Week 3 - Assignment
Memorandum on Theories and Data
[WLOs: 1, 2, 3, 5] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3]
Prior to beginning this assignment, please ensure that you complete the assigned readings in the Elliott
and Fagin (2017) text and that you review Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps
(https://www.popcenter.org/content/crime-analysis-problem-solvers-60-small-steps) . In Chapter 3 of The
Prevention of Crime, Elliott and Fagin indicate that crime prevention programs and approaches for law
enforcement have largely drawn from deterrence theories and rational choice theories. Specifically,
Elliott and Fagin state that “deterrence and rational choice theories have been the main theoretical
perspectives guiding crime prevention, particularly as undertaken by law enforcement agents” (2017,
Sec. 3.2, para. 6). Elliott and Fagin (2017) explore routine activities theory and discuss life course
theories, which include strain theory, social learning theory, social control theory, and integrated theory.
Elliott and Fagan (2017) also review connections between theory and data in Chapter 3. In this
assignment, you will create a three-part memorandum for your supervisor in which you research a
crime prevention program or a strategy for a crime prevention program, utilizing the format of an
annotated bibliography. You will then assess the effectiveness of the crime prevention program or
strategy and consider how theories may provide context for approaches to crime prevention.
Assignment Overview
You have been directed by your supervisor to prepare a memorandum which includes theories, data,
and research findings that relate to a crime prevention program or strategy. Your research must include
one scholarly article published within the past five years and one credible resource (website or online
resource from a reputable source) that includes data on crime that relates to the crime prevention
program or strategy. Use the Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources
(https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/e5359309-7d3c-4a21-a41044d59303ccef/1/Scholarly%20Peer-Reviewed%20and%20Other%20Credible%20Sources.pdf) document for
guidance. It is highly recommended that you view the Ashford University Library’s Database Search
Tips (https://ashford.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/Database+Search+Tips/0_vj8u97hi) tutorial to aid
you in finding articles written in the last five years.
You will then record your research in the format of an Annotated Bibliography. Refer to the elements of
an Annotated Bibliography (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/annotated-bibliography) and/or the
Annotated Bibliography Tutorial
(https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/d1ed61b5-8152-4f8e-948be162fd937c2f/1/Annotated%20Bibliography%20Tutorial.zip/story_html5.html) video for more information.
Using the same headers as those in the Sample Annotated Bibliography
(http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/Annotated%20Bibliography%20Sample_0.pdf) , fill-out the sections with information that pertains to
each of the two selected resources (one scholarly and one credible), all contained in the memo to your
supervisor. (It is recommended that you review the Ashford Writing Center’s Writing a Business
Memo (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/writing-business-memo) resource and the Sample
Professional/Business Memo (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/Sample%20Business%20Memo.pdf) ).
Research and Evaluation
Once you have conducted your research, your memorandum should include the following bulleted
elements with respect to the selected journal article and credible material.
• Summarize the scholarly resource, stating the type of crime prevention program or strategy that is
being addressed in the article.
• Analyze key findings and recommendations.
• Relate crime data from a credible source to the crime prevention program or strategy addressed in
the selected article.
• Assess the effectiveness of the crime prevention program or strategy discussed in the article with
support from data from the selected article and/or data from a credible source.
Cite the source in APA Style (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/apa-style) as outlined in the Ashford
Writing Center (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/) , which is located within the Learning Resources
tab on the left navigation toolbar in your online course.
• Include in-text citations that refer to the course text as well as a minimum of one credible resource
consisting of a federal or state government website that includes content relevant to current crime
prevention programs or practices. You can learn more about scholarly and credible resources within
the Ashford University Writing Center’s Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources
(https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/e5359309-7d3c-4a21-a41044d59303ccef/1/Scholarly%20Peer-Reviewed%20and%20Other%20Credible%20Sources.pdf)
Theory Application
The memorandum must compare and contrast how and to what extent each of the following theoretical
approaches, drawn from Chapter 3 of the Elliott and Fagin (2017) text, could support the crime
prevention strategy addressed in the selected article:
• General deterrence theory
• Specific deterrence theory
• Routine Activities theory
Next, compare and contrast how and to what extent each of the below theories, drawn from the life
course approach discussed in Chapter 3 of the Elliott and Fagin (2017) text, could support the crime
prevention program or strategy addressed in the selected article:
• Strain theory
• Social learning theory
• Social control theory
• Integrated theory
Finally, and although more than one theory may be relevant and applicable, recommend one of the
foregoing seven theories that would best inform the crime prevention program or strategy in your
selected crime prevention program. Submit your memorandum through Waypoint.
The Memorandum on Theories and Data
• Must be two to three double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and
formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style
(http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/apa-style)
• Must include a separate title page with the following:
◦ Title of Memorandum
◦ Student’s name
◦ Course name and number
◦ Instructor’s name
◦ Date submitted
For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013
(http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/apa-formatting-word-2013) .
• Must use at least one scholarly source and one credible source in addition to the course text.
◦ The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources
(https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/e5359309-7d3c-4a21-a41044d59303ccef/1/Scholarly%20Peer-Reviewed%20and%20Other%20Credible%20Sources.pdf) table
offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a
specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor
has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.
• Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing
Center’s Citing Within Your Paper (http://bpiwritingcenter.prod.acquia-sites.com/citing-withinyour-paper)
Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the
Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List
(http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/format-your-reference-list) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for
specifications.
Carefully review the Grading Rubric (http://au.waypointoutcomes.com/assessment/21417/preview) for
the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
Waypoint Assignment
Submission
The assignments in this course will be submitted to Waypoint. Please refer to the instructions below to
submit your assignment.
1. Click on the Assignment Submission button below. The Waypoint "Student Dashboard" will open
in a new browser window.
2. Browse for your assignment.
3. Click Upload.
4. Confirm that your assignment was successfully submitted by viewing the appropriate week's
assignment tab in Waypoint.
For more detailed instructions, refer to the Waypoint Tutorial
(https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/dc358708-3d2b-41a6-a000ff53b3cc3794/1/Waypoint%20Tutorial.pdf)
(https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/dc358708-3d2b-41a6-a000ff53b3cc3794/1/Waypoint%20Tutorial.pdf) .
This tool needs to be loaded in a new browser window
Load Week 3 - Assignment in a new window
3
How Theory and Research Inform the Science and
Practice of Crime Prevention
Learning Objectives
Upon finishing this chapter, students should be able to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Understand the different criminological theories which inform crime prevention
Identify the nine elements of the criminal career framework
Summarize the public health and prevention science approaches to crime prevention
Identify specific risk and protective factors related to involvement in crime
Explain the differences between universal, selective, and indicated crime prevention
Explain the differences between situational, contextual, and individually focused crime prevention approaches.
Introduction
The goal of this textbook is to describe the range of activities that can be considered “crime prevention” and to identify the
effectiveness of these strategies in reducing rates of crime. In the last chapter, we reviewed the different ways societies have
attempted to explain and prevent crime throughout time. History reveals that crime prevention efforts up through the twentieth
century were most often based on deterrence theory and were rarely tested for their effectiveness. When evaluations were
conducted, relatively few programs and practices were found to be effective. In fact, reviews of correctional and law enforcement
program evaluations near the end of the twentieth century suggested that “nothing works.”
We noted in Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) that, in our opinion, the conclusion that nothing worked to prevent crime was overly pessimistic.
Nonetheless, at the time of those reviews, credible, scientific evidence of effective crime prevention strategies was very limited. The
good news is that, in recent years, theories about what leads to crime have become more sophisticated and there have been many
more, and better conducted, scientific tests of these theories and of evaluations of crime prevention strategies guided by these
theories. As a result, today we can identify a greater number of prevention programs, practices, and policies that have credible
evidence of effectiveness. We also know a lot more now about how to create prevention strategies so that they have the strongest
likelihood of achieving reductions in crime.
To summarize what we have learned over the years, first, we know that the most effective crime prevention efforts are based on
criminological theories and that they try to change the specific factors described in those theories and shown in research studies to
actually affect criminal behavior. For example, if studies testing strain theory show that poverty makes crime more likely, then
prevention efforts should focus on helping individuals get better paying jobs. In contrast, if there is no evidence that crime is caused
by poverty, then attempts to reduce poverty will not be effective in preventing crime. As became clear in Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) ,
different theories identify different factors as important in causing crime, which means that crime prevention can take many
different forms. Because theories are tied so directly to the creation and effectiveness of crime prevention efforts, we begin this
chapter by reviewing and updating information from Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) about the theories that are most widely endorsed in
criminology and most often used to guide crime prevention.
Second, we know that crime prevention strategies can differ depending on the specific form or type of illegal behavior that a
community is trying to reduce. For example, some programs are designed to prevent persons from committing their very first
criminal act; that is, from making the transition from being a non‐offender to being an offender. Other strategies are designed to help
offenders give up their involvement in criminal behavior. In this chapter, we will introduce the criminal careers framework, which
has strongly influenced the ways modern criminologists define and conceptualize criminal behavior, and, correspondingly, the types
of crime we might want to prevent and the individuals who should be targeted by prevention efforts.
Nothing is so practical as good theory.
Kurt Lewin, psychologist (1951: 169)
Third, it is now generally accepted that strategies designed to change individual involvement in crime should take into account the
age of the person and the characteristics or experiences, which are called risk and protective factors, most likely to affect crime at
each stage of life. This view, and its corresponding implications for crime prevention, is emphasized in the life course development
paradigm, as well as in the public health approach to prevention and the emerging discipline of prevention science. Each of these
frameworks will be described in this chapter and their impact on contemporary crime prevention strategies noted. The chapter will
conclude by identifying a typology of prevention strategies that will guide this textbook and previewing the discussion of how
preventive interventions are developed using logic models.
Theoretical Foundations of Crime Prevention
The development of any prevention program or strategy begins with two questions: (i) What causes individuals or groups to engage
in criminal behavior? And, (ii) given some understanding of these causes, how can we intervene to eliminate or block them? The first
question is a theoretical question. A crime theory proposes an explanation about the motive for committing a crime as well as the set
of circumstances or conditions that connect this intention with actual criminal behavior. The logic of crime prevention is that if we
know why an individual or group engages in criminal behavior, we can try to avoid, counteract, or eliminate these causes. Doing so
will prevent crime. Theoretical explanations about the causes of crime underlie all prevention efforts. Even if the theory guiding the
approach is not explicitly stated, which is frequently the case, it can be determined by reading the descriptions of the interventions
and thinking about which causes of crime they seek to change.
As reported in Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) , research that tests criminal theories demonstrates better support for some theories than
others and for some specific causal claims (hypotheses) within theories than others. For example, there is little support for
Lombroso’s (1911) theory that atavism or primitive physical features of an individual (e.g., overly long arms, misshapen noses, or
large jawbones) are associated with crime. But, there is good support for Sutherland’s (1947) claim of differential association, that
associating with criminals is causally related to criminal behavior. The stronger the research evidence supporting a causal claim
hypothesized by a theory, the greater confidence can be placed in the expectation that eliminating or blocking that cause or set of
causes will prevent criminal behavior. In other words, theories with stronger evidence should be those upon which crime
prevention strategies are based.
It should be noted, however, that research evidence rarely meets the very high scientific standards required to demonstrate a true
causal relationship described in a criminological theory. The evidence often shows that a natural change in the characteristic or
condition hypothesized to be a cause predicts a subsequent change in criminal behavior. For example, studies have found that
individuals who start spending time with friends who engage in crime become more likely to break the law themselves (Elliott and
Menard, 1996). This is pretty good evidence of a causal relationship between having criminal friends and associates and being
involved in crime. This research also supports Sutherland’s differential association theory. But, since the change in friendship was
natural, meaning it was unplanned or accidental, and was not the result of an intentional or experimental manipulation, a causal
claim about the effect of delinquent peers on delinquency cannot be made with certainty. As we will explain later in this chapter,
given this uncertainty, we refer to the causal characteristics, conditions and processes derived from criminological theories and
addressed by prevention programs as risk and protective factors. There is good but not conclusive evidence for their causal effects
on crime.
The second question that guides crime prevention is a more practical one: having identified a risk factor(s) that increases the
likelihood of crime, can we realistically expect to eliminate or change it, and, if so, what strategies and resources are needed to do
so? Some risk factors will be easier to change or eliminate than others. For example, unemployment, poverty, child abuse, academic
failure, and involvement with a gang are all risk factors for criminal behaviors. Yet, they are not equally amenable to change. The
cost, resources, and time required to reduce or eliminate these conditions will vary considerably. In addition, the power of these risk
factors to influence crime also varies considerably. Improving academic performance will have a much smaller effect on crime than
breaking up a gang. The design of a prevention program or strategy involves the selection of a risk factor(s) to be reduced and/or a
protective factor(s) to be increased and the design of a set of activities, policies, processes, and procedures to make these changes
happen.
With this background in mind, what do theories say about the causal conditions that are most likely to lead to criminal behavior?
And, how can this information help us develop effective crime prevention strategies? To answer these questions, we now review the
theories most often discussed in criminology and used to create prevention strategies.
Deterrence theories guiding crime prevention by law enforcement agencies
Historically, deterrence and rational choice theories have been the main theoretical perspectives guiding crime prevention,
particularly as undertaken by law enforcement agents. As described in Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) , these theories assume that individuals
are rational thinkers who consider the risks and rewards of their actions before making a decision to commit an illegal act. When the
potential benefits of committing a crime are viewed as outweighing the potential risks, then individuals will be more likely to break
the law. Where these theories differ is in the degree to which they focus on societal versus individual considerations of the benefits
and risks of crime and the emphasis on the seriousness or certainty of punitive sanctions. Nonetheless, because they both assume
that individuals are rational thinkers who will be deterred from offending when costs and punishments are high, they advocate
similar types of crime prevention strategies. Routine activities theory also takes the perspective that offenders are rational
thinkers and will consider the costs and benefits of crime prior to breaking the law, particularly the amount of effort needed to
commit an illegal act and the likelihood of getting caught.
Of the three theories, deterrence theory takes the most macro or societal level view of crime and of crime prevention. This
perspective emphasizes that societies must have punishments in place to deter would‐be offenders from breaking the law. Indeed,
deterrence theory provides the foundation for virtually all law, law enforcement, and correctional systems. According to deterrence
theory, public awareness of the fact that certain actions are illegal and that violation of these laws can result in specific punishments
should be enough to prevent crime. If the rate of a specific crime in a society is going up, the prevention strategy would be to
increase the seriousness and/or certainty of punitive sanctions for that crime. Prevention activities based on deterrence theory
involve societal‐level strategies, especially the creation of laws that focus on the certainty, speed, and particularly the severity of
punishment following the commission of a crime. Longer sentences for crimes involving the use of a firearm and “three strikes” laws
that require a life sentence for a third felony offense are based on deterrence theory.
The concepts of general deterrence and specific deterrence refer to the types of individuals who will be prevented from breaking
the law. Simply having laws and punishments in place creates a risk of punishment for offending that should be enough to deter the
general public from committing crime; this is the concept of general deterrence. Once an individual breaks the law, is apprehended
and punished, this experience will function as a deterrent for that person committing additional criminal acts; this is the concept of
specific deterrence (Akers, 1997). There are different implied intervention targets and strategies for these two types of deterrence.
General deterrence interventions will focus on general populations, persons who have not yet committed a crime. They can also
include public awareness strategies which make the public aware of the law and potential punishment for violating it. For example,
if you read in the paper that the local police will be conducting sobriety checkpoints and stopping drivers to assess if they are
driving under the influence of alcohol, you can assume that law enforcement is using a general deterrence practice. Specific
deterrence practices will focus on offenders, punishing them for breaking the law with the expectation that negative experiences in
the criminal justice system will deter them from future offending.
Rational choice theory focuses more on individuals and individual decision‐making. It hypothesizes that if illegal behavior carries a
certain punishment, and individuals believe they will face this punishment if they break the law, they will refrain from offending
unless the reward for doing so outweighs the cost. Given this orientation, crime prevention based on rational choice theory will try
to influence one’s decision‐making processes in order to reduce the perceived benefits of crime and increase the costs or pain
thought to follow from illegal behavior. Examples include media campaigns showing the long‐term effects of drug use on one’s
health or individual treatment programs which emphasize the consequences of offending or drug use on one’s scholastic and
vocational achievements.
Routine activities theory considers both individual and societal opportunities for offending and prevention. It states that crime is
most likely to occur when three factors are present at the same time and place: (i) a motivated offender, (ii) a suitable target, and
(iii) an absence of capable guardians (Clarke, 1995). Although all three are considered important, crime prevention efforts do not
focus on trying to change individuals, but rather try to reduce opportunities for offending, the attractiveness of a target and the lack
of guardianship of a place or object. For example, installing time‐lock safes and bullet proof windows in banks should reduce
robberies.
Have you ever spent time in a risky, high‐crime urban neighborhood such as those found in the south side of Chicago or upper east‐
side of Detroit? How would you try to reduce crime in these neighborhoods? Another theory related to the deterrence perspective,
and especially routine activities theory, is situational crime prevention. This theory focuses on how physical environments and
geographical locations, rather than individual characteristics, influence crime. These theories might suggest that law enforcement
agencies examine crime maps that show the geographical locations of every crime that has occurred in their district. After
identifying the hot spots (Sherman and Weisburd, 1995) where rates of crime are highest, they will increase patrol and surveillance
of these areas to deter would‐be offenders. Place‐based prevention activities might also be undertaken by law enforcement agents,
business owners, or private citizens. These efforts focus on very small geographical units, such as individual buildings or streets that
are known to be hot spots of crime (Eck and Guerette, 2012). The goal is to make these areas less attractive and more difficult
targets for criminals; for example, by installing alarm systems in homes or buildings that have been repeatedly vandalized or broken
into, increasing street lighting and using closed circuit televisions to increase surveillance of a particular block or building.
Developmental theories guiding community‐based crime prevention strategies
In the last few decades, crime prevention efforts have moved somewhat away from deterrence‐based theories and become more
informed by developmental theories of offending. These perspectives recognize that crime is a complex behavior influenced by
many factors, that there are multiple causal paths to crime, that individuals’ involvement in crime can develop and change over time,
and that factors influencing offending can differ depending on characteristics of the individual, the physical and social environment
and the type of crime being considered. Moreover, these theories locate prevention efforts primarily in families, schools, and the
community rather than in the criminal justice system.
The theory that can absorb the greatest number of facts, and persist in doing so, generation after generation, through all changes of
opinion and detail, is the one that must rule all observation.
Adam Smith
Yes, this makes for a complicated picture of crime. But, it is also true that crime is a complex social problem requiring
comprehensive explanations. If criminal behavior was easy to figure out, we would have already solved the problem and eliminated
crime altogether! Criminologists are increasingly acknowledging this complexity and adjusting their theoretical views on crime
accordingly. Before describing the developmental theories guiding more contemporary and community‐based crime prevention, it is
essential to understand the criminal career framework, which describes the kinds of behavior and dimensions of crime targeted by
these prevention strategies.
The criminal career framework
In Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) , we discussed the controversy over the terms “crime prevention” and “crime control.” The focus of this
debate is whether crime prevention should be concerned only with the first crime a person ever commits (i.e., the transition from
being a non‐offender to being an offender) or with preventing any criminal act, no matter how many the individual has previously
committed. We have chosen to refer to crime prevention as interventions that seek to stop any criminal event, regardless of when
it occurs in the series of crimes. But we acknowledge that the distinction between the first criminal behavior and repeated offending
is important and that the prevention of an initial offense may require something different than that needed to prevent ongoing
criminal behavior. But where a criminal act falls along a sequence of criminal activities is not the only type of distinction we might
consider when describing criminal behavior and designing prevention programs, practices, or policies. What other dimensions of
crime and criminal behavior do you think are important? Is the distinction between preventing aggravated assaults and vandalism
an important one? What are the dimensions of crime that prevention programs should address?
Blumstein and his colleagues (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington, 1988; Blumstein et al., 1986) proposed the criminal career
framework to identify and organize a set of concepts that distinguish between different types and levels of involvement in crime.
Their framework was one of the first to view criminal behavior as having a definite progression, beginning with the initiation or first
act of crime, continuing for a defined period, then ending. This view has expanded both theories about and research on crime. For
example, it has led to new and more comprehensive measures of offending which move beyond the simple crime rates provided by
the UCR and other official sources of crime data discussed in Chapter 1 (c01.xhtml) . It also has many implications for crime
prevention programs, practices, and policies, as we will describe.
The main elements of the criminal career described by Blumstein and colleagues include onset, participation, frequency,
seriousness,
specialization,
escalation,
desistance,
length,
and
termination
(see
Table
3.1
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐22#c3‐tbl‐0001) for brief descriptions of each). The criminal
career begins with onset, the very first offense in a criminal career. The onset rate reflects the proportion of persons in a population
(e.g., all youth in the United States or all adults in a particular city or state) whose initial offense occurs in a given year. Participation
refers to the proportion of all people in a population who have committed at least one offense in a given time period (usually defined
as one year). A lifetime participation rate would reflect the proportion of persons in a population that were involved in at least one
crime during their lifetime. In any given year, the participation rate includes both those whose onset occurred in that year and those
who initiated their offending earlier and also are active offenders in that period. All other dimensions describe the criminal
involvement of individuals after onset: the frequency of their offending, the seriousness of their offenses, changes in that frequency or
seriousness over time (escalation/de‐escalation), the number of years from the first to the last offense (length or duration), and the
ending (termination) of all offending.
Table
3.1
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
22#R_c3‐tbl‐0001) Dimensions of the criminal career.
Source: Based upon Blumstein et al., 1986.
Dimension
Definition
Onset (initiation)
The beginning of the career; the point at which one’s first offense is
committed
Participation
Percentage of the population who engages in crime during some time
period
Frequency
Number of crimes per year committed by those who are actively
participating in crime
Seriousness
The degree to which one commits predatory offenses, such as
burglary, assault, or robbery
Specialization
Primarily engaging in only offense or one group of related offenses
Escalation
Increases in the number and/or seriousness of offending over time
De‐escalation or
desistance
Decreases in the number and/or seriousness of offending over time
Length (duration)
The amount of time between an offender’s first and last crime
Termination
The end of the career; the point at which an offender’s last crime is
committed
In developing this framework, Blumstein and colleagues (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington, 1988; Blumstein et al., 1986) were
among the first to recognize what is now seen as an indisputable fact: that youth are much more likely to participate in crime than
are adults. The strong relationship between age and offending, often referred to and visually displayed as an age/crime curve (see
Figure 3.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐22/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐22#c3‐
fig‐0001) ), has been confirmed using official data and self‐reports of offending. Research has shown that the onset or initiation of
offending usually occurs in early to middle adolescence, participation in crime increases from late adolescence to early adulthood
and desistence begins after that. Although there can be some variation in these patterns across time periods, types of offenses (e.g.,
violent vs non‐violent crimes) and characteristics of offenders (e.g., males vs females), the age/crime curve typically tells the same
story over and over again: adolescents are much more likely than adults to participate in offending.
Figure
3.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
22#R_c3‐fig‐0001) The age/crime curve.
Source: Blumstein et al., 1988.
It is important to remember, however, that there are more adults than youth in every society; in the USA, only about 15% of the
population is aged 14–24 (National Center for Educational Statistics; http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026.pdf
(http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026.pdf) ). As a result, the total number of adult offenders will always be higher than the total
number of youth offenders. But, the proportion of all adults who engage in crime will be lower than the proportion of all youth who
engage in crime.
Additional research investigating the criminal career has indicated that for most offenders, participation in crime begins with the
least serious types of offenses, such as minor forms of drug use and perpetration of minor assaults or thefts. Some offenders will
escalate to more frequent and serious forms of drug use, non‐violent crimes and/or violence over time, but people are very unlikely
to begin their criminal career by committing a very serious offense such as an aggravated assault, robbery, or murder (Blumstein et
al., 1986; Elliott, 1994; Farrington, 2003). In addition, most serious offenders do not specialize in particular types of crime but are
generalists, showing variation in the types of crimes they commit. For example, gang members may engage in drive‐by shootings but
will also be likely to use illegal drugs, get into fist‐fights and/or commit vandalism.
Finally, evidence has shown that the earlier one’s age of onset, the more likely s/he is to engage in persistent, serious offending that
continues into adulthood. For example, findings from a national self‐report survey showed that 45% of those whose first act of
violence occurred before age 11 also committed violence during their 20s. However, only about 25% of those who initiated violence
at ages 11–12 were violent during adulthood, and even fewer of those whose age of onset was later than 13 years continued to be
violent as adults (Elliott, 1994). Table 3.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐22#c3‐tbl‐0002)
shows similar statistics linking the age of onset among males in Denver to their later involvement in serious and chronic (i.e., of a
long duration) offending.
Table
3.2
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
22#R_c3‐tbl‐0002) The relationship between age of onset and later offending.
Source: Adapted from Huizinga et al., 2003 (Tables 2 and 3); information is based on self‐reported
information from males participating in the Denver Youth Survey.
Age of
initiation
Percent who became serious
offenders
Percent who became chronic violent
offenders
Age of
initiation
Percent who became serious
offenders
Percent who became chronic violent
offenders
Before age 9
67%
62%
Ages 12–14
53%
48%
Ages 15–17
27%
20%
What does information about the criminal career mean for crime prevention? First, if the age of onset is important in predicting
serious and frequent offending and most individuals experience the onset of offending when they are adolescents, then prevention
efforts that seek to delay onset and reduce participation in crime should probably be focused on children and those in the early
years of adolescence. Since these interventions are targeting people before they become involved in crime, they will not be
implemented by the criminal justice system. Instead, they will likely occur in a community setting with the general population. If the
goal is to reduce frequent and serious crime among active offenders, then crime prevention efforts should focus on older adolescents
and/or adults – those who are already participating in crime (Blumstein et al., 1986). These actions are likely to be initiated and
overseen by the criminal justice system.
Second, Blumstein and colleagues (1988) speculated that different dimensions of the criminal career are influenced by different
causal factors and so require different types of prevention strategies. For example, the factors that lead to the onset of crime (among
youth) are likely to differ from the factors that influence the frequency of offending among serious (and older) offenders. Efforts to
prevent or delay the initiation of crime might, then, try to minimize the influence of having delinquent peers or improve children’s
success in school, while efforts intended to prevent recidivism may require more intensive and multicomponent prevention
strategies.
To summarize, research on criminal careers suggests the following for crime prevention:
1. The onset, frequency, escalation/de‐escalation, and termination of crime may each have a unique set of causes requiring
different prevention strategies.
2. Services to prevent criminal onset should focus primarily on youth.
3. Crime prevention efforts intended to bring about termination should focus on all active offenders.
4. Given the developmental progression of crime, prevention at early stages of the career should reduce the frequency and
seriousness of crime and the length of one’s criminal career.
The life course developmental paradigm
Do you know what a “paradigm shift” is? In science, it refers to a very large change in how we view a particular event or set of
events. What does this have to do with criminology and crime prevention? Our view, and that of some other criminologists (e.g.,
Cullen, 2011), is that criminology has recently experienced such a shift with the introduction of the life course development
paradigm. The application of this view of human behavior to crime has had a strong impact on our understanding of the factors that
lead to crime and the types of strategies that should be used to prevent illegal behaviors.
Backing up a bit, we should mention that a paradigm is a worldview or a research tradition within a scientific discipline (Laudan,
1977). It is a descriptive framework that identifies what types of things need to be observed or measured, what kinds of questions
need to be answered, and what types of conclusions we should draw from research findings and integrate into any one discipline
(Kuhn, 1996). The life course developmental paradigm is one such paradigm. It has its roots in several academic disciplines,
including psychology, sociology, and biology, and is now gaining popularity in criminology. In a nutshell, this perspective considers
personal growth and development to be a complex process that evolves and changes over time, particularly in response to the
changing social environments we experience as we age (Elder Jr., 1995; Elder Jr. and Caspi, 1990). We repeat: this paradigm presents
a very complex view of human development and behavior, so bear with us as we explain some of its key concepts. Do not worry: we
will also describe exactly how this paradigm relates to crime prevention.
Concept #1: Person‐in‐context interactions. The life course paradigm sees human behavior as the result of many different
individual characteristics (biological, psychological, and social) and experiences interacting with many different environments that
are also changing over the life course. We move from the family environment in early childhood to family, school, and peer groups in
adolescence, and to college, work, and marriage in adulthood. Individuals have agency, or freedom, to choose some environments
but not others. For example, we actively seek out our friends – and we may choose delinquent friends or very conventional friends –
but we have very little control over who makes up our family. All the environments that surround us affect our opportunities to
engage in particular behaviors, the social roles we play (e.g., “girlfriend” or “parent”) and our understanding of social norms – what
society considers to be acceptable and unacceptable, or approved of or not approved of, behaviors. Even though everyone
experiences the same general contexts (e.g., school or work), individuals are different. Each individual brings particular skills,
attitudes, beliefs, and experiences into each context, and the particular behavior that emerges is the result of our personal
characteristics and choices and the social roles, norms, and opportunities found in our social environments.
Concept # 2: Developmental stages. As we age, we move through distinct phases of the life course that are defined, in part, by our
age; for example, infancy, childhood, early adolescence, late adolescence, early adulthood, and late adulthood. Movement from one
stage to the next occurs when we experience changes in psycho‐biological processes (e.g., puberty, which indicates a movement
from childhood to adolescence) and in social roles and statuses (e.g., becoming a legal driver or gaining more independence from
parents). Development, then, is a continuous process of maturation and change. Changes in social contexts, social roles, norms, and
demands or responsibilities all contribute to our development as human beings—and can affect involvement in crime. Problems
arise for those who are not well equipped to meet the demands of or successfully complete important developmental tasks present
in each stage of the life course (e.g., failing to graduate from high school on time). Those who do not progress normally, or on the
expected timeline, can experience much personal stress. They may become marginalized or separated from their peers or others,
they may experience a delay or failure to successfully complete important tasks in future stages, and they may be less able to attain
conventional social roles and statuses.
Concept #3: Transitions and trajectories. Transitions are abrupt events or experiences that typically mark movement from one
developmental stage to the next. Often, they represent changes in social status and/or roles (e.g., graduation from elementary to
middle school, getting married, or getting arrested). Adolescence is the stage of maximum change. More changes in social contexts
and more transitions occur in this stage compared to any other, making it a critical period of development. A trajectory is a long‐
term sequence showing the pattern of transitions and changes that occur during one’s life. It is a history recording how individuals
adapt to changes in social contexts and how well they navigate significant transitions and turning points.
Concept #4: Timing. If significant events, tasks, and transitions that should occur during a particular developmental stage do not
occur – if they are “off time” or out of sequence – problems can arise not only during that particular period but also in future stages.
For example, the timing of both puberty and employment are important for ensuring healthy development and one’s potential for
crime. Girls who experience an early onset of puberty are at greater risk of delinquency than those with a normal or late onset (Zahn
et al., 2008). Likewise, being employed prior to high school graduation is a risk factor for crime but not after graduation (Mihalic and
Elliott, 1997).
Concept #5: Stability and change. The concepts of stability and change are central to the life course paradigm and refer to
continuity or discontinuity in behavior across different developmental stages. According to this perspective, one’s behavior is not a
stable personality trait or inherent propensity. Individuals are not born criminals; they do not have an inherent propensity to
commit crimes. Instead, behavior can be stable or changing, depending on how one responds or adapts to each stage of life. If an
individual shows stability in positive or negative behaviors, this stability cannot be attributed simply or solely to one’s genetics or
biological tendencies. Instead, it may be that an individual responded in a certain way in one environment and decides to repeat the
performance in another context, probably because s/he had similar opportunities to behave in that manner and/or was rewarded
for doing so in both contexts (Elliott and Williams, 1995).
Now that we have explained the life course paradigm in some detail, it’s completely apparent how this perspective relates to criminal
behavior and crime prevention, right? Not yet? Well, let’s think about it some more …
In the life course paradigm, crime is viewed as an adaptation made because one has not achieved the goals or successfully completed
the demands faced at a particular stage. Or, crime occurs because one has not experienced important transitions or turning points at
the right time. Remember that, in this paradigm, both individual characteristics and social environments affect behavior and
development, which means that both personal and contextual factors, as well as their interactions, affect one’s likelihood of
overcoming or failing to overcome challenges faced during the life course. A major goal of crime prevention programs is to provide
individuals with the skills they need to successfully complete tasks, adapt to new circumstances and take on new responsibilities so
that they do not resort to criminal adaptations. Recall that adolescence is the stage where most of these demands occur and crime is
most likely to be initiated, which also makes it an important period for crime prevention. The specific individual and contextual risk
and protective factors that affect adaptations and which can be targeted by prevention efforts are described in various
developmental theories, which we will review in the next section.
Similar to the criminal career framework, the life course perspective considers and seeks to answer questions about how offending
behavior can change over the life course but also investigates how these patterns may vary across individuals and contexts. Some of
the questions that life course theories seek to answer include: How big a failure or departure from the normal course of
development is required before crime becomes a likely adaptation? Why would an individual choose a criminal adaptation rather
than some other non‐criminal adaptation (e.g., why react to a failure to meet goals with crime versus depression or just by lowering
your goals or aspirations)? What personal traits, conditions, experiences, or interactions explain the specific form of crime one
chooses to commit (e.g., violence compared to theft or drug use)? Why is involvement in crime temporary for some individuals but
more stable or persistent for others? Is stability in offending likely to be the result of an accumulation of failures experienced across
multiple stages of development, or is a critical failure experienced very early in life enough to create an ongoing pattern or trajectory
of offending?
Also like the criminal career paradigm, the life course paradigm recognizes the definite relationship between age and crime, but also
points out that the age/crime curve shown in Figure 3.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
22/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐22#c3‐fig‐0001) reflects an aggregate or overall pattern, meaning that it is based on
averaging crime rates across all individuals in a population. Presenting information in this way can hide differences in crime rates
for particular individuals or groups of individuals. For example, Moffitt’s (1993) examination of offending rates has shown that
although most offenders do limit their participation in crime to the adolescent period of life (and are, as a result, adolescent‐limited
offenders), this is not true of all individuals. A small proportion of the population (5–10%) are life‐course persistent offenders
(Moffitt,
1993;
Sampson
and
Laub,
1993).
As
depicted
in
Figure
3.2
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐22#c3‐fig‐0002) , these individuals usually commit their first
deviant or illegal behavior during childhood and are persistent offenders, continuing to offend through adulthood.
Figure
3.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
22#R_c3‐fig‐0002) Two groups of individuals with different levels of participation in offending
over the life course.
Source: Moffitt, 1993. Reproduced with permission of the American Psychological Association.
To further complicate matters, additional patterns of offending are also possible. For example, some studies have shown that there
are distinct groups of individuals who: (i) initiate offending during adolescence and persist into adulthood, and (ii) have a delayed
onset of crime, offending for the first time after age 20 (Jennings and Reingle, 2012; Nagin, Farrington, and Moffitt, 1995; US
Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Moreover, even for life course persisters, involvement in crime can be unstable,
increasing or decreasing depending on life circumstances.
This variation in offending means that there are many opportunities to prevent involvement in crime. We must provide services
early in life before the age of onset has occurred as well as later in the life course to guard against a late onset of crime and to reduce
recidivism among those who have already initiated. Crime prevention efforts must also consider the different developmental stages
that individuals are experiencing and recognize that the factors influencing criminal adaptations will be different at different stages.
That is, risk factors that are most important in childhood are likely to be different from those that are most important in adolescence
and from those that are most salient during adulthood. This means that prevention services have to address the right factors at the
right time. Similarly, because the circumstances that predict onset and persistence or which influence adolescent‐limited offending
and life course persistent offending may differ, prevention programs will need to focus on different factors depending on the
outcome one wishes to prevent and/or the types of individuals targeted for services.
As we have been emphasizing, different theories offer different explanations for criminal involvement. From a life course
perspective, it is important to consider the degree to which theories take into account the age of the individual, the turning points
and transitions affecting their involvement in crime and the degree to which they allow for different pathways to crime for different
individuals. With these thoughts in mind, let’s review some of the theories we discussed in Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) and reflect again on
their implications for crime prevention.
Theories within the life course development paradigm
Strain theories predate the emergence of the life course paradigm but nonetheless reflect some of its main principles. Strain
theories assume that humans are basically law‐abiding and will engage in crime only when pushed to do so. The central proposition
in strain theory is that crime is a response to the pain and emotions produced by stress, which can act as a turning point in the life
course, especially if it results in the inability to successfully achieve important tasks and goals.
The primary theories in this tradition that guide current prevention efforts are Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) version of strain theory,
sometimes called Opportunity Theory and Agnew’s (1991, 2006) General Strain Theory (GST). According to both these theories,
an important motivation for involvement in crime is having limited access to conventional opportunities, which leads to an
anticipated failure to achieve goals that are universally valued in society (e.g., a high‐quality education, a good job, accumulated
wealth and social status, and a happy marriage). Agnew’s GST identified two other important types of stressors: (i) the loss of
positive influences and relationships like close friends, a favorite teacher, or a beloved coach; and (ii) a dramatic negative event like
the death of a loved one or exposure to violence and victimization. All of these experiences can evoke strong emotions (e.g., anger,
anxiety, or depression), which, in turn, prompt a search for ways to deal with this condition.
Strain theory views crime as one possible solution or adaptation to stressful situations. But according to Cloward and Ohlin (1960),
choosing a criminal adaptation depends on access to criminal opportunities, those learning environments and subcultures where the
required skills and knowledge to be successful in crime can be acquired. The specific form of criminal behavior is determined, at
least in part, by the specific criminal subculture available. In addition, Agnew (1991, 2006) states that social support is very
important in determining which adaptation is chosen: individuals with high levels of social support are less likely to respond to
strain with crime compared to those with less social support.
What crime prevention strategies are suggested by strain theories? An obvious recommendation they would make is to reduce the
occurrence of problematic strains in individuals’ lives. For example, we could provide housing subsidies for the poor, increase
welfare programs, provide educational or job training programs, and seek to reduce or eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination.
This theory would also advocate for programs that help individuals more positively cope with life stress. We might, for example,
teach people how to recognize and respond to the physiological signs of stress (e.g., increased heartbeat, difficulty breathing) or
anger (e.g., clenched fists, reddening of the face) in non‐violent and healthy ways.
Social learning theories assume that human nature is determined by socialization processes and that individuals are not
inherently predisposed to either conventional or antisocial behavior. The central proposition is that children learn positive and
negative behaviors, including crime, when interacting with others in social situations. Sutherland’s (1947) differential association
theory and Akers’ (1985, 2009) social learning theory are the primary criminological theories in this tradition. These theories
both assert that the more one is exposed to criminal role models and to the attitudes and values they convey, the more likely one will
be to engage in crime. Associations with criminals allow an individual to learn both the techniques necessary to engage in an illegal
behavior (since you are not born knowing how to pick a lock or hack into someone’s bank account) and the attitudes that can
promote and help to rationalize such behaviors. Learning processes also include imitation and reinforcement. In the first case, an
individual who observes someone else commit an illegal behavior will be at risk for mimicking the behavior. Once participation in
crime has occurred, its persistence is best explained by the extent to which it is reinforced – either encouraged, which leads to more
offending, or discouraged, which should promote desistence.
Social learning theory serves as the foundation for many crime prevention programs, especially those that focus on minimizing
exposure to risky family and peer influences – those social groups encountered relatively early in life and which are especially
important to the individual. Programs for parents will emphasize the importance of modeling positive behaviors and refraining from
committing illegal acts or sharing deviant attitudes with youth. They can also help parents be more aware of their children’s
behaviors, more effectively discipline children and discourage children’s association with deviant peers. Schools can offer drug
prevention curricula in order to adjust students’ perceptions about the numbers of people who drink or use drugs, so that it is not
considered to be common and acceptable behavior. Likewise, these programs may have adolescents consider the negative
consequences of using drugs (e.g., smoking makes you smell bad and cigarettes cost a lot of money) and practice declining a peer’s
offer to use drugs.
Social control theories assume that humans are basically hedonistic and driven by the need to satisfy their own needs and desires,
which creates a natural tendency to engage in crime. The central theories in this tradition are Hirschi’s (1969) social
control/bonding theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime. The first focuses on the importance of
having strong emotional attachments or bonds to others, which act as informal and indirect social controls. We are more likely to
conform to the rules and expectations set by those we respect and care about even when they are not actively trying to control our
behavior because we do not want to jeopardize our relationships or disappoint those who care about us. The second theory
prioritizes the role of internal self‐control; people with strong self‐control should be able to stop themselves from acting on their
desires and impulses and from committing crime when faced with opportunities to do so.
These theories have clear and logical applications for crime prevention: to prevent crime and/keep criminal impulses in check, we
must externally apply controls, strengthen bonds, and/or create strong internal controls in individuals. Attempts to increase
external controls may include formal actions by law enforcement officers or informal actions by teachers or parents who set and
enforce rules for behavior. To increase bonds, we could increase individuals’ involvement in conventional activities and strengthen
their beliefs in the norms and rules of society. To increase self‐control, we could help individuals better regulate their impulses and
emotions and help them evaluate the consequences of their actions.
We discussed several examples of integrated theories in Chapter 2 (c02.xhtml) , including those proposed by Elliott and colleagues
(Elliott, 1985; Elliott, Ageton, and Canter, 1979), Interactional Theory (Thornberry, 1987; Thornberry et al., 1991), and the Social
Development Model (Catalano and Hawkins, 1996). The last two theories include an integration of social control and social
learning theories, and Elliott and colleagues also include strain theory. It is easy to see how these theories are related to the life
course developmental paradigm. They all describe a chain of events that unfolds over the early stages of the life course, in which
significant experiences in specific social contexts constitute turning points that influence the development of crime. In addition, they
recognize that different people can follow different life course trajectories and that they may be influenced by different causal
factors that lead them into crime. These theories have been used to explain not only the initiation into crime, but also continuity and
desistance from crime, as well as particular life course trajectories followed by individuals (Catalano et al., 2008; Elliott, Huizinga,
and Menard, 1989; Thornberry and Krohn, 2008).
Prevention strategies based on integrated theories tend to be multifaceted and have the goal of implementing strategies
recommended by all the theories included in the integrated model. In addition, they emphasize that these strategies take into
account the developmental life stage/age of the individual and target the influences that are most likely to be affecting the particular
population intended to receive services. (See Table 3.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
22#c3‐tbl‐0003) for a summary of all the theories that fall within the life course paradigm.)
Table
3.3
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
22#R_c3‐tbl‐0003) Theories within the life course developmental paradigm.
Theory
Definition
Strain
Crime is produced by strains and
stressors that create pressures
that must be alleviated
Social
learning
Crime is learned through
interactions with others
Social
control
Crime is more likely to occur
when internal, external, and
indirect controls are weak
Integrated
Many factors influence crime
and their effects may differ
across individuals and stages of
development
Crime prevention strategies suggested by
the theory
•
•
School curricula to improve social‐
emotional learning
Job training programs
•
Drug or violence prevention curricula
helping children resist peer or media
influences to use drugs or be
aggressive
•
Parent training programs that improve
child management and discipline skills
Mentoring programs
•
•
•
Multiple component programs
targeting multiple causes of crime
Developmentally sensitive
interventions that address causal
factors when they are most influential
A Public Health Approach to Crime Prevention
Although illegal behavior has always been the focus of law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies, crime is increasingly
being considered a matter of public concern. This means that crime is now more likely to be viewed as having consequences for
everyone. Clearly, crime is harmful to those who are victims of or commit illegal acts. Indeed, violence is responsible for 9% of all
deaths worldwide among males aged 10–24 (Patton et al., 2009) and is the second leading cause of death of all those aged 10–24 in
the USA (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). In addition, offenders are more likely to self‐report the use and/or
abuse of illegal drugs compared to non‐offenders and to have mental and physical health problems. Those involved in the criminal
justice system must also contend with the social stigma that follows from having a criminal record and from the subsequent lack of
access to important services and/or social processes (e.g., being unable to vote, having more difficulty finding employment, etc.).
We also know that people do not have to directly experience crime, as perpetrators or victims, to be harmed by it. Given that
significant tax dollars are spent to prevent crime and punish criminals, we all suffer when crime rates are elevated. There is also
evidence that vicarious victimization (Agnew, 2006) – hearing about or witnessing crimes perpetrated against others – can cause
stress, emotional trauma, and fear of crime, particularly when loved ones are victimized. For all of these reasons, crime can be seen
as threatening the health and well‐being of the general public, similar to other serious problems such as poverty, obesity, and cancer.
Viewing crime as a public health problem has increased public support for crime prevention and generated demand for broader‐
based actions to reduce crime that extend beyond law enforcement. Such efforts are modeled after the medical and public health
approaches to reducing disease and other health problems. These perspectives emphasize the importance of early and proactive
activities that will alter the factors that lead to disease or increase the risk of disease. This orientation is in contrast to reactive efforts
that are implemented after problems have emerged. That is, instead of waiting until an individual becomes sick, then trying to treat
the disease, public health approaches try to reduce the chance that illness will occur.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Ben Franklin
As an example, consider how we might prevent heart disease using a public health approach. First, we would identify the factors that
scientific studies have shown to influence, either positively or negatively, the potential that an individual will develop this sickness.
These factors include stress and poor diets, which increase the risk for heart disease, and regular exercise, which reduces its chances
of occurring. Secondly, we would create and test a strategy designed to reduce the factors that make heart disease more likely and to
increase the factors that make it less likely to develop. To prevent heart disease, then, we might teach individuals strategies to
effectively manage stress (e.g., practice yoga, reduce caffeine intake, etc.) and encourage them to eat healthier meals and engage in
regular exercise.
Extending this logic to the prevention of crime, rather than wait until crimes are committed and responding with punishments, we
want to reduce the probability that individuals will break the law. Doing so requires that we first identify the factors that increase or
decrease the likelihood of illegal behavior and then create and test strategies to change these factors. In the next section, we will
describe more fully the progress that has been made in identifying the causes of offending. For now, consider what preventive
actions might be put in place if there was evidence that academic failure during elementary school increased the likelihood of
adolescent delinquency. What might we do based on this knowledge? One strategy would be to encourage parents and schools to
enroll children with low grades in tutoring programs. What action could be taken if it was clear that steady employment reduced the
probability of offending? This information would suggest increasing access to educational and job training.
Risk and Protective Factors Related to Crime
We have already mentioned several times and will continue to emphasize in this text that crime prevention strategies should try to
change the factors that have been identified in theories and shown in scientific studies to affect criminal behavior. These influences
are called risk factors and protective factors. They are the circumstances or experiences encountered during life that predict the
onset and/or persistence of crime. Risk factors increase the likelihood that one will engage in an illegal act; for example, academic
failure as described in the earlier example. Protective factors reduce, counteract, or buffer the impact of risk factors; that is, risks
have weaker influence on criminal behavior when protective factors are present (Rutter, 1985; US Department of Health and Human
1
Services, 2001). (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐30#c3‐note‐0001) Risk and protective factors
can
be
encountered
in
all
stages
of
the
life
course.
As
shown
in
Table
3.4
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐24/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐24#c3‐tbl‐0004)
,
they include characteristics and experiences associated with individuals and with the social contexts of families, peer groups,
schools, and neighborhoods.
Table
3.4
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
24#R_c3‐tbl‐0004) Risk and protective factors associated with adolescent delinquency.
Source: Hawkins et al., 1998; Lipsey and Derzon, 1998; Losel and Farrington, 2012; US Department
of Health and Human Services, 2001. See also
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html
(http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html) .
Type of
influence
Risk factor
•
•
Individual
•
•
Family
•
•
•
•
•
Peer group
School
Community
•
•
•
Childhood behavioral problems (e.g.,
conduct disorder, hyperactivity)
Temperament/disposition (e.g., low
self‐control, impulsivity, having a
preference for risk taking)
Antisocial attitudes (e.g., holding a
belief that violence or law‐breaking is
acceptable)
Exposure to violence
Poverty
Child neglect and abuse
Parental conflict
Poor child management (low or
inconsistent levels of monitoring,
discipline, and supervision)
Parental substance abuse or
criminality
Delinquent peers
Gang membership
Social rejection by peers
Protective factor
•
•
•
•
•
•
High intelligence
Religiosity
Positive social
orientation
Strong moral beliefs
opposed to deviance
Warm and supportive
relationships with
parents or other
adults
Parent involvement in
school and support
for child’s education
•
Friends who engage
in conventional
behavior
•
Commitment to
school
Involvement in
conventional
activities
•
Academic failure
•
•
•
•
High rates of crime
Concentration of poor residents
Concentration of single‐parent families
•
•
Collective efficacy
Close ties between
neighbors
How do we know which risk and protective factors actually affect crime? As we have discussed, the first place to start looking is
criminological theory, since its goal is to explain criminal behavior. To be sure that factors discussed in theories do, in fact, lead to
offending, we must also consult findings from scientific research. Longitudinal studies, which follow individuals over time to
investigate how their encounters with risk and protective factors subsequently affect their criminal behavior, provide strong
evidence that these factors increase and/or decrease offending (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Keep in mind,
however, that the strongest evidence of causality comes from criminological experiments which intentionally change a risk or
protective factor then measure its effect on crime.
Longitudinal studies typically rely on self‐report surveys rather than official data to assess the impact of risk and protective factors
on offending. Although official data can provide information on offenders’ demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, race/ethnicity, age,
and possibly socioeconomic status), these are generally stable qualities that cannot be changed using crime prevention strategies.
Self‐report surveys are a better source for information on experiences that can potentially be modified using crime prevention
strategies. These surveys ask individuals to report whether or not or how often they have encountered risk and protective factors of
various types, and they also gather information on illegal behaviors, which allows the researcher to assess the degree to which the
former impact the latter. When this information is gathered multiple times during a person’s life, as in longitudinal studies, the
ability to detect whether or not risk and protective factors lead to crime is facilitated.
The Communities That Care Youth Survey developed by the Social Development Research Group
http://www.sdrg.org/ctcresource/CTC_Youth_Survey_2006.pdf (http://www.sdrg.org/ctcresource/CTC_Youth_Survey_2006.pdf) and
the
School
Climate
Surveys
from
the
Center
for
the
Study
and
Prevention
of
Violence
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/safeschools/surveys.html (http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/safeschools/surveys.html) are both self‐
report surveys which measure risk and protective factors and involvement in crime. We encourage you to read through these
surveys to see for yourselves how they ask about a variety of experiences that can affect crime.
According to information from longitudinal self‐report studies, many different risk and protective factors affect illicit substance use
and
other
types
of
crime.
Table
3.4
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
24/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐24#c3‐tbl‐0004) lists factors shown in multiple studies conducted with children and
adolescents to be related to illegal behaviors among youth. Although there is much support for the risk and protective factors listed
here, scientists disagree as to which risk and protective factors are most influential. There is no agreed‐upon list of risk and
protective factors and some sources will have different lists than others, primarily as a result of requiring different levels of evidence
to establish that such factors actually predict crime. It is also true that we currently know more about individual and family risk
factors compared to risk factors in the peer, school, and neighborhood contexts. In addition, there has been less investigation of
protective factors compared to risk factors (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001), and fewer self‐report studies have
attempted to measure risk and protective factors that influence the offending of adults compared to youths.
There is also some disagreement as to how to measure risk and protective factors (Losel and Farrington, 2012). In some research, a
particular variable may be identified as both a risk and a protective factor; for example, low intelligence is sometimes considered a
risk factor for offending, while high intelligence is considered to be a protective factor. In general, we prefer not to measure risk and
protective factors in this way. If risk factors are just the opposite of protective factors, distinguishing between the two is not very
useful (Hall, Simon, Mercy, et al., 2012; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). To be most meaningful, risk and
protective factors should assess separate constructs, not the same factor at opposite ends of the spectrum. For example, holding
beliefs favorable to violence can be viewed as a risk factor that is separate from and not simply the absence of having strong moral
beliefs, which is a protective factor. Similarly, religiosity is commonly viewed as a protective factor, but failing to attend religious
services is not seen as a risk factor.
To what degree do risk and protective factors predict crime?
Longitudinal studies provide information about the risk and protective factors that affect involvement in crime, but it is important to
understand that these relationships are predictive, on average, for the whole set of persons reporting exposure to particular risk and
protective factors. They do not necessarily apply to each individual person who is studied; they are not proscriptive. In other words,
an individual who encounters a risk factor has a greater probability of offending compared to someone who does not experience the
same risk factor, but criminal behavior does not automatically follow from risk exposure (US Department of Health and Human
Services, 2001). For example, doing poorly in school is a risk factor for violence, meaning that, among all students doing poorly in
school, a higher proportion will be violent compared to the proportion of all students doing well in school who are violent. But not
all individual youth with low grades will engage in violence. The prediction applies to the group of students with low grades, not to
specific individuals. Knowing the degree to which one faces risk and protection can help us predict who may become involved in
crime, but we cannot know with certainty that offending will occur for any one individual based on his/her exposure to risk and
protective factors.
One of the things I learned is that you've got to deal with the underlying social problems if you want to have an impact on crime – that
it's not a coincidence that you see the greatest amount of violent crime where you see the greatest amount of social dysfunction.
Eric Holder, former US Attorney General
We also know that humans are vastly different from one another. Just consider your siblings, close friends, or romantic partners:
although you may have similar interests and sometimes act in similar ways, you are likely to be affected in different ways by the
same experience. In addition, what is most important in shaping your behavior may be different from that affecting your significant
other(s). Moreover, individuals vary in their levels of exposure to risk. For example, members of minority racial/ethnic groups are
much more likely than Caucasians to live in risky, high poverty, high‐crime neighborhoods (Sampson, 2012; Wilson, 1987), and
males are more likely than females to experience victimization committed by strangers or acquaintances (Finkelhor et al., 2009;
Lauritsen and Heimer, 2008). Research has also shown that risk factors have different effects on individuals depending on their
genetic make‐up (Belsky and Pluess, 2009; Simons et al., 2011).
As we have already mentioned, research in the life course development paradigm has shown that different risk and protective
factors affect involvement in crime at different stages of the life course (Catalano and Hawkins, 1996; Moffitt, 1993; Sampson and
Laub, 1993). During early childhood, individuals spend the most time with parents and other family members, making family risk
and protective factors such as child maltreatment, parental monitoring and supervision of children and close, positive relationships
with parents most important (Thornberry, 1987). During middle childhood and adolescence, school and peer experiences become
more influential (Cleveland et al., 2008; Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton, 1985). For adults, community factors gain influence, as do
employment and romantic relationships (Sampson and Laub, 1993). Even more complicated, some experiences may act as a risk
factor at one stage of life and a protective factor at another time. For example, romantic relationships have been shown to increase
the likelihood of delinquency among girls (Haynie, 2003) but to decrease crime among women (Petras, Nieuwbeerta, and Piquero,
2010). Working more than 20 hours per week before graduation from high school increases the risk of crime and drug use for teens,
but employment acts as a protective factor after graduation (Mihalic and Elliott, 1997). It is also true that some risk and protective
factors have stable effects throughout life. For example, having a preference for risk‐taking and being unable to control one’s
impulses can affect criminal involvement at all ages (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).
Variation in the impact of risk and protective factors means that efforts to prevent crime may have differing levels of success for
different groups, depending on their age, demographic characteristics, and other attributes. It also means that, to have maximum
impact, the content of a program should try to change the risk and protective factors that are most likely to occur and to be
influential for the group targeted to receive the intervention. To do so, those who create prevention strategies must be familiar with
both theories of crime and empirical studies that test these theories, especially longitudinal research that indicates how influences
may change over one’s lifetime. Our descriptions of effective interventions in Section III (p03.xhtml) will describe the risk and
protective factors targeted by each program, the age(s) of the population targeted by the program and, when the information is
available, the degree to which the intervention has shown variation in effectiveness for different individuals.
How does experiencing many risk and protective factors affect criminal involvement?
Have you heard the expression: “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”? The idea behind this quote is that human beings are
resilient: we can bounce back from hardships, although there are limits in how successful we will be in doing so. In criminology,
studies show that individuals who encounter just a few risk factors are no more likely to engage in crime than those experiencing no
risk factors. However, the more risk factors one is exposed to, the greater the likelihood of engaging in crime (Bry, McKeon, and
Pandina, 1982; Coie et al., 1993). For example, a longitudinal study showed that Seattle youth reporting more than five risk factors
when aged 10 were 10 times more likely to engage in violence at age 18 compared to those who experienced zero or one risk factor
(Herrenkohl et al., 2000). Some call this a dose–response relationship (Losel and Farrington, 2012) meaning that, as the number or
dose of risk factors increases, the odds of substance use, delinquency, and violence also increases (Newcomb, Maddahian, and
Bentler, 1986; Stoddard, Zimmerman, and Bauermeister, 2012; Wikstrom and Loeber, 2000).
Although somewhat less frequently examined, protective factors appear to operate in the same way: the more protection
experienced, the less likely one is to offend (Ostaszewski and Zimmerman, 2006; Stoddard et al, 2012). In a longitudinal study of
teenage boys in Pittsburgh, Stouthamer‐Loeber and colleagues (2002) found that 22% to 37% of the study participants engaged in
persistent and serious offending during mid‐ to late‐adolescence. For those reporting no protective factors, 41% to 66% became
serious offenders, but among those who reported five or six protective factors, none (0%) became persistent, serious offenders.
These findings indicate that it is the accumulation of risk and protection that has the strongest potential to predict criminal behavior.
However, such relationships are not completely straightforward. There are four reasons to be cautious when trying to determine the
collective impact of risk and protective factors. First, research has not yet examined the extent to which the effects of different risk
factors are independent from one another. Likewise, individual protective factors may or may not be independent predictors of less
crime. As a result, we do not know whether the effect of one factor is totally separate from another or if their effects on crime
overlap. There is good reason to believe that there is some overlap and that they may be measuring, to some degree, the same type
of causal influence. For example, the impact of parent divorce and family conflict are likely to be related; the effect of one will largely
capture the same effect on crime as the other.
Second, the predictive strength of individual risk and protective factors varies. Some have a greater impact on crime than others. For
example, having delinquent peers is a much stronger predictor of subsequent offending than frequently watching violent movies (US
Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).
Third, there is some evidence people differ in the number of risk and protective factors they have to experience before their
involvement in crime is affected (Stoddard et al., 2012). Some people have a very low threshold, or tolerance, for risk, while others
have very high thresholds. For example, in the television show Breaking Bad, the main character, Walter White, begins producing
and selling crystal meth after he has been diagnosed with cancer. However, his son Walt Jr., who has significant physical disabilities
caused by cerebral palsy, a father diagnosed with cancer, a mother who is pregnant (no doubt embarrassing for a teenager) and who
is in the risky developmental stage of adolescence is able to refrain from crime.
Fourth, we cannot simply add up the number of factors reported and calculate exactly how likely crime will be for any one person
(Losel and Farrington, 2012). It is not necessarily true that those experiencing four risk factors will be twice as likely to engage in
crime than those experiencing two risk factors, or that those with nine protective factors will be three times less likely to engage in
crime than those experiencing three protective factors.
How can this information be used in crime prevention efforts? The most obvious implication is that, to have the best chance of
reducing crime, an intervention should try to change the most influential and greatest number of risk and protective factors possible
(Coie et al., 1993). As we will discuss in Section III (p03.xhtml) , boot camps try to increase discipline and self‐control among
offenders, and although they have been frequently used to try to reduce recidivism, there is no evidence that they are effective
(MacKenzie, 2000). This may be because they only focus on changing one or two individual risk factors. They make no attempt to
change family, school, peer, or community relationships that also impact youth offending. In contrast, Multisystemic Therapy,
which tries to improve parent–child relationships, reduce the negative influence of delinquent peers and improve teenagers’
commitment to school has been shown in multiple studies to reduce recidivism among youth offenders (Henggeler, 2011).
The impact of risk and protection on multiple problem behaviors
Although this textbook is focused on crime prevention, it is well known that negative behaviors cluster together and co‐occur
(Huizinga et al., 2000; Jessor and Jessor, 1977; Tolan and Gorman‐Smith, 1998). That is, those who engage in crime are also more
likely to be unemployed or employed in low‐paying jobs, suffer from substance abuse and addiction, engage in other risky behaviors
such as drunk driving, have failed marriages, and have poor physical and/or mental health (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Given
this pattern, it should not be surprising to learn that a particular risk factor can make crime more likely and increase the potential
for other related problem behaviors (Coie et al., 1993). For example, living in a high poverty, high crime neighborhood can increase
the likelihood of aggression and violence, as well as victimization, school drop‐out, unemployment, and mental health problems
(McLoyd, 1998; Sampson, 2012).
These findings have encouraging implications for crime prevention. By targeting risk and protective factors in order to reduce crime,
we can also reduce other public health problems. Prevention efforts can thus have a large pay‐off. For example, the Multisystemic
Therapy program just mentioned has been shown to lower rates of youth offending; to reduce mental health problems, school drop‐
out and substance abuse; and to improve social skills among youth who receive treatment (Henggeler, 2011). Implementing
effective prevention programs can also result in significant financial benefits. As we will discuss in Section IV (p04.xhtml) , when we
prevent crimes from occurring, we also reduce the costs associated with law enforcement and the operation of the criminal justice
system. When these services also improve educational outcomes and mental health and lower the likelihood of substance use and
abuse, additional financial benefits are seen. We save money by not having to provide as many individuals with drug and psychiatric
treatment services, and we have a better educated and more productive workforce (Washington State Institute for Public Policy,
2014).
Prevention Science
The multiple benefits of effective prevention are emphasized in the developing field of prevention science. Similar to the public
health approach we described earlier, the goal of prevention science is to prevent major social problems and dysfunctions (Coie et
al., 1993: 1013) such as crime, physical illness, mental health problems, substance abuse, obesity, and HIV/AIDS. According to this
perspective, the best way to prevent these problems is to reduce the risk factors and strengthen the protective factors associated
with these outcomes. Prevention science is also concerned with ensuring healthy outcomes and positive development among
children and adults, which can also be achieved by lowering risk and increasing protection (Botvin and Griffin, 2005).
The field of prevention science has rapidly progressed over the last few decades. A professional organization (the Society for
Prevention Research; http://www.preventionresearch.org (http://www.preventionresearch.org) /) has been formed to help
academics, practitioners, and policymakers from diverse disciplines share their work with one another. These include criminologists
as well as professionals working in education, medicine, psychology, public health, social work, and sociology. What unites all of
these individuals is the use of a scientific approach to conducting research intended to prevent problems and improve well‐being.
The scientific approach to prevention means starting with theory. Prevention scientists draw from multiple theories to develop
interventions that will attack the causes of crime and interrupt the processes that make offending more likely. That is, they create
interventions that attempt to minimize risk factors and enhance protective factors identified as important in theory. The next step in
the scientific process is to test the ability of these interventions to reduce crime and related problem behaviors in rigorous, well‐
conducted experiments. As we will explain in Chapter 4 (c04.xhtml) , methods for testing interventions can vary significantly in their
quality. Prevention scientists use the most appropriate and strongest possible research designs to test programs’ effectiveness in
order to increase public confidence in their results. They also use appropriate statistical procedures to identify whether or not and
how much crime is actually reduced for those involved in the prevention program. Ideally, interventions are re‐tested under
different conditions and with different populations to ensure their findings can apply in many different situations and for as many
people as possible. The last steps in the prevention science approach are to compile the results of experimental studies, share
information about what works with governmental and public agencies and use the findings to guide future research (Botvin and
Griffin, 2005).
Types of Crime Prevention
Universal, selective, and indicated crime prevention strategies
Prevention strategies that are based on criminological theories and tested using scientific methods can take many different forms.
One way of classifying interventions is according to the types of individuals or groups for whom they are intended. Following the
public health and prevention science perspectives, we will classify interventions as universal, selective, and indicated, as defined
in Table 3.5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐26#c3‐tbl‐0005) (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994;
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009). Universal preventive interventions are intended for the general public
or for all the individuals in a particular setting, regardless of whether or not they have begun to engage in crime or have experienced
any risk or protective factors. For example, if a prevention program were offered to all students in a middle school, it would be
considered to be universal. Similarly, universal prevention programs could be implemented with all students entering college or
with all residents of a particular neighborhood. Selective preventive efforts are intended for individuals or groups considered to be
at risk for engaging in crime because they are known to have already experienced one or more risk factors and/or to have low levels
of protection. For example, students who are not doing well at school might be offered a selective tutoring program, and families
living in high‐poverty and violent neighborhoods might be the focus of selective family‐focused or community‐based interventions.
Indicated preventive strategies are offered to individuals who are already engaging in crime, but who are doing so at relatively low
levels. For example, youth or adults who have had their first contact with the correctional system could participate in an indicated
prevention program to increase the likelihood they will not continue or escalate their offending.
Table
3.5
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
26#R_c3‐tbl‐0005) Universal, selective, and indicated crime prevention strategies.
Type
Intended population
Universal
All individuals in a general setting (e.g., a
community, school, or demographic
group)
Examples of crime prevention
strategies
•
•
•
Selective
Individuals, groups, or settings known to
have experienced one or more risk factors
•
Indicated
Individuals who have already begun to
engage in crime
•
•
School‐wide anti‐bullying
program
Neighborhood watch program
Head Start educational
services for low‐income
families
Mentoring for youth from
single‐parent families
Drug courts
Boot camps
Prior to 1994, the fields of medicine and public health used a different classification of programs. They identified interventions as
being primary, secondary, and tertiary (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994). In this classification, only primary programs were
considered true prevention programs – interventions that tried to decrease the onset of crime and other physical and mental health
problems. Secondary programs were considered “interventions” to be used with those already engaging in crime and/or displaying
problems. Tertiary programs were “treatment” programs for those who had a definite disorder requiring intervention. The new
classification system was developed to better clarify the differences in risk for engaging in crime across individuals, to better reflect
the differences in service needs for different individuals and to expand the types of activities included in the prevention phase
(Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994). Thus, under the new system, universal, selective, and indicated interventions are all considered
prevention options. The distinction between prevention and treatment has also been clarified, with treatment programs reserved
for persons who have a formal diagnosis of a disorder; for example, those with an antisocial personality disorder, those with a
substance abuse disorder, or those with a psychopath disorder.
Although the categories of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention have historically been used by criminologists to classify
crime prevention programs (Lab, 2014; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001), we will use the new classification
system differentiating universal, selective, and indicated interventions given its greater clarity, expanded recognition of prevention
approaches and widespread usage in public health and prevention science. In Section III (p03.xhtml) , we will identify effective
prevention programs as being universal, selective, or indicated.
In Section IV (p04.xhtml) , we will describe some of the challenges faced by communities when deciding whether it is best to
implement universal, selective, or indicated strategies. There is debate about whether services should be directed at the general
population, those at greater risk for becoming involved in crime, or those who are already engaging in serious, frequent offending.
Those in favor of implementing universal interventions point out two main advantages: (i) Even if the majority of the population will
not offend or will engage only in minor offenses, universal services can reach more individuals. In contrast, the higher risk
individuals targeted by selective and indicated programs make up a relatively small percentage of the population (Rose, 1985). (ii)
Universal interventions can affect the larger environments in which individuals reside without having to target and change
particular individuals. For example, a school‐based bullying prevention program might be able to change the policies and climate of
an entire school, reinforcing the message for all students that bullying will not be tolerated.
Those in favor of selective and indicated approaches also make two arguments: (i) Providing services to individuals who may never
break the law is a waste of resources. In contrast, higher risk groups will likely see greater benefits from participation in a crime
prevention strategy (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey, 2009), making this approach more cost effective (Aos et al., 2004). (ii) Society is
obligated to provide services to at‐risk groups (e.g., members of racial/ethnic minority groups or those from low socioeconomic
backgrounds), because doing so can help reduce social disparities and inequalities in those who are most likely to end up in prison
(Frohlich and Potvin, 2008).
These controversies are difficult to resolve and each set of arguments has merit. In fact, the strategy we recommend is to offer a
range of services that reaches all population groups, from those who may never participate in crime to those who are most likely to
do so. In doing so, however, we must remember that it will be very difficult to identify with certainty who will become involved in
crime, given that exposure to risk and protective factors does not automatically lead to offending (i.e., these factors are predictive
but not proscriptive). Moreover, identifying and seeking out high‐risk groups for services can backfire. There is evidence that
labeling individuals as potential or actual offenders can increase their future involvement of crime by negatively affecting their self‐
concept and their interactions with others (Becker, 1963). Prevention efforts that focus on higher risk individuals must be careful to
avoid stigmatizing these populations.
Situational/environmental, social context, and individual crime prevention strategies
A second way of categorizing crime prevention strategies, and how we will organize Section III (p03.xhtml) of this text, is according
to the setting or level at which they seek to make changes. Interventions can try to change: (i) the situations, physical environments
or places in which crimes are likely to occur; (ii) the social contexts and/or social interactions that give rise to crime; and (iii)
characteristics
of
individuals
which
affect
their
criminal
behavior
(see
Table
3.6
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐26#c3‐tbl‐0006) ). The first group includes situational and
environmental crime prevention practices and policies, such as place‐based interventions and Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED). These interventions try to change the physical features of places (neighborhoods, streets, or
buildings) in which crimes are likely to occur. They may also focus on reducing opportunities that can give rise to crimes, making
crimes more difficult to commit and increasing the likelihood of arrest. For example, efforts may be taken to make homes or
commercial buildings more difficult to burglarize (by installing better locks or brighter lighting), bar fights less likely to occur (by
increasing staff or educating servers about how to recognize intoxicated patrons), and neighborhoods less attractive to criminals
(e.g., by tearing down abandoned buildings). Law enforcement practices and criminal justice policies which increase the probability
that crimes will be detected and offenders punished can also fit under this heading.
Table
3.6
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Elliott.8637.17.1/sections/head‐2‐
26#R_c3‐tbl‐0006) Situational/environmental, social context, and individual crime prevention
strategies.
Type
Intended target(s)
Examples of crime
prevention strategies
•
Situational/environmental
Changes in places (neighborhoods,
streets, and buildings) to reduce
opportunities for crime and in law
enforcement practices to increase
the likelihood that offenders will be
caught and punished
•
•
•
Installing locks and
improving security
procedures in
campus dormitories
Installing ignition
locks and
Breathalyzers in
cars
Hot spots policing
Increasing the
minimum drinking
age from 18 to 21
Examples of crime
prevention strategies
Type
Intended target(s)
Social context
Changes in the organization,
structure and/or relationships
occurring in peer, family, school, and
neighborhood groups
•
•
•
•
Changes in risk and protective
factors that affect individuals
Individual
•
Parent training
programs
School climate
change efforts
Gang prevention
prog...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment