Community Interventions

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Springer Series on Evidence-Based Crime Policy book series (SSEBCP)

Abstract

Community-based crime prevention embraces a number of strategies, from civic engagement in response to crime and disorder issues, to interventions for at-risk youth and community correctional and reentry programs for adjudicated offenders. Although there is strong meta-analytic evidence for the effectiveness of individualized treatment delivered in a community setting, we know less about the conditions under which community resources can be mobilized more generally to control crime. This chapter takes stock of what has been learned from reviews of community-based interventions, including neighborhood watch, mentoring and diversion of youth, intensive probation, electronic monitoring, and restorative justice.

Overall, despite its broad scope, research on community interventions is surprisingly limited. However, there is good evidence that community programs designed to strengthen and restore positive social ties with at-risk youth are effective. In community corrections, research quality is strong but results are mixed at best. The most effective programs target specific risk factors or directly reengage the offender with the community, but general deterrence and punishment programs are at best ineffective and at worst harmful. We know much less about the most effective strategies to mobilize communities against crime, but emerging findings suggest that proactive engagement with the police and other civic partners to enhance legitimacy and build social cohesion may produce the best results. Finally, before we can conclude “what works” in community-based crime prevention, we need to better define the community’s role in crime prevention and the mechanisms by which it can be effective.

Keywords

Communities Crime prevention Places Systematic review Meta-analysis Corrections Reentry 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akers, R. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A. (1989). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessments to reduce recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 1(2), 11‑17.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19‑52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ariel, B., & Taylor, F. (in progress). Electronic monitoring of offenders: A systematic review of its effect on recidivism in the criminal justice system. Campbell Systematic Reviews.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4(18). http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/50/.
  7. Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248‑270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradshaw, W., Roseborough, D., & Umbreit, M. S. (2006). The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(1), 87‑98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012a). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 323‑358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012b). The effects of “pulling levers” focused deterrence strategies on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(6). http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/96/.
  11. Braga, A. A., & Welsh, B. C. (in progress). Broken windows policing to reduce crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews.Google Scholar
  12. Braga, A. A., Kennedy, D. M., Waring, E. J., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 195‑225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C., & Schnell, C. (2015). Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 567‑588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braithwaite, J. B. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  16. Cheliotis, L. (2008). Reconsidering the effectiveness of temporary release: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 153‑168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clear, T. R., & Hardyman, P. L. (1990). The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 42‑60.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588‑608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2006). Deviant peer contagion in interventions and programs: An ecological framework for understanding influence mechanisms. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 14‑43). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  20. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755‑764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, H., Montgomery, P., & Gardner, F. (2008). Opportunities provision for preventing youth gang involvement for children and young people (7‑16). Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4(8). Retrieved from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/40/.
  22. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Fulton, B. (2001). Intensive supervision in probation and parole settings. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195‑204). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Gill, C. (2010). The effects of sanction intensity on criminal conduct: A randomized low-intensity probation experiment. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Criminology. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/121.
  24. Gill, C. E., & Hyatt, J. (in progress). Probation intensity effects on probationers’ criminal conduct. Campbell Systematic Reviews.Google Scholar
  25. Gill, C. E., Weisburd, D., Bennett, T., Telep, C. W., & Vitter, Z. (in progress). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase legitimacy and citizen satisfaction in neighborhoods. Campbell Systematic Reviews.Google Scholar
  26. Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vitter, Z., & Bennett, T. (2014). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 399‑428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Weisman, S. A. (2001). The timing of delinquent behavior and its implications for after-school programs. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(1), 61‑86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenwood, P. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. The Future of Children, 18(2), 185‑206. http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_02_09.pdf.
  29. Guerino, P., Harrison, P., & Sabol, W. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  30. Hagan, J. (1993). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology, 31(4), 465‑491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. NCJ 229023. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf.
  32. Heidemann, G., Soydan, H., & Xie, B. (in progress). Reentry programs for formerly incarcerated women. Campbell Systematic Reviews.Google Scholar
  33. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The influence of mentoring on reoffending. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.Google Scholar
  35. Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127‑144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Limbos, M. A., Chan, L. S., Warf, C., Schneir, A., Iverson, E., Shekelle, P., & Kipke, M. D. (2007). Effectiveness of interventions to prevent youth violence: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(1), 65‑74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83‑127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works? Reducing reoffending—Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63‑78). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 124‑147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections (pp. 3‑8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2004/period266.pdf.
  42. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77‑93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lum, C., Koper, C., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 3‑26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lundman, R. J. (1993). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacKenzie, D. L., & Brame, R. (2001). Community supervision, prosocial activities, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 18, 429‑448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Makarios, M. D., & Pratt, T. (2012). The effectiveness of policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence: A meta-analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 58(2), 222‑244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marsh, K., Fox, C., & Sarmah, R. (2009). Is custody an effective sentencing option for the U.K.? Evidence from a meta-analysis of existing studies. Probation Journal, 56(2), 129‑151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3), 517‑558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nugent, W. R., Williams, M., & Umbreit, M. S. (2004). Participation in victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(6), 408‑416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635‑655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281‑335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6(1). Retrieved from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/81/.
  54. Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 215‑237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sampson, R. J. (1987). Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 93(2), 348‑382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918‑924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing ‘neighborhood effects:’ Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443‑478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schur, E. (1973). Radical nonintervention: Rethinking the delinquency problem. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  59. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Shelden, R. G. (1999). Detention diversion advocacy: An evaluation. Juvenile justice bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  61. Sherman, L. W. (1997). Communities and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.) Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://ncjrs.gov/works.
  62. Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://ncjrs.gov/works.
  63. Skogan, W. (1986). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. Crime and Justice, 8, 203‑229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. J., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing (RJC): Effects of face-to-face meetings on offenders and victims. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(12). http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/63/.
  65. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lipppincott.Google Scholar
  66. Taxman, F. S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. E. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. Towson: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_Feb06.pdf.
  67. Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and the stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 12‑17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., Bass, A., Lovegrove, P., & Nichols, E. (2013). Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(10). Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/48/.
  69. Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Vos, B. (2002). The impact of restorative justice conferencing: A review of 63 empirical studies in 5 countries. Minnesota: Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking, University of Minnesota. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ssw/rjp/resources/rj_dialogue_resources/Restorative_Group_Conferencing/Impact_RJC_Review_63_Studies.pdf.
  70. Villettaz, P., Killias, M., & Zoder, I. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13, 1‑73. http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/22/.
  71. Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2006). Systematic review of non-custodial employment programs: Impact on recidivism rates of ex-offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2(1). http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/10/.
  72. Weisburd, D. (2012). Bringing social context back into the equation: The importance of social characteristics of places in the prevention of crime. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 317‑326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42‑65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50‑70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weisburd, D., Morris, N. A., & Groff, E. R. (2009). Hot spots of juvenile crime: A longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 443‑467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Welsh, B. C., & Hoshi, A. (2006). Communities and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (revised edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Williams-Hayes, M. M. (2002). The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing: A meta-analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  78. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29‑38.Google Scholar
  79. Zimring, F., & Hawkins, G. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations