Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prevention and prevarication: the fits and starts of prevention in the USA

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Aims and scope

Abstract

Crime prevention and its discourse in the USA has been a series of fits and starts since at least the late 1990s. There continues to exist an absence of any driving force giving direction to a true prevention movement. Most major initiatives that could be considered “prevention” tend to be gut level responses by criminal justice system actors to address existing offending (tertiary prevention) rather than identifying emerging opportunities or prospective problems and developing/initiating true primary or secondary preventive actions. When attempts are made to eliminate initial acts or opportunities to act, there is a marked lack of follow through, leaving only halfhearted attempts. This article attempts to illustrate this failure and the reasons for the failure, and makes suggestions for improving primary and secondary prevention in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Braga, A.A., D.M. Kennedy, A.M. Piehl, and E.J. Waring. 2001. Measuring the impact of operation ceasefire. In National Institute of Justice, Reducing gun violence: The Boston Gun Project’s operation ceasefire. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

  • Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2018. Project safe neighborhoods (PSN). Retrieved 12 May 2018 from https://www.bja.gov/programdetails.aspx?program_id=74.

  • Campbell Collaboration. 2018. About us. Retrieved 20 May 2018 from https://campbellcollaboration.org/about-campbell.html.

  • Corsaro, N., and E. McGarrell. 2009. Testing a promising homicide reduction strategy: Rassessing the impact of Indianapolis’ ‘pulling levers’ intervention. Journal of Experimental Criminology 5: 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corsaro, N., and E. McGarrell. 2010. Reducing homicide risk in Indianapolis between 1997 and 2000. Journal of Urban Health 87: 851–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cristall, J., and L. Forman-Echols. 2009. Property abatements—the other gang injunction: Project T.O.U.G.H. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. National Gang Center Bulletin 2.

  • DuBois, D.L., N. Portillo, J.E. Rhodes, N. Silverthorn, and J.C. Valentine. 2011. Howe effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12: 57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J.E. 1998. Preventing crime by controlling drug dealing on private rental property. Security Journal 11: 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J.E., and J. Wartell. 1998. Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems: A randomized experiment. In Civil remedies and crime prevention, ed. L.G. Mazerolle and J. Roehl. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J.E., and J. Wartell. 1999. Reducing crime and drug dealing by improving place management: A randomized experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, E., and S. Kim (2015) What you should know about the new credit card chip rule. ABC News. Retrieved 15 May 2018 from https://abcnews.go.com/Business/credit-card-chip-rule/story?id=34148839.

  • Ganotis, J. (2018) Chip credit cards: EMV, chip-and PIN, and chip-and-signature. Credit card insider. Retrieved 15 May 2018 from https://www.creditcardinsider.com/learn/chip-and-signature-chip-and-pin-emv-cards/.

  • Green, L. 1995. Policing places with drug problems: The multi-agency response team-approach. In Crime and Place, ed. J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, J.B., and J.P. Tierney. 1998. Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review 22: 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, B., and A.V. Papachristos. 2017. Project safe neighborhoods in Chicago: Looking back a decade later. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 107: 131–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellermann, A.L., D. Fuqua-Whitley, and C.S. Parramore. 2006. Reducing gun violence: Community problem solving in Atlanta. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D.M., A.A. Braga, and A.M. Piehl. 2001. Developing and implementing operation ceasefire. In National Institute of Justice, Reducing gun violence: The Boston Gun Project’s operation ceasefire. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

  • Lab, S.P. 2004. Crime prevention, politics and the art of going nowhere fast. Justice Quarterly 21: 681–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L.G., and J.A. Roehl. 1999. Controlling drug and disorder problems: Oakland’s Beat Health Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L.G., J. Roehl, and C. Kadleck. 1998. Controlling social disorder using civil remedies: Results from a randomized field experiment in Oakland, California. In Civil remedies and crime prevention, ed. L.G. Mazerolle and J. Roehl. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarrell, E.F., S. Chermak, J. Wilson, and N. Corsaro. 2006. Reducing homicide through a ‘level-pulling’ strategy. Justice Quarterly 23: 214–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarrell, E.F., N. Corsaro, N.K. Hipple, and T.S. Bynum. 2010. Project safe neighborhoods and violent crime trends in US cities: Assessing violent crime impact. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26: 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tita, G.E., K.J. Riley, G. Ridgeway, and P.W. Greenwood. 2005. Reducing gun violence: Operation ceasefire in Los Angeles. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolan, P.H., D.B. Henry, M.S. Schoeny, P. Lovegrove, and E. Nichols. 2014. Mentoring programs to affect delinquency and associated outcomes of youth at risk: A comprehensive meta-analytic review. Journal Experimental Criminology 10: 179–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.K. Cards Association. 2016. 10 years of chip & PIN: 2006 to 2016. Retrieved 15 May 2018. http://www.theukcardsassociation.org.uk/wm_documents/10%20Years%20of%20Chip%20%20PIN%20report%20%282%29.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, USA

    Steven P. Lab

Authors
  1. Steven P. Lab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven P. Lab.

Additional information

The author would like to thank Ken Pease, Nick Tilley, Bonnie Fisher, and Michael Buerger who offered insight and suggestions on this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lab, S.P. Prevention and prevarication: the fits and starts of prevention in the USA. Crime Prev Community Saf 20, 243–255 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-018-0052-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-018-0052-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation