The Role of Local Government in Community Safetylocal municipal leaders play a crucial role in...

C R I M E P R E V E N T I O N S E R I E S

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

#2

MonographMonograph

THE ROLE OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT IN

COMMUNITY SAFETY

THE ROLE OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT IN

COMMUNITY SAFETY

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

John AshcroftAttorney General

Office of Justice ProgramsWorld Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice AssistanceWorld Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contactU.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

This document was prepared by the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime undergrant number 95–DD–BX–K001,awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of JusticePrograms,U.S.Department of Justice. The opinions, findings,and conclusions or recommenda-tions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent theofficial position or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

THE ROLE OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT IN

COMMUNITY SAFETY

April 2001

NCJ 184218

Prepared by the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime

Increasing numbers of people no longer view the safety of their neighbor-hoods as the sole responsibility of the police. Throughout the world, citizensin areas plagued by crime and violence are uniting to work with local gov-ernment. Together, they have the knowledge and resources to identify andremove the sources of crime, drug use, and juvenile delinquency in theircommunities.

Developing and sustaining these partnerships requires strong local leadership from mayors, city managers, city planners, and other electedlocal officials. This monograph was prepared to help create that leadershipby chronicling how local public officials have used community safety partnerships to build healthier communities.

A framework for using community-local government partnerships toreduce crime now exists based on the experiences of public officials inNorth America, Europe, Africa, and Australasia. This framework includesthe following:

• Recognizing crime and safety as a quality-of-life issue.

• Working across jurisdictional boundaries.

• Recognizing the crucial role of political leadership.

• Developing tools and measures of success that involve the communityand victims of crime.

The programs examined in this monograph illustrate that this frameworkworks best when adapted to the specific needs of a community. Good gover-nance requires that mayors and other key local officials develop the capaci-ty to respond to those needs.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

iiiBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Foreword

vBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

This monograph was prepared for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, by Margaret Shaw, who was assisted by KathieOginsky. Advice and knowledge were provided by Bernard Arsenault, FrantzDenat, Lily-Ann Gauthier, Daniel Sansfaçon, Claude Vezina, and Irvin Wallerat the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. The authors wouldlike to thank the project advisory group for their insight, particularly EdSummers of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Robbie Callaway of the Boys &Girls Clubs of America, Linda Bowen of the National Funding Collaborativeon Violence Prevention, Roberta Lesh of the International City/CountyManagement Association, members of the National League of Cities, MichelMarcus of the European Forum for Urban Safety, and Sohail Husain ofCrime Concern. The advice and help of staff from the National CrimePrevention Council, especially Theresa Kelly, Jack Calhoun, and JimCopple, are gratefully acknowledged, as is the support of Jay Marshall and Patrick Coleman at the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Acknowledgments

viiBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

I. Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Audience for This Monograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Challenges for Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Increasing Knowledge About Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Good Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

II. The Emergence of Community Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

How Local Authorities in Other Countries Are Tackling Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Focus on the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Developing and Transitional Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Recent European Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Australasia and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Recent Developments in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

III. A Framework for Community Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A Strategy for Analyzing Problems and Mobilizing Resources . . 21

Safe and Healthy Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Horizontal and Vertical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Political Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Adapting Strategies to Local Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Building Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Tools and Measurements of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Basic Elements of the Local Government Approach. . . . . . . . . 27

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

viii

IV. Limitations, Lessons, and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Partnership Problems and Information Sharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Evaluation and Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Emerging Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Centralized States and Federal Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

V. Examples From Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Borough of Brent, London, England: Community Safety and . . . . Community Empowerment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: A Community Safety Strategy for the City.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Youth and Public Space Major Centers Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Leichhardt Municipal Council, New South Wales, Australia: Draft Youth Social Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Freeport, Illinois: Coalition for a Safe Community . . . . . . . . . . 40

Hartford, Connecticut: Neighborhood Problem-Solving Committees and the Comprehensive Communities Program. . . 41

Salt Lake City, Utah: Changing the Way Government Works and the Comprehensive Communities Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Maryland HotSpot Communities: Reclaiming Our Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

METRAC, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Taking Action Against Abuse of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht, Netherlands: Big Cities Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

EURO 2000 Football Cities Against Racism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Aix en Provence, France: Local Security Contract and Observatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

VI. Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

VII. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

VIII. Resources and Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

IX. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Executive Summary

Good GovernanceIn recent years, mayors and

municipal leaders throughout theUnited States have confrontedincreasing problems of communitysafety. These problems have affect-ed not only urban centers but alsosmall towns and rural municipali-ties. Many other countries haveexperienced similar rapid increasesin crime that have only begun todecline in the past few years. Theresponse of many governments hasbeen to toughen their legal and justice systems, increasing policingcapacities and penalties. Despite these efforts, the social and eco-nomic consequences of crime have been enormous:

• Expenditures on law enforcementhave increased tremendously.

• Criminal sentences have becometougher.

• The number of offenders prose-cuted and incarcerated has risen dramatically.

• Private security personnelhave outstripped official lawenforcement.

• Communities increasinglyhave resorted to fortifying neighborhoods.

ix

• Crime has reduced the tax baseof cities by driving out residentsand businesses.

Traditionally, the public hasviewed crime reduction as theresponsibility of the police and the courts. However, in spite of in-creased expenditures, these institu-tions have been unable to containthe epidemic of crime. The resulthas been a loss of confidence incriminal justice systems and highlevels of public concern aboutcrime. Migration, rapid changes inpopulations, rising poverty levels,and income disparities continue toaffect many countries. Crime pre-vention, rather than reaction orrepression, has generally played avery minor role in addressing crimeproblems. To have an impact oncurrent crime problems and avoideven greater problems in the future,a more balanced approach and perceptual shift by society are necessary.

This monograph was prepared formayors, city managers, planners,and elected officials. It bringstogether information from aroundthe United States and around theworld on ways that public officialshave used their authority to fostersafer, healthier communities. Morespecifically, it outlines the following:

x


• Why change is necessary.

• Why communities can no longerleave safety to only the criminaljustice system.

• How knowledge about the factorsthat lead to crime and insecurityhas increased.

• How knowledge about how citi-zens can intervene effectively hasincreased.

• The leadership, strategies, andtools needed to bring aboutchange.

• Examples of city-led projects.

• Lessons learned from past practice.

From Crime Prevention toCommunity Safety

Mayors and local government offi-cials have played a major role in theevolution of community safety overthe past 20 years in Europe, NorthAmerica, Africa, and Australasia.Increasing numbers of initiatives tar-get crime, victimization, and thesocial exclusion of individuals,minority groups, and neighbor-hoods. The links between povertyand social disadvantage and crimeand victimization have shown thatmany agencies need to work togeth-er to prevent crime.

Mayors and local officials havecome to see community safety as abasic human right and an important

aspect of the quality of life in theircommunities. They have mobilizedlocal partnerships with key actors—the police, government agencies,community organizations, and residents—to develop safe, secure,and vibrant communities in metro-politan as well as rural areas. Thesepartnerships have made significantgains in how crime prevention isviewed. For example:

• The narrow focus on crime pre-vention has shifted to the broaderissue of community safety andsecurity as a public good.

• A consensus has developedabout the need to work for community safety by tacklingthe social and economic condi-tions that foster crime and victimization.

• The common public view thatcommunity safety is the soleresponsibility of the police haschanged and people now recog-nize that governments, communi-ties, and partnerships at all levelsmust be actively engaged.

• A recognition has evolved thatlocal municipal leaders play acrucial role in protecting commu-nities by organizing and motivat-ing coalitions of local partners.

• Increasing evidence shows thatintervention targeting risk factorscan be effective and efficient inreducing crime and other socialproblems.

xiBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Executive Summary

A Framework forCommunity Safety

A framework for tackling commu-nity safety has emerged in recentyears that can be used by local gov-ernments. This framework includesthe following:

• Recognizing crime and safety asquality-of-life issues.

• Working across jurisdictionalboundaries both horizontally andvertically.

• Recognizing the crucial role ofpolitical leadership.

• Adapting strategies to localneeds on the basis of good analy-sis and targeted plans.

• Building capacity.

• Developing tools and measure-ments of success.

Limitations, LessonsLearned, and ExamplesFrom Practice

Defining communities and devel-oping and sustaining partnershipsare not simple tasks. Much can belearned from past successes andfailures. Including community part-nerships, understanding the links tounderlying problems, looking at thestrengths and assets of communitiesand individuals as well as risk fac-tors, working on the analysis andplanning process rather than

focusing solely on programs thatprovide quick results, and address-ing funding and evaluation areimportant activities that must bethought through.

Examples from Australasia,Europe, and North America, de-scribed in greater detail in chapter 5of this monograph, illustrate howthis framework has been adapted tothe specific needs of individual com-munities. The initiatives are at dif-ferent stages of development, andnot all have reached the evaluationstage. They include 3-year strategicplans in large cities, projects target-ing youth needs in public spaces,small town coalitions, neighborhoodproblem-solving committees, com-prehensive community programs,hotspot initiatives that pool fundingresources, coalitions targeting vio-lence against women, groups ofcities working on common problemsor against racism, and local securitycontracts to help communities as-sess problems and create targetedaction plans.

Mayors are strategically placed tomake a difference in these endeav-ors. They can provide leadership toidentify and mobilize key partners;authorize development of a rigoroussafety audit that includes an actionplan with short- and long-termgoals; assign staff to implement,monitor, and evaluate the plan; andact as a conduit for exchangingexpertise and good practices.

IntroductionOver the past 30 years, mayors

and municipal leaders throughoutthe United States have facedincreasing problems in keeping theircommunities safe. Disorder, crime,drugs, and guns have become dailyreminders of the threats to living insafety and security. In the 1990s,these problems soared to their high-est levels and had a major impacton children and adolescents. Youngpeople increasingly have becomethe victims of violence, includinghomicides, and their involvement inserious crime and violence has alsorisen.

Tragedies such as the shootingsat Columbine High School inColorado have demonstrated thatcrime, insecurity, and violence arenot limited to inner cities and largeurban areas. Recent surveys ofyoung people have found higherlevels of drug use in suburban andrural areas than in cities. Guns,which are kept in millions of homesacross America, have been a majorfactor in the increase in deaths ofyoung people in the 1990s.

Increases in crime and violencehave affected countries worldwide.The response of most governmentswas to toughen their legal and justice systems, increasing law

1BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

I. Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas

enforcement expenditures andtoughening penalties. The numberof offenders prosecuted and incar-cerated rose dramatically, and thenumber of private security personneloutstripped official law enforcement.The costs of maintaining criminaljustice and correctional systemssoared to unprecedented levels.Throughout this period, crime pre-vention, rather than repression,played a minor role. Furthermore,crime prevention was seen as large-ly the responsibility of the police. Asthis monograph makes clear, invest-ing in the broader approach of com-munity safety offers much greaterrewards.

BETWEEN 1980 AND 1997, NEARLY

38,000 JUVENILES WERE MURDERED IN

THE UNITED STATES. THE RISE IN MURDERS

OF JUVENILES BETWEEN 1984 AND 1993WAS ALL FIREARM RELATED, AS WAS THE

SUBSEQUENT DECLINE.

—Juvenile Offenders and Victims:1999 National Report

In the past few years, levels ofrecorded crime and violence havefallen significantly in a number ofEuropean countries and in North


2

America.1 In the United States, theFederal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) reported a 7-percent drop inserious crime in 1999, the eighthconsecutive year that the number of reported serious crimes fell.Reductions occurred in all types ofcrime, both violent and nonviolent,and they were found in all regions ofthe country. In Canada, crime rateshave fallen for the past 8 years tothe lowest crime level in 2 decades.In England and Wales, recordedcrime fell 8 percent between 1993and 1995, and a further 10 percentbetween 1995 and 1997, althoughviolent crime rates are still rising.

IN 1994, A UNITED NATIONS SURVEY OF

135 MAYORS FROM EVERY CONTINENT

FOUND THAT CRIME AND VIOLENCE WAS THE

FOURTH MOST SEVERE PROBLEM FACING THE

WORLD’S CITIES.

—International Colloquium of Mayors on SocialDevelopment, United Nations Development

Program, 1994

Despite these decreases in crimerates, levels of crime and victimiza-tion are still well above those foundin most countries 30 years ago andcontinue to be a great public con-cern. The public is often misinformedabout criminal justice, as well asunaware of recent declines in crimeand violence.2 A number of trendssuggest that unless city officialsbegin to approach crime problemsdifferently, the growth, health, andwell-being of cities will deteriorate.

There have been marked changesin the ways both local and nationalgovernments understand and tacklethe problems of crime, violence, andinsecurity. Many countries now seethese problems as intricately linkedto the health of neighborhoods andcommunities, to their quality of life,and as part of a wider concern aboutcommunity safety and security.

This awareness has led to a focuson tackling the underlying problemsof communities, based on carefulanalysis and planning in collabora-tion with citizens and local agencies.It represents a more concerted andmultifaceted approach to preven-tion, and one that is likely to bemore cost effective and bring widerbenefits to the community thanreacting after crime and tragedieshave taken place.

Audience for ThisMonograph

This monograph is intended foruse by mayors, city managers, plan-ners, elected officials, and otherswho face the challenges of crime intheir communities. These leadersare in a unique position to mobilizelocal agencies in the development ofsafe, secure, and vibrant communi-ties. They are strategically placed to bring together the key actors incommunity crime prevention. Tra-ditionally, they have been responsi-ble for urban or rural planning andfor developing ties with hospitals,schools, transportation companies,youth and social services, police,the judiciary, and the businesscommunity.

2


Challenges for LocalGovernments

Growing Urbanization,Increasing Poverty, and Income Disparity

The 21st century presents hugechallenges for mayors and localgovernments. Populations areexpanding and migrating; towns andcities and their surrounding ruralareas are growing rapidly; and lev-els of poverty and disparitiesbetween rich and poor are increas-ing. These developments havealready had a significant impact onsafety and security in many coun-tries and their effects are likely tocontinue.

• Currently, between 40 percentand 55 percent of the world’spopulation lives in urban centers.This proportion is expected toclimb to 70 percent by 2020.

• Levels of poverty have risen inmany Western countries despiteincreasing overall wealth.

• Throughout the world, incomedisparities between rich and poorfamilies have increased.

• In developing countries, the poortend to be concentrated in partic-ular areas. In developed coun-tries, conditions in many urbancores have declined while pover-ty rates in rural areas haveincreased.

OUR CITIES MUST BE PLACES WHERE HUMAN

BEINGS LEAD FULFILLING LIVES IN DIGNITY,SAFETY, HAPPINESS, AND HOPE.

—Habitat II Declaration, 1996

This monograph sets out the elements needed to bring aboutchange. It presents information fromaround the world, including theUnited States, on how people in such positions have used theirauthority and energy to work to-ward safer communities. In the four chapters to follow, the monographdiscusses

• Why change is necessary.

• Why the problems of crime can no longer be left solely to the justice system.

• How knowledge of the factors that lead to crime and violence has increased.

• How knowledge of ways to inter-vene effectively has increased.

• Strategies and tools needed tobring about change.

• Examples of local governmentand city-led projects that illus-trate these themes.

Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas


4

• More women are living in povertyin both developed and developingcountries. The number of singlemothers has increased and theyare likely to face more discrimi-nation in job markets and hous-ing than men.

• Due in part to systemic racismand discrimination, minority andimmigrant populations are morelikely to be living in poverty thanthe majority population.

Migration, immigration, and rapidgrowth are bringing about majorchanges to the ethnic character ofurban populations. There areincreases in indigenous populationsmoving to cities in Australia, NewZealand, North America, and SouthAmerica. Western European coun-tries have received increasing num-bers of immigrants from EasternEuropean, Mediterranean, and NorthAfrican countries.

Social Exclusion

In many countries, the concen-tration of poverty and social and economic problems in particularareas has led to talk about socialexclusion. In Britain, France, andGermany, for example, increasingincome disparity and concentrationof poverty have been restricted to certain areas of the country.3

Families who live in these areasare often the poorest in the countryand include many immigrants andminorities. They often live in publichousing estates in suburban orurban areas in the worst housingand environmental conditions.

People in such areas areexcluded from taking part in theemployment, health, safety, andprosperity enjoyed by the rest ofthe population. For these residents,poor health, crime, vandalism,drugs, unsupervised young people,litter, pollution, and lack of ser-vices add to the lack of safety andsecurity in their lives.

THE ISSUES FACING DEPRIVED NEIGHBOUR-HOODS ARE WELL KNOWN, AND MAKE SOBER

READING. VIRTUALLY EVERY SOCIAL

PROBLEM—CRIME, JOBLESSNESS, POOR

HEALTH, UNDERACHIEVEMENT—IS SUB-STANTIALLY WORSE IN DEPRIVED AREAS.THERE IS GROWING EVIDENCE THAT THESE

PROBLEMS REINFORCE ONE ANOTHER TO

CREATE A DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF DEPRIVA-TION AND DECLINE.

—National Strategy for NeighbourhoodRenewal: Neighbourhood Management

In the United States, black com-munities are concentrated in innercities. These areas experiencedhuge increases in youth crime,especially violence and youth homi-cide, in the early 1990s. In someareas, generations of children arealso growing up without fathers andthe increased imprisonment ofwomen has left many of their chil-dren without close parental care. Asa result, the network of social con-trols normally exercised by these

people as parents, employees,friends, and neighbors has beenreduced. This has major conse-quences for the future. The propor-tion of African-American, Asian/Pacific, Hispanic, and NativeAmerican children is expected toincrease for the next 20 years.4

BETWEEN 1988 AND 1997, THE NUMBER

OF JUVENILES LIVING IN POVERTY GREW 13PERCENT. THE NUMBER OF BLACK JUVENILES

IN POVERTY DECREASED 2 PERCENT, COM-PARED WITH A 21-PERCENT INCREASE FOR

WHITE JUVENILES AND A 32-PERCENT

INCREASE AMONG ASIAN/PACIFIC

ISLANDERS.

—Juvenile Offenders and Victims:1999 National Report

Poverty in America has alsoincreased outside the big cities,affecting the majority white popula-tion in rural areas, especially in theSouth. Between 1988 and 1997, forexample, white juveniles living inpoverty increased by 21 percent.

In a number of countries, prob-lems for small- and medium-sizetowns and rural areas are growing.In England and Wales, some of thehighest increases in reported crimein the 1990s have been in ruralareas (Hosain, 1995). In the UnitedStates, while overall levels of report-ed crime fell for the past 8 years,there have been increases in crime



and victimization in some Americantowns and rural areas such as thoseclose to the Mexican border.

Unemployment, Drugs, andYoung People

While North America is currentlyexperiencing a better economic cli-mate, in other countries changinglabor and trade markets, technologi-cal developments, and the loss ofunskilled jobs have increased theextent and duration of unemploy-ment. This situation has especiallyaffected young people, increasingtheir vulnerability to drugs, gangs,illness, and crime. More adolescentsand young adults are now out ofschool, job training, or work. Forexample,

• In several European countries,youth unemployment rosebetween 1991 and 1995 from15 percent to 20 percent foryoung men, and from 19 percentto 23 percent for young women(Pfeiffer, 1998).

• In Australia, full-time employ-ment among teenagers fell from56 percent in 1966 to 17 per-cent in 1993 (National CrimePrevention, 1999).

• In the United States, unemploy-ment is especially high amongAfrican-American and Hispanicyouth who have few educationalskills. In one city, 63 percent didnot graduate from high school(Rosenbaum et al., 1998).


6

Drug and alcohol abuse hasbecome more prevalent amongyoung people. This has been thecase in European countries over thepast 10 years, especially in areas ofhigh unemployment.5

SMOKING, DRINKING, AND DRUG USE AMONG

YOUNG TEENS IS HIGHER IN RURAL AMERICA

THAN IN THE NATION’S LARGE URBAN

CENTERS. . . . SINCE 1990, DRUG LAW

VIOLATIONS HAVE INCREASED MORE IN SMALL

COMMUNITIES THAN IN LARGE CITIES; DRUGS

ARE AS AVAILABLE IN SMALL COMMUNITIES AS

THEY ARE IN LARGE CITIES, AND ADULT DRUG

USE IN SUCH COMMUNITIES IS EQUAL TO

THAT IN LARGE METROPOLITAN CENTERS. AT

THE SAME TIME, MID-SIZE CITIES AND

RURAL AREAS ARE LESS EQUIPPED TO DEAL

WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

—No Place to Hide

In the United States, a recentstudy by the National Center onAddiction and Substance Abusecommissioned by the U.S. Confer-ence of Mayors found that drug usewas higher among young teens inmid-size cities and rural areas thanin large metropolitan centers. Eighthgraders in rural areas were 83 percent more likely to use crackcocaine and 70 percent more likelyto have been intoxicated than theirpeers in large cities.

Offending and Victimization

In most countries, similar patternsof crime and victimization can befound in areas with many social andeconomic problems. We know fromsurveys in a number of countriesthat a small number of serious orpersistent offenders are responsiblefor the majority of crime, especiallyserious crime. In many countriessurveyed, 6 to 7 percent of youngmales are responsible for 50 to 70percent of all crimes and 60 to 85percent of serious and violentcrimes (Loeber and Farrington,1998).

A large overlap exists betweenvictimization and offending. Thosewho are victimized tend to comefrom the same backgrounds andareas as those charged with offend-ing, and people are often revictim-ized. A 1992 British survey foundthat 4 percent of victims suffer 40percent of the crimes. In the UnitedStates, 50 percent of violent crimetakes place in about 3 percent ofaddresses.

Violence against women andchildren is widespread. In develop-ing countries, it is estimated thatbetween 33 and 50 percent of allwomen are victims of violencefrom male partners.6 In the UnitedStates, the number of children whoare abused or neglected almost dou-bled between 1986 and 1993. Weknow that violence in the familyoften leads to other problems,including crime and ill health, aschildren grow up.



A major problem for many coun-tries is the overrepresentation ofindigenous and racial and ethnicminority groups in criminal justicesystems. The proportions ofimmigrant children and second-generation children in justice sys-tems have increased significantly ina number of European countries.7

Increasing KnowledgeAbout Prevention

Risk and Prevention—People in Trouble HaveMultiple Problems

More about the actual benefits oftackling community safety is knowntoday and underlines the impor-tance of investing in prevention.Evidence is accumulating about thefactors that put people and areas atrisk of becoming involved in crimeand victimization. It is remarkablehow similar these factors are from

one country to another (Farrington,2000). They include poverty andpoor environment, poor parentingpractices, family conflict andviolence, early signs of aggressivebehavior, spending too much timewith friends and without adult con-tacts, doing poorly at school ordropping out, failing to learn goodwork skills or have employmentopportunities, living in areas thatlack services and facilities, and hav-ing access to drugs. These factorsplace children at risk and affecttheir development from birth toadulthood.

Early Intervention Is Effective

Researchers have studied theeffectiveness of interventions, par-ticularly in deprived areas wherefamilies and children are most atrisk (Sherman et al., 1997; Interna-tional Centre for the Prevention ofCrime, 1999a). Interventions include

–80 –70 –60 –50 –40 –20–30 –10 –0

–72%

–71%

–40%

–33%

Responsibility and assistance(Halt, Netherlands)

Incentives to complete school(Quantum Opportunities, USA)

Functional family therapy(Lund, Sweden)

Training and support to findemployment (Job Corps, USA)

Percent crime reduced

Figure 1 Prevention Programs Targeting Risk Factors for Youth Ages 12–18 ShowingReductions in Delinquency


8

projects that provide preschoolhome visits and give children a headstart in school. They have shownimpressive long-term reductions indelinquency, lower school dropoutrates, and improved quality of lifefor children and parents. Parenttraining and family therapy projectsdesigned to strengthen parents’child-rearing capacities have simi-larly shown both short- and long-term benefits.

Other research has demonstratedthat widespread intervention pro-grams in schools can help reducebullying behavior and improveschool climate and academicperformance, as well as decreaseschool disruptions and dropoutrates. Programs targeting youth whohave dropped out of school or been

excluded have shown that workskills, job training, and mentoringcan all help to reintegrate them intotheir communities.

Broken Windows and Brownfields

Many countries have demonstrat-ed that changing the environmentand situations that encourage crimeare effective strategies. Cleaningup rundown streets, changing thedesign of buildings or public spaces,and improving lighting and surveil-lance all reduce the opportunitiesfor crime. Studies of such effortshave demonstrated reductions inhousehold burglary, car theft, graf-fiti, and vandalism. For example,in the Netherlands, England,and Wales, the rate of household

–25

–25%

–13%

–22%

Crack presence

Drug activity

Juvenile crimes

Percent crime reduced

–20 –15 –10 –5 –0

Figure 2 Reduction of Criminal Activity in Public Places Where Boys and Girls ClubsAre Present



burglaries has been reduced byabout 75 percent by neighborhoodwatch programs, improved security,and marking personal property.Vandalism and disorder have beenreduced by increasing surveillanceon public transportation, closed-circuit television cameras, andrequiring bar owners to change theirserving practices. Much of this workhas been initiated by the police incollaboration with local mayors,agencies, and community members.

These experiences demonstratethat approaches that are carefullyplanned and build on past knowledgereduce crime and reduce risk factors.They improve the lives of thoseinvolved and demonstrate that themost effective intervention projectsare those that include agencies andinstitutions at the local governmentlevel: community organizations,

families, police departments, schoolsystems, labor unions, social serviceagencies, youth groups, housingdevelopments, and justice systems.

Costly Examples

Dealing with the impact of crimeis expensive. Although people mayfeel that something is being donewhen tough measures are takenagainst crime, this approach doesnot deal with the long-term conse-quences for families or help to pre-vent future delinquency. Childrengrowing up in poverty, lacking ser-vices and supports, are vulnerableto long-term involvement in druguse and crime. Most prisoners willeventually be released from prison,but generations of children mayhave been raised without closeparental care.

$0 $200

England

France

Netherlands

Australia

Canada

USA

Criminal Justice

Private Security

Property loss (estimate)

Shelteredlives (estimate)

$400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400

Figure 3 Cost of Crime Per Capita in Selected Countries


10

expenditures, they have not beenable to contain the huge increasesin crime that have occurred over thepast 40 years.

Fear of crime and violence hasled to fortifying neighborhoods,excluding individuals, and imposingtougher sentences. These reactionsdo not deal with the long-term prob-lems of the excluded nor with thespread of crime and insecurity tosmall cities and rural areas in theUnited States. In many countries,the public has lost confidence incriminal justice systems. An ap-proach is needed that balancesgood policing and justice with well-planned prevention.

Public opinion shows consistentsupport for prevention. A 1994 sur-vey found that 61 percent ofCanadians felt government re-sources should be spent on preven-tion rather than criminal justice. InAmerica, 54 percent felt increasedspending on social and economicproblems, rather than police orprisons, was a more effectiveresponse to crime.

To have an impact on currentcrime problems and avoid greaterproblems in the future, municipalleaders must shift how they thinkand act. Seeing community safetyas a basic human right, good gover-nance insists that local governmentleaders bear the primary responsi-bility for fostering safe and healthycommunities.

There are considerable differencesin the costs and benefits of actionto prevent crime, compared withaction after it takes place. Preven-tive action can be up to 10 timesmore cost effective than traditionalcontrol measures such as incarcera-tion. Money invested in crime pre-vention also brings benefits such asimproved education, job skills, andhealth.

LOCAL LEADERS ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF THE

MANY COSTS OF CRIME TO THE COMMUNITY

AND THE NEED TO REDUCE OR PREVENT IT.OUTLAYS FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

AND OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ELEMENTS

SKYROCKET; LOCALLY SUPPORTED HOSPITALS,SOCIAL SERVICES, AND SCHOOLS SUFFER AS

THEY ABSORB THE COSTS OF CRIME AND ITS

EFFECTS ON VICTIMS.

—Creating a Blueprint for Community Safety

Good GovernanceThe social and economic conse-

quences of crime are enormous.Expenditures on policing, thecourts, prisons, and private securityhave grown enormously. Crimecauses serious problems for localgovernment when towns or city cen-ters decay as residents, businesses,and jobs move away, reducing thetax base. Traditionally, crime pre-vention has been regarded as theresponsibility of police and pros-ecutors. Yet in spite of increased


How Local Authorities inOther Countries AreTackling Problems

In recent years, in an increasingnumber of countries, crime preven-tion projects have reduced theopportunities and increased the risksof committing crime by changingpolicing practices or the city envi-ronment. Some countries havefocused on renewing poor neighbor-hoods and others on strengtheningthe ability of residents to integratebetter into society. In both casesthere has been an emergence ofcommunity-based strategies andexpertise, bringing together localpartnerships, with local authoritiesplaying a key role. There has beena shift from the narrower notion ofcrime prevention as something thepolice do to the broader idea ofcommunity safety, which is a community responsibility.

Focus on the City Since the 1980s city leaders have

begun to take a leadership role incrime prevention. In France, forexample, the Mayors Commissionon Security (Bonnemaison, 1982)led to the creation, in 1982, of asystem of city contracts with may-ors that enabled them to create localcrime prevention councils. Under theleadership of their mayors, these

councils brought together a range oflocal people and agencies to devel-op prevention projects in their com-munities throughout France.8 TheEuropean Forum for Urban Safety(EFUS) was set up in 1987 to linkmayors across Europe, developingcommunity safety through strongcity partnerships. EFUS nowincludes more than 100 localauthorities.

In the past two decades, a seriesof international meetings hasbrought together mayors, policeexecutives, judges, community leaders, policymakers, crimeprevention practitioners, andresearchers to discuss ways of cre-ating safer communities. Meetingswere held in Strasbourg (1986),Barcelona (1987), Montreal (1989),Paris (1991), and Vancouver(1996). The U.S. Conference ofMayors and the National Leagueof Cities took part in the firstEuropean and North AmericanConference on Urban Safety andCrime Prevention in Montreal in1989. The Federation of CanadianMunicipalities and EFUS were alsorepresented, and the conferenceestablished an Agenda for SaferCities. These organizations took partin a followup conference in Paris(1991) that brought together 1,600people from 65 countries, who set

II. The Emergence of Community Safety


12

out seven steps to make worldcommunities safer.

Developing andTransitional Countries

Attempts to establish city-basedcrime prevention strategies havealso been made in developing coun-tries.9 A Latin American forum onurban safety was held in Cordoba in1998. In Africa, an InternationalForum of Mayors for Safer Citieswas held in Johannesburg in 1998,bringing together nearly 60 mayorsfrom across the continent (Institutefor Security Studies, 1999). A Safer

CITIES THAT ARE SAFE FOR ALL PEOPLE

WILL, IN TURN, MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD A

SAFER PLACE, FOR FEAR OF CRIME AND VIO-LENCE IMPRISONS PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES

AND MAKES THE REALIZATION OF ALL OTHER

HUMAN RIGHTS MORE DIFFICULT TO

ACHIEVE. . . . PREVENTION STRATEGIES

ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF URBAN

CRIME HOLD CONSIDERABLE PROMISE.

—U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, 1998

Cities Program was also launchedin 1996, with pilot projects inJohannesburg, Durban, Dar esSalaam, and Abidjan.10 South Africahas placed a strong emphasis oncommunity-based solutions andlocal autonomy. Its 1999 manual forlocal community-based crime pre-vention, Making South Africa Safe,provides a clear framework for

developing and implementing localstrategies.

KINGSMEAD ESTATE,HACKNEY, UNITED KINGDOM

STARTING WITH CIVIL INJUNCTIONS TO STOP

GANGS AND CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, THIS

LOCAL COUNCIL, TENANTS, AND POLICE

PARTNERSHIP HAS MOVED ON TO COMMUNI-TY DEVELOPMENT, E.G., RENOVATING PROP-ERTIES AND STARTING DROP-IN CENTERS

AND ACTIVITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. . . .BURGLARIES FELL FROM 340 IN 1992 TO

50 IN 1993 AND RESIDENTS HAVE GAINED

CONFIDENCE.

—Reducing Neighbourhood Crime

Recent European InitiativesIn more than 20 countries, local

authorities and communities aredeveloping community-based poli-cies and programs with the supportof national government bodies thatpromote community safety.

In England and Wales, local gov-ernments have been mobilized bytwo major initiatives that beganin 1998. Under the Crime andDisorder Act, each local authorityand its police force must establisha multiagency Community SafetyPartnership to include health, proba-tion, and other authorities, as wellas youth representatives. In 3-yearcycles, these partnerships will

The Emergence of Community Safety


conduct local audits of crime, vic-timization, and disorder, set priori-ties for action, and develop andinitiate strategic plans.11

Authorities recognize that crimeprevention partnerships are likely tobe more effective than single agen-cies (such as a police department ora school system) working alone,and that targeted strategies, usingrigorous analysis, monitoring, andevaluation, produce results.

These community safety partner-ships are part of the new NationalStrategy for Neighbourhood Re-newal. Since 1998, the SocialExclusion Unit has produced aseries of 18 Policy Action Teamreports as part of this strategy. Thereports outline ways to achieve fourobjectives: less long-term unem-ployment, less crime, better health,and better qualifications.12

Local governments can apply forsome of the $415 million in fundingfor developing crime reductionstrategies targeted to high-riskcrime areas and families. In addi-tion, 10 percent of this money is tobe spent on evaluating these pro-grams to assess short- and long-term benefits as well as their costs.A major emphasis has been placedon what is called “joined-up think-ing,” trying to work across agencyboundaries at the local, regional,and national levels (Social ExclusionUnit, 2000b).

In France, local security contracts(or CLS) have been in existencefor more than 15 years. They are

based on the notion that securityequals prevention plus sanction andreintegration. Prevention and reinte-gration are seen as the responsibili-ty of everyone in the community.The contracts require local partner-ships to foster access to justice andvictim assistance, to create newyouth jobs and training, and to takeaction to prevent delinquencythrough youth employment, parentsupport, and sports and culturalprograms that meet local needs.

Many of the new jobs, such associal mediation agents and localsecurity assistants, will be filled byyouth from disadvantaged areaswith high levels of unemployment.13

The local security contracts are

HANKO, FINLAND

IN 1991, THIS SMALL CITY OF 11,000CHANGED ITS CHILD WELFARE POLICIES AWAY

FROM INSTITUTIONAL CARE; IMPLEMENTED A

NIGHTLIFE STREET PATROL PROGRAM TO

INCREASE INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL; AND

DEVELOPED EMPLOYMENT AND APPRENTICE-SHIP PROGRAMS TO REDUCE TRUANCY, SUB-STANCE ABUSE, CRIME, AND ANTISOCIAL

BEHAVIOR. THE RESULT WAS A 41-PERCENT

REDUCTION IN PROPERTY CRIMES BY JUVE-NILES, AND A 50-PERCENT REDUCTION IN

WELFARE COSTS BETWEEN 1991 AND 1993.

—100 Crime Prevention Programs To Inspire Action Across the World


14

embedded within the larger citycontracts concerned with overallsocial and economic renewal anddevelopment.

Belgium has adopted the Frenchsystem of funding city contracts.In the past 6 years, more than 30municipal crime prevention coun-cils, as well as the 5 major citiesand the 7 districts of Brussels,have signed contracts. The councilsare usually required to appoint aresponsible officer to administerand develop their activities tomeet local needs.

Netherlands developed the MajorCities Policy in 1996 to respond tothe crisis in its cities. This policyfocuses on the concentration ofunemployment, family breakdown,decaying neighborhoods and publicspaces, drug addiction, and crime.Agreements have been reachedbetween local government leadersin the 4 major cities and 21

medium-size cities and with nation-al government ministries. Theagreements provide funds for thedevelopment of strategies and pro-grams targeting those issues.

In 1999, the Integral Programmeon Safety and Security waslaunched to target youth crime andsafety, drug-related problems, streetviolence, robberies, vehicle-relatedcrime, and traffic safety. The pro-gram emphasizes working jointlyacross ministries at the municipallevel and with community and busi-ness groups. Current projects targetat-risk children and youth, particu-larly ethnic minorities, by providinghealthy start programs and projectsthat aim to reduce school dropoutand unemployment rates.

THE STADSWACHT OR CITY GUARDS PRO-GRAM IN DORDRECHT, HOLLAND, RECRUITS

AND TRAINS THE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED

TO WORK AS UNIFORMED CIVILIAN POLICE.THEY PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR THE

POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY ON CRIME AND

DISORDER PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, AS

WELL AS HELPING TOURISTS. . . . THERE

HAS BEEN A 17-PERCENT REDUCTION IN

CRIME IN THE AREAS THEY PATROL SINCE

THEY WERE INTRODUCED.

—100 Crime Prevention Programs To Inspire Action Across the World

Local Security ContractsIn France, some 378 city con-

tracts have been signed with may-ors, and 720 local security contractswill be completed covering mostlarge urban areas in the country.Job creation activities will includethe appointment of 20,000 social-mediation agents to work on pre-vention and security issues at thelocal level, and 15,000 local securi-ty assistants attached to policedepartments.

Australasia and Canada The region known as Australasia

comprises New Zealand, Australia,Tasmania, and Melanesia. In NewZealand, 62 local authorities havesigned contracts to set up SaferCommunity Councils modeled on theFrench contract system. Their goal isto enhance the ability of local com-munities to prevent crime and dealwith local crime-related problems(Hamilton, 1999). In Australia, citiesand shires across the provinces ofVictoria, South Australia, and Queens-land have developed safer city strate-gies and aids to local governments

IN 1990, AN ESCALATING ILLICIT DRUG

TRADE AND A HIGH CRIME RATE IN THE

LITTLE BURGUNDY AREA OF MONTREAL LED

TO THE CREATION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD

COALITION WITH MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS,RESIDENTS, AND THE POLICE. THE COALI-TION DEVELOPED A NEW SPORTS COMPLEX,BETTER LIBRARIES, TRANSPORTATION,LIGHTING, AND SECURITY; ENCOURAGED JOB

CREATION; AND PROVIDED BETTER SOCIAL

ASSISTANCE SERVICES. THEY DEVELOPED A

COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER AND AN ANNUAL

RESIDENTS FESTIVAL. THERE WAS A 46-PERCENT REDUCTION IN CRIME AFTER THE

FIRST 3 YEARS, AND A REDUCTION IN THE

DRUG TRADE.

—100 Crime Prevention Programs ToInspire Action Across the World



and their partners since the mid-1990s (International Centre for thePrevention of Crime, 1999b; White,1998).

In Canada, the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities andlocal authorities in cities such asMontreal, Toronto, and Kitchenerhave worked together to createcommunity safety plans. The federalgovernment, through its NationalCrime Prevention Centre, hasrecently put $27 million (Canadian)into three major funding programs:a community mobilization program,a crime prevention investment fund,and a crime prevention partnershipprogram. These programs stimulatelocally based community crime pre-vention efforts that focus on socialdevelopment and develop tools andknowledge about partnership devel-opment, needs assessment, plandevelopment, best practices, effec-tive intervention, and evaluation.

Recent Developments in theUnited States

In the United States, city mayorsand local authorities have begun toplay a more active role in communi-ty safety over the past decade. Theincrease and spread of crime, vic-timization, and violence in the late1980s and early 1990s associatedwith the crack cocaine epidemic,youth violence and homicides, andrapidly increasing prison populationshave all helped to spur a search fornew approaches. Apart from theirinvolvement at international


16

conferences, the U.S. Conference ofMayors and the National League ofCities have undertaken surveys anddeveloped working groups onaspects of crime prevention includ-ing issues such as drugs and youth.

MUSCLE and T–CAP:Combining Municipal andGrassroots Energies

In 1991, the severity of crime andits increase led the mayors of eightTexas cities to form Mayors Unitedon Safety, Crime and Law Enforce-ment (MUSCLE).14 Their cities werehome to 35 percent of the popula-tion in Texas, but 60 percent of vio-lent crimes across the state. Theydeveloped legislative proposals anda major crime prevention initiative.The Texas City Action Plan to Pre-vent Crime (T–CAP) included sup-port from officials in seven of thecities (El Paso decided not to partic-ipate). The mayors felt that develop-ing their programs simultaneouslywould enable them to benefit fromeach others’ experiences.

T–CAP, according to the NationalCrime Prevention Council (NCPC),was able to

• Create a road map to reachgoals.

• Focus effort where action wasneeded and productive.

• Avoid the “business as usual”trap.

• Maximize use of existingresources.

• Tailor its product to local needs.

• Build new commitments, partner-ships, and resources.

• Reflect and incorporate changesin the real world outside the plan-ning room.

• Deal more effectively with contin-gencies and emergencies.

The U.S. Government fundedNCPC to act as a facilitator. Thisresponsibility included hiring a statecoordinator, developing a planningprototype, training staff, and devel-oping local material and manualsto assist in the implementation ofcommunity-based plans. Each cityestablished a coalition of municipalagencies and community leadersunder the mayor’s leadership;assessed the community’s safetyneeds; created a task force ofresidents and experts to deal withspecific issues; and developed acomprehensive implementationplan.

The plans were diverse, reflectinglocal interests and issues. Theyranged from setting up a youthsports network and organizations tohelp poor neighborhoods to imple-menting school curriculum changesand crime prevention resource cen-ters. The result was that “the roleand value of crime prevention grew,along with people’s capacity foraction” (National Crime PreventionCouncil, 1994: 4). T–CAP demon-strated that cities have considerableknowledge. Municipal agencies such



as parks, sanitation, traffic, youthservices, health, and educationdepartments all provided informa-tion that provided a detailed pictureof how problems of violence andcrime are linked with other socialissues and how intervention pro-grams work. The costs of the pro-gram were relatively modest, with$450,000 in federal funding and$5,000 to $10,000 from partici-pating cities, as well as in-kindsupport.

Comprehensive CommunityPrograms

In the 1990s, several major feder-al funding initiatives facilitated localcommunity-based crime preventionactions that responded to localneeds. They recognized that frag-mented services waste resourcesand that it is better to work collec-tively rather than in isolation. Theseinitiatives include Operation Weedand Seed, Pulling America’s

Communities Together (PACT), andthe Comprehensive CommunitiesProgram (CCP). They have threemajor differences from earlierfunding approaches:

• They fund comprehensive ratherthan single-issue or service programs.

• They target key situational,social, and economic factorsassociated with crime usingmultidisciplinary approaches.

• They combine grassroots andlocal initiatives with funding andsupport from higher levels ofgovernment.

CCP was launched in 1994 by theBureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)to integrate law enforcement withsocial programs. The programempowers local leaders to controlthe allocation of funds. FifteenCCP sites have been funded.15

A Few Signs That CCP Is WorkingIn Baltimore, trash has been removed, crackhouses have been shut down,

and properties have been put into receivership to be managed on behalf ofneighborhoods. Associations have been formed to help renters buy homes thatwere formerly abandoned.

In Columbia, police can now park both their personal and police cars in publichousing developments without fear of vandalism, and pizza is again being deliv-ered to residents.

In Boston, the head of a local business association is asking merchants toremove the metal shields over their doorways and windows.

In Salt Lake City and Fort Worth, residents are asking for a say in local government and an opportunity to voice their opinions about local problems.

—Comprehensive Communities Program: A Preliminary Report


18

Communities were required to takethe initiative to develop partner-ships, to have an existing localcoordinating structure, and to devel-op community policing. In manycases CCP communities have builton their earlier experiences of localcoalitions developed under T–CAPor Weed and Seed funding. Theexpansion of community policing asa requirement has helped communi-ties develop strategies. They havelearned from their mistakes andsuccesses. Self-evaluation andaccountability have usually beenbuilt into the contracts.

Examples of the successes ofsome of these programs are high-lighted in the report Six Safer Cities,which outlines their main strategiesand programs (National CrimePrevention Council, 1999a). The sixcities (Boston, Denver, Fort Worth,Hartford, New York City, and SanDiego) have all achieved reductionsin crime greater than the nationalaverage. The shrinking of the youthpopulation responsible for muchcrime, changes in the drug market,improved economic stability, andincreases in youth employmenthave contributed to the decline inrecorded crime, along with the mul-tiagency and local community-based initiatives. In Boston, NewYork City, and Fort Worth, the policetook the lead in initiating the pro-jects. In Denver, Hartford, andSan Diego, it was the mayor andcity council who assumed the lead-ership role. In all cases, city

representatives worked with multi-agency and community coalitions todevelop locally tailored programs.

Small Cities Initiative

Small towns and rural municipali-ties have also developed compre-hensive programs. Approximately70 percent of Americans live intowns and cities of between 25,000and 50,000 people. The Small CitiesInitiative was developed by NCPC in1997 to provide assistance to sevencities through federal, state, andlocal funding.16 There are now 10cities and 1 county in the initiative,developing strategies that use theirclose networks and resources.

SummaryLooking at the involvement of

local authorities across a number ofcountries in Europe, North America,Africa, and Australasia—in largemetropolitan areas as well as smallcities and rural areas—severalimportant trends are apparent:

• A shift from a relatively narrowfocus on crime prevention to thebroader issue of community safe-ty and security as a public good.

• A developing consensus aboutthe need to work for communitysafety by tackling the social andeconomic conditions that fostercrime and victimization.

• A shift in public view from seeingthe primary responsibility forcommunity safety as that of the


police to recognizing that gov-ernments, communities, andpartnerships at all levels need tobe actively engaged in reducingcrime.

• A recognition of the crucial rolethat local municipal leaders playin this process through organiz-ing and motivating coalitions oflocal partners to create healthyand safe communities.

• An increase in evidence thatintervention targeting risk factorscan be effective in reducingcrime and other social problems.

• A realization that interventioncan be cost effective comparedwith criminal justice solutions.

What has emerged in recentyears is a framework for under-standing community safety and astrategy for creating it that can beused by local governments. Thisframework is outlined in the nextchapter.



A Strategy for AnalyzingProblems and MobilizingResources

This chapter outlines major ele-ments of a framework for fosteringcommunity safety that are beingused by local governments in manycountries. The approach includesthe following:

• Recognizing community safety asa right and an issue of the qualityof life in healthy communities.

• Working horizontally as well asvertically across jurisdictionalboundaries.

• Understanding the crucial role ofpolitical leadership.

• Adapting strategies to localneeds on the basis of good analysis and targeted plans.

• Building capacity.

• Developing tools and measure-ments of success.

Safe and HealthyCommunities

Citizens are entitled to safe andhealthy communities. Protectingcommunities from crime or reestab-lishing levels of safety can be tack-led in the same way as public health

issues. A preventive public healthapproach, such as that used toreduce the incidence of heart dis-ease, involves looking for factorsthat increase the risks of develop-ment. Looking at patterns of eco-nomic and social problems in aneighborhood or community, as wellas patterns of crime, disorder, andvictimization, makes it easier tosee how and where to intervene. Inthe United States, the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention hasbeen active in demonstrating howcrime and violence can be seen ashealth problems.

COMMUNITIES THAT CARE IN SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, USES A PUBLIC HEALTH

APPROACH. ITS MAIN GOALS ARE TO REDUCE

DELINQUENCY AND DRUG USE BY COMBINING

KNOWLEDGE ABOUT RISK AND PROTECTIVE

FACTORS AND EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

WITH CAREFULLY PLANNED COMMUNITY

MOBILIZATION. A COMMUNITY BOARD OF

KEY LOCAL LEADERS, RESIDENTS, AND AGEN-CIES UNDERTAKES AN ASSESSMENT OF THE

MAIN RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND

DEVELOPS A STRATEGY FOR INTERVENTION.

—Communities That Care Prevention Strategies

III. A Framework for Community Safety


22

Similar programs are now beingdeveloped in the United Kingdom(Nuttall et al., 1998), Scotland,Netherlands (Junger-Tas, 1997),and the United States.

This approach encourages broadresponses to crime for victims.Recognition of the long-term impactof crime on victims’ health hasresulted in programs that provideongoing community assistancebeyond immediate victim support.An example is a partnership inBoston to help youth victims ofcrime prevent reinjury, given thatthe risk of revictimization is highonce someone has been victimized.In London, the local health service isdeveloping a health strategy thatrecognizes the links between crime,disorder, and victimization withhealth (Crime Concern, 1999).

Horizontal and VerticalThinking

Working across jurisdictional andgeographic boundaries is importantto community crime prevention fortwo reasons. First, isolated projectsare unlikely to be effective in deal-ing with the multiple problems fac-ing families living in deprived andhigh-crime areas. In their review ofwhat works in preventing crime,Sherman and colleagues (1997)concluded that effective crimeprevention in high-violenceneighborhoods requires simultane-ous intervention by many localinstitutions.

Second, effective local govern-ment action requires all the

municipal services to work togetherrather than in isolation. It requiressupport from higher levels of gov-ernment and links among national,state, regional, or provincial authori-ties. This recognition has motivatedpolicies in England, Wales, andFrance that stress the importance ofworking across jurisdictions anddeveloping “joined-up thinking.”

Political LeadershipFor community crime prevention

to work, real commitment and lead-ership must come from someone ata high level who takes responsibilityfor putting the issues of communitysafety on the policy agenda.

Often the mayor, a chief executiveof a local authority, or a police chiefis the key person at the local gov-ernment level. In some cases aspecific body or community safetyofficer is appointed and given the

A 1996 study by the NationalLeague of Cities showed that localelected officials and administratorsprovide leadership in four ways:

• They model and set the tone forpublic discourse and problem solving.

• They use the power of their office to convey messages to their community.

• They help shape the processes and programs.

• They use team-building skills tobuild trust and communication and resolve conflicts.

A Framework for Community Safety


responsibility for developing part-nerships and plans. While local gov-ernments are best placed to givecitizens a role in the development oftheir neighborhoods, their leaderscan play a number of major roles:

• Preventive: educating thepopulation and the media.

• Promotional: encouraging thedevelopment of communitysafety.

• Active: providing aid to victimsand facilitating the mediationand resolution of local disputesand conflicts.

• Knowledge providers: developingand planning.

• Articulative: developing internaland external requirements andconstraints.

• Constructive: putting in place apermanent local structure withlocal coordination and the neces-sary resources.

Adapting Strategies toLocal Needs

Thorough and careful analysis oflocal problems is an important ele-ment in a community safety frame-work. Analysis includes studies onlocal factors that place people mostat risk and effective interventionstrategies for reducing those risks.

A careful analysis of local prob-lems, sometimes called a safetyaudit or a security diagnosis,requires the collection of detailedinformation about crime, victimiza-tion, disorder, and fear of crime in aneighborhood or across a wholemunicipality. This information caninclude police statistics, censusdata, and the results of local sur-veys of residents, businesses,schools, transportation officials, andhospitals. But the analysis needs togo further by looking at the links toa range of other problems such ashousing, jobs, unemployment,school dropout rates, youth facili-ties, and other existing communityresources.

The National Crime PreventionCouncil asked a range of local government-community coalitionswhat motivated them to worktogether. The answers varied con-siderably, depending on local cir-cumstances and events:

• A pending crisis and a sense thatthe situation would worsen with-out immediate action.

• Community pressure arisingfrom a catalyzing event ortragedy.

• Success of a single-issue initiative.

• Support from outside.

• Realization that single-focusinterventions cannot deal withcomplex issues.

• Desire to sustain safe neighbor-hoods and avert a crisis.

A good security diagnosis cantake between 6 months and 1 yearto complete. This careful analysisallows for the development oftargeted strategies and plans. Onceprojects have begun, they need tobe monitored and evaluated contin-uously to see if they are working asplanned or need to be modified. Themore focused the strategy, the moresuccessful it is likely to be.

Building CapacityDeveloping partnerships, getting

funding or local security contracts,conducting a security diagnosis orsafety audit, developing an actionplan, and implementing, evaluating,and sustaining the plan are not sim-ple tasks. They require expertise,information, and approaches thatmay be very different from tradition-al ways of working.


24

Building capacity includes thedevelopment of the skills, practicalknowledge, experience, and toolsrequired to undertake effectivecommunity-based action. Manycountries recognize the importanceof capacity building. A growingrange of training programs for com-munity safety personnel on monitor-ing and evaluating special issuessuch as drugs, domestic violence,and mental health and providingongoing technical assistance,advice, and support is now beingdeveloped.

In European countries, training isprovided by organizations such asthe European Forum for UrbanSafety, Crime Concern, the LondonBorough of Brent in England andWales, and Copping On in Ireland.This includes training for specificinterventions such as mentoring orworking with at-risk youth, andproviding governments and commu-nity safety partnerships with a rangeof skills. In England and Wales, localgovernments also have nationalguidelines on setting up partner-ships, developing safety audits,and evaluating the outcome ofprograms.

In the United States, CCPs havebeen provided with technical assis-tance and budget and programguidelines by such federal fundersas BJA. The National FundingCollaborative on Violence Prevention(NFCVP) and National CrimePrevention Council (NCPC) alreadyprovide training for collaborative

Neighborhood management pro-jects are most likely to be success-ful if they include the following fiveelements:

• Someone with overall responsi-bility at the neighborhood level.

• Community involvement and leadership.

• The tools to get things done.

• A systematic, planned approach to tackling local problems.

• Effective delivery mechanisms.

— National Strategy for NeighbourhoodRenewal: Neighbourhood Management



and local authority community safe-ty initiatives. NCPC is also develop-ing a curriculum training programwith the University of Kansas for useover the Web.

The Press and the Media

Building capacity to develop pub-lic awareness of community-basedprevention and to utilize the mediaappropriately is another importantarea. This component includesshowing the benefits and successesof well-planned strategies andinforming the public of stories abouthow problems have been solved.Mayors, local agency staff, thepolice, community safety profes-sionals, community members,researchers, and evaluators allneed training and clear policiesto develop their ability to communi-cate with the media. It is importantto present initiatives as citizenprojects to help to ensure commun-ity ownership.

Local Security Contracts andFunding

Community projects require fund-ing for startup, pilot projects, andimplementation, but they also needlong-term funding. Resources areneeded to sustain action at the locallevel, to demonstrate the effective-ness and efficiency of projects, andto disseminate information and bestpractices through transfer and train-ing. One way to do this is throughlocal security or community safetycontracts that allow local partner-ships to develop and tailor plans totheir own needs. In many cases,

projects must be monitored andevaluated.

A second way to fund initiatives ispooling existing funding from localgovernment agencies such asschools, community organizations,private foundations and businesses.NFCVP pools resources from publicand private sources to help localcommunity coalitions develop pro-grams to reduce violence.

Tools and Measurementsof Success

Tools are needed to identify trendsin crime such as where it occursand associated social and economicproblems. Tools are also needed totarget risk factors underlying thoseproblems and to evaluate theprocess and impact of programs.

Quality of Life andSocial Safety: Ghent,Belgium

IN 1997, A SAFETY CONTRACT ENABLED A

HIGH-RISE “PROBLEM ESTATE” TO IMPROVE

ITS PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND QUALITY OF

LIFE; REDUCE DRUG DEALING, CAR THEFT,AND BURGLARIES; AND ESCAPE FROM ITS

PROBLEM IMAGE. MORE THAN 300RESIDENTS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE

POLICE DEVELOPED AND CARRIED OUT THE

PLAN.

—European Crime Prevention Awards, 1999


26

in 1995 to collect informationabout the frequency and locationof crime and mental health prob-lems and about the capacity ofneighborhoods to respond to theseproblems. It surveyed residents, disadvantaged groups, and youngpeople to assess their views onproblems and solutions. Built in1990, Eurolille has large residential,shopping, entertainment, and com-mercial sectors and a rapid trans-port system. It established itsobservatory to collate informationas a basis for developing a jointaction plan and neighborhood safetypolicy. Businesses were required tocontribute resources to the process.The purpose is to develop a healthysocial climate in Eurolille, reducecrises, and encourage interactionbetween institutions, agencies, andindividuals (European Forum forUrban Safety, 1996).

Another tool used effectively bycommunities is crime mapping,which involves systematicallycollecting data and assessing thelocation and development of specif-ic problems in neighborhoods.Recent initiatives of this type in theUnited States include StrategicApproaches to Community SafetyInitiatives and the Arrestee DrugAbuse Monitoring Program.

In addition, communities usebenchmarking to compare practicesand performances of different serviceproviders, identify good practices,and foster collaboration betweenproviders, or to establish a basis for

A great deal of information oncommunity-based strategy develop-ment is now accessible in manycountries, including compendiumsof best practice programs, guidesand how-to manuals, summaries ofevaluated research, and detailedblueprints for setting up tested,effective programs. Examples fromthe United States are provided in thefollowing publications: InnovativeState and Local Programs (BJA,1997); Creating a Blueprint forCommunity Safety (NCPC, 1998);Standing in the Gap (NCPC,1999b); Blueprints for ViolencePrevention (CSPV, 1997); and 150Tested Strategies To Prevent CrimeFrom Small Cities, Counties, andRural Communities (NCPC, 2000).17

Working collectively at theneighborhood level requires goodinformation. To succeed, communitysafety partnerships need to knowthe range of social, economic,health, and environmental problemsapart from information on crime anddisorder typically available frompolice records. One solution inEurope has been the creation ofobservatories, permanent centersthat collate information on a rangeof social, economic, and health indi-cators, including criminal justicemeasures. Their effectivenessdepends on the accuracy of the datathey collect, the diversity of theirsources, and the quality of theirobservations.

In Lille, France, the neighborhoodof Eurolille set up an observatory


subsequent evaluation of programs.By using standardized proceduresand measures, comparisons can bemade between programs.

Basic Elements of the LocalGovernment Approach

The basic elements of the localgovernment approach to communitysafety include the following:

• Identification and mobilization ofkey partners led by local cityauthorities and involvement oflocal agencies, community orga-nizations, police and justice sys-tems, and the private sector.

• A rigorous assessment or securi-ty diagnosis of local problems ofurban safety and victimization toset out policies and prioritiesbased on partnership consensus.

• Development of local actionplans that address the causes ofcrime and victimization, not justits symptoms.

• Implementation and evaluation oflong- and short-term preventionprojects that target social exclu-sion and urban poverty as wellas specific crimes and specificgeographical areas.

• Understanding that communitycrime prevention is a long-termprocess which requires educatingthe community that prevention isa normal part of local communityactivity and local governance.

The range of agencies, organiza-tions, and individuals who should beinvolved in this process is veryextensive, offering considerable flex-ibility and opportunities. A list ofpotential partners for developing acomprehensive plan was developedby NCPC (Kelly, 1998). The listincludes

• Local government leadership.

• Law enforcement and criminaljustice agencies.

• Human and social serviceagencies.

• Neighborhood and civic associa-tions and clubs.

• Youth and seniors groups.

• Health, safety, and quality-of-lifeagencies.

• Universities, schools, schoolboards, principals, and ParentTeacher Associations.

• Cultural and ethnic populations.

• Business owners andorganizations.

• Faith community leaders.

• Local media.

• Nonprofit groups.

• Public housing residentsassociations and management.

• Military.



This chapter provides examplesof the ways in which different citiesand local governments around theworld have applied the communitysafety approach. Because a greatdeal can be learned from programfailure, the chapter examines limita-tions and lessons that have beenlearned from past experience indeveloping community safety initia-tives and local partnerships. Someof the most important lessons fordeveloping partnerships, undertak-ing safety audits, and developingstrategies and programs comefrom learning what went wrong,what proved to be difficult, andwhat went right.

WE SHOULD STOP THINKING ABOUT COM-MUNITIES AS HOMOGENOUS NEIGHBOUR-HOODS AND START RECOGNIZING THAT THEY

COMPRISE INTEREST GROUPS THAT ARE

OFTEN IN CONFLICT.

—“Participatory Policing,” Imbizo

Two important and related discus-sions of the past few years haverevolved around what we meanwhen we talk about “community”

and whether local authorities arereally able to work with all membersof a neighborhood. At the heart ofthese discussions are the followingrealities:

• Conflicts need to be talkedthrough, not smoothed over.

• It is easier to work with estab-lished members than to includemarginal groups.

• Communities that are weakestneed the most help and support.

• Cities and local authorities mustbe willing to share the blame andthe credit.

Having the tools to promote com-munity safety is not enough. Alsoneeded is clear understanding of theunderlying problem. It is importantto resist focusing only on the symp-toms of crime and disorder in acommunity, or only on visible crimein public places. Minority groups, forexample, may be wary of reportingharassment or crime. Recognizingthe long-term nature of communitychange, and working on the processitself, may be more important thanfocusing on projects, current fads,or quick results.

IV. Limitations, Lessons, and Conclusions


30

Partnership Problems andInformation Sharing

Developing partnerships is noteasy and requires the following:

• Getting agencies to work togetherand share information.

• Ensuring that some agencies,such as the police, do notdominate.

• Ensuring that community part-nerships represent the interestsof the minority as well as themajority.

• Ensuring that women and menhave an equal voice.

• Maintaining confidentiality duringinformation-sharing efforts.

• Retaining momentum andsustaining initiatives.

Problems may arise when part-ners have different managementstyles, volunteers and paid staff tryto work together, and leaderschange.

Differences in ManagementStyles

Salt Lake City’s experience devel-oping Community Action Teams(CATs) revealed a number ofmanagement-generated problems(Rosenbaum, 1999). Tensions arosebetween city departments with dif-ferent management styles. Theopen management style of themayor’s office that encouragedbrainstorming, cooperative problem

solving, and risk taking was in con-flict with the traditional hierarchicaland bureaucratic style of the citypolice department. As a result,some local CATs identified morewith their community than with thecity because the management of theteams had not been clearly thoughtthrough. This situation led to theisolation of CAT police officers fromtheir colleagues and was onlyresolved when the police depart-ment made organizational and com-munication changes. In addition,community residents initially werenot recruited as regular members ofCAT because of the confidentialityof information being shared, whileother team members, such as com-munity prosecutors, attended meet-ings irregularly.

Volunteer Groups andMultiagency Work

Multiagency local partnerships toreduce domestic violence have beenencouraged in several countriesover the past 10 years. Experiencehas shown that such partnershipshave many benefits but present dif-ficulties (Hague, 1999). Volunteergroups tend to be underrepresentedin such partnerships, while agencygroups tend to assert control.Partnerships can pose problems forgrassroots organizations that wantto retain their independence as ser-vice providers. Long-establishedorganizations providing services towomen can be ignored in the rushto develop “new” initiatives. Womenwho have experienced domesticviolence often have their needs and

Limitations, Lessons, and Conclusions


views overlooked. Small minoritygroups can be marginalized by localpartnerships, whose membershipoften does not reflect the diversity ofthe community.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ROAD TO SUCCESS-FUL IMPLEMENTATION LIES NOT IN RUNNING

AWAY FROM THE CONCEPT OF “COMMUNITY”BUT IN EMBRACING IT, STUDYING IT,UNDERSTANDING IT, AND RESPONDING TO IT

APPROPRIATELY.

—The Prevention of Crime

Changing Leaders

Sustaining initiatives is difficultwhen mayors or police chiefs arereplaced, when funding runs out,or other priorities dominate. InToronto, for example, a new mayorwas elected as the task force oncommunity safety submitted itsplan. Responsibility for implement-ing the plan was not given to theoffice of the chief administrator asthe task force had recommended,but to a different agency as part ofthe city’s reorganization, one with anumber of other functions. Overtime, staff changes resulted in a lossof institutional memory, making itdifficult for the implementers togenerate and sustain the energy,time, and resources needed to real-ize the plan. A lesson to be learnedfrom many initiatives is that theyneed to be supported by both a“champion” and community

members who feel that they ownpart of the process and who willmaintain momentum as electedofficials or leaders move on.

Evaluation andFunding Issues

Projects can be evaluated atdifferent stages: Have they metimmediate, short-term, or long-termgoals and are they cost effective?Some researchers have emphasizedthe importance of looking at theprocess of program developmentand implementation rather than justthe outcome in terms of reductionsin crime. What were the conditionsthat helped the program work orfail? It is clear that the more multi-disciplinary and comprehensive aprogram, the more difficult it is toassess exactly what worked. What isimportant is to establish a range ofshort- and long-term goals and out-comes for projects.

While creatively using existingfunds and resources and bringingtogether untapped energy is part ofthe new way of working, funding isstill important. Unfortunately it isstill categorically driven in manycountries and tied to particularproblems or initiatives. A pooling ofresources is more valuable for cityinitiatives or community contractsthat fund local prevention councilsto develop a range of projects thatmeet their needs. In a number ofcountries, business partners supportand sponsor projects, but continuedfunding is not always easy to obtainon a long-term basis.


32

Emerging IssuesA public health approach to com-

munity safety that looks at riskfactors is valuable, but it is alsoimportant to look at the strengthsand assets of individuals and com-munities. Other issues that need tobe considered include the role ofvolunteers and faith communitiesand how they can best be includedunder local government leadership;the extent to which public groupscan intervene in private issues orprivate locations; the rights of youngpeople to public space; and theimpact of new technologies oncommunities.

In Europe, new jobs associatedwith community safety, such asmediation and security assistants,outreach workers, youth wardens,community safety officers, andmediators, are showing promise.Communication technologies, espe-cially the Internet, offer opportuni-ties for exchanging experiences andexpertise, training, and linkingmunicipalities together.

Centralized States andFederal Nations

The different approaches to facili-tating local government involvementin community safety show similari-ties and pose questions. It seemsclear that local action needs to besupported vertically as well as hori-zontally. Netherlands, Belgium,England, and Wales, for example,have leaders at the national levellinked to regional and local

municipal leaders. While regions orcounties adapt and develop commu-nity programs to meet their needs,there are binding requirements and,in some cases, legislation attached tofunding contracts that require themto act in partnerships.

In France, the interministerial del-egation to the city (DIV) requires allsectors—health, justice, housing,employment—to work together todevelop the economic and socialhealth of cities. The cities are ableto define their own alliances in rela-tion to their own needs. This givesthem legitimacy and allows them tonegotiate, innovate, and modify thefunctions of local agencies anddevelop new capacities.

Australia and Canada, federalcountries with national structures,are not able to mandate theirprovinces, territories, or states withsuch ease. Nevertheless, theirnational crime prevention centersare well placed to offer funding,stimulate best practices, and coordi-nate information to regional andlocal groups. The United States,with a federal structure but strongstate autonomy, arguably has lessleverage to enforce or legislate. Ithas, nevertheless, managed toencourage a considerable amountof important locally based actionacross communities, enablingmayors, elected representatives, citymanagers, and administrators tomake links with their regionsand states as well as with federalfunders.


SummaryThe pace of change in cities

around the world has increasedenormously in the past few years:

• With rapid globalization, urban-ization, and migration, the healthand well-being of citizens aremajor concerns in developed anddeveloping countries.

• Poverty and exclusion, two of themost important problems facingcities and municipalities, haveincreased and are major factorsincreasing the risks of crime,victimization, and insecurity.

• In the past decades, despitetougher criminal justice respons-es in many countries, the prob-lems of community safety haveincreased and remain a majorconcern for citizens.

• There has been a loss of faith incriminal justice systems.

• There has been recognition of theimportance of prevention and ofcommunity safety as a right, and

recognition of the need to revital-ize cities and municipalities todeal with the social exclusion ofyoung people and their families.

Since the 1980s, mayors andother local authority leaders havebegun to promote community safety.They no longer see crime asprimarily the responsibility of thepolice. They have come to see crimereduction as an issue of good gover-nance that requires community part-nerships to tailor local solutions tolocal problems. Accumulating evi-dence from many countries points tosimilarities in the factors that placepeople and places at risk of crimeand victimization, the most importantfactors being poverty and discrimina-tion. Evidence of the short- and long-term effectiveness of intervention toreduce risks is also accumulating andhas been shown to be cost effective.

Limitations, Lessons, and Conclusions


This chapter highlights a varietyof community safety initiativesdeveloped by local governmentpartnerships in countries around theworld. They have been selected toillustrate different aspects of thestrategic approach and to show howcommunities of different sizes havetackled a range of issues. The initia-tives include strategic plans in largecities following safety audits andpublic consultation; neighborhood-based committees and actiongroups; urban planning and man-agement strategies for youth andpublic spaces; small-town initiatives;domestic violence strategies;statewide city initiatives targetinghotspots and cooperative financing;coalitions of local authorities andcities; and social observatories astools for strategic local planning.18

Borough of Brent, London,England: CommunitySafety and CommunityEmpowerment

Brent is one of 33 London bor-oughs, each with its own mayor andcouncil. Brent has a population of240,000 and the highest proportion(50 percent) of black and ethnicminority citizens in London. It is themost culturally and racially diverseof all local authorities in Englandand Wales and includes areas ofconsiderable wealth and extremepoverty. The borough’s average

unemployment rate is 13 percentbut runs as high as 30 percent insome wards. Crime rates in the bor-ough are higher than the nationalaverage and are concentrated indeprived housing estates, some ofwhich present serious policing prob-lems. Major concerns are street rob-bery, theft and burglary, drug- andalcohol-related crime, and violence.

Working Partnership

Brent now has 10 years ofexperience working with partner-ships, undertaking safety diagnoses,and planning and implementingcommunity safety strategies. It has a permanent department ofCommunity Safety and Community

V. Examples From Practice

In Brent’s experience the threekey principles necessary for effec-tive local authority crime preventionwork can be classified as the threeC’s:

• Councillors: to secure politicalsupport for crime prevention.

• Corporate: to secure a councilcorporate approach to crimeprevention.

• Coalitions: to ensure that localauthorities take the lead in de-veloping crime preventionstrategies.

—John Blackmore, Head of CommunitySafety and Community Empowerment,

Borough of Brent


36

Empowerment within its CommunityDevelopment Directorate, whichworks closely with all councilservices, national agencies, andbusinesses.

Brent has five interagency crimeprevention/community safety strate-gies. Projects developed with partnershave included burglary reduction pro-grams, a mentoring scheme foryoung people, neighborhood watch,and a targeted policing initiative forhigh-crime areas using crime map-ping and analysis. The latter has beenfunded by a £1.3 million nationalgovernment grant.

Brent has also set up accreditedcommunity safety training coursesfor local citizens and a communityinformation system Web site(www.brent.gov.uk/brain). The bor-ough recently held a conference oncommunity safety that was transmit-ted on the Internet and will form thebasis of a video. Its safety strategyfor 1999– 2002, which followed asafety audit and extensive commu-nity consultation, was produced bythe partnership between the localcouncil and the police, probationservice, and health authorities serv-ing the borough.

The Crime and Disorder Auditcompared Brent’s crime levels withneighboring boroughs, highlightedcrime hotspots, and examinedtrends in burglary, robbery, violence,sexual offenses, young offenders,domestic violence, racial incidents,victimization of the elderly, disorder,

road injuries, drug and alcohol prob-lems, and fear of crime. It showedthat between 1996 and 1998,recorded crime had decreased in theborough by 5 percent, burglary haddecreased by 13 percent, and streetrobbery had decreased by 14 per-cent, although violent crimes as awhole had risen. The audit listedsome of the options for reducing theproblems identified.

Community Consultation

Some 10,000 copies of a summa-ry of the crime and disorder auditwere sent to the public and to ethnicminority, faith, neighborhood watch,and business groups. The full auditwas available in police stations,libraries, and medical clinics.Forums were held to discuss theaudit with resident and tenant

Community SafetyStrategy for Brent1999–2002

Top priorities:

1. Reduce residential burglary.

2. Decrease robbery and street-crime.

3. Improve partnership response toracial incidents and violence andvictimization of ethnic minorities.

4. Reduce crime and disorder intown centers.

5. Reduce crime by youngoffenders.

Examples From Practice


organizations, police communityconsultation groups, and the BrentYouth Council.

The resulting document, A Crimeand Disorder Reduction andCommunity Safety Strategy forBrent 1999–2002 (Borough of Brent,2000), identifies the borough’s 15priority targets, an overall target foreach priority, a detailed list of actionplans for each target, and perfor-mance measures to assess theireffectiveness. The top priority isburglary reduction and the target isreduction by a minimum of 6 per-cent in 12 months, or 12 percent in36 months, compared with 1998figures. Apart from the top five pri-orities listed on page 36, other prior-ity targets include reducing youthvictimization, domestic violence,road injuries, and drug and alcoholabuse.

Contact: John Blackmore, Head,Community Safety and CommunityEmpowerment, London Borough ofBrent, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane,Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9HD,England. 44–020–8937–1035;44–020–8937–1056 (fax);[email protected] (e-mail).

Toronto, Ontario, Canada:A Community SafetyStrategy for the City

Toronto, with a population 2.5million, has seen enormous growthas a city and region over the past20 years. This growth includes rapidchanges in the ethnic distribution of

the population. Before 1980, 60percent of immigrants were fromEurope. Since 1980, the majorityof immigrants have come fromAsia, Africa, Latin America, theCaribbean, China, Hong Kong, andthe Philippines. About 42 percent ofcitizens have a mother tongue otherthan English. These changes havebrought considerable social andeconomic benefits, but there isincreasing income disparity andpoverty. Only 27 to 36 percent ofToronto citizens feel that all ethnicand cultural groups are treated fairlyby city politicians and the police.Violent crime levels were still in-creasing as recently as 1997, andcommunity safety remains one ofcitizens’ top concerns.

Formerly a city of 650,000, thenew megacity of Toronto was creat-ed in 1998 with the amalgamationof the surrounding municipalities ofEast York, Etobicoke, North York,Scarborough, and York. The newcity council established a TaskForce on Community Safety todevelop a comprehensive safetyplan. Chaired by two councillors, itincluded representatives from thepolice, school boards, neighborhoodcrime prevention groups, business-es, ethno-cultural groups and agen-cies, organizations working withat-risk children and people withdisabilities, and family violencecounselors.

Its key strategy was communityconsultation using a community sur-vey, interviews with city councillors,public meetings, and presentations.


38

Its interim report was discussed at aconference bringing together citizens,local organizations, and councillors.

The final report Toronto, My City, ASafe City: A Community Strategy forthe City of Toronto (1999), outlinesthe extent of the city’s problems ofcrime, insecurity, and inequalities. Itdiscusses their root causes and howthey can be overcome, describesexisting community services and pro-grams, sets out its vision for a safecity within a healthy communitiesframework, and outlines 35 recom-mendations for implementation. Eachrecommendation identifies the major

city services that should take thelead. A new task force was estab-lished in 2000 to develop a workplan to implement the recommen-dations. Among other work, a socialatlas, based on analysis of citywards, is being constructed andimplementation of the plan isexpected to take 3 years.

Contact: Lydia Fitchko, PolicyDevelopment Officer, City ofToronto Community and Neighbor-hood Services Department, SocialDevelopment and AdministrationDivision, 55 John Street, 11th FloorMetro Hall, Toronto, Ontario M5V3C6, Canada. 416–392–5397;416–392–8492 (fax); [email protected] (e-mail).

Brisbane, Queensland,Australia: Youth andPublic Space MajorCenters Project

Brisbane is a major Australian citywith a population of 1.6 million andregional and subregional satellitecenters. Recently, it has experienceda strong population growth, includ-ing immigration from SoutheastAsia. Crime, vandalism, incivilitiesin public places, the presence ofstreet kids and youth gangs, and theincreasing exclusion of minorityyouth are major concerns.

High numbers of indigenousyoung people have migrated fromrural areas and the city suffers froma lack of transport, social services,and facilities designed to meet theneeds of young people.

Toronto CommunitySafety Strategy

A Vision for a Safer City

• Reduce crime and fear of crime.

• Increase community knowledgeand involvement in creating asafer city.

• Focus on vulnerable groups.

• Recognize diversity.

• Know what works and theimportance of evaluation.

Five Directions for Action

• Strengthen neighborhoods.

• Invest in children and youth.

• Increase police and justice.

• Obtain information and organizecoordination.

• Make community safety a cor-porate policy with a councilaccountability structure.

Brisbane began a project to devel-op safer public spaces that weremore inclusive and relevant to theneeds and interests of young peo-ple. It focused on the major publicsites where young people gathered,such as city and regional shoppingmalls, beaches, and parks. The pro-ject took as its starting point theimportance of recognizing the inher-ent right of young people to haveaccess to public spaces and to beconsulted and involved in the devel-opment of facilities.

A CRUCIAL ISSUE IS WHETHER YOUNG PEO-PLE VIEW AMENITIES AS YOUTH FRIENDLY. ASURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE FOUND THAT THE

FACTORS INVOLVED IN DEFINING A PLACE AS

‘FRIENDLY’ INCLUDED ACCEPTANCE AND SUP-PORT, NO VIOLENCE, CHEAP FOOD AND

DRINKS, AND NO ADULTS OR POLICE.

—Hanging Out: Negotiating Young People’s Use of Public Space

The city held extensive discus-sions with young people and otherusers of commercial and communityspaces and compiled information onthe city council strategic planningsystem, corporate and local areaplans, and urban design. It exam-ined good practice models and prin-ciples and the current use of majorcenters in the city, suburbs, andregions. It set out principles, recom-mended policies, detailed strategyoutlines, and targeted indicators to



reach each of the policy objectivesin three areas: youth and communi-ty development policy, urbanmanagement through strategic andlocal planning and design, and oper-ational management and communi-ty relations in major centers.

A related project, Girls in SpaceConsortia (1997), looked at theneeds of girls and young women inpublic spaces. Brisbane now hasgood examples of well planned anddesigned city centers such asSouthbank.

Youth and CommunityDevelopment PolicyPrinciples

• Inclusive public and community spaces.

• Recognizing the tension between commercial and community objectives.

• Understanding shopping centers in their local and regional contexts.

• Active inclusion of young people.

• Responsive and coordinated policy development within the council.

• Promoting realistic and accurate information on young people to the broader community.

• Responding to diversity among young people.

• Safety.

—Hanging Out: Negotiating Young People’s Use of Public Space


40

Source: P. Haywood, P. Crane, A.Egginton, and J. Gleeson (1998),Out and About: In or Out? BetterOutcomes for Young People’s Use ofPublic and Community Space in theCity of Brisbane.

Leichhardt MunicipalCouncil, New South Wales,Australia: Draft YouthSocial Plan

This small municipal council,serving a population of 62,053,developed its Youth Social Plan1995–1997 (White, 1998) torespond to local unemployment,poverty, and inequality to provideconcrete ways of dealing with cur-rent problems. These included con-flicts over the use of public spaceby young people. The plan assertsthe basic rights of young peopleand outlines strategies for the following:

• Area planning and local servicescoordination.

• More equitable distribution ofyouth services and facilitiesthroughout the municipality.

• Youth consultation, participation,and advocacy.

• Recreation and public space pro-vision for young people.

• Youth facilities for commercialdevelopments.

• Active recreational spaces.

• Public space design and inclusionof artwork.

• Health and well-being of youngpeople.

• Youth and family supportservices.

• Education, training, andemployment.

• Housing and homelessness.

• Crime prevention.

Source: “The Youth Section ofLeichhardt Municipal Council’s DraftSocial Plan 1997–1999: Defining HowCouncil Works With and on Behalf ofYoung People Aged 12–24.” R. White(1998), Public Spaces for YoungPeople.

Freeport, Illinois: Coalitionfor a Safe Community

In the early 1990s, 25 percent ofFreeport’s 27,000 citizens lived at orbelow the poverty line, with 54 per-cent of children living in poverty.African Americans made up 20 per-cent of the population and therewere concerns about disparities ineducational provision and treatmentof students.

The catalyst to action was a threatby four Fortune 500 companies,which provided 40 percent of localemployment, to pull out of the city.The city set up Project 2009 withlocal businesses in 1993. Theydeveloped a strategic plan to ensurethat 90 percent of young people



stayed in school and graduatedequipped to work in local business-es. The project coalition includedcity leaders, school administrators,business and community represen-tatives, and local clergy.

Beginning in 1994, the mayor metwith residents over the course of 18months to discuss and debate con-cerns about increasing violence. In1996, the city established theCoalition for a Safe Community,whose mission was to build a safeand healthy community for childrenand families. Four task forces devel-oped plans leading to the creation offamily mentoring, parenting educa-tion, media awareness programs,and a job bank.

The results have been significant.Rates of child abuse and neglecthave fallen. The local newspaperhas developed a guide to local fami-ly and social services. New lightinghas been installed. A new neighbor-hood park and play area is planned.School buildings are now availableas community centers, and 50 newmentors for local youth are beingrecruited by local organizations andbusinesses. Even with a new mayorand police chief, in 1997 and 1998,implementation of the plan wascompleted. The coalition hasobtained more than $450,000 fromfederal, state, and foundation grantsand plans to develop an affordablehousing project.

Contact: Tracey Johnson, DeputyDirector, MLKCSI, 511 South Liberty

Street, Freeport, IL 61032.815–233–9915; 815–235–0007 (fax).

Hartford, Connecticut:Neighborhood Problem-Solving Committees andthe ComprehensiveCommunities Program

From 1986 to 1996, severeneighborhood gang wars catapultedHartford’s crime levels into the top10 for cities with more than 100,000citizens. A mayor’s commissionon crime was set up in 1987. Thecommission recommended estab-lishing citywide community policing,developing interagency partner-ships, and combining communityefforts to work on social issues.

A Police Gang Task Force wasestablished in 1992, and neighbor-hood problem-solving committees(PSCs) were set up in the 17 cityneighborhoods. PSCs meet monthlyto diagnose neighborhood problemsand decide on objectives and plans.Three special assistants to the citymanager were hired to serve asliaisons between PSCs and the citygovernment. Our Piece of the Pie,a prework program for youth, was setup in 1996. The program also beganhiring young adults as trainers,counselors, and role models tosupport at-risk youth and set up ayouth job clearinghouse. As a resultof these efforts, overall rates ofcrime fell by 30 percent from 1986to 1996, and rates of employmentplacement from the program havebeen up to 87 percent.

CAT youth workers from the localBoys & Girls Club help link at-riskyouth to local services. More recent-ly, school representatives havejoined each team. CATs meet week-ly to deal with neighborhood prob-lems, with the aim of providingservices quickly to clients, cuttingacross agency boundaries and redtape. The mayor’s Office ofCommunity Affairs acts as theliaison between agencies and citygovernment and the teams.

THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY ACTION

TEAMS IS TO POOL THEIR RESOURCES

(TIME, AUTHORITY, STAFF) IN A PROBLEM-SOLVING FOCUS ON NEIGHBORHOOD-SPECIFIC AND FAMILY-SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AS

THEY ARISE. . . . CATS ARE EMPOWERED

BY UPPER-LEVEL CITY MANAGEMENT TO

WORK OUT THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION

THEY CAN DEVISE THROUGH COLLABORATION

AMONG MEMBER AGENCIES AND THE

COMMUNITY.

—Standing in the Gap

Some of the outcomes of SaltLake City’s approach include Com-munity Peace Services, a diversionprogram that provides education,mediation, and intervention to first-time offenders; a domestic violencecourt; and increased youth and fam-ily specialist staff. The city hasbeen able to attract increased re-sources from federal, state, andlocal government and from


42

Contact: Rae Ann Palmer,Coordinator, Special Projects andCommunity Programs, City ofHartford, City Manager’s Office, 525Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103.860–543–8681; 860–722–6216(fax).

Salt Lake City, Utah:Changing the WayGovernment Works andthe ComprehensiveCommunities Program

In recent years, Salt Lake Cityhas not only grown in population butbecome increasingly diverse ethni-cally and racially as well. Youth vio-lence, including drive-by shootings,and gang-related crime rose in theearly 1990s. At that time, the per-centage of the city’s 180,000 peopleliving below the poverty level was16.4 percent, compared with thenational average of 12.8 percent. In1995, its unemployment rate was3.6 percent, compared with thenational average of 5.6 percent, andthe rate of violent crime was 83 per10,000, compared with the nationallevel of 72 per 10,000. Fear ofcrime increased and the courtswere overloaded.

The city set up Community ActionTeams (CATs) in each geographicalarea, as neighborhood-basedproblem-solving teams focusing onthe problems of youth and youthgangs. CATs include communitypolice, probation, the city prosecu-tor, community mobilization special-ists, a youth/family specialist, anda community relations coordinator.



foundations. These have led to newprograms and new staff. Gang activ-ity has diminished, property crime isdown, and homicides have declined33 percent from 1995.

Contact: Jeanne Robinson, AssistantCity Prosecutor, Salt Lake City.801–535–7660.

Maryland HotSpotCommunities: ReclaimingOur Neighborhoods

This initiative targets heavy con-centrations of crime, insecurity, and victimization in 36 HotSpot commu-nities across Maryland. The effortbegan in 1997 and provides fundsto neighborhoods to develop part-nerships and strategies to reclaimthose areas. The program recog-nizes that nationally 50 percentof crime occurs at 3 percent ofaddresses. It is the first statewideintervention to help selected Hot-Spot areas reclaim their neighbor-hoods, investing $3.5 million instate and federal grant funding in36 communities.

A major innovation of the initia-tive is coordinating state and federalfunding to support “core” and“enhancing” projects arising fromstrategic plans. Each communityreceives operational and technicalassistance from various state andlocal agencies. The core elementsare community mobilization, com-munity policing, community proba-tion, community maintenance,crime prevention among youth, andlocal coordination. The enhancing

elements are community prosecu-tion, juvenile intervention, crimeprevention through environmentaldesign, victim outreach and assis-tance, community support foraddiction recovery, and housingand business revitalization.

Contact: Stephen Amos, ExecutiveDirector, Governor’s Office of CrimeControl and Prevention, 300 EastJoppa Road, Suite 1105, Baltimore,MD 21286–3016. 410–321–3521;410–321–3116 (fax);[email protected](e-mail).

METRAC, Toronto,Ontario, Canada: TakingAction Against Abuseof Women

One in 6 women in Canada isabused by her partner each yearand more than 60 percent of homi-cides result from family violence. Amajor problem in Canada has beenthe lack of coordination of servicesand programs across all sectors.

Sponsored by the chair of MetroToronto in 1992, the Metro WomanAbuse Council of Toronto wasformed to create a metrowide inte-grated community response toviolence against women thatpromotes effective and efficientprovision of services for assaultedwomen and their families. Thecity provides in-kind support. Thecouncil brings together 18 repre-sentatives of key sectors of thecommunity, including shelters,police departments, hospitals,


44

support service agencies, communi-ty health centers, probation officers,and survivor groups. There are fivestanding committees and ad hocworking groups.

The council’s successes includeconferences that have broughttogether different sectors andgroups, two publications (BestPractice Resource Manual and BestPractice Guidelines for Respondingto Women Abuse for HealthPractitioners), safety audit kits, pro-tocols and accountability standardsfor intervention programs, and edu-cation and awareness projects. Thecouncil worked with police depart-ments and courts to develop spe-cialized domestic violence courts,model batterer’s programs, andcourt-watch projects, and developedinter-sectoral partnerships andprotocols.

Contact: www.city.toronto.on.ca/council/wac_index.htm#f (Internet).

Amsterdam, The Hague,Rotterdam, andUtrecht, Netherlands:Big Cities Policy

Social problems such as drugs,nuisance, and street crime inNetherlands’ major cities led to the development of a Big CitiesPolicy. A memorandum was drawnup by the municipal authorities of the major cities to strengthentheir social and economic bases in partnership with the national government in three major areas:employment and education, public

safety, and quality of life and care.The main impact is directed at theneighborhood level and the plansets targets and outlines measures.

As part of the initiative, a pilotproject modeled on the Frenchexample, Justice in the Neighbor-hood: Justice Closer to the Citizensand Their Problems, was begun in1992.19 Neighborhood justice officeswere opened in five Dutch cities towork in problem-oriented ways withlocal residents. The offices provideaccessible, quick, and direct actionto deal with local street crime, nui-sances, and conflicts. They offerinformation, legal advice, and con-flict mediation to help prevent localdisputes from getting out of control.

Contact: Ministry of Justice,Information Department,31–0–70–370–68–50;31–0–70–370–75–94 (fax);[email protected] or [email protected] (e-mail); www.minjust.nl:8080(Internet).

EURO 2000 Football CitiesAgainst Racism

The European Forum for UrbanSafety funds groups of cities inEurope to tackle specific problems.Over the past 10 years it hasbrought member cities together forconferences and initiatives on vio-lence and schools, the mass media,senior citizens, victims, immigrationand insecurity, the integration ofyoung people, and drug prevention.A recent initiative targets racism


and soccer violence. Soccer vio-lence has been a major problem inGreat Britain as well as otherEuropean countries for a number ofyears. Nine host cities (Brent inLondon, four Dutch cities, and fourBelgian cities) have developed anti-racism campaigns around the EURO2000 championships.

Contacts: John Blackmore, Head,Community Safety and CommunityEmpowerment, London Borough ofBrent, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane,Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9HD,England. 44–020–8937–1035;44–020-8937–1056 (fax);[email protected] (e-mail); European Forum for UrbanSafety, 38 rue Liancourt, Paris75014, France. 33–1–40–64–49–00;33–1–40–64–49–10 (fax);[email protected]. (e-mail).

Aix en Provence, France:Local Security Contractand Observatory

This city of 126,000 has experi-enced considerable growth in thepast 30 years. It is “rich, cultured,and young,” but with increasingdisparities between its economicallystable and marginalized populations.

The city received a Contrat deVille in 1994 to improve housing,transport, education, and health ser-vices, as well as to develop delin-quency and drug preventionstrategies. A community councilpartnership for the prevention ofdelinquency was formed that applied

for a new security contract (CLS)as soon as they were announced in1997. The partnership includes notonly the city of Aix en Provence butits surrounding communities, eachwith its own mayor, police depart-ment, and other services. Represe-ntatives of the region and nationalministries are also included.

A comprehensive security diagno-sis was undertaken, looking at directand indirect problems. In addition, apermanent observatory of socialproblems was created, using specif-ic indicators at the local governmentlevel.

Using this knowledge as a foun-dation, the city established 10 pri-orities relating to the quality of life:social, cultural, and sports facilitiesand policies; citizen access to thelaw; prevention of child abuse andneglect; prevention of substanceabuse; parental support; victimsupport and aid; improving courtand reintegration policy and prac-tices; and safety and security. Theaction plan (Fiches actions de con-trat, 1999) outlines 42 separateactions relating to these 10 priori-ties. In each case it identifies thespecific problem, the objectivesset, the agreed action, the partners responsible for implementation,methods of finance, evaluation,and target dates. The preventionof school violence, for example,involves measures to reduceabsenteeism and school exclusion,early identification of behaviorproblems, use of alternative



46

disciplinary measures, and educa-tional support. The plan is nowbeing implemented and evaluated.

Among other initiatives, commu-nity policing has been established,and new security assistants havebeen recruited. Better links andcoordination between the nationaland municipal police have also beenset up. Social mediation agentshave been recruited and trained towork on public transport, aroundschools, and in public spaces. Theirrole includes mediating situationsand intervening between groups

such as local shop owners andyoung people to try to develop cre-ative solutions to problems. Al-though the outcomes have not yetbeen evaluated, the CLS has had aconsiderable impact on policies andpractices in the city as well as theregion.

Sources: Diagnostic local de securitede la Ville de Aix en Provence(1999) and Fiches actions de con-trat (1999): Centre de gestion de lafonction publique territoriale desBouches du Rhone.


1. This statement refers to crimesrecorded by the police. We knowfrom victimization surveys taken inmany countries that only approxi-mately 50 percent of crime eventsare reported to the police, so theselevels underestimate the extent ofcrime and victimization.

2. In England and Wales, forexample, 59 percent of the publicthought that crime rates were stillrising in 1998 in spite of 4 years ofdecline (Mattinson and Mirrlees-Black, 2000).

3. For example, in Britain 82 per-cent of Pakistani and 84 percentof Bangladeshi families, many ofthem living in public housing, haveincomes that are less than half thenational average, compared with 28percent of the majority white popu-lation (Social Exclusion Unit, 2000a:30). In France, concentrations ofsocial problems are found in thesatellite housing complexes aroundthe major cities with social outcastsand immigrant families living in fargreater poverty and substandardconditions than the rest of the coun-try (Dubet and Lapeyronnie, 1994,in Pfeiffer, 1998). In Germany, 39percent of foreign born Turkishyouth experience high levels ofdeprivation compared with 12 per-cent of native-born Germans(Pfeiffer and Wetzels, 1999).

4. See Snyder and Sickmund(1999) and Harris and Curtis (1998)for more information about juvenileoffending and victimization andfuture population trends. Hagan(1996) and Rose and Clear (1998)have discussed the impact ofhigh rates of imprisonment onneighborhoods.

5. An international survey in 12countries found drug use was preva-lent among youth in areas of highunemployment and was associatedwith a high incidence of propertyand violent crime (Killias andRibeaud, 1999).

6. See Violence Against Women: TheHidden Health Burden (Heise, L.L.,et al., 1994).

7. In Germany, for example, the pro-portion of ethnic minorities in youthcustody increased from 10 percentin 1990 to 35 percent by 1998(Pfeiffer and Wetzels, 1999).

8. These projects include summerholiday and job creation programsfor disadvantaged young people.Since 1989 these city contractshave been administered through aninterministerial agency (DIV) at thenational level that links the interestsof national ministries together insupporting a range of city projects.

VI. Notes


48

9. Countries in transition includemany east European countries thatwere part of the Soviet Union or theEastern Bloc. Developing countriesinclude many in South America,Africa, and Asia. International vic-timization surveys have been carriedout in many of these countries sincethe mid-1990s.

10. These are being funded by theUnited Nations Center for HumanSettlements (Habitat) based inNairobi in partnership with ICPC,EFUS, the South African Institute ofSecurity Studies, and national andlocal governments. Projects underthe Habitat program are beingdeveloped in other African cities aswell as in Asia and Latin America(www.unchs.org/safercities). Theproject in Dar es Salaam wasawarded the Urban Security Prizeat the Africities Summit 2000.

11. A safety audit includes a de-tailed mapping of crime and disor-der problems in a community.

12. The National Strategy for Neigh-borhood Renewal is a multiministeri-al strategy for tackling the problemsof deprived neighborhoods. Each ofthe 18 reports focuses on a particu-lar issue. For example, Report 12deals with young people (SocialExclusion Unit, 1999b); Report 4with neighborhood renewal (SocialExclusion Unit, 2000a). Three majorfunding areas target crime reductionand community safety: Sure Startfunds early family intervention pro-grams, On Track funds projects forchildren and families, and Youth

Include provides activities for at-riskyouth between 13 and 16 years old.

13. See Profils, Missions et Perspec-tives des Agents Locaux de Media-tion Sociale (Forum Francais,1999).

14. These were the mayors ofArlington, Austin, Corpus Christi,Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth,Houston, and San Antonio.

15. The sites in Baltimore, Boston,Columbia, Fort Worth, Salt LakeCity, and Seattle have been inten-sively evaluated; Atlanta, Denver,East Bay, Hartford, and Wichitahave been the subject of less inten-sive evaluation (Kelling et al.,1998). A total of $34 million wasinvested in the program.

16. They include Burlington, ChapelHill, and Garner in North Carolina;Deerfield Park, Florida; Deer Park,Texas; Lima and Stow, Ohio; Keene,New Hampshire; Bessemer,Alabama; Pearl, Mississippi; andPueblo County, Colorado.

17. The National Crime PreventionCouncil has produced a number ofother guides to community initia-tives in crime prevention, includingCrime Prevention in America:Foundations for Action (1990);Uniting Communities ThroughCrime Prevention (1994); New Waysof Working To Reduce Crime (1996);and Designing Safer Communities(1997).

18. Other examples can be found in100 Crime Prevention Programs ToInspire Action Across the World(International Centre for thePrevention of Crime, 1999b).

19. Maisons de justice et du droit.

Notes


VII. References

Bonnemaison, G. (1982). Rapportde la Commission des Maires sur laSécurité. Paris, France.

Borough of Brent (2000). ACrime and Disorder Reduction andCommunity Safety Strategy forBrent 1999–2002. London, England:Borough of Brent.

Bureau of Justice Assistance(1997). Innovation State and LocalPractices. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.

Center for the Study andPrevention of Violence (1997).Blueprints for Violence Prevention.Boulder, CO: Center for the Studyand Prevention of Violence.

Crime Concern (1998). ReducingNeighbourhood Crime: A Manual forAction. Swindon, England: CrimeConcern.

Crime Concern (1999). Review toSupport the Development of theHealth Strategy for London Crimeand Disorder. Woking, England:Crime Concern.

European Forum for Urban Safety(1996). Tools for Action. InterimReport. Paris, France: EuropeanForum for Urban Safety.

European Forum for Urban Safety(1996). Safety and Security: New

Jobs for the New Millenium. Paris,France: European Forum for UrbanSafety.

Farrington, D.P. (2000). “Ex-plaining and Preventing Crime.”Criminology 38(1): 1–24.

Federal Bureau of Investigation(2000). Preliminary Annual UniformCrime Report, 1999. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Hagan, J. (1996). “The NextGeneration: Children of Prisoners.”The Unintended Consequences ofIncarceration. New York, NY: VeraInstitute of Justice.

Hague, G. (1999). “ReducingDomestic Violence—What Works?Multi-Agency Fora.” Briefing Note:Policing and Reducing Crime.London, England: Home Office.

Hamilton, J. (1999). ResultsCentred Evaluation of SaferCommunity Councils. Wellington,New Zealand: Crime PreventionUnit, Department of the PrimeMinister.

Harris, F.R., and Curtis, L.A.(1998). Locked in the Poorhouse:Cities, Race and Poverty in theUnited States. New York, NY:Rowman & Littlefield.


Heise, L.L., et al. (1994). ViolenceAgainst Women: The Hidden HealthBurden. Washington, DC: WorldBank.

Hosain, S. (1995). Cutting Crimein Rural Areas. Swindon, England:Crime Concern.

International Centre for thePrevention of Crime (1999a). Crime Prevention Digest II. Montreal,Canada: International Centre for thePrevention of Crime.

International Centre for thePrevention of Crime (1999b). 100Crime Prevention Programs ToInspire Action Across the World.Montreal: International Centre forthe Prevention of Crime.

Institut des Hautes Études de laSécurité Intérieure (1998). GuidePratique Pour les Contrats Locaux deSecurité. Paris, France: Institut desHautes Études de la SécuritéIntérieure.

Institute for Security Studies(1999). International Conference onSafer Communities. Pretoria, SouthAfrica: Institute for Security Studies.

Junger-Tas, J. (1997). Jeugd enGezin. The Hague, Netherlands:Ministry of Justice.

Kelling, G., Hochberg, M.R.,Kaminski, S.L., Rocheleau, A.M.,Rosenbaum, D.P., Roth, J.A., andSkogan, W.G. (1998). The Bureau ofJustice Assistance ComprehensiveCommunities Program: A Prelimin-ary Report. Research in Brief.

Washington, DC: National Instituteof Justice.

Kelly, T. (1998). “Planning BringsResults: Comprehensive Blueprintsfor Community Safety.” NCPC pre-sentation to National Conferenceon Preventing Crime, November1998. Washington, DC: NationalCrime Prevention Council.

Killias, M., and Ribeaud, D.(1999). “Drug Use AmongJuveniles: An InternationalPerspective.” Studies on CrimePrevention 8(2): 189–207.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P.(1998). Serious and Violent CrimeOffenders. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Marcus, M. (1995). Faces ofJustice and Poverty in the City.Paris, France: European Forum forUrban Safety.

Mattinson, J., and Mirrlees-Black,C. (2000). Attitudes to Crime andCriminal Justice: Findings From the1998 British Crime Survey. Re-search Findings No. 111. London,England: Home Office Research,Development and StatisticsDirectorate.

Mayhew, P., and van Dijk, J.J.(1997). Criminal Victimization inEleven Industrialized Countries. TheHague, Netherlands: WODC.

National Center on Addiction andSubstance Abuse at ColumbiaUniversity (2000). CASA WhitePaper, No Place to Hide: Rural 8th


52

Graders Using Drugs, Drinking andSmoking at Higher Rates ThanUrban 8th Graders. New York, NY:National Center on Addiction andSubstance Abuse at ColumbiaUniversity.

National Crime Prevention.(1999). Hanging Out: NegotiatingYoung People’s Use of Public Space.Australian Capital Territory: NationalCrime Prevention, AttorneyGeneral’s Department.

National Crime Prevention Council(1994). Taking the Offensive to Pre-vent Crime: How Seven Cities Did It.Washington, DC: National CrimePrevention Council.

National Crime Prevention Council(1998). Creating a Blueprint forCommunity Safety: A Guide forLocal Action. Washington, DC:National Crime Prevention Council.

National Crime Prevention Council(1999a). Six Safer Cities: On theCrest of the Crime Prevention Wave.Washington DC: National CrimePrevention Council.

National Crime Prevention Council(1999b). Standing in the Gap: LocalFamily Strengthening Initiativesfor Safer, Better Communities.Washington DC: National CrimePrevention Council.

National Crime Prevention Council(2000). 150 Tested Strategies ToPrevent Crime From Small Cities,Counties, and Rural Communities.Washington, DC: National CrimePrevention Council.

National League of Cities (1996).Connecting Citizens and TheirGovernment: Civility, Responsibilityand Democracy. Washington, DC:National League of Cities.

Nuttall, C.P., Goldblatt, P., andLewis, C. (Eds.) (1998). ReducingOffending: An Assessment ofResearch Evidence on Ways ofDealing With Offending Behavior.Home Office Research Study No.187. London, England: HomeOffice.

Pfeiffer, C. (1998). “JuvenileCrime and Violence in Europe.”Crime and Justice. A Review ofResearch 23: 255–328. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Pfeiffer, C., and Wetzels, P.(1999). The Structure andDevelopment of Juvenile Violencein Germany. ForschungsberichteNo. 76. Hanover, Germany:Kriminologisches ForschungsinstitutNiedersachsen.

Rose, D.R., and Clear, T.R.(1998). “Incarceration, SocialCapital, and Crime.” Criminology36(3): 441–479.

Rosenbaum, D.P. (1999).“Creation of a Neighborhood-BasedGovernment in Salt Lake City.”Paper presented at the AmericanSociety of Criminology AnnualMeeting. Toronto, Canada:November 17–20.

Rosenbaum, D.P., Lurigio, A.J.,and Davis, R.C. (1998). The

References



54

Prevention of Crime: Social andSituational Strategies. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Sarre, R. (1991). “Problemsand Pitfalls in Crime Prevention.”National Overview on CrimePrevention. Adelaide, Australia:Australian Institute of Criminology.

Shearing, C. (1994). “Partici-patory Policing,” Imbizo 2: 5–10.

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.,MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P.,and Bushway, S. (1997). WhatWorks, What Doesn’t Work, What’sPromising. Washington, DC:National Institute of Justice.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M.(1999). Juvenile Offenders andVictims: 1999 National Report.Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Social Exclusion Unit (1999a).Bridging the Gap. London, England:The Stationery Office.

Social Exclusion Unit (1999b).National Strategy for Neighbour-hood Renewal Report of PolicyAction Team 12: Young People.London, England: The StationeryOffice.

Social Exclusion Unit (2000a).National Strategy for Neighbour-hood Renewal Report of Policy

Action Team 4: NeighbourhoodManagement. London, England:The Stationery Office.

Social Exclusion Unit (2000b).National Strategy for Neighbour-hood Renewal Report of PolicyAction Team 17: Joining It UpLocally. London, England: TheStationery Office.

van Zyl Smit, D. (1999). “Crim-inological Ideas and the SouthAfrican Transition.” British Journalof Criminology 39(2).

Waller, I., and Welsh, B. (1999).“International Trends in CrimePrevention: Cost-effective WaysTo Reduce Victimization.” GlobalReport on Crime and Justice. UnitedNations Office for Drug Control andCrime Prevention. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

White, R. (1998). Public Spacesfor Young People: A Guide toCreative Projects and PositiveStrategies. New South Wales,Australia: Australian YouthFoundation and National CampaignAgainst Violence and Crime.

Wong, S., Catalano, R., Hawkins,J.D., and Chappell, P. (1996).Communities That Care PreventionStrategies: A Research Guide toWhat Works. Seattle, WA:Developmental Research &Programs, Inc.

National Crime Prevention (Australia)

Attorney General’s DepartmentRobert Garran OfficesNational CircuitBarton Act 2600Australia61–02–6250–6711Fax: 61–02–6273–0913E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ncp.gov.au

Australian Local Government Association

8 Geils CourtDeakin Act 2600Australia61–02–6281–1211Fax: 61–02–6282–2110E-mail: [email protected] site: www.alga.com.au

Secrétariat permanent à la politiquede prévention (Belgium)

Ministére de l’Intérieur26, rue de la Loi bte 19Brussels 1040Belgique32–2–500–49–47Fax: 32–2–500–49–87E-mail: [email protected] site: www.vspp.fgov.be

International Centre for the Prevention of Crime (Canada)

507, Place d’Armes, Suite 2100Montreal, QuebecH2Y 2W8Canada514–288–6731Fax: 514–288–8763E-mail:

[email protected] site: crime-prevention-intl.org

International Crime Prevention Action Network (Canada)

BC Coalition for Safer Communitiesc/o The People’s Law School605–318 Horner StreetVancouver, British ColumbiaV6B 2V2Canada604–669–2986Fax: 604–689–2619E-mail: [email protected] site: www.web.net/~icpan

National Crime Prevention Centre (Canada)

Department of Justice of Canada123 Slater StreetOttawa, OntarioK1A 0H8Canada877–302–CNPC (French);877–302–NCPC (English)Fax: 613–952–3515E-mail: [email protected] (French);

[email protected] (English)Web site: www.crime-prevention.org

VIII. Resources and Addresses


Crime Concern (England)Beaver House147–150 Victoria RoadSwindon Wiltshire SN1 3BUEngland

Crime Prevention Agency(England)

Home Office50 Queen Anne’s GateLondon SW1H 9ATEngland0171–273–3000Fax: 0171–273–4037E-mail: public.enquiries@

homeoffice.gsi.gov.ukWeb site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Social Exclusion Unit (England)Cabinet Office35 Great Smith StreetLondon SW1P 3BQEngland020–7276–2055 (general inquiries)Fax: 020–7276–2056E-mail:

[email protected] site:

www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/seu

Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville et au Développement Social Urbain (France)

194, avenue du Président WilsonSt-Denis-La Plaine 93217FranceTel: 33–1–49–17–46–10Fax: 33–1–49–17–45–55E-mail: [email protected]


56

European Forum for Urban Safety (France)

38, rue Liancourt75014 ParisFrance33–1–43–27–83–11Fax: 33–1–43–27–79–52Web site: www.urbansecurity.org

Secretariat for Safety and Security (South Africa)

Private Bag X463Pretoria 0001South Africa27–012–339–15–86Fax: 27–012–339–25–36E-mail: [email protected] site: www.gcis.gov.za/sss

Boys & Girls Clubs of America (USA)

National Headquarters1230 West Peachtree Street NW.Atlanta, GA 30309–34471–800–854–CLUBWeb site: www.bgca.org

Bureau of Justice Assistance (USA)

U.S. Department of Justice810 Seventh Street NW.Fourth FloorWashington, DC 20531202–616–6500Fax: 202–305–1367E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Resources and Addresses


National Crime Prevention Council 1000 Connecticut Avenue NW.Thirteenth FloorWashington, DC 20036202–466–6272Fax: 202–296–1356Web site: www.ncpc.org

National Funding Collaborative on Violence Prevention (USA)

815 15th Street NW.Suite 801Washington, DC 20005202–393–7731Fax: 202–393–4148E-mail: [email protected] site:

www.peacebeyondviolence.org

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (USA)

U.S. Department of Justice810 Seventh Street NW.Eighth FloorWashington, DC 20531202–307–5911Fax: 202–307–2093E-mail: [email protected] site: ojjdp.ncjrs.org


For information regarding the topicsand programs discussed in thismonograph, contact:

Margaret ShawDirector, Analysis and ExchangeInternational Centre for the

Prevention of Crime507 Place d’Armes, Suite 2100Montreal, Quebec H2Y 2W8 Canada514–288–6731, ext. 227Fax: 514–288–8763E-mail: shaw@crime-prevention-

intl.orgWeb site: www.crime-prevention-

intl.org

For additional information onBJA grants and programs, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance 810 Seventh Street NW.Fourth FloorWashington, DC 20531202–616–6500Fax: 202–305–1367Web site:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice AssistanceClearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000Rockvile, MD 20849–60001–800–688–4252Web site: www.ncjrs.org

Clearinghouse staff are availableMonday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.to 7 p.m. eastern time. Ask to beplaced on the BJA mailing list.

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480

Response Center staff are avail-able Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.to 5 p.m. eastern time.

IX. For More Information

Bureau of Justice AssistanceInformation

General Information

❒ MailP.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone 1–800–688–4252 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time

❒ Fax301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand1–800–688–4252

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general informa-tion or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and informationon training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities,requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of theNational Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program informationwith state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information spe-cialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution,participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities.The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ BJA Home Pagewww.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web www.ncjrs.org

❒ [email protected]

❒ JUSTINFO NewsletterE-mail to [email protected] the subject line blankIn the body of the message,type:subscribe justinfo[your name]

The Role of Local Government in Community Safetylocal municipal leaders play a crucial role in...

Documents

Transcript of The Role of Local Government in Community Safetylocal municipal leaders play a crucial role in...