Prevention of crime through social development is perceived as the most effective strategy not only in preventing crime but also in reducing crime rates since it addresses the shortcomings of traditional methods of crime prevention. CPSD theorists argue that crime is effectively eliminated if preventive measures target its root cause rather than target crime as it happens. As such, CPSD theorists propose numerous initiatives that not only equip communities with the capacity to prevent crime but also enable them to isolate and address the crime risk factors. In this case, crime prevention is achieved through social-economic initiatives, such as supporting youths in poverty-hit areas up to high school. Such initiatives enable the youths to become useful members of society. CPSD is perceived to be one of the most effective ways of equipping the youth to become self-reliant and thus avoid getting into crime. It involves a specially developed curriculum, which covers all types of crime as well as target attitude change amongst young people. While criminologists perceive crime prevention through social as a revolution, the latest studies prove that CPSD does not reduce crime rates since it is based on false assumptions. CPSD theorists assume that educating the youth is enough to enable them to avoid crime in later stages of life. Additionally, research reveals that CPSD ignores other factors that facilitate crime, such as a crime-enabling environment. As such, further research reveals sufficient evidence that the situational approach to crime prevention is more effective than CPSD. Even after implementing social development programs to prevent crime, crime agencies rely on a situational approach to reduce crime rates. Therefore, crime prevention through social development has little to offer in developing effective crime prevention practices.
The United Nations concurs that crime is one of the major problems facing member states, both at the national and international levels. The UN is also concerned that there is a need to increase the urgency in crime detection, prevention, and deterrence. As a result, the UN has seen the development of numerous accords, agreements, and partnerships, all of which are intended to improve the management of crime and as well as reduce its effects. Such initiatives include ‘Milan Plan Of Action’ which views crime prevention vis a vis basic human rights, as well as ‘Declaration of the Fourth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders’ which views crime prevention vis a vis the social-economic development (UN 1999). Suffice to state that the above mentioned are among the numerous approaches to crime prevention developed by the UN in collaboration with other crime prevention agencies. Despite having a unitary goal of reducing crime rates, Canadian Council on Social Development (2011) and Sherman et al (1998) assert that traditional crime prevention practices have major flows and are founded on ill-informed assumptions. This implies most of the crime prevention approaches are not effective in preventing crime.
According to Sherman et al (1998), while there are numerous crime prevention programs developed to combat crime, most crime prevention practices fail to work due to various factors. This includes the lack of scientific verification of their effectiveness. In view of Sherman et al.’s (1998) assertion, it is imperative to evaluate the various crime prevention practices and the underlying principles. The Canadian Council on Social Development (2011a) identifies three major forms of crime prevention practices as the traditional approach, the situational approach, and the crime prevention through social development programs, CPSD. The traditional methods of crime prevention involve the police force, the courts, and other correctional facilities. In countries such as America, Canada, and the UK, anticrime agencies endeavor to increase the presence of the police force in crime-prone areas, in efforts to effectively control crime. In this regard, the police intensify patrol by undertaking random patrol work and security supervision. Additionally, governments increase the number of police officers involved in crime prevention practices. This leads to more arrests and prosecution of people caught committing, or intending to commit crimes. The police work in collaboration with the courts as well as correctional facilities, the results of which are stiffer penalties and longer jail sentences. However, as reported by the Canadian Council on Social Development (2011a) traditional methods of crime prevention have no direct impact on crime rates. Indeed, Canadian Council on Social Development (2011a) reports that in the recent past Canada has reduced police involvement in crime prevention and realized a reduction in crime rates. At the same time, the US increased the number of police officers yet realized a reduction in crime rates. Additionally, by increasing the jail terms, there is no corresponding reduction in crime. This indicates that the level of crime is not related to either enhanced police work or harsher penalties.
While the traditional approaches seek to prevent crime largely through punitive measures, situational preventative practices, SCP, see crime as an opportunistic occurrence and as such seek to reduce the opportunities to commit a crime (Mayhew et al. 1976). Felson and Clarke (1998) provide a ten-point theory, which describes the crime in terms of time, geography, tactical and temporal displacement. This implies that crime is context-based and that it occurs depending on prevailing environmental factors, the prevailing tactics by the criminals, the target victim as well as the type of crime that is likely to occur in a given space and time. It is imperative to note that the situational approach requires the development of a problem-based crime prevention mechanism designed for a specific environment. Crime prevention agents are thus able to identify potential crime targets and develop deterrent measures. Thus, situational crime prevention techniques not only reduce the risk of crime but also likely harm (Anderson, Chenery, and Pease 1994; Bajpai 2004).
There are concerns, however, on the usefulness of situational crime prevention, practices, CPS, in preventing crime. It is imperative to note that SCP does not necessarily reduce crime rates. There are concerns that SCP is primarily concerned with reducing the opportunities and the likelihood of crime. Additionally, situational crime prevention methods target crime as it happens and thus only reduce the seriousness of the offense (Bajpai 2004). Additionally, as Knepper (2009) notes, the situational crime prevention approach ignores the etiology and developmental stages of crime. Additionally, CPS largely ignores the science behind the crime and its principles are not empirically verifiable. Moreover, there are concerns that despite reducing the opportunities for crime, criminologists ask whether reducing such opportunities for a crime actually reduces crime rates (Farrell and Pease 2006).
Suffice to say that the situational approach to crime prevention has worked in the past but its success has been facilitated by other place and social specific factors. In welfare states, especially the Nordic countries, the situational approach to crime prevention is successful due to the long-held tradition of a welfare society within the Nordic communities. Thus, the Nordic communities perceive crime as a social responsibility, as compared to free-market societies. The Nordic countries successfully combine situational approaches and social welfare policies to effectively reduce crime. In free-market societies, such as Britain and the US, CPS is attributed to improving public order and improving security in business locations, but with very little impact on social welfare policies (Knepper 2009).
Both the traditional and the situational practices of crime prevention are effective in dealing with certain aspects of crime, such as punishment incarceration of offenders, and reducing the risk of crime. However, traditional and situational practices of crime prevention fail to reduce the level of crime since they are only concerned with developing and structured programs. These programs are too are also too bureaucratic and therefore difficult to implement as account for. They also largely ignore the development of the social capacity to deal with crime (Podolefsky 1985). In this case, it is therefore important to consider other intervening factors such as the motivation for committing a crime, the primary causes of crime, and other social factors that facilitate the occurrence of crime. The prevention of crime through social development practices, unlike the traditional and situational method, focuses on preventing crime through attitude changes, thus changing the motivation for committing a crime. As such, CPSD enables anticrime agents to deter crime at its roots, rather than prevent it as it happens (Hughes and Edwards, 2009). Social development theorists argue that to lower crime rates, it is imperative to address risk factors early on in life and help young people develop attitudes that enable them to avoid crime and violence in adulthood (Canadian Council on Social Development 2011a). Thus, social development theorists are concerned with addressing the effects of social factors that might lead to crime in adult life, such as low level of family income, living in poverty-hit areas among other social factors that predispose people to crime.
Social development theorists advocate for educating young people in risk-prone areas from an early age. Indeed, research done reveals that the cost of traditional methods of crime prevention, such as incarceration, is seven times higher than the cost of crime prevention through social development. Thus, educating the youth to attain high school education is a cost-effective measure to reduce crime rates. Additionally, crime reduction through social development programs leads to reduced human suffering since the youths are equipped with relevant skills that empower them socially and economically. Indeed, a study by the University of Colorado found at least 10 successful social development crime prevention programs, that mainly focus on educating at-risk children (Canadian Council on Social Development 2011b).
Sherman et al.’s (1998) work on social development strategies in crime prevention is two-faced; it presents both the pros and cons of CPSD and critically analyses its failures. In this regard, Sherman et al. (1998) seem to negate Kelly, Caputo, and Jamieson’s (2005) findings on the effectiveness of social development theory on crime prevention. Kelly et al. (2005) mainly focus on the sustainability of crime prevention through social development (CPSD). CPSD is based on the assumption that crime is effectively reduced by equipping communities with the right values and attitudes, therefore, increasing their capacity social capacity to tackle crime. In this case, CPSD programs are cognizant of the inherent relationship between crime and the prevailing political and social-economic factors. Thus, crime can only be prevented by investing in individuals rather than investing in administrative systems within a given society; investing in individuals through education leads to positive social development. As Loveday (1994) notes, CPSD addresses the failure of the traditional approaches to crime prevention, all of which have a project-oriented approach to crime prevention. Thus, CPSD aims at not only addressing the challenges emanating from the traditional crime prevention approach but also providing effective solutions.
Other than the research done by Canadian Council on Social Development, Kelly et al. (2005) describe the success of CPSD in Canada, achieved through cooperative assistance within certain communities. Thus, the law enforcement agencies as well as at-risk groups, such as minorities and those living in economic hardship areas, are incorporated within community-based crime prevention initiatives. However, there are major hurdles that curtail the effectiveness of CPSDs. These include conflict between police and community members, overlapping roles as well as conflict of interest. Regardless of the above-mentioned challenges, CSPDs are successful in Canada as well as in the UK and USA. CPSD recognizes that in order to create social solidarity as far as dealing with crime is concerned, it is vital to address other risk factors. As such, Case and Haines (2007) note two major risk factors as impulsivity as well as the propensity for antisocial behavior, which increase the probability of offending by the youth. This implies crime is multifaceted and as such requires a multi-faceted approach. Case and Haines (2007) suggest that CSPs need to be categorized. Thus, there is a need to have separate initiatives that target the family, the school, the neighborhood, the people’s lifestyle as well as the individual. To effect CPSD, there is a need to harmonize them through collaboration with parents, teachers, community members as well as security agencies.
As explained earlier, CSPDs tend to tackle crime at its roots but have one major failing; they ignore the situational context of crime. Thus, the proponents of CSPDs argue that it tends to address the challenges emanating from traditional and situational crime prevention strategies. On the other hand, critics of CSPDs tend to highlight the need to factor in the situational crime prevention tactics. A study conducted by O’Neill and McGloin (2007) indicates that situational crime prevention strategies are utilitarian, especially in tackling rampant low-level crime in schools. Indeed, O’Neill and McGloin (2007) explain that the situational approach to crime prevention tends to work well when schools develop a problem-based approach to the prevention of low-level crime within the school. In this case, should schools develop effective situational crime intervention measures such as: minimizing class changeovers, not closing schools during lunch hours, limiting access to areas at risk to crime through closing doors, and restricting students from using crime-prone exits.
O’Neill and McGloin (2007) further offer suggestions on how to make situational crime prevention strategies more effective. Rather than having expensive situational crime prevention strategies, schools ought to conduct a detailed analysis of their security needs. This will enable school managers to develop simple solutions which are easy to implement. O’Neill and McGloin’s (2007) assertions are beside the findings made by the Canadian Council on Social Development on the successes of situational crime prevention, which in cases such as St. Henri, Canada reduce crime rates by up to 41%. Additionally, as evidenced by the British Home Office, there are a number of situational crime prevention initiatives such as ‘Reducing crime and disorder in the night-time economy, ‘ One vision, one community, one spirit’ among others, which successfully lead to a reduction of crime in certain neighborhoods in the UK (Home Office 2011).
O’Neill and McGloin’s (2007) analysis indicates major weaknesses in criticism of situational crime prevention strategies. Indeed, O’Neill and McGloin (2007) highlight the weaknesses of CSPD and explain that they offer little in preventing crime. This view seems to corroborate findings by Sherman et al. (1997) that many of the social development crime prevention programs largely fail due to a number of factors. In areas where poverty is rampant, social development initiatives fail to realize any drop in crime rates. Additionally, in Dade County, Florida, police collaborate with professional counselors to offer to counsel to couples involved in domestic violence. However, follow-up reveals that such social work by the police indicates the failure to stop the reoccurrence of domestic violence (Davis and Taylor 1997). One of the most popular social development programs involves drug abuse resistance programs, commonly referred to as DARE. Teaching the youth to avoid drug abuse using the DARE curriculum does not reduce the chances of drug abuse in adult stages (Ringwalt, Green, Ennett, Iachan, Clayton, and Leukefeld 1994). The above mentioned are some of the few instances, which indicate mass failure by CPSD programs, and that crime is still rampant despite best CPSD efforts. Such failures counteract Loveday’s (1994) assertion that CPSDs are developed to address the shortcomings emanating from situational crime prevention. Moreover, conclusions by Canadian Council on Social Development (2011b) that CPSDs reduce human suffering are also invalidated by O’Neill and McGloin’s (2007) research work. In addition to this, despite Bajpai’s (2004) and Knepper’s (2009) criticisms, situational crime prevention seems to be more effective than CSPD since not only does it limit the opportunities for crime, but also distracts offenders as well as enforces compliance with the law (Home Office 2006; Kent 2006).
According to Case and Haines (2007) crime is multi-faceted and thus needs a multifaceted approach. Each of the crime prevention approaches described above have both strengths and weakness. Suffice to state that the approaches can be used to complement each other and thus crime rates would drop. Social development theorists offer the social development theory as the most effective method to prevent crime since it aims at educating youth and thus equipping them with the social capacity to avoid crime. However, such an approach is ignorant of the fact that crime is opportunistic. Thus social development programs offer very little towards the development of effective crime reduction practices. Indeed, situation crime prevention methods seem to be more effective. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the effectiveness of SCP in not only reducing the rates of crime but also in reducing opportunities for committing a crime. Previous criticism of situational crime prevention methods seems to be invalidated by O’Neill and McGloin’s (2007) findings that the failure of the previous attempt was largely due to a lack of matching situational crime prevention techniques to specific environments. Thus, while social development models are perceived as the most effective in preventing crime, in a real sense they offer very little towards the development of effective crime prevention practices.
Reference List
Anderson D, Chenery, S. and Pease K. 1994. Biting back: tackling repeat burglary and car crime, crime detection and prevention series paper 58, London: Home Office.
Bajpai, G., 2004. Crime reduction through situational crime prevention: A study in the United Kingdom. Web.
Case, S. and Haines, K. 2007. Offending by young people: a further risk factor analysis. Security Journal 20 (2): 96-110.
Canadian Council on Social Development. 2011a. About crime prevention. Web.
Canadian Council on Social Development. 2011b. Social Interventions. Web.
Davis, C., and Taylor, G. 1997. A proactive response to family Violence: the results of a randomized experiment. Criminology, 35:307
Farrell, G. & Pease, K. 2006. Criminology and security. In Gill, M, ed. The handbook of security, London: Chippenham and Eastbourne
Home Office. 2006. Crime reduction effectiveness group. Web.
Home Office. Tilley awards 2011. Web.
Hughes, G. & Edwards, A., 2009. Crime prevention in context in tilley, N, ed. Handbook of crime prevention and community safety. London: Willan Publishing
Kelly, K.D., Caputo, T. and Jamieson, W. 2005. Reconsidering sustainability: some implications for community-based crime prevention. Critical Social Policy, 25 (3): 306-324.
Kent, A., 2006. What works for domestic burglary crime prevention techniques and context. Web.
Knepper, P. 2009. How situational crime prevention contributes to social welfare. Liverpool Law Review, 30 (1): 57-75.
Loveday, B., 1994. Government strategies for community crime prevention programs in England and Wales: a study in failure? International Journal of Sociology, 22: 181–202.
Mayhew, P., Clarke, R., Sturman, A., and Hough, J. 1976. Crime as opportunity, Home office research study no. 34. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
O´Neill, L. & McGloin, J., 2007. Considering the efficacy of situational crime prevention in schools. Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (5): 511-523.
Podolefsky, M. 1985. Rejecting crime prevention programs: the dynamics of program implementation in high need communities. Human Organisation 44(2): 33–40.
Ringwalt, C., Green, S., Ennett, R., Iachan, R., Clayton, and Leukefeld, C.,1994. Past and future directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: an evaluation review: draft final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Sherman et al. 1998. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Web.
UN. 1999. Compendium of United Nations standards and norms in crime Prevention and criminal justice. Web.