neighbourhood crime prevention
Concern about rising crime since the early 1980s has prompted growing
interest in improving physical security and other crime prevention measures,
particularly on council estates. A report by Steve Osborn and Henry Shaftoe
from the Safe Neighbourhoods Unit considers the successes and failures
among a range of different initiatives.
1.Although crime prevention activity has tended to be biased towards physical
security and design measures, there is little evidence that these alone lead to
sustained reductions in crime.
2.Many initiatives that lead to a fall in local crime statistics are short-lived and
may ‘displace’ crime from one area to another or change the nature of
criminal activity (for example, a switch from burglary to street crime).
3.The predominance of property offences within recorded crime statistics has
led policy-makers to underestimate the potential impact of violence on
community life. The fear of crime for many estate residents is, in reality, a
fear of violence.
4.Where a broader package of measures is introduced, including improvement
in housing management and youth and community initiatives, the impact
on crime appears to be more sustained.
5.Crime reductions have sometimes proved hard to maintain in the long term
because of the short-term nature of the interventions – and often because
local action is unable to alter social and economic conditions largely
determined by national policy.
6.The researchers conclude that there is a strong case for holistic approaches to
crime prevention, with greater emphasis on social, economic and family-
based interventions.
References(http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3A5gsv9xLUTE8J%3Awww.jrf.org.uk%2Fsites%2Ffiles%2Fjrf%2Fh149.pdf+Kinds+of+neighbourhood+Crime&hl=en&gl=sg&sig=AHIEtbRhHV8Z8wMGEeky1AXRFYMiVza5Mw)
Concern about rising crime since the early 1980s has prompted growing
interest in improving physical security and other crime prevention measures,
particularly on council estates. A report by Steve Osborn and Henry Shaftoe
from the Safe Neighbourhoods Unit considers the successes and failures
among a range of different initiatives.
1.Although crime prevention activity has tended to be biased towards physical
security and design measures, there is little evidence that these alone lead to
sustained reductions in crime.
2.Many initiatives that lead to a fall in local crime statistics are short-lived and
may ‘displace’ crime from one area to another or change the nature of
criminal activity (for example, a switch from burglary to street crime).
3.The predominance of property offences within recorded crime statistics has
led policy-makers to underestimate the potential impact of violence on
community life. The fear of crime for many estate residents is, in reality, a
fear of violence.
4.Where a broader package of measures is introduced, including improvement
in housing management and youth and community initiatives, the impact
on crime appears to be more sustained.
5.Crime reductions have sometimes proved hard to maintain in the long term
because of the short-term nature of the interventions – and often because
local action is unable to alter social and economic conditions largely
determined by national policy.
6.The researchers conclude that there is a strong case for holistic approaches to
crime prevention, with greater emphasis on social, economic and family-
based interventions.
