Cohen and Felson’s (Cohen and Felson American Sociological Review 44(4):588–608, 1979) routine activity theory posits that for a crime to occur three necessary elements must converge in time and space: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardianship. Capable guardians can serve as a key actor in the crime event model; one who can disrupt, either directly or indirectly, the interaction between a motivated offender and a suitable target. This article critically reviews the literature on guardianship for crime prevention. Our specific focus is two-fold: (1) to review the way guardianship has been operationalized and measured, and (2) to review experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations and field tests of guardianship. Research on routine activities has had an uneven focus resulting in the neglect of the guardianship component (Reynald Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11(1):1–20, 2009; Sampson et al. Security Journal 23(1):37–51, 2010; Tewksbury and Mustaine Criminal Justice and Behavior 30(3):302–327, 2003; Wilcox et al. Criminology 45(4):771–803 2007). Evaluations of guardianship-related interventions demonstrate support for the theoretical construct; however, high-quality field tests of guardianship are wholly lacking. Implications for theory and research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Austin, W. (1979). Sex differences in bystander intervention in a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 2110–2120.
Barclay, P., Buckley, J., Brantingham, P. J., et al. (1996). Preventing auto theft in suburban Vancouver commuter lots: Effects of a bike patrol. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Preventing mass transit crime. Crime prevention studies (Vol. 6, pp. 133–161). Monsey: Criminal Justice.
Bennett, T. H., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Does neighborhood watch reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 437–458.
Block, R., & Skogan, W. G. (1984). The dynamics of violence between strangers: victim resistance and outcomes in rape, assault, and robbery. Evanston: Northwestern University.
Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2006). Implementing failure and success: Some lessons from England. In J. Knutsson & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Putting theory to work: Implementing situational crime prevention and problem-oriented policing, crime prevention studies (Vol. 20, pp. 163–198). Monsey: Criminal Justice.
Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Environmental criminology. Prospect Heights: Waveland.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44(2), 431–464.
Dertke, M. C., Penner, L. A., & Ulrich, K. (1974). Observer’s reporting of shoplifting as a function of thief’s race and sex. Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 213–221.
Eck, J. E. (1994). Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of the Spatial Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place: Crime prevention studies (Vol. 4, pp. 53–66). Monsey: Criminal Justice.
Felson, M. (2006). Crime and nature. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life: Insight and implications for society. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge.
Felson, M., & Cohen, L. E. (1980). Human ecology and crime: a routine activity approach. Human Ecology, 8(4), 389–406.
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., et al. (2006). The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 267–278.
Garofalo, J., & Clark, D. (1992). Guardianship and residential burglary. Justice Quarterly, 9(3), 443–463.
Gelfand, D., Hartmann, D., Walder, P., & Page, B. (1973). Who reports Shoplifters? A field experimental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 276–285.
Gill, M., & Spriggs, A. (2005). Assessing the Impact of CCTV. Home Office Research Study, No. 292. London, UK: Home Office.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Harari, H., Harari, O., & White, R. (1985). The reaction to rape by American male bystanders. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 653–658.
Hesseling, R. (1995). Theft from cars: reduced or displaced? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 79–92.
Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Jupp, V. (1989). Methods of criminological research. New York: Routledge.
Kenney, D. J. (1986). Crime on the subways: measuring the effectiveness of the guardian angels. Justice Quarterly, 3, 481–496.
Knutsson, J. (2006). What is there to gain? A case study in implementing without self-interest. In J. Knutsson & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Putting theory to work: Implementing situational crime prevention and problem-oriented policing, crime prevention studies (Vol. 20, pp. 89–110). Monsey: Criminal Justice.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton.
Laycock, G. (2006). Implementing crime reduction measures: Conflicts and tensions. In J. Knutsson & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Putting theory to work: Implementing situational crime prevention and problem-oriented policing, crime prevention studies (Vol. 20, pp. 65–88). Monsey: Criminal Justice.
Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1992). Ecological and behavioral influences on property victimization at home: implications for opportunity theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29(3), 335–362.
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: the parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6), 555–562.
Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Sloane, D. (1990). Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6(4), 357–376.
Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims and situations. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Moriarty, T. (1975). Crime, commitment and the responsive bystander: two field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 270–376.
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: a routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36, 829–858.
Pennell, S., Curtis, C., Henderson, J., et al. (1989). Guardian angels: a unique approach to crime prevention. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 378–400.
Poyner, B. (1991). Situational crime prevention in two parking facilities. Security Journal, 2(2), 96–101.
Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(1), 1–20.
Reynald, D. M. (2010). Guardians on guardianship: factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 358–390.
van Roell, G., Dijk, J. M., & Steinmetz, C. H. D. (1982). Interventiegedrag door omstanders: een veldexperiment. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 1, 21–35.
Sampson, R., Eck, J. E., & Dunham, J. (2010). Super controllers and crime prevention: a routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal, 23(1), 37–51.
Sampson, R. J. (2010). Gold standard myths: observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(4), 489–500.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
Schwartz, L., Jennings, K., Petrillo, J., & Kidd, R. (1980). Role of commitments in the decision to stop a theft. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 183–192.
Schwartz, S., & Gottlieb, A. (1976). Bystanders reactions to a violent theft: crime in Jerusalem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(6), 1188–1199.
Shaffer, D. R., Rogel, M., & Hendrick, C. (1975). Intervention in the library: the effect of increased responsibility on bystander’s willingness to prevent a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(4), 303–319.
Sklansky, D. A. (2008). Democracy and the police. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Stahura, J. M., & Sloan, J. J. (1988). Urban stratification of places, routine activities and suburban crime rates. Social Forces, 66(4), 1102–1118.
Takooshian, H., & Bodinger, H. (1982). Bystander indifference to street crime. In L. Savitz & N. Johnston (Eds.), Contemporary criminology (pp. 209–216). New York: Wiley.
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2003). College students’ lifestyles and self-protective behaviors: further considerations of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 302–327.
Tilley, N., & Webb, J. (1994). Burglary Reduction: Findings from Safer Cities Scheme. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 51. London: Home Office.
Tillyer, M. S., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory. Security Journal. Online First edition, doi:10.1057.sj.2010.2.
Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., et al. (2004). Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States, and the Netherlands: a cross-national comparative test of routine activities and lifestyle theories. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 61–91.
van Andel, H. (1989). Crime prevention that works: the care of public transport in the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 29(1), 47–56.
Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: challenging the folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 209–227.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Public area CCTV and crime prevention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 26(4), 716–745.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Making public places safer: Surveillance and crime prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.
Welsh, B. C., Mudge, M. E., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Reconceptualizing public area surveillance and crime prevention: security guards, place managers and defensible space. Security Journal, 23(4), 299–319.
Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: implications for burglary victimization, risk and prevention. Criminology, 45(4), 771–803.
Winge, S., & Knutsson, J. (2003). An evaluation of the CCTV scheme at Oslo central railway station. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 5(3), 49–59.
Winkel, F. W. (1981). Sociopreventie. De rol van omstanders bij de totstandkoming van een delict. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 1, 53–71.
We are grateful to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.
About this article
Cite this article
Hollis-Peel, M.E., Reynald, D.M., van Bavel, M. et al. Guardianship for crime prevention: a critical review of the literature. Crime Law Soc Change 56, 53–70 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9309-2
- Crime Prevention
- Target Hardening
- Security Guard
- Informal Social Control
- Place Manager