Advertisement

Security Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 320–337 | Cite as

What makes a guardian capable? A test of guardianship in action

  • Meghan E Hollis-Peel
  • Brandon C Welsh
Original Article

Abstract

In Cohen and Felson's (1979) routine activities theory, the presence of a capable guardian serves as the key component in the crime event model, one that can disrupt, either directly or indirectly, the interaction between a motivated offender and a suitable target. Unlike the other components of the theory much less is known about the nature of capable guardianship. This article reports the results of a test of the Guardianship in Action instrument, first developed by Reynald (2009), for measuring guardianship potential at residential properties. It was found that guardianship intensity at the property level can be measured via direct observation, and the measurement of guardianship intensity is enhanced by including measures of the physical and social environment that can enable or hinder guardianship activities. The article lends further support to the thesis that residential guardianship combines physical potential for guardianship as well as acts of monitoring and intervention. The implications for theory, research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

routine activities theory guardianship residential property social observation crime prevention 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to the editor Bonnie Fisher and the anonymous reviewers for insightful comments.

References

  1. Austin, W. (1979) Sex differences in bystander intervention in a theft. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11): 2110–2120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beavon, D.J.K., Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1994) The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. In: R.V. Clarke (ed.) Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 115–148.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, T.H., Holloway, K. and Farrington, D.P. (2006) Does neighborhood watch reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2 (4): 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, R. and Skogan, W.G. (1984) The Dynamics of Violence between Strangers: Victim Resistance and Outcomes in Rape, Assault, and Robbery. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  5. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1993) Nodes, paths, and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1994) Crime analysis using location quotients. In: D. Zahm and P. Cromwell (eds.) Proceedings of the International Seminar on Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Statistical Analysis Center, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
  7. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1995) Location quotients and crime hot spots in the city. In: C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub and S. Fregly (eds.) Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 129–149.Google Scholar
  8. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1998) Mapping crime for analytic purposes: Location quotients, counts and rates. In: D. Weisburd and T. McEwen (eds.) Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 8. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 263–288.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, B.B. and Altman, I. (1981) Territoriality and residential crime: A conceptual framework. In: P.J. Brantingham and P.L. Brantingham (eds.) Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 56–76.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, B.B. and Perkins, D.D. (2002) Neighborhood Revitalization and Disorder: An Intervention Evaluation: Final Project Report. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eck, J.E. (1994) Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  13. Eck, J.E. (1995) Examining routine activity theory: A review of two books. Justice Quarterly 12 (4): 783–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felson, M. (1986) Routine activities, social controls, rational decisions, and criminal outcomes. In: D. Cornish and R.V.G. Clarke (eds.) The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felson, M. (1995) Those who discourage crime. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.) Crime and Place. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 4. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 53–66.Google Scholar
  16. Felson, M. (1998) Crime and Everyday Life, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  17. Felson, M. and Boba, R. (2010) Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felson, M. and Cohen, L.E. (1980) Human ecology and crime: A routine activity approach. Human Ecology 8 (4): 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F. and Frey, D. (2006) The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European Journal of Social Psychology 36 (2): 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Furr-Holden, C.D.M., Campbell, K.D.M., Milam, A.J., Smart, M.J., Ialongo, N.A. and Leaf, P.J. (2010) Metric properties of the Neighborhood Inventory for Environmental Typology (NIfETy): An environmental assessment tool for measuring indicators of violence, alcohol, tobacco, and other drug exposures. Evaluation Review 34 (3): 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hackler, J.C., Ho, K. and Urquhart-Ross, C. (1973–1974) The willingness to intervene: Differing community characteristics. Social Problems 21 (3): 328–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harari, H., Harari, O. and White, R. (1985) The reaction to rape by American male bystanders. Journal of Social Psychology 125 (5): 653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollis-Peel, M.E., Reynald, D.M., van Bavel, M., Elffers, H. and Welsh, B.C. (2011) Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law, and Social Change 56 (1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latané, B. and Darley, J. (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  25. Mawby, R.I. (1977) Defensible space: A theoretical and empirical appraisal. Urban Studies 14 (2): 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCord, E.S., Ratcliffe, J.H., Garcia, R.M. and Taylor, R.B. (2007) Nonresidential crime attractors and generators elevate perceived neighborhood crime and incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 44 (3): 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merry, S.E. (1981) Defensible space undefended: Social factors in crime control through environmental design. Urban Affairs Review 16 (4): 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moriarty, T. (1975) Crime, commitment and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (2): 270–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  30. Reynald, D.M. (2009) Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 and Delinquency 47 (3): 358–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sampson, R., Eck, J.E. and Dunham, J. (2010) Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal 23 (1): 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz, S. and Gottlieb, A. (1976) Bystander reactions to a violent theft: Crime in Jerusalem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34 (6): 1188–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaffer, D.R., Rogel, M. and Hendrick, C. (1975) Intervention in the library: The effect of increased responsibility on bystanders' willingness to prevent a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5 (4): 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor, R.B. (1988) Human Territorial Functioning: An Empirical, Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions, Behaviors, and Consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, R.B., Gottfredson, S.D. and Brower, S.N. (1981) The defensibility of defensible space: A critical review. In: T. Hirschi and M. Gottfredson (eds.) Understanding Crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
  37. Tillyer, M.S. and Eck, J.E. (2011) Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory. Security Journal 24 (2): 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2009) Public area CCTV and crime prevention: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly 26 (4): 716–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Welsh, B.C., Mudge, M.E. and Farrington, D.P. (2010) Reconceptualizing public area surveillance and crime prevention: Security guards, place managers and defensible space. Security Journal 23 (4): 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. White, G.F. (1990) Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly 7 (1): 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilcox, P., Madensen, T.D. and Tillyer, M.S. (2007) Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology 45 (4): 771–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G. (1982) Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly 249 (March): 29–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghan E Hollis-Peel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brandon C Welsh
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law EnforcementAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations