Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Informal Guardianship

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_676

Overview

Guardianship is the process by which citizens function as effective informal crime prevention and control agents. The concept was first introduced in Cohen and Felson’s (1979) routine activity approach and was originally defined as “any spatio-temporally specific supervision of people or property by other people which may prevent criminal violations from occurring” (Felson and Cohen 1980). In spite of the capable guardian’s central role in determining criminal victimization, research focusing exclusively on guardianship and the mechanisms that facilitate and inhibit it is limited, particularly compared to that of offending and victimization. Recent research has begun to address this gap in the criminological literature to reveal that guardianship against crime is effective when citizens are available and is boosted when they engage in monitoring or supervision of their surroundings and intervene when necessary. Empirical evidence demonstrates that guardianship intensity in...

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

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Bennett T, Wright R (1984) Burglars on burglary: prevention and the offender. Gower, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown BB, Bentley DL (1993) Residential burglars judge risk: the role of territoriality. J Environ Psychol 13:51–61Google Scholar
  3. Clarke RV (1997) Situational crime prevention: successful case studies, 2nd edn. Harrow & Heston, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke RV, Eck J (2005) Become a problem-solving crime analyst: in 55 small steps. Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44(4):588–608Google Scholar
  6. Eck JE (1994) Drug markets and drug places: a case–control study of the spatial structure of Illicit drug dealing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  7. Felson M (1995) Those who discourage crime. In: Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place: crime prevention studies, vol 4. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  8. Felson M (2006) Crime and nature. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  9. Felson M, Cohen LE (1980) Human ecology and crime: a routine activity approach. Hum Ecol 8(4):389–406Google Scholar
  10. Freudenburg WR (1986) The density of acquaintanceship: an overlooked variable in community research? Am J Sociol 92(1):27–63Google Scholar
  11. Garofalo J, Clark D (1992) Guardianship and residential burglary. Justice Q 9(3):443–463Google Scholar
  12. Geis G, Huston TL (1983) Bystander intervention into crime: public policy considerations. Policy Stud J 11:398–408Google Scholar
  13. Hindelang MJ, Gottfredson MR, James G (1978) Victims of personal crime: an empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballinger, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Hollis-Peel ME, Welsh BC (forthcoming). What makes a guardian capable? A test of guardianship in action. Secur J. Advance online publication, August 13, 2012; doi:10.1057/sj.2012.32Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Miethe TD, Meier RF (1994) Crime and its social context: toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims and situations. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  17. Miethe TD, Stafford MC, Sloane D (1990) Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization. J Quant Criminol 6(4):357–376Google Scholar
  18. Mustaine EE, Tewksbury R (1998) Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: a routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminol: Interdiscip J 36:829–858Google Scholar
  19. Newman O (1972) Defensible space: crime prevention through urban design. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Reynald DM (2009) Guardianship in action: developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prev Commun Saf: Int J 11(1):1–20Google Scholar
  21. Reynald DM (2010) Guardians on guardianship: factors affecting the willingness to monitor, the ability to detect potential offenders & the willingness to intervene. J Res Crime Delinq 47(3):358–390Google Scholar
  22. Reynald DM (2011a) Factors associated with the guardianship of places: assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and socio-demographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. J Res Crime Delinq 48(1):110–142Google Scholar
  23. Reynald DM (2011b) Guarding against crime: measuring guardianship within routine activity theory. Ashgate, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  24. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighbourhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277(5328):918–924Google Scholar
  25. Skogan WG (1989) Communities, crime, and neighbourhood organization. Crime Delinq 35(3):437–457Google Scholar
  26. Skogan WG (1990) Disorder and decline. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor RB, Koons B, Kurtz E, Greene J, Perkins D (1995) Street blocks with more nonresidential land use have more physical deterioration: evidence from Baltimore and Philadelphia. Urban Aff Rev 30:120–136Google Scholar
  28. Tewksbury RA, Mustaine EE (2003) College students’ lifestyles and self-protective behaviors: further consideration of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory. Crim Justice Behav 30(3):302–327Google Scholar
  29. Wilcox P, Madensen TD, Tillyer MS (2007) Guardianship in context: implications for burglary victimization risk & prevention. Criminology 45(4):771–803Google Scholar
  30. Xie M, McDowall D (2008) The effects of residential turnover on household victimization. Criminology 46(3):539–575Google Scholar
  31. Zedner L (2006) Before and after the police: the historical antecedents of contemporary crime control. Br J Criminol 46:78–96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityGriffithAustralia