Section 2
Approaches to Community Crime Prevention

- The prevention approach
- Causal mechanisms and prevention
- Nature of community crime prevention
- Characterising crime prevention programmes for evaluation
- Illustration of programme characterisation
- Conclusion

Community crime prevention programmes differ in a number of significant ways. These variations have implications for the choice of an evaluation model which is appropriate for a particular study; in terms of its evaluation form, approach and methods, so that stakeholders' information needs will be met.

In order to make a sound choice of evaluation model a community crime prevention programme needs to be described and understood in terms of key characteristics relevant to evaluation. Of particular significance is the prevention approach, but there are other programme characteristics which also are important. This section reviews the nature of community crime prevention efforts and outlines a procedure for characterising crime prevention programmes for evaluation.

The prevention approach

It is common for community crime prevention efforts to be classified into two broad categories. These prevention approaches embody differing assumptions about the causal mechanisms underlying the programme rationale and varying perspectives on the 'community' and its role in crime prevention (Grabosky and James, 1995; Indermaur, 1996; O'Malley and Sutton, 1997). They may be designated as:

• opportunity reduction/situational approaches, which assume that crime can be reduced by 'changing the immediate situation in which offences may occur' (Ekblom and Pease, 1995: 600)
• social/developmental approaches, which assume that crime is reduced by 'changing potential offenders generally in terms of the dispositions, motives, knowledge, and skills they bring to situations' (Ekblom and Pease, 1995: 600).

Gant and Grabosky (2000) also distinguish between programmes based on community development which use social/developmental approaches to integrate individuals more fully into their community; and prevention measures by criminal justice agencies which use opportunity reduction/situational approaches at whole-of-community level to reduce motivation to offend. The following examples illustrate the two main approaches.

Opportunity reduction/situational approach

Introduction of methods to limit access to cash - Victoria
The introduction of measures in Victorian TAB outlets (betting shops) to limit access to cash provides an example of an opportunity reduction/situational approach to crime prevention (Gant and Grabosky, 2000). This initiative aimed to deter prospective robbers by increasing the effort and reducing the rewards associated with robberies, thereby making the TABs less attractive targets. Time-locking cash boxes were progressively introduced and a cash limit of $500 was set on each selling drawer in TABs. These target-hardening initiatives achieved a reduction in the incidence of robberies of between 20 per cent and 48 per cent, compared to banks and commercial premises. A further initiative, fitting time locks to the main safes, was also followed by a decrease in robberies, but similar decreases were recorded for robberies in banks and commercial premises. A decline in the average amount of money stolen in TAB robberies also was observed following the introduction of these initiatives.

Preventing motor vehicle theft - New South Wales
Criminal justice agencies in New South Wales introduced a suite of initiatives which aimed to reduce the opportunity for motor vehicle theft in Sydney, 'described as the car theft capital of the world' (Gant and Grabosky, 2000: 50). The programme used strategic assessment and planning, cooperation with public and private agencies and a publicity campaign. It aimed to reduce vehicle theft by educating the public to make their cars more secure, and by encouraging vehicle manufacturers to enhance vehicle security, insurers to remove incentives for insurance fraud, local governments and developers to provide more secure facilities for cars and the Roads and Traffic Authority to adopt a strategy to detect stolen cars being resold under a new identity. In the 12 months following the introduction of these measures, motor vehicle theft is reported to have declined by more than 25 per cent in New South Wales.

Social/developmental approach

The PeaceBuilders programme - Queensland
The PeaceBuilders programme aimed to reduce bullying, violence and other anti-social behaviour through a school-based intervention to increase children's resilience and reinforce positive behaviour (Gant and Grabosky, 2000). Participants were students at a school in a south-eastern Queensland community with high levels of unemployment, family breakdown and inter-cultural tension. The programme used a social/developmental approach to address risk factors associated with anti-social behaviour and developed protective mechanisms at the level of the individual, the school and the community. Following the introduction of the programme, anti-social behaviour fell, student and parent satisfaction with the school rose, parent involvement with the school increased, staff turnover declined and police call-outs to the school fell from 24 before the programme to four in the second year after its introduction.

Community justice groups - Queensland
An illustration of a social/developmental approach to crime prevention through community development is the Kowanyama and Palm Island community justice groups project. Drug abuse, family violence and property crime were unacceptably high in this remote north Queensland Indigenous community when justice groups were established to reduce personal and property crime and divert young people away from the criminal justice system. These groups comprise members of the Indigenous population who are supported by a community development officer and community consultation. Although without statutory authority, the groups provide a mechanism for the communities to deal with social and justice issues according to customary laws and practices using conflict resolution, sanctioning and liaison between criminal justice agencies and the community. The reported benefits include reduced levels of personal and property crime, reduced juvenile criminal activity and effectiveness in sanctioning anti-social behaviour and resolving family disputes (Gant and Grabosky, 2000).

Combined approaches

Grabosky and James (1995) cite an anti-bullying programme developed in Norway as an example where opportunity reduction and social/developmental approaches were combined. In this programme, changes were made to playground design (opportunity reduction), pro-social classroom interaction was encouraged, and counselling was provided for children at risk of victimisation (social/developmental).

Causal mechanisms and prevention

Crime prevention programs, in common with all social programmes, have an assumed causal mechanism embedded within them. This mechanism is often implicit (or at least not fully explicit) and provides the rationale for the programme (Tilley, 1996).

While the programme rationale may be closely related to a theory of why crimes occur, its focus needs to be on how to reduce their likelihood in the future. Murray et al (1993) recognise this distinction and provide a brief summary of the main theories of juvenile delinquency (strain theory, social learning theory, conflict theory and control theory), but suggest that crime prevention, apart from situational crime prevention, typically is based upon either a 'law and order' or a 'social development' model.

Situational-oriented crime prevention, being based on opportunity reduction for specific types of crime, has an emphasis on making both the social and the physical environment less conducive to crime, and on reducing the likely rewards and increasing the likely risks of crime (Clarke, 1997). Offender-oriented crime prevention, on the other hand, emphasises the centrality of the individual and focuses on their personal development in ways that will make it less likely that they will engage in criminal activity.

Ekblom and Tilley (2000) have argued that the distinct separation of these two causal mechanisms has obscured opportunities for developing a more comprehensive model of causation in crime prevention. They propose a framework for linking situational and offender-oriented prevention which incorporates both theories of causation. For practical purposes, however, the two broad categories are useful for guiding evaluation study decisions and are used throughout this paper.

Importance of the programme rationale

The underlying rationale of a programme is of particular interest in programme evaluation because it is critical to understanding the 'why' of the outcomes. Where it is explicit, the rationale should also be critically examined within the context of an evaluation study as this may indicate why the outcomes observed are not as intended, or as expected (Stake, 1967). The programme rationale needs to be examined for each particular programme site, however, since the operation of the mechanisms through which a programme is expected to effect change will be moderated by the different community contexts in which it is implemented (Pawson and Tilley, 1994).

Nature of community crime prevention

Community crime prevention can be viewed from a number of perspectives each suggesting particular implications for evaluation. Ekblom and Pease (1995) distinguish between action 'for the community', action 'through the community' and action 'with the community'. Another perspective is provided by Sherman et al (1997) who focus on the various institutional settings of crime prevention efforts. They distinguish between communities, families, schools, labour markets, places, the police and the criminal justice system. Each of these settings can differ in the extent to which a particular crime prevention programme is considered to be a community programme.

A third perspective is that of Teeters (1995) whose classification of crime prevention programmes is narrower in scope and more clearly community focused, yielding six categories: coordinated community programs; school programs; police programs; intramural guidance programmes; extramural guidance programs; and boys' clubs and recreation programmes. Nevertheless, despite a lack of clarity of what community crime prevention is, the central role of the community in crime prevention is widely acknowledged.

The need for community focus
In his book Crime and Everyday Life, Marcus Felson (1994) presents the view that most crime is 'ordinary', originating in 'the routine activities of everyday life' (p. xi). He argues that because of this, crime prevention should be built into these routine activities, emphasising informal social control rather than relying on the typically distant, and often expensive criminal justice system. While such a view does not deny that complex psychological, social and structural factors influence a propensity to commit criminal acts, it does emphasise the centrality of the local community and its institutions, such as the family, schools, neighbourhood organisations and youth work programmes, in crime prevention.

The centrality of local communities in crime prevention has been argued for by a number of authors. According to Bennett (1995), 'community organisations have particular strengths that make them a useful, even necessary, component in a multi-prong effort to reduce community crime' (p. 84). Furthermore, Felson's (1994) 'routine activity' perspective on crime leading to what he terms natural crime prevention, clearly implies that the way in which local communities operate and are structured is central to crime prevention. In his view this type of crime prevention is both unplanned and planned, and achieved through 'skilfully designing human settings or activities so that crime opportunities are unobtrusively and nonviolently reduced' (p. 128).

This view is supported by recent research showing that informal social control, and social cohesion and trust among neighbours is related to lower levels of violence (Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls, 1997). It is also supported by the nature of the 'Blueprint Programs', violence prevention programmes identified as having achieved a high level of effectiveness in reducing violence (Elliott, 1997), and the Communities that Care programme. The latter programme, operating in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, recognises the pivotal role of communities in crime prevention by seeking to build community capacity to plan and implement local, community-wide crime prevention strategies, and there is increasing evidence of its success (Toumbourou, 1999).

Preventive action that is implemented for the community, such as where the police act for the community, may not be quite in the same spirit as many programs that deliver interventions through community organisations to support common interests. Nevertheless, commonsense suggests that they be considered as community crime prevention, given the settings in which they operate (for example public places within residential and city areas), and so they also come within the scope of this paper.

In planning the evaluation of a community crime prevention programme it is necessary to take account of the:

• nature of the community setting(s) of the programme
• extent to which it is either 'grass roots' or externally driven, both in its initiation and its conduct.

This is because these considerations should influence decisions on both who are the primary stakeholders and what information is to be given highest priority in the study.

The major concern in this paper, then, is with the evaluation of community crime prevention programs which are based in families, schools or local residential communities, or which operate in public places within local community or city areas. Included here are programs where preventive action is undertaken for, with or through the community.

Characterising crime prevention programs for evaluation

The wide variety of community crime prevention programmes stems from differences in programme focus, programme rationale, community context, and how the community is involved as well as other factors. This diversity means that in choosing an evaluation model which will lead to stakeholders' information needs being met, a range of models needs to be considered. Routinely choosing a model from only a few 'standard' evaluation models is unlikely to produce the information required for making sound programme judgments and decisions in many evaluation situations.

Among the most important general considerations in designing and conducting an evaluation study are the following:

• its purpose, focus and timing, as these relate to the use of the evaluation information for making judgments and decisions
• the practicalities associated with collecting relevant evaluation data (i.e. its feasibility)
• the technical adequacy of the evaluation data
• the nature of the strategies put in place to safeguard the rights of key stakeholders in the evaluation process (i.e. probity).

The more specific programme characteristics which should be considered are the prevention approach, programme type and programme specifications.

A classification scheme for characterising programmes

Identifying and documenting the prevention approach, programme type and programme specification provides a straightforward way of characterising community crime prevention programmes for evaluation. Essentially, these characteristics provide a classification scheme for programs, but one which needs to be set in the particular local social, cultural and political context of the programme.

Prevention approach
One of the important considerations in designing and conducting an evaluation study is the rationale which underlies the programme. Ekblom and Pease (1995) point out that 'distinct evaluative requirements attach to different types of prevention' (1995: 585); while Pawson and Tilley (1994) note that evaluations need to take into account the mechanisms through which effects are assumed to be determined.

In most cases, a different evaluation strategy would be appropriate for a programme based on an opportunity reduction approach (for example 'lock it or lose it' campaigns) than for an offender-oriented crime prevention programme (for example providing youth at risk of offending with employment-related skills). In the former case, a model involving impact evaluation using a goal-based approach and quasi-experimental methods are more likely to be appropriate than in the latter case where process evaluation, an illuminative/responsive approach and naturalistic methods might yield more useful information, at least for a new programme.

Programme type
Funnell and Lenne (1990) have suggested that different types of programs would normally require different evaluation strategies because of the distinctive outcome hierarchies related to the various programme purposes. They distinguish between programs which seek to influence behaviour (for example public education programs, regulatory programs, case management programs) and programs that provide products or services (such as security services).

Outcome hierarchies are particularly useful both for determining programme logic and identifying essential and likely short-term and intermediate programme outcomes which an evaluation study might seek to observe. The development and use of an outcome hierarchy in planning an evaluation study is outlined by Murray et al (1993) who provide a useful example relevant to the evaluation of community based juvenile crime prevention programs1.

Programme specification
The programme specification is also an important consideration in the design and conduct of evaluation studies. The specification of a programme is usually expressed in terms of the:

• programme setting (for instance rural, urban, CBD)
• composition of the target group (for example families, students, people with disabilities)
• type of need or problem being addressed (for example crime against property, crime against persons).

Again, an evaluation model which might be appropriate for a programme in an urban setting which has a large participant base may be inappropriate for a programme, or even the same programme, in a country town with a small target population.

Social, cultural and political context
The strategies required to successfully obtain useful information about a programme can differ significantly depending upon the social and cultural values and assumptions of groups with an interest in the programme. Included here are the culturally appropriate processes which need to be followed in order to gain access to critical sources of information (Smith, 1999). In addition, as Weiss (1993) has pointed out, even though evaluation can be thought of as a rational enterprise, it always takes place in a political context embodying a number of significant considerations so that the 'evaluator who fails to recognize their presence is in for a series of shocks and frustrations' (1993: 94). This is because the policies and programs were 'proposed, defined, debated, enacted, and funded through political processes, and in implementation they remain subject to pressures - both supportive and hostile - that arise out of the play of politics' (Weiss, 1993: 94).

Figure 2 shows the critical aspects of crime prevention programs which together form the basis for characterising crime prevention programmes relevant to their evaluation. In addition, the social, cultural and political context influences not only the programme, but also the evaluation models which it would be appropriate to use.

Figure 2: Considerations in characterising community crime prevention programmes for evaluation

Illustration of programme characterisation

An analysis of neighbourhood watch programs, in a generic form, provides an illustration of the characterisation of a community crime prevention programme in preparation for planning an evaluation study. Neighbourhood watch programs typically include the four main components identified by Bennett (1989), or variants of them, as implemented in the London Metropolitan Police District in 1983. These components are:

• a network of community members who watch out for and report suspicious incidents to the police
• the personalised marking of valuable property
• home surveys to advise on the minimum level of protection required
• a public information campaign to raise awareness of the importance of crime prevention.

To characterise such programs, the underlying prevention approach (in terms of the assumed underlying causal mechanisms), programme type (as reflected in its main purpose and outcomes hierarchy), and programme specification (the particular programme setting, target group and problem focus) need to be identified. Once these elements have been identified, the particular constraints and requirements of the programme (the social, cultural and political context) can be identified.

Neighbourhood watch

Prevention approach
Neighbourhood watch is based on a prevention approach embodying the view that crime can be reduced by changing the situation in which offences might occur, and reflects a focus on the role of 'modulators' of crime, in this case surveillance by community members (Ekblom and Pease, 1995). A neighbourhood watch programme therefore has an opportunity reduction approach embodying a situational-oriented causal mechanism.

Ekblom and Pease (1995) point out that there are significant implications for evaluating situational-oriented approaches to crime prevention such as neighbourhood watch. These include the possible unintended side effect that reducing the opportunity to offend in one locality may lead to these crimes being displaced to other places, targets or types of crime. This displacement may be into nearby areas used for comparison purposes in the evaluation study with the result that intervention effects could be overestimated. More generally, Chen (1990) has noted that understanding the theory underpinning a particular social intervention is essential for identifying the important programme elements that ought to be used in focusing an evaluation study, as well as in articulating the presumed causal mechanisms in order to develop appropriate outcome measurement.

Programme type - advisory programme
Funnell and Lenne (1990), as noted earlier, suggest that different types of programs attach themselves to different evaluation strategies because of the distinctive patterns of outcomes and outcomes hierarchies that each type is expected to achieve. They distinguish between programs intended to 'influence behaviour' and those that 'provide a product or service'. Programs that seek to influence behaviour are further subdivided into 'advisory', 'regulatory' or 'case management' programs. Examples of advisory programs, also often referred to as public information programs, include health promotion programs and telephone advice services. Neighbourhood watch may also be thought of as an advisory programme: police, insurance companies, local government and security firms give information and advice to neighbourhood watch groups in an effort to reduce crime (or the fear of crime).

Advisory programs have a unique outcomes hierarchy that should guide the evaluation process. Evaluation tasks at the lowest level of the outcomes hierarchy for these programs include determining the extent to which the desired number and type of people have been contacted. Evaluation tasks at higher levels in the hierarchy include determining the extent to which the desired number and types of people involved in neighbourhood watch exhibit the desired changes in action or behaviour, such as improving the physical security of their homes.

Programme specification
The programme specification includes the setting in which the programme is implemented, the target group, and the need or problem being addressed. In Australia, neighbourhood watch has been implemented in an enormously wide range of social and geographical areas. Mukherjee and Wilson (1987) reported that in New South Wales there were more than 1,000 neighbourhood watch districts covering more than one million households. Some of these are in inner city and outer suburban areas while others are in regional areas. Each of these settings will present problems for evaluation, such as the feasibility of collecting certain types of evaluation data.

The target group of a neighbourhood watch programme is all households in a particular area. An evaluation study may need to identify the range of types of households and how factors such as household resources and other characteristics are related to the extent and degree of programme uptake. Furthermore, the specific nature of the problem being addressed, or the relative importance of various aspects of the general overall problem (for example car theft, other property theft and property damage), will also have significant implications for evaluation.

Conclusion

Community crime prevention programs differ in a number of significant ways. A variety of broad classification schemes have been proposed to capture this variation and characterise particular programs (for example Ekblom and Pease, 1995; Sherman et al, 1997; Teeters, 1995).

In planning a useful evaluation study it is important to have a 'fine-grained' characterisation of the programme to be evaluated. This characterisation needs to take into account the programme approach, programme type and programme specification so that the specific evaluation considerations of evaluation form, approach and method (the evaluation model) will be appropriate and adequate for the evaluation study. When this is done, an evaluation study is most likely to yield the information critical to the decisions and judgments to be made by the key stakeholders and other significant audiences.