Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction: What Works in Crime Prevention? Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Community Interventions

verfasst von : Charlotte Gill

Erschienen in: What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

Verlag: Springer New York

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Community-based crime prevention embraces a number of strategies, from civic engagement in response to crime and disorder issues, to interventions for at-risk youth and community correctional and reentry programs for adjudicated offenders. Although there is strong meta-analytic evidence for the effectiveness of individualized treatment delivered in a community setting, we know less about the conditions under which community resources can be mobilized more generally to control crime. This chapter takes stock of what has been learned from reviews of community-based interventions, including neighborhood watch, mentoring and diversion of youth, intensive probation, electronic monitoring, and restorative justice.
Overall, despite its broad scope, research on community interventions is surprisingly limited. However, there is good evidence that community programs designed to strengthen and restore positive social ties with at-risk youth are effective. In community corrections, research quality is strong but results are mixed at best. The most effective programs target specific risk factors or directly reengage the offender with the community, but general deterrence and punishment programs are at best ineffective and at worst harmful. We know much less about the most effective strategies to mobilize communities against crime, but emerging findings suggest that proactive engagement with the police and other civic partners to enhance legitimacy and build social cohesion may produce the best results. Finally, before we can conclude “what works” in community-based crime prevention, we need to better define the community’s role in crime prevention and the mechanisms by which it can be effective.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Developmental and Social Prevention
Nächstes Kapitel Situational Prevention
Fußnoten
2
See Table 3.3 for a full list of excluded reviews and the reasons for exclusion.
 
4
The search string was modified as needed to meet the specific requirements of each database.
 
5
Because these two databases produced an unmanageable number of hits, I only examined the first 500, sorted by relevance.
 
6
Google Scholar does not support the Boolean OR operator, so two separate searches were performed (community crime “systematic review”; community crime “meta analysis”). The first 500 hits for each search were reviewed.
 
7
One review (Makarios & Pratt, 2012) is listed twice in the results section because it included separate analyses of two different eligible strategies; however, it is the same report.
 
8
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to convert the effect sizes to odds ratios and produce the forest plot. Where studies reported odds ratios where OR < 1 indicated a favorable effect, the direction was flipped by taking the inverse of the odds ratio and its confidence intervals. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 report the odds ratio effect size as well as each effect size in the same format and direction in which it is reported in the original review.
 
9
There were several other cases in which insufficient information was given in the report to convert the effect size to an odds ratio (for example, the standard error of the standardized mean difference (SMD) was missing). These cases were all handled using one of the following methods, in order of preference: (1) if the sample sizes for each study, separated by treatment and control groups, were provided, the SMD and total sample size for treatment and control were used to estimate the odds ratio; (2) if the sample sizes were not provided, but the z-score and confidence intervals for the SMD were available, I used these values to estimate the standard error of the SMD assuming an alpha level of 0.05; (3) if the z-score was not reported but a p value was available, I estimated the z-score associated with the p value using Stata (assuming an alpha level of 0.05) and proceeded as (2).
 
Literatur
Akers, R. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Andrews, D. A. (1989). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessments to reduce recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 1(2), 11‑17.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19‑52.CrossRef
Ariel, B., & Taylor, F. (in progress). Electronic monitoring of offenders: A systematic review of its effect on recidivism in the criminal justice system. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248‑270.CrossRef
Bradshaw, W., Roseborough, D., & Umbreit, M. S. (2006). The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(1), 87‑98.CrossRef
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012a). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 323‑358.CrossRef
Braga, A. A., & Welsh, B. C. (in progress). Broken windows policing to reduce crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Braga, A. A., Kennedy, D. M., Waring, E. J., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 195‑225.CrossRef
Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C., & Schnell, C. (2015). Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 567‑588.CrossRef
Braithwaite, J. B. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington Books.
Cheliotis, L. (2008). Reconsidering the effectiveness of temporary release: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 153‑168.CrossRef
Clear, T. R., & Hardyman, P. L. (1990). The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 42‑60.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588‑608.CrossRef
Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2006). Deviant peer contagion in interventions and programs: An ecological framework for understanding influence mechanisms. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 14‑43). New York: Guilford.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755‑764.CrossRef
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Fulton, B. (2001). Intensive supervision in probation and parole settings. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195‑204). Chichester: Wiley.
Gill, C. E., & Hyatt, J. (in progress). Probation intensity effects on probationers’ criminal conduct. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Gill, C. E., Weisburd, D., Bennett, T., Telep, C. W., & Vitter, Z. (in progress). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase legitimacy and citizen satisfaction in neighborhoods. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vitter, Z., & Bennett, T. (2014). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 399‑428.CrossRef
Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Weisman, S. A. (2001). The timing of delinquent behavior and its implications for after-school programs. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(1), 61‑86.CrossRef
Guerino, P., Harrison, P., & Sabol, W. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hagan, J. (1993). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology, 31(4), 465‑491.CrossRef
Heidemann, G., Soydan, H., & Xie, B. (in progress). Reentry programs for formerly incarcerated women. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The influence of mentoring on reoffending. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127‑144.CrossRef
Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Limbos, M. A., Chan, L. S., Warf, C., Schneir, A., Iverson, E., Shekelle, P., & Kipke, M. D. (2007). Effectiveness of interventions to prevent youth violence: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(1), 65‑74.CrossRef
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83‑127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works? Reducing reoffending—Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63‑78). New York: Wiley.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 124‑147.CrossRef
Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections (pp. 3‑8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. http://​www.​nicic.​org/​pubs/​2004/​period266.​pdf.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77‑93.CrossRef
Lum, C., Koper, C., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 3‑26.CrossRef
Lundman, R. J. (1993). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
MacKenzie, D. L., & Brame, R. (2001). Community supervision, prosocial activities, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 18, 429‑448.CrossRef
Makarios, M. D., & Pratt, T. (2012). The effectiveness of policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence: A meta-analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 58(2), 222‑244.CrossRef
Marsh, K., Fox, C., & Sarmah, R. (2009). Is custody an effective sentencing option for the U.K.? Evidence from a meta-analysis of existing studies. Probation Journal, 56(2), 129‑151.CrossRef
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3), 517‑558.CrossRef
Nugent, W. R., Williams, M., & Umbreit, M. S. (2004). Participation in victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(6), 408‑416.CrossRef
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635‑655.CrossRef
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281‑335.CrossRef
Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 215‑237.CrossRef
Sampson, R. J. (1987). Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 93(2), 348‑382.CrossRef
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918‑924.CrossRef
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing ‘neighborhood effects:’ Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443‑478.CrossRef
Schur, E. (1973). Radical nonintervention: Rethinking the delinquency problem. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shelden, R. G. (1999). Detention diversion advocacy: An evaluation. Juvenile justice bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sherman, L. W. (1997). Communities and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.) Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://​ncjrs.​gov/​works.
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://​ncjrs.​gov/​works.
Skogan, W. (1986). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. Crime and Justice, 8, 203‑229.CrossRef
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lipppincott.
Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and the stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 12‑17.CrossRef
Weisburd, D. (2012). Bringing social context back into the equation: The importance of social characteristics of places in the prevention of crime. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 317‑326.CrossRef
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42‑65.CrossRef
Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50‑70.CrossRef
Weisburd, D., Morris, N. A., & Groff, E. R. (2009). Hot spots of juvenile crime: A longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 443‑467.CrossRef
Welsh, B. C., & Hoshi, A. (2006). Communities and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (revised edition). New York: Routledge.
Williams-Hayes, M. M. (2002). The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing: A meta-analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29‑38.
Zimring, F., & Hawkins, G. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Metadaten
Titel
Community Interventions
verfasst von
Charlotte Gill
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Verlag
Springer New York
Buch
What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3475-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4939-3477-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3477-5_3

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise