Social Crime Prevention Measures
Social Crime Prevention Measures
Introduction
Crime prevention refers to risks reduction for occurrence of crimes. Generally it is achieved through a combination of reduction of opportunities for commitment of a crime, law enforcement and corrections and social development means. Crime prevention is based on two broad approaches namely social prevention and opportunity reduction. Opportunity reduction is based majorly on increasing the effort necessary to commit a crime, increase risk associated with committing a crime and removing excuses for committing crime. Social prevention usually described as an organizational fusion or whole of ‘government’ approach (Haigh, 2006), on the other hand heavily relies on integration of community programs and policies in a way that enable them work together to achieve crime reduction (Homel, 2004). It is based on the fact that the effort to prevent crimes must focus on early prevention and addressing root social causes of crime (Murray and McMillan, 2002).
Crime prevention approaches have developed over time, they are now not only measures that emphasize on ways of reducing crime but also on how they can be used to maintain social cohesion through provision of measures of collectively acting in order to improve quality of life. Recent UN guidelines on crime prevention released in 2002 outline four approaches to crime prevention; prevention through social development, situational crime prevention community prevention mechanisms as well as reduction in recidivism. All these approaches after the implementation both at policy level and on the ground aim to progressively integrate notion of safety of communities which focus on neighborhood security, schools and living space.
Social Prevention Methods
The push for crime prevention has been accelerated by the cost of crime on the society. Walker for example (NAS, 1999) estimated that crime cost Australia about 4% of the Gross Domestic Product which translated to about $1,000 per person. This however does not factor in aspects such as emotional and psychological trauma caused by experience of crime (NAS, 1999). An even more worrying trend is juvenile crime, statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for example showed that in the period 2009-10 (ABS, 2012), the proportion of offenders between the age of 18 – 24 was about 48% while they comprised only 23% of the total population.
The strength of the social prevention programs is their ability to promote community driven ownership which allows formulation of evidenced based adoption of specialized solutions to meet local specific specifications (CPV, 2002). Carach and Huntly (2002) showed that crimes rates were significantly lower in areas where there was a high level of participation in community initiatives.
A successful example of social crime reduction is the Western Australia Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy, this strategy places the greatest emphasis on the realization that cooperative, targeted, sustainable, inclusive and evidence based concerted action is required (Haigh, 2006) if significant progress is to be made in reducing crime.
Youth targeted non-judicial, community-based delinquency and prevention programs and policies another social prevention method focuses on reducing youth delinquency and molding the youth into responsible citizens (Travers and Margaret, 2005). These policies work best as concerted community efforts that understand the need for useful education, poverty reduction and meaningful employment in fighting crime. They also emphasize on the need for increased awareness on parental responsibilities and rights, development of child-friendly centers, access to quality and affordable education, family empowerment through income generating projects and establishment of community led and driven crime and delinquency services and committees (Travers and Margaret, 2005).
Paul Taylor the former Chief of the Urban Development Branch of UN HABITAT argues (Travers and Margaret, 2005) that as the world urban population is expected to grow from 2.89 billion in 2000 to 4.98 in 2030, so also will the rate on crime. This he attributes to the fact that crime impact the urban poor far more that those from better-off groups. To address this, he urges’ for increased efforts to reduce social exclusion (Travers and Margaret, 2005) by giving the urban poor tools to voice their needs and to involve them in shaping solutions that meet these needs. These consultations guarantee effectiveness of crime prevention through community driven and effective crime prevention measures as compared to traditional judicial systems.
Another effective means of addressing crime especially among the youths is through education. This is because schools while majorly helping in instilling educations and life skills also help in transmitting social values and connectedness. This however requires active measures that include involving parents, promoting and encouraging educational learning, preventing bullying and early identification and support for at risk children (Travers and Margaret, 2005).
The Pathways to Prevention Project that has been implemented in Brisbane Queensland (Travers and Margaret, 2005) is yet another successful example of the effectiveness of early intervention as a social prevention method. It incorporates children and families who are disadvantaged and especially recent immigrant families. This is based on evidence that children are very receptive to early intervention measures especially during the transitional period to school. This project has not only proven its cost-effectiveness but has also significantly reduced crime rates through behavior attitude change in children (Travers and Margaret, 2005).
While social prevention has proved its worth in prevention crime, it has shown weaknesses in some contexts like Drug trafficking that have shown the needed for balance between law enforcement, policing and prevention. These weaknesses have increasing the need to address effectiveness of current crime prevention measures. The Australian Courier Mail in an article posted on March 17 1994 called ‘Weak laws share blame for upsurge’ argued that the current legislation especially the Queensland Penalties and Sentences Acts 1992 created a situation where it was virtually impossible to imprison young offenders no matter how serious the crimes they committed were. This was reiterated by the opposition spokesman who argued that if the government was to ensure that repeat offenders were to be dealt with, it had to consider introducing minimum mandatory sentences. While that was a long time ago, recent events such as Kings Cross shooting shows a reoccurrence of history and calls for the reexamining the cause of youth crime. These events calls into sharp focus the need to address burning issues such as appropriateness of community interventions, ability to evaluate effectiveness of these interventions, capacity and willingness of locals to implement workable programs, ability to sustain interventions and perpetuation of interventions after changes in government and leadership structures (Travers and Margaret, 2005).
Conclusion
Community driven crime prevention programs have proved to be the perfect remedy for fighting crime; they have however shown the need to ensure sustainability and capacity building in order to meet future needs and challenges. They have amplifies the need for better expertise and knowledge exchange and consultation across all levels to ensure effectiveness of these initiatives and increased the need to emphasize on reducing social marginalization, enhancing law abiding opportunities, emphasize on multi-agency collaboration especially between local community bodies, youth affairs bodies, educational and health institutions as well as the government (Rutter and Anona, 2002).
There is however need to address common problems experienced by these measures which include lack of well-designed policies hinged on evidence, insufficient stakeholder cooperation, lack of technical knowhow, limited funding and shortage of sufficiently qualified personnel, and a lack of will as well as absence of strong leadership and continuity (Travers and Margaret, 2005). These shorting comings notwithstanding, social preventive measures have proved that well planned crime prevention measures without doubt prevent crime as well as promote community safety hence essentially creating sustainable development.
Works Cited
(ABS), Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Year Book Australia. [online]. [Accessed 23 October 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: < HYPERLINK “http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features742012” http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features742012 >
(CCSD), Canadian Council on Social Development. 1984. Crime Prevention Through Social Development. Ottawa, Ontario.
(NAS), National Anti-Crime Strategy. 1999. Pathways to prevention Developmental and Early Intervention Approaches to Crime in Australia. Canberra.
CARCACH, C., & Huntly, C. Community Participation and Regional Crime: Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. Australian Institute of Criminology. [online]. [Accessed 20 May 2002]. Available from World Wide Web: < HYPERLINK “http://www. aic.gov.au” >
HAIGH, Yvonne. 2006. Promoting Safer Communities through Physical Design, Social Inclusion and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design a Developmental Study. Perth.
HOMEL, P. 2004. The whole of government approach to crime prevention. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Australian Institute of Criminology.
MURRAY, E. McMillan & J. 2002. Planning for Partnerships andSuccess in Crime Prevention and Community Safety – for Local Government in Victoria. Melbourne.
RUTTER, Anona Armstrong and Anthea. 2002. Evaluating the success of a crime prevention strategy targeting community capacity and participation. In: Australasian Evaluation society International Conference. Wollongong, Australia.
TRAVERS, Margaret Shaw and Kathryn. 2005. In: 11th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Bangkok Thailand.
