. The following is what they said:
Sixty-one individuals reported that they feel unsafe in the West End for themselves or for others.
Some people only felt afraid at certain times or in certain places, like at night.
“Yes, in the evening and I am more anxious than I used to be walking in the alleys during the day. (I’ve lived here 14 years and have to say only recently have I started to feel unsafe)”. Kathryn
Others reported more serious experiences.
“I do not feel safe in this neighborhood anymore. The other day I was feet away from the stabbing on the seawall. It really shook me. My bf and I always walked and held hands and over the past two years things have changed. We walked a few times but were uneasy to hold hands. I never felt this here before.” Thom
There was also a tendency for women to report feeling unsafe.
“We need to have the courage to say that it is predominantly women who have had their safety threatened and are living with reduced freedom in their own neighborhood. Some of us have struggled dearly to be independent and to be able to walk outside alone without being heckled, threatened, cussed at, attacked, or violated. This was one of the safest communities in North America not long ago. And it’s not just Covid; it started a few years back.” Wendi
It was a pointed out that feeling unsafe also impacts seniors, those more infirm and persons of coloUr.
“I wonder if you should add a question – If you yourself don’t feel unsafe in this neighborhood, are you wishful of supporting those who do (elders, more infirm, POC etc)? I’ve lived in the hood long enough to transition from middle-aged to older, and I no longer feel as safe as I did both because of physical reality and changes in the hood climate/happenings. For me YES to all, and I hope that those who feel fine themselves *are* sensitive to and supportive of measures for those who aren’t”. Michele
The second question asked whether they support community-based safety initiatives in collaboration with the City of Vancouver and Vancouver Police Department. Across the different platforms, 204 citizens responded with a yes. However, many expressed reservations such as:
“Yes, if we can have thorough discussions and power of decision”. Mariana
“I want this neighbourhood safer for everyone, but also ensure that we are open to solutions for the suffering and homeless. If we don’t want them here, where can they go?” Katharina
There was also concern about the police being responsive.
“I hear fights and swearing and yelling all the time, several times every day, from my 14th floor. So calling out for help wouldn’t be helpful. Once, when the screaming was particularly blood-curdling, I called the police and they wanted me to tell them whether anyone was in physical danger. It was 3 am so there’s no way I would have known…. I gave up on trying to get the police to attend.” Kathy
“I don’t feel very safe lately. However, the VPD don’t seem to have resources to deal with crime in the neighbourhood. It sure seems like they are deploying their people elsewhere.” Robin
Participating in a community-based safety initiative in collaboration with the police got a hard NO from some citizens who expressed concern about racial profiling or harassing certain groups.
“Policing initiatives/neighborhood watches can easily descend into targeting BIPOC or harmless homeless people.” Raissa
Question 3 asked if people would be willing to take part in a neighbourhood watch program (in person and/or online). Sixty-eight citizens reported yes, but again, with conditions.
“I think a lot of these ideas are really great. However, the methods undertaken will need to be considered carefully (in particular the community-based safety initiative and neighbourhood watch program). For example, a lot of neighbourhood watch programs in the US make many POC VERY uncomfortable. Also, if groups such as these are not organized in the right way, they can lead to more anxiety for some”. Erin
“What I think would be beneficial would be a community lead street patrol similar to the bear clan patrol or sweet grass patrol (although those are mainly Indigenous focused models) another model to look at is the good night out Vancouver crew that does harm reduction and check ins on Granville street”. Darcie
“I’ve learnt from C19 that sadly my neighborhood is filled with people who have strong opinions and also some are very racist, as a result, the watch program would have to be very well planned and organized and not turn into a taddle tail pointing fingers because you don’t like someone type of scenario.” Francesca
“With community policing or neighbourhood watch, I think we are really promoting people to actively go into sketchy areas to seek out criminals and be a hero. As someone mentioned about the US models of this, it can sometime lead to the group working closely with law enforcement and giving the group unregulated power (leading to discrimination/racism). I think it might be more effective to focus on protecting each other instead of seeking out bad actors. So perhaps we could have a group of community volunteers to walk, bike (?), or drive (with covid distance) people home. It’ll be a more diverse group of volunteers with no special powers, and we can all get to meet our neighbours”. Dickson
One hundred and thirty-seven citizens responded with a yes to the question about needing more security video cameras mounted and access to panic buttons. Most felt the cameras would be more useful.
“Security cameras would help deter and identify culprits. Panic buttons would be useless, as there would have to be two on each block.” Norm
“I believe this is a great idea, as long as the panic buttons have a fast and reliable response”. Melissa
The final question asked if they would support a whistle program (that could be blown in case of danger). Ninety citizens said yes to this question.
However, concern was expressed about using the whistle sound for the alarm.
“May I suggest that for the whistle suggestion, that you use another noise making object instead? Perhaps an airhorn? Whistles are commonly used and often sound like the scream or shrill of a child/person and may not get the quick/urgent/sense of emergency reaction intended.” Michelle
There was also a suggestion to have a specific SOS signal to differentiate the alarm.
“I think the whistle system would need to be a specific SOS signal or something, otherwise it could just be confused for an annoying person outside. I love the idea a East Van coffee shop had where you order a specific drink that isn’t actually a drink if you are in danger. I wonder if we could adopt something for businesses that aren’t just coffee shops where if you are in danger or need help you can go into a nearby store or restaurant (or even random person on the street) with a code to say you need help??” Jessica
Another suggestion was to use a personal safety smartphone app instead of a whistle.
“Another thing we can consider is promoting the use of personal safety apps. There are smartphone apps with a panic button, you hold the button on your walk home. If you let go, it calls the police. Not sure what our police here would do, but maybe some smart guy can figure out how to alert all the volunteers/neighbours out that night to check it out”. Dickson
Finally, some felt that using a whistle might actually be more dangerous.
“A hard no. Not a deterrent and much more likely to escalate the situation.” Tom
Further Suggestions
“I would be happy to shop for and or with Seniors! Pick up and drop off!” Myfanwy
“When I moved in the West End, 23 years ago, we had police on bikes patrolling the area. We need them back”. Jeanne
“Also, a lot of our streets don’t have sufficient lighting. I walk home from Coal Harbour and most of the streets in the “middle” of West End are pitch black”. Geneva
There was also concern that looking for actions related to citizen safety was an attack on marginalized groups and instead, effort should be focused on the systematic problems of mental health, housing and substance abuse.
“Clearly that European perspective is just one and it has been oppressive. There are other solutions. We need long term solutions such as a safe drug supply, affordable and available housing, culturally-relevant health care, universal basic income..”. Justinne
“Address the housing crisis and opioid crisis. The rest are band aid after the fact solutions. I’ve gotten desensitized to noise. Screaming outside my window and it barely registers”. Clare
Finally, concern was expressed about the need to have a comprehensive and considered response to the safety issue.
“My suggestion is to 1st organize ourselves, set up public discussions and get politicians involved such us the WE MLA, get access to data from police and the city regarding crime in the WE and the city so we can understand how/what types of crime evolved with time (versus our own biased perceptions) so we can better understand what type of initiative could actually work”. Marianna
EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS
Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) refer to programs and policies supported by research. In this case, I will be only presenting the highest level of research evidence-systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as “a review of the evidence on a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant primary research, and to extract and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The methods used must be reproducible and transparent” (Cochrane Background to Systematic Reviews, nd). In other words, multiple studies are used to answer a question using very strict criteria. According to Merriam-Webster. (n.d.), meta-analyses are a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance. Meta-analysis is the statistical procedure for combining data from multiple studies.
Crime prevention strategies can be broadly divided to different categories: social development programs, situational measures, community-based strategies, administrative/legal strategies (i.e., zoning bylaws), and police-based strategies (i.e., offender-oriented policing) according to Linden (2010).
I will address those on the neighbourhood level, that is, situational measures, community-based strategies, and social development programs.
SITUATIONAL MEASURES
Situational measures refer to changes in the environment that can be modified to deter crime. The Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a public safety strategy that includes design recommendations for housing layout, land use, access control, territoriality, and physical maintenance. Crowe and Zahm (1994) describe some CPTED strategies:
-Provide a clear border definition of controlled space.
-Provide a clearly marked transition from public to semi-public to private space.
-Locate gathering areas in places with natural surveillance and access control and away from the view of potential offenders.
-Place safe activities in unsafe locations and unsafe activities in safe locations.
-Provide natural barriers to conflicting activities.
-Improve the scheduling of space to provide for effective and critical intensity of uses.
-Design space to increase the perception of natural surveillance.
-Overcome distance and isolation through improved communications and design efficiencies, e.g., emergency telephones, pedestrian paths.
The purpose of CPTED is to create physical environments which reduce the opportunities for crime. According to the RCMP who promote CPTED, we can reduce crime and the fear of crime through the following, as reported here:
-Territoriality – fostering residents’ interaction, vigilance, and control over their neighbourhood.
-Surveillance – maximizing the ability to spot suspicious people and activities.
-Activity support – encouraging the intended use of public space by residents.
-Hierarchy of space – identifying ownership by delineating private space from public space through real or symbolic boundaries.
-Access control/target hardening – using physical barriers, security devices and tamper-resistant materials to restrict entrance.
-Environment – a design or location decision that takes into account the surrounding environment and minimizes the use of space by conflicting groups.
-Image/Maintenance – ensuring that a building or area is clean, well-maintained, and graffiti-free.
The first two categories, territoriality and surveillance, were discussed by Jane Jacobs in her pioneering book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), where she encouraged mixed use spaces that help build social connections with neighbours, who watch out for each other and thus, deter crime.
Neighbourhood Watch Programs
Inspired by Jacob’s concept of ‘eyes on the street’, Neighbourhood Watch programs started with the aim to teach residents about security and safety and report to authorities when criminal activity was suspected. Neighbourhood Watch programs are one of the most widely used neighbourhood level intervention in reducing crime. It is thought that offenders are less likely to commit crimes if they believe people are watching and will report suspicious behaviour.
In 2009, Bennett and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis (a study of multiple studies) to explore the effectiveness of neighbourhood watch programs on reducing crime. The narrative review was based on 19 studies (covering 43 evaluations) and the meta-analysis was based on 12 studies (covering 18 evaluations). The criteria used for this study included: a) residents operating as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the police (i.e. surveillance), b) residents reporting suspicious behaviour to the police or neighbourhood coordinator, and c) residents interacting and working together to solve problems (which might strengthen social cohesion, collective efficacy, community activism, and other mechanisms of informal social control). This evaluation did not include neighbourhood wardens, i.e., residents patrolling neighbourhood areas.
In all studies evaluated, the watch area was compared to a matched comparison area. The data included police-recorded crimes and self-reported victimizations. The main finding of the study was that neighbourhood watch programs were effective in reducing crime by 16 – 26 percent.
According to the National Crime Prevention Council found here, tips for an effective program include:
-Work with the police. These agencies are critical to a Watch group’s credibility and are the source of necessary information and training.
-Link up with your victims’ services office to get your members trained in helping victims of crime.
-Hold regular meetings to help residents get to know each other and to decide upon program strategies and activities.
-Consider linking with an existing organization, such as a citizens’ association, community development office, tenants’ association, or housing authority. They may be able to provide an existing infrastructure you can use.
-Canvass door-to-door to recruit members.
-Ask people who seldom leave their homes to be “window watchers,” looking out for children and reporting any unusual activities in the neighbourhood.
-Translate crime and drug prevention materials into other languages needed by non-English speakers in your community. If necessary, have a translator at meetings.
-Sponsor a crime and drug prevention fair at a church hall, temple, shopping mall, or community center.
-Gather the facts about crime in your neighbourhood. Check police reports, conduct victimization surveys, and learn residents’ perceptions about crimes. Often, residents’ opinions are not supported by facts, and accurate information can reduce the fear of crime.
It is one of a class of drugs known cipla tadalafil 10mg as PDE5 enzyme inhibitors. It is not better option rushing towards the viagra ordering on line Click This Link nuts to achieve health goals. It may be helpful to look at pictures of what women look like after surgery cheap viagra sales so you and your partner to have a satisfying sexual life that you required. Bread, biscuits, sweets all are full of preservatives, enhancers, sweeteners, which only emphasize the need to buy cialis follow a detox plan. -Physical conditions like abandoned cars or overgrown vacant lots contribute to crime. Sponsor cleanups, encourage residents to beautify the area, and ask them to turn on outdoor lights at night.
-Work with small businesses to repair rundown storefronts, clean up littered streets, and create jobs for young people.
-Start a block parent program to help children cope with emergencies while walking to and from school or playing in the area.
However, it is important to never forget about the fatal shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighbourhood watch coordinator – highlighting the need for careful training and surveillance only.
CCTV Effectiveness
CCTV or closed-circuit television surveillance is another situational method used to reduce crime. It is believed that CCTVs reduce crime by deterring potential offenders, allowing intervention by police and security personnel and helping to make people feel safer and more secure.
In the UK, the use of CCTV as a crime prevention method has proliferated (208 million pounds between 1997-2003). In another Campbell Collaboration systematic review, Welsh and Farrington (2008a) explored the evidence demonstrating its efficacy in preventing crime. The Campbell Collaboration is an international, voluntary, non-profit research network that publishes systematic reviews. They summarize and evaluate the quality of evidence about programs in the social and behavioural sciences. Their aim is to help people make better choices and better policy decisions.
In this systematic review, the authors included only studies that had before-and-after measures of crime in experimental and control areas. There needed to be at least one experimental area and one reasonably comparable control area. They found 44 studies which were applicable: conducting a meta-analyses on 41 of those studies.
The results found that CCTV has a modest but significant desirable effect on crime, especially when targeted at personal property crime but not on levels of violent crime. According to the authors
“Effectiveness varies across settings. Surveillance is more effective at preventing crime in car parks, and less effective in city and town centers, public housing, and public transport. CCTV appears most effective in car parks at reducing vehicle crimes such as thefts from cars or stealing cars. The effectiveness of CCTV surveillance is greater when camera coverage of an area is high.” (p. 2).
Street Lighting
In another evidence-based review from the The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group, Walsh and Farrington (2008b) conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of street lighting on personal and property crime reduction. It is believed that by improving street lighting, it allows greater visibility of streets as a deterrent for offending as well as a signal of community care in their neighbourhood (increased community pride, community cohesiveness, and informal social control).
The results of this review found that improved street lighting significantly reduces crime in public spaces. The review also found a reduction in crime both during the night and daytime, suggesting value to the theory of the importance of street lighting increasing community pride and informal social control as well as increased surveillance and deterrence.
Using multiple interventions can make a difference. Carter and Carter (2003) showed that a community in Florida that used CPTED principles and increased police patrolling had fewer calls for police services, crimes against persons and property, and prostitution compared to control communities.
COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION
Hope (1995) defined community crime prevention as “actions intended to change the social conditions that are believed to sustain crime in residential communities. Different approaches have evolved, which can be best understood as a succession of policy paradigms emerging as responses to changing urban conditions: community organizing; tenant involvement; resource mobilization; community defense (both intentional organizing and environmental modification); preserving order; and protecting the vulnerable. (p. 21).” Local social institutions (e.g., families, associations, churches, and youth clubs are usually the stakeholders who deliver these programs in their communities to address delinquency and crime.
In a review of 15 systematic reviews on the efficacy of community-based crime prevention initiatives (with 13 also containing meta-analyses), Gill (2016) found positive support for primary prevention programs such as mentoring and diversion programs for at-risk youth. She reported that successful initiatives include elements that strengthen and restore positive social ties with at-risk youth, enhance informal and supportive social controls and reintegration, as well as to maintain or repair social bonds.
Public Safety Canada,provides information about good practices for developing safety initiatives by community members. This involves community members gathering as a group to identify an issue, develop solutions, act and then track effectiveness. British Columbia has an excellent toolkit to assist in this process called the Safe Communities Kit.
According to the Safe Communities Kit, community safety advocates can use the SARA method to address problems, which involves four steps: scan, analyze, respond, and assess. First, scan the situation. Take it all in. Try to absorb everything you possibly can about what’s happening. In this step, you are identifying and describing the problem.
The second step is to analyze the situation. Think about who is involved, what they are doing, what social and economic realities exist that feed into the situation and try to determine what has caused this situation or problem.
The third step is to collectively respond to the problem. Actively engage different people involved in brainstorming possible solutions and arriving at an option that seems to work well for most people. Form an action plan for what you’re going to do — and do it.
Finally, assess the results. Develop an evaluation plan to determine whether your project has made a difference and how the community feels it has worked and why?
According to the kit, by using the SARA method for community problem-solving, you’ll help maintain the collaborative philosophy that’s central to any successful community safety program.
Example of a community crime prevention initiative.
Rainier Beach: A Beautiful Safe Place for Youth (ABSPY) is a community-led, place-based, data-driven, collaboration focused on preventing crime in five juvenile and youth crime hot spots in the Rainier Beach neighbourhood of Seattle. The heart of the ABSPY approach was the development of the Community Task Force (CTF), a team of over 100 community members who reflect the diversity of the Rainier Beach neighbourhood.
According to Gill, Vitter and Weisburg (2016, p. vI),
From 2013 through 2016, in an effort overseen by the Core Team, community members from the five Rainier Beach hot spots took the lead in developing evidence-informed strategies to address the root causes of youth crime in the neighbourhood. These interventions were tailored to the specific conditions in each hot spot and continue to be regularly updated and adjusted based on new data and changing conditions in the hot spots. ABSPY’s signature interventions included:
-Corner Greeter events, led by the Rainier Beach Action Coalition, in which young people from the neighborhood set up stations offering refreshments, information, and fun activities in each hot spot to engage community members and “activate” places that were previously considered to be unsafe.
-Safe Passage, led by the Boys and Girls Club of King County, which provides guardianship, supervision, and encouragement to young people as they leave school.
-Business engagement, coordinated by Seattle Neighborhood Group and supported by the Rainier Beach Merchants Association, Seattle Police Department, and local community and economic development organizations. This intervention focuses on learning about the concerns facing local businesses, building relationships between businesses and with the police, and increasing business owners’ ability to prevent and report crime.
-Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) interventions and resources, applied to both public and private property, to improve design, layout, and place management.
-Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in both school and community settings, overseen by Seattle Public Schools and the ABSPY Core Team, to collaboratively set behavioral expectations for young people, reward good behavior, and support youth in need of support.
The evaluation of the program from 2011-2016, used police reported crime incidents as well as two community surveys for the 5 hotspots and 5 comparable areas. The results found less crime in the hot spots over time, especially serious violent crime and modest improvements in how they view the police and their [communities’] ability to deal with disorder.
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The final category of effective neighbourhood level initiatives for reducing crime is social development programs. These are prevention programs aimed at individual, familial and social conditions that have been associated with crime and offenders. Social development programs address the conditions or root causes that support crime and therefore work to prevent it.
Crawford and Evans, (2017) report that these programs target the risk factors that exist at different ages and provide protective factors at crucial transition points across a lifetime. They offer opportunities to target prevention resources at those most at risk of offending, where long- term benefits might happen.
The risk factors most associated with future offending according to Farrington (1997) include: “child impulsiveness, low school attainment, poor parental supervision, inconsistent parental discipline, separation from a parent, low family income, and delinquent friends.” (p. 157).
These risk factors are reflected in current BC youth offenders according to Time Out III: A Profile of BC Youth in Custody (the McCreary Centre Society’s Adolescent Health Survey for youth in custody). As the survey for youth in custody indicates, many are coming from abusive families (physical abuse-63%, sexual abuse-41%), have addictions, physical, learning and mental health problems, been exposed to major trauma and are disconnected from family and community supports. It is not surprising then that this group is more likely to have poorer physical and mental health. Forty-eight percent have been diagnosed with a conduct disorder (behavioural problems, anger issues).
According to The Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD), a nongovernmental, not-for-profit organization (nd), investing in children early pays off in cost as well as providing social and emotional support and a reduction in victimization. Cohen and Piquero (2009, p. 25) report “We stop a 14-year-old high risk youth from a life of crime, we would save society $2.6 to $5.3 million. If we start the process at birth, we would save $2.6 – $4.4 million. ¨
In a review of systematic reviews of social development crime prevention studies, Farrington, Ttofi, and Lösel (2016) examined those programs targeted at children and adolescents up to age 18. They identified 33 systematic reviews covering general prevention (n = 3), individual prevention (n = 5), family prevention (n = 8), and school-based programs (n = 17). Overall, the findings were positive in all contexts. The following is a description of programs considered most effective.
Home visitation by nurses who give advice about prenatal and postnatal care of the child, about infant development, and about the importance of proper nutrition and avoiding smoking and drinking during pregnancy. This resulted in a significant decrease in recorded child physical abuse and neglect during the first two years of life and a lower likelihood of criminal activity in both the child and mother (Olds et al., 1998).
Day care/preschool –The Perry Preschool Project is a shining example of the effectiveness of a social development crime prevention program. At risk children were randomly assignment to either an experimental or control condition. The experimental children attended a daily preschool program, backed up by weekly home visits for two years. The aim of this program was to provide intellectual stimulation, to increase thinking and reasoning abilities, and to increase later school development. This program had long-term benefits. Berrueta-Clement et al. (1984) showed that, at age 19, the experimental group was more likely to be employed, more likely to have graduated from high school, more likely to have received college or vocational training, and less likely to have been arrested.
Family/Parent Training- This initiative focuses on providing education and training to parents/families of young children with behavioral problems and aggressive behavior. The aim is to enhance and develop the parents’ ability to parent their children. More specifically, training involves being better at interacting with their child, praising, setting limits and being consistent in their parenting and discipline. In their systematic review, Piquero and colleagues (2008) found that family/parent training programs are effective. These parent training programs typically involved either individual or group-based parent training sessions that are conducted in a clinic, the school, or some other type of community-based site and the main parenting intervention programs were the Incredible Years Parenting Program, the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program, and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. Children from families who received training cope 70% better than children from families who did not receive training (50% still exhibited problems).
Social Skills Training focuses on the child’s ability to express oneself and communicate one’s thoughts, needs and feelings; and to be better at reacting to and understanding other people’s thoughts, needs, and feelings. The idea is that these skills will help children avoid and/or tackle unpleasant situations in the future. Lösel and Beelmann (2003) carried out a systematic review of the effects of child social skills or social competence training on antisocial behavior (including delinquency). The review included 55 randomized controlled experiments with 89 separate experimental-control group comparisons. At completion of the intervention, all outcomes favored the treatment condition, with delinquency being significantly affected at follow-up. The authors also found that the most effective social skills training programs used a cognitive-behavioral approach and were implemented with older children (13 years and over) and higher risk groups who are already exhibiting behavioral problems.
Another systematic review conducted by the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group found that teaching young children (under 10 years) self control reduced antisocial behavior and delinquency (Piquero, Jennings, & Farrington, 2010).
Example of a community-led social development crime initiative
Communities that Care Program is a a planning and implementation system that helps community stakeholders come together to address adolescent behavior problems such as violence, delinquency, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and dropping out of school. In randomized control trials, treatment sites had statistically significant lower levels of risk factors and a lower likelihood of initiation of delinquent behavior (Hawkins et al, 2008; Hawkins et al, 2009). See here for more information about this initiative.
A video of their Social Development Strategy shows how all people in a community can support protective factors in children.
SUMMARY
-Neighbourhood Watch Programs are effective for reducing crime by 16-26%.
-CCTV has a modest but significant effect on crime, especially property crime.
-Improved lighting significantly reduces crime.
-Primary Prevention Programs such as mentoring and diversion programs for at-risk youth are effective for reducing crime.
-Social Development Programs that address the root causes of delinquency are very effective, especially nurse visitation programs, daycare/preschool programs, training for parents, and social skills training for children.
It is reassuring that citizens can make a difference in crime in their communities. Ideally, this would be supported by local government, police departments, non-profits and funding agencies. The Primary Prevention Programs and the Social Development Programs are extensive collaborative initiatives that require a concerted effort by many people to implement, a Program Coordinator and take time to see results but are highly effective in addressing current and future crime. We either spend the money now or pay more later.
REFERENCES
Bennett T, Holloway K, Farrington D. (2008). The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18, DOI: 10.4073/csr.2008.18.
Bennett T L, Farrington D & Holloway K. (2009). The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Security Journal, 22 (2), 143-155.
Berrueta-Clement et al (1984). Changed Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age 19. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Number Eight. Retrieved from ERIC, June 23, 2021 at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED313128
Canadian Council on Social Development(n.d.). Crime Prevention. Retrieved June 22, 2021 from http://www.ccsd.ca/index.php/component/content/article?id=197
Carter S.P., & Carter S.L. (2003). Zoning out crime and improving community health in Sarasota Florida: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Am J Public Health, 93(9): 1442–1445.
Cochrane Background to Systematic Reviews. Retrieved June 20, 2021 from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
Cohen, M.A., & Piquero, A.R. (2009). New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth. J Quant Criminology, 25, 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-008-9057-3
Crawford, A & Evans, K (2017). Crime Prevention and Community Safety. In: The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press, 797 – 824.
Crowe T.D., & Zahm D.L. (1994). Crime prevention through environmental design. Land Development. Fall, 22-27.
Evans, C., Stalker, K., & Brown, M. (2021). A systematic review of crime/violence and substance use prevention programs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 56, 101513.
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2003). Family-based Prevention of Offending: A Meta-analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.36.2.127
Farrington, D., Ttofi, M., & Lösel, F. (2016). Developmental and social prevention. In (David Weisburd, David P. Farrington, and Charlotte Gill, eds.), What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation: Lessons from Systematic Reviews. New York: Springer.
Farrington, D. (1997). Long-term prediction of offending and other life outcomes. Eur J Crim Policy Res 5, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02677607
Gill, C. (2016). Community interventions. In (David Weisburd, David P. Farrington, and Charlotte Gill, eds.), What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation: Lessons from Systematic Reviews. New York: Springer.
Hawkins, David J., Eric C. Brown, Sabrina Oesterle, Michael W. Arthur, Robert D. Abbott, and Richard F. Catalano. (2008). Early Effects of Communities That Care on Targeted Risks and Initiation of Delinquent Behavior and Substance Use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 15–22.
Hawkins. David J., Sabrin Oesterle, Eric C. Brown, Michael W. Arthur, Robert D. Abbot, Abigail A. Fagan, Richard F. Catalano. (2009). Results of a Type 2 Translational Research Trial to Prevent Adolescent Drug Use and Delinquency. Archive of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 789–98.
Hope, T. (1995). Community Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice, January, 21-89.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Linden, R. (2010). An Evidence-Based Approach to Community Safety. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 1, 53-77.
Lösel, F., & Beelmann, A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial behavior: A systematic review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 84–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716202250793
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Meta-analysis. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meta-analysis
Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Welsh BC, Tremblay R, Jennings WG. (2008). Effects of early family / parenting programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2008:11 DOI: 10.4073/csr.2008.11.
Piquero, A.R., Jennings, W.G., Farrington, D.P. (2010). Self-control interventions for children under age 10 for improving self-control and delinquency and problem behaviors. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2, DOI: 10.4073/csr.2010.2.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5330), 918-924.
Smith, A., Cox, K., Poon, C., Stewart, D., and McCreary Centre Society (2013). Time Out III: A profile of BC youth in custody. Vancouver, BC: McCreary Centre Society.
Welsh, B. (2007) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: The Scientific Basis, Trends, and Results, with Implications for Canada, Final Report, Prepared for the National Crime Prevention Centre, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Welsh B., & Farrington D. (2008a). Effects of improved street lighting on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13 DOI: 10.4073/csr.2008.134
Welsh B., & Farrington D. (2008b). Effects of closed circuit television surveillance on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1-73.
Weisburd, D., Farrington,D., Gill , C., et al. (2017). What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation. Retrieved June 19, 2021 from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=8464609967640081568&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1