 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
OTHER COMMUNITY STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION
Community characteristics can serve as both risk and protective factors for criminal and delinquent behavior. The foundation for this premise dates to research by Shaw and McKay (1942). The authors noted that juveniles are more likely to become involved in delinquent and criminal behaviors when regularly exposed to crime. They pointed out that areas characterized by lower economic status generally have higher rates of delinquency as compared with higher income areas, and that lower economic areas are characterized by a wide diversity in norms and standards of behavior. The theorists suggested that the legitimate social institutions within these communities are not strong enough to compete with illegitimate groups in their ability to attract youth. As a result, criminal activity may appear equally or more attractive to youths as criminal opportunities may be both profitable and readily accessible options for employment or promotion. In addition, within communities composed of varying norms, delinquent or criminal behaviors (e.g., theft or drug sales) may be seen as proper in some groups and improper in others.
THEORETICAL CONTEXT
The community has largely been ignored in public policy circles as a target for crime prevention initiatives. Traditional community-level initiatives were generally reactive in nature, and instead of attacking destructive community characteristics and building resiliency in communities they tended to center on policing and social control strategies. Today, several different types of community-focused intervention strategies are challenging these reactive policies by using the public health approach (Hyndman et al., 1992; Perry, Klepp, and Sillers, 1989). The public health model of violence prevention assumes that, as with health problems, the harm caused by violence is not only identifiable but also preventable and treatable. Specifically, researchers and policymakers have turned to programs that attempt to change individual behavior at a macro level (Sampson, 1995). This level of social inquiry asks how community structures and cultures produce differential rates of criminal activity. In other words, what community characteristics (i.e., risk factors) are associated with criminal activity?
Current research (Hawkins, et. al., 2000) suggests that several community-level factors predict violent and delinquent behavior. For example, being raised in poverty (Sampson and Lauritsen, 1994), community disorganization (Maguin et al., 1995), the prevalence of drugs and firearms (Maguin et al., 1995), neighborhood adults involved in crime (Maguin, et al., 1995), and exposure to violence in the home and elsewhere (Paschall, 1996) all increase the probability of individual criminal or delinquent behavior.
As a result of this research, policymakers and practitioners are devising strategies to reduce the impact of these factors and implement changes in community policies and structures (i.e., protective factors) to prevent or reduce the propensity of individuals to engage in delinquent and criminal activities. These strategies emphasize several risk factors including easy access to firearms and drugs, community disorganization, and community norms or attitudes favorable to antisocial behavior. In contrast, the protective factors concentrate on social bonding and clear community standards and norms. Approaches are varied. They next several sections document the purpose and impact of these various initiatives.
COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION
The purpose of community mobilization is to facilitate change within the community to alter the basic patterns of social interaction, values, customs, and institutions in ways that will significantly improve the quality of life in a community. This sweeping change distinguishes community mobilization from more traditional interventions, which typically attempt to meet social policy goals by using a relatively defined and discrete mechanism (such as a new service or program) to produce desired changes in the lives of targeted individuals. Community mobilization, in contrast, attempts to change the everyday environment in communities in ways that will result in better outcomes for everyone living within a designated geographic area. This crucial difference in strategy poses a new and complex set of challenges and at the same time multiplies and complicates the issues that need to be addressed by those evaluating the initiatives. Despite a lack of scientific evidence, current opinion views community mobilization strategies as a well-grounded, state-of-the-art approach for effective delinquency prevention. As Lawrence Sherman put it:
The scientific evidence that communities matter is strong. The evidence that serious crime is concentrated in a very small number of communities is even stronger. But the link between those facts and the design between prevention programs is very thin indeed. [1997,24]
Finally, because communities differ significantly, mobilization efforts across communities will differ. Community mobilization reflects a set of community-based strategies, each designed to address different goals, target specific groups or neighborhoods, and work in different arenas of community action. What community mobilization efforts all share in common is communication and outreach. But community mobilization initiatives differ because of their different target audiences and different outcomes. The most common citizen mobilization programs are neighborhood block watch programs and citizen patrols. Neighborhood block watch programs follow from the premise that residents are in the best position to monitor suspicious activities and individuals in their neighborhoods. Evaluations of such programs, however, found little evidence that the programs have a significant effect on neighborhood crime (Lindsay, and McGillis, 1986; Rosenbaum, Lewis, and Grant, 1986).
POLICY CHANGE
Many communities and States have changed policies and laws governing the sale and use of alcohol, cigarettes, and firearms to affect community-level risk and protective factors (Catalano, Loeber, and McKinney, 1999). The theory driving these policies is that by making it more difficult to obtain these items it will be more unlikely that a community will be damaged by it.
The research evidence of preventing antisocial behavior by juveniles through policy change is promising. For instance, policies limiting the availability of alcohol tend to reduce both the consumption of alcohol and the problems associated with alcohol use. Specifically, studies on raising the minimum drinking age to 21 (O'Malley and Wagenaar, 1991), taxes on alcohol (Grossman, Coate, and Arluck, 1987), and the licensing of establishments to sell alcohol (Holder and Blose, 1987; Wagenaar and Holder, 1991) all seem to reduce the prevalence of alcohol use. Similarly, studies of laws regulating the purchase and sale of firearms have revealed positive results (Brewer et al., 1995). For example, studies comparing rates of violent crime suggest that laws restricting the sale and purchase of handguns prevent gun-related crime (Sloan et al., 1988; Loftin et al., 1991). Finally, mandatory sentencing laws for felonies involving firearms appear to prevent homicides involving firearms (McDowall, Loftin, and Wiersema, 1992; Loftin, McDowall, and Wiersema, 1993).
MEDIA INTERVENTION
Media campaigns attempt to change public attitudes and standards, educate community residents, or support other community interventions. The advantage of media-based communications is that they can rapidly reach large numbers of people. In addition, some mediums (such as radio) allow you to target your audience very specifically, while others (such as television) permit you to reach a more diverse audience. In general, there are two types of media-based communications: free (e.g., articles in newspapers or on television or radio covered as a news story), and paid advertising. "Free" media is sometimes called "earned" media, because of the effort it takes to presenting one's group and its activities to reporters and news editors as a newsworthy event. Advertising, while sometimes costly, has the advantage of communicating without interpretation and commentary by intermediaries, such as reporters and editors, who may quote opposing views in a story about your event.
One of the best known media interventions is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, a national advertising campaign against drugs. A study of the campaign revealed that compared with other markets, markets where the campaign was intensively active saw significant increases in knowledge about the effects of marijuana and cocaine use (Black, 1989). Other evaluations show that media interventions can be effective when used in conjunction with other interventions, such as curriculums to prevent smoking or other substance abuse (Flynn et al., 1992; Flynn et al., 1995; Goodstadt, 1989; Pentz et al., 1989; Perry et al., 1992; Vartiainen et al., 1986, 1990).
CIVIL REMEDIES
Civil remedies use procedures and sanctions specified by civil statutes and regulation to prevent and reduce criminal problems and incivilities (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl, 2000). Many civil remedy actions seek to reduce signs of physical (broken windows, graffiti, trash, etc.) and social (public drinking, loitering, public urination, etc.) incivilities to break the cycle of neighborhood decline and decrease victimization (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl, 2000). Other civil remedies (e.g., youth curfews, gang injunctions, ordinances controlling public behavior, and restraining orders) concentrate on reducing social incivilities and preventing the opportunity for crime. Specifically, civil remedies generally aim to persuade nonoffending third parties (e.g., landlords and property owners) to take responsibility and action to prevent criminal behavior through the use of code enforcement, neighborhood cleanup, and nuisance and drug abatement statutes.
While the use of civil remedies as a crime prevention strategy is relatively new, it is growing rapidly in popularity. One reason is that civil remedies, unlike traditional criminal sanctions, attempt to resolve the underlying problems of criminal misconduct (Hansen, 1991) and enhance the quality of life (Rosenbaum et al., 1992). In addition, they offer an attractive alternative to traditional criminal remedies because they are relatively inexpensive and easy to implement (Davis and Lurigio, 1996). Finally, they also offer opportunities for frustrated community members to become involved in the process by documenting problems and pressuring the appropriate authorities to take action (Davis et al., 1991).
An excellent example of a civil remedy strategy is the Beat Health program in Oakland, Calif. The program uses civil remedies to control drug and disorder problems by teaming police with city agency representatives to inspect drug nuisance properties and coerce landlords to clean up properties, post "no trespassing signs," enforce civil law codes and municipal regulatory rules, and initiate court proceedings against property owners who fail to comply with civil law citations (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl, 2000). An evaluation of the program examined the impact of the program on calls for service for violent, property, drug, and disorder call incidents. The evaluation found a statistically significant difference for drug calls between the control and experimental groups. Specifically, it found a 7 percent decrease in the average number of drug calls per experimental site, while the average number per control group increased 54.7 percent. The authors conclude that the Beat Health sites improved relative to the control sites (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl, 2000). The study found improvement in drug problems in the areas surrounding the experimental residential sites. By contrast, the control treatment (patrol response) led to significant increase in drug problems, particularly at commercial properties.