Instant download Understanding Crime Prevention Second Edition Ncpi pdf all chapter

Full download ebook at ebookname.
com
Understanding Crime Prevention Second Edition Ncpi
https://ebookname.com/product/understanding-crime-
prevention-second-edition-ncpi/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD NOW
Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Crime Fighting and Crime Prevention Criminal Justice

1st Edition Michael Newton
https://ebookname.com/product/crime-fighting-and-crime-
prevention-criminal-justice-1st-edition-michael-newton/
Better Crime Prevention 2nd Edition Nick Tilley
https://ebookname.com/product/better-crime-prevention-2nd-
edition-nick-tilley/
Crime Prevention Approaches Practices and Evaluations

8th Edition Steven P. Lab
https://ebookname.com/product/crime-prevention-approaches-
practices-and-evaluations-8th-edition-steven-p-lab/
Crime Prevention Seventh Edition Approaches Practices

and Evaluations Steven P. Lab
https://ebookname.com/product/crime-prevention-seventh-edition-
approaches-practices-and-evaluations-steven-p-lab/
Understanding Race and Crime 1st Edition Colin Webster
https://ebookname.com/product/understanding-race-and-crime-1st-
edition-colin-webster/
Understanding Crime A Multidisciplinary Approach 1st

Edition Susan Guarino-Ghezzi
https://ebookname.com/product/understanding-crime-a-
multidisciplinary-approach-1st-edition-susan-guarino-ghezzi/
Crime Scene Photography Second Edition Edward M.

Robinson
https://ebookname.com/product/crime-scene-photography-second-
edition-edward-m-robinson/
Accident Incident Prevention Techniques Second Edition

Charles D. Reese
https://ebookname.com/product/accident-incident-prevention-
techniques-second-edition-charles-d-reese/
Gender Crime and Criminal Justice Second Edition Sandra

Walklate
https://ebookname.com/product/gender-crime-and-criminal-justice-
second-edition-sandra-walklate/
Understanding
Crime Prevention,
Second Edition
National Crime Prevention Institute
Boston Oxford Auckland Johannesburg Melbourne New Delhi

Copyright © 2001 by the National Crime Prevention Institute, Department of Justice Administra-
tion, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
Recognizing the importance of preserving what has been written, Butterworth–Heinemann prints
its books on acid-free paper whenever possible.
Butterworth–Heinemann supports the efforts of American Forests and the Global ReLeaf program
in its campaign for the betterment of trees, forests, and our environment.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Understanding crime prevention / by National Crime Prevention Institute.—2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7506-7220-X (alk. paper)
1. Crime prevention. 2. Crime prevention—United States. 3. Crime prevention—Citizen
participation. 5. Buildings—Security measures. I. National Crime Prevention Institute (Univer-
sity of Louisville)
HV7431 .U52 2001 364.4—dc21 00-049849
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
The publisher offers special discounts on bulk orders of this book.
For information, please contact:
Manager of Special Sales
Butterworth–Heinemann
225 Wildwood Avenue
Woburn, MA 01801-2041
Tel: 781-904-2500
Fax: 781-904-2620
For information on all Butterworth–Heinemann publications available, contact our World Wide Web
home page at: http://www.bh.com
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America

Preface to the Second Edition..... ?
Preface to the First Edition .......... xv
Acknowledgments ........................ xix
Introduction to Crime
Prevention ..................................... 1
THE MEANING OF CRIME
PREVENTION ............................ 2
HOW CRIME PREVENTION
WORKS ...................................... 3
Opportunity Reduction ................ 3
The Community Response ......... 4
The Crime Prevention
Program ...................................... 5
THE CRIME PREVENTION
PRACTITIONER ......................... 6
CONCLUSION ........................... 7
The Evolution of Crime
Prevention ..................................... 9
ANCIENT TRADITION ............... 9
THE ENGLISH TRADITION ....... 11
CRIME PREVENTION IN
AMERICA ................................... 14
CRIME PREVENTION AND
CRIMINOLOGY/SOCIOLOGY ... 16
The Classical School .................. 16
The Positive School .................... 17
The Sociological School ............. 17
The Contemporary School ......... 17
CRIME PREVENTION AND
THE POLICE MISSION .............. 18
THE ASSUMPTIONS OF
CRIME PREVENTION ............... 20
CONCLUSION ........................... 22
Roles in Crime Prevention ........... 23
THE ROLES OF THE
PRACTITIONER ......................... 24
Supporting Individual Action ....... 24
Supporting Group Action ............ 27
Guiding Public Policy
Decisions .................................... 31
Developing a Comprehensive
Crime Prevention Program ......... 32
THE ROLES OF OTHERS ......... 33
The Police Role .......................... 33
The Private Security Role ........... 34
The Role of the Building
Professions and Trades ............. 35
The Role of Local Government
Agencies ..................................... 35
The Insurance Industry Role ...... 36
The Role of Civic Groups and
Related Government Activities ... 36
The Communications Industry
Role ............................................ 36
The Role of the Business
Community ................................. 37
The Role of the Citizen
Organization ............................... 37
The State Government Role ....... 37
The Role of Practitioners
Statewide Associations .............. 38
The Federal Government Role ... 38
The National Association Role ... 38
The National Corporation Role ... 39
The National Crime Prevention
Institute Role .............................. 39
CONCLUSION ........................... 39
Designing Crime Risk
Management Systems .................. 41
UNDERSTANDING CRIME
RISK MANAGEMENT ................ 41
WHO IS THE CLIENT? .............. 43
THE CLIENT-PRACTITIONER
RELATIONSHIP ......................... 44
CRIME PATTERN ANALYSIS ... 45
CONDUCTING THE
SECURITY SURVEY ................. 46
DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS ... 47
DESIGNING THE SYSTEM ....... 48
Risk Avoidance ........................... 48
Risk Reduction ........................... 49
Risk Spreading ........................... 49
Risk Transfer .............................. 50
Risk Acceptance ......................... 50
Cost Effectiveness ...................... 51
MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CLIENTS .................................... 51
CONCLUSION ........................... 53
Security Devices and
Procedures .................................... 55
OVERVIEW ................................ 55
PHYSICAL SECURITY
SYSTEMS .................................. 57
General Functions ...................... 57
Security Functions ...................... 57
Boundary Markers as Barriers .... 60
Perimeter Barriers ...................... 62
Internal Barriers .......................... 79
Building Security Codes ............. 82
ELECTRONIC SECURITY
SYSTEMS .................................. 83
Surveillance Systems ................. 83
Intrusion Detection Systems ....... 89
Sensors (See Figure 5-14) ......... 90
SECURITY PROCEDURES ....... 98
Personal Safety .......................... 99
Asset Control .............................. 101
Security System Protection ........ 108
Security Survey Guidelines ........ 109
CONCLUSION ........................... 111
Applying Environmental
Design Concepts .......................... 113
TRANSITION FROM CLIENT
TO COMMUNITY ....................... 114
LEVELS OF PHYSICAL
DESIGN APPLICATION ............. 114
CRIME RISK REDUCTION
THROUGH PHYSICAL
DESIGN ...................................... 114
Crime Risk Reduction in the
Existing Physical Environment ... 115
Crime Risk Reduction in the
Future Physical Environment ..... 117
CRIME RISK REDUCTION BY
USERS OF THE PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT ......................... 119
Informal Social Control ............... 120
The Influence of Physical
Design ........................................ 120
Defensible Space ....................... 123
CRIME PREVENTION
THROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ...... 125
Cautions ..................................... 126
Recent Projects .......................... 126
The Future of CPTED ................. 130
CONCLUSION ........................... 131
Developing Citizen
Participation .................................. 133
CITIZEN-POLICE
COOPERATION ......................... 133
THE PREPARATION PHASE .... 135
The Crime Prevention
Organization ............................... 136
Participation by
Decision-Makers ......................... 136
Factors in Communicating with
Citizens ....................................... 136
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
STRATEGIES ............................. 138
Awareness and Knowledge
Strategies ................................... 138
Group Project Strategies ............ 140
Informal Social Control
Strategies ................................... 142
A MODEL APPROACH TO
NEIGHBORHOOD
ORGANIZATION ........................ 146
CONCLUSION ........................... 148
Planning the
CommunityProgram ..................... 151
DESIGNING THE
ORGANIZATION ........................ 152
Design Issues ............................. 152
Formal Sanction ......................... 154
Organizational Structure ............. 154
Law Enforcement Role ............... 155
Citizen Input Mechanism ............ 156
DEFINING THE CRIME
PROBLEMS AND
PRIORITIES ............................... 156
Crime Analysis ........................... 156
Data Sources .............................. 157
Information Provided by Crime
Analysis ...................................... 159
Priority Setting ............................ 163
DEVELOPING PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES ............................. 164
Setting Objectives ...................... 165
CONCLUSION ........................... 169
Managing the Community
Program ......................................... 171
PERSONNEL RESOURCES ..... 172
Staff Training .............................. 172
Supplementary Personnel .......... 173
FINANCIAL AND OTHER
RESOURCES ............................. 173
Budgeting ................................... 173
Other Funding Sources .............. 174
PERFORMANCE AND COST
CONTROL MEASURES ............. 174
Activity Counts and Activity
Cost ............................................ 175
Cost by Activity Unit ................... 176
Acceptance Rates ...................... 177
Result Costs ............................... 177
Cost and Performance
Standards ................................... 178
IMPACT MEASURES ................. 178
WORK ASSIGNMENTS ............. 179
Scheduling Work ........................ 179
Assigning Work .......................... 179
Monitoring Work Progress .......... 179
REPORTING MECHANISMS ..... 180
CONCLUSION ........................... 180
Evaluating Impact ......................... 183
THE PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION ............................. 184
CAUSE AND EFFECT ............... 185
Direct Factors ............................. 186
Indirect Factors ........................... 187
Control Group ............................. 188
SPECIFIC IMPACTS .................. 189
TOTAL IMPACT ......................... 190
EVALUATION RESOURCES ..... 191
CONCLUSION ........................... 192
The Potential of Crime
Prevention ..................................... 193
Appendix A Index Crime
Definitions Uniform Crime
Reporting Federal Bureau of
Investigation ................................. 197
VIOLENT CRIMES: .................... 197
PROPERTY CRIMES: ................ 198
References .................................... 199
CHAPTER 1 ............................... 199
CHAPTER 2 ............................... 199
CHAPTER 3 ............................... 201
CHAPTER 4 ............................... 202
CHAPTER 5 ............................... 202
CHAPTER 6 ............................... 202
CHAPTER 7 ............................... 203
CHAPTER 8 ............................... 204
CHAPTER 9 ............................... 204
CHAPTER 10 ............................. 204
Index .............................................. 205
Understanding Crime Prevention, Second Edition
Preface to the
First Edition
The National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI), a Division of the University of

Louisville’s School of Justice Administration, College of Urban and Public Affairs,
was established in 1971. Since then, it has served as the nation’s educational and
technical resource for the development of comprehensive crime prevention programs
at the local, state, and national level.
Crime prevention through criminal opportunity reduction, defined as the antic-
ipation, recognition, and appraisal of a crime risk, and the initiation of some action
to remove or reduce it, is a practical and cost-effective approach to the reduction and
containment of criminal activity. The wide-ranging knowledge and skills of crime
prevention have been taught by NCPI, to over 22,000 crime prevention practition-
ers, criminal justice administrators, planners and trainers, public and private offi-
cials, and citizen leaders from communities and agencies in every state and from
many national agencies and organizations.
Understanding Crime Prevention is a major milestone in NCPI’s continuing
efforts to stimulate the most rapid possible expansion of the ranks of professional
crime prevention practitioners. This volume is addressed to the crime prevention
practitioner. However, it is also designed to be directly relevant to the needs of the
police chief; sheriff; director of public safety; mayor or city manager; institutional
or corporate administrator; regional, state or federal criminal justice administrator;
xv
xvi Understanding Crime Prevention
service club member; professional, volunteer, trade or labor organization adminis-

trator; primary, secondary, or college-level educator; private security company exec-
utive; insurance underwriter, agent or loss prevention engineer; and many others for
whom crime and its impact are an area of major responsibility or civic concern.
Although high-quality practical and academic learning experiences for crimi-
nal justice professionals is stressed, the principle that the control and management
of crime cannot occur through the efforts of criminal justice professionals alone
is recognized and emphasized. Only through the active participation of every sector
of community interest can crime reduction be achieved. Understanding Crime
Prevention can do much to advance this partnership idea, as well as provide specific
guidance to crime prevention practitioners and their citizen-colleagues.
It is recognized that this volume is not the final word, but rather, the start
of a continuing process by which the staff of NCPI will strive to organize and
disseminate the knowledge and technologies of crime prevention. Your comments,
criticisms, and new ideas will aid in accomplishing this objective.
Preface to the
Second Edition
Many things have changed in the field of crime prevention since the first edition of
this book published. The changes have often been dramatic and the rate staggering.
The change has, however, been primarily in the technologies now available, not
in the guiding principles of crime prevention. In this edition, we have included the
new technologies, but some will have been updated before publication. We are faced
with unprecedented change, and there is no way to capture current technology on a
daily basis.
The underlying principles of crime prevention have not changed, and this is
the focus of the book. There are still only four things we can hope to do in preven-
tion. The applications of situational crime prevention to community problems are
still the same and we can only strive to make the best choices in determining the
strategies we can employ in any given instance. We must still make every effort to
insure that we do a complete, sound, and practical security survey when called upon
to do so.
Since our founding in 1971, crime prevention practice has evolved into a
sophisticated and highly challenging pursuit. Crime rates fluctuate, and prevention
emphasis shifts. These changes cause the practitioner to modify and adapt in order
to properly perform. This flexibility and willingness to change distinguishes the best
practitioners. The pursuit of crime prevention and reduction as a vocation is fre-
xvii
xviii Understanding Crime Prevention
quently frustrating and quite often exasperating. The reluctance of some agencies to
incorporate prevention strategies into all aspects of operations is a hurdle that has
yet to be fully overcome. These problems, however, are not insurmountable. Practi-
tioners are still making great efforts to keep prevention at the forefront of agency
activity while maintaining a high level of current knowledge. They are to be com-
mended for this, and NCPI works hard to assist in their efforts.
This edition is designed to assist any who wish to learn the basics of preven-
tion and are willing to undertake the arduous task of the crime prevention practi-
tioner. The professional practitioner is not a dying breed. The future is bright for
those willing to make the best use of all of the knowledge we have contributed in
this text, as well as all else that they can learn to assist in their efforts.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the current instruc-

tional and administrative staffs of the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) in
preparing this edition. The insights and encouragements they have provided have
made a real difference. We also wish to acknowledge the great contributions made
by the pioneers who have gone before and who contributed not only to the first
edition, but to the practice of crime prevention across America as well. Some are no
longer with us physically, but their spirit is still a large part of NCPI. The is espe-
cially true as we approach our thirtieth anniversary. Without the pioneers, we would
not have this book or a record of thirty years of service in the crime prevention com-
munity. This edition is for all of them and for those who follow.
xix
1
Introduction to
Crime Prevention
Crime is a costly and demoralizing problem affecting all of us. The victims of crime
suffer injury, financial loss, and intimidation. Everyone is affected by higher prices
for products, taxes, insurance premiums, and the sense of insecurity and fear that
result from criminal acts. Those who live or work in “high crime” areas can be
deprived of some of life’s normal opportunities and pleasures by the social and eco-
nomic impact of crime and by the alienation and despair that accompanies the fear
of crime. This negative effect on the quality of life in our communities is difficult
to measure, but a real factor in our prevention efforts.
Can we hope to eliminate the crime problem? Probably not; but, it is reason-
able to believe that crime and the fear of crime can be reduced and controlled. What
has been developing in our society is a systematic and effective crime control
strategy. Situational crime prevention is a major part of this needed strategy.
Crime prevention is an elegantly simple and direct approach that protects the
potential victim from criminal attack by anticipating the possibility of attack and
eliminating or reducing the opportunity for it to occur—and, the possibility for
personal harm or property loss should it occur.
Crime prevention programs have been developed across the United States
and have attracted the participation of thousands of law enforcement professionals;
public and private officials; leaders of voluntary services, professional and labor
organizations; and millions of citizens.
1
2 Understanding Crime Prevention
The purpose of Understanding Crime Prevention is to bring together the ingre-

dients of crime prevention practice, and, thus, to provide a road map for those who
may wish to take part in this fascinating and demanding field.
THE MEANING OF CRIME PREVENTION
The phrase crime prevention has been loosely applied to any kind of effort aimed at
controlling criminal behavior. However, as used here, crime prevention applies only
to before-the-fact efforts to reduce criminal opportunity. Crime prevention is a direct
crime control method, in contrast to all other types of crime reduction methods. As
C. Ray Jeffrey points out: direct controls of crime include only those that reduce
environmental opportunities for crime. Indirect controls include all other measures,
such as job training, remedial education, police surveillance, police apprehension,
court action, imprisonment, probation and parole, etc.
Our current method of controlling crime has been predominantly through
indirect measures after the offense has been committed. The failure to control
crime is in no small measure due to the strategies we select to deal with crime. It is
obvious that we do not control crime if we allow it to occur before taking action.
We may attempt to treat offenders or rehabilitate them after they have become crimi-
nals, but we should not confuse the treatment of criminals with the direct preven-
tion of crime.1
The formal definition of crime prevention as adopted in several countries is:
the anticipation, recognition, and appraisal of a crime risk and the initiation of some
action to remove or reduce it. Many definitions include fear reduction strategies as
well.
Crime prevention can also be operationally explained as the practice of crime
risk management. Crime risk management involves the development of systematic
approaches to crime risk reduction that are cost effective and that promote both the
security and the socioeconomic well being of the potential victim. Managing crime
risks involves:
• Removing some risks entirely;

• Reducing some risks by decreasing the extent to which injury or loss can occur;
• Spreading some risks through physical, electronic, and procedural security
measures that deny, deter, delay, or detect the criminal attack;
• Transferring some risks through the purchase of insurance or involvement of
other potential victims; and
• Accepting some risks.
Introduction to Crime Prevention 3
HOW CRIME PREVENTION WORKS
Opportunity Reduction
Three ingredients must be present for a crime to be committed:
• Desire or motivation on the part of the criminal;

• The skills and tools needed to commit the crime; and
• Opportunity.
Crime prevention aims to reduce criminal opportunity, rather than to attack

either criminal desire or criminal skills. The reason for this emphasis is that reduc-
tion of opportunity (by making a potential target of attack inaccessible or unattrac-
tive, and by making the attack itself dangerous or unprofitable to the criminal) is a
practical approach that has proven its value.
Criminal Desire
Working to directly reduce criminal desire before-the-fact is anything but practical.
In the first place, we would need some way to immunize people against criminal
intent. But, we have been unable to develop such a “cure” even for those offenders
whom we catch, imprison, and try to rehabilitate. And, even if we had such a cure,
how could we identify even a fraction of the potential offenders in the general
population? How many have committed crimes without ever having been caught?
How many others might steal, assault or kill, given the temptation and the opportu-
nity? Then, if we had both a cure and a means to identify all actual and potential
offenders, how would we administer the cure without violating civil rights? At
present, preventing crime to any significant degree by directly reducing criminal
desire and motivation is, from a practical standpoint, impossible.
Criminal Skills
It is also impractical to try to deny people the right to own and use tools that might
be applied to criminal activities (except for those few implements defined as illegal
to possess) or to try to deny criminals from associating with—and, thus, learning
from each other. A criminal, like anyone else, learns by doing. He does not neces-
sarily learn his trade at the feet of a more experienced colleague. Such an enormous
variety of tools can be employed in criminal activity that to outlaw the tools could
be to paralyze large sectors of legitimate activity (the plastic credit card can be used
to open spring bolt door locks), and the criminal would presumably develop unlaw-
ful ways to obtain his tools anyway.
Criminal Opportunity
Even if we could somehow greatly improve our ability to identify and treat crimi-
nals or manage effectively to remove both the tools that contribute to crime and the
personal associations that teach crime skills, opportunity reduction would still be the
most practical approach.
The reason for this is that criminal opportunity is controllable to a large degree
at its end point—within the victim’s environment. Potential victims can reduce their
vulnerability to criminal attack by taking proper security precautions. It is not nec-
essary to identify the criminal, to take any action to directly affect his motivation,
or his access to skills and tools. What is necessary is that potential victims reduce
criminal opportunity by understanding criminal attack methods and taking pre-
cautions against them.
The Community Response
Does this mean that potential victims must turn their homes, businesses, and neigh-
borhoods into fortresses? Not at all. But, we must admit that as a society, we
currently encourage impulsive, opportunistic crime by our carelessness. We put inad-
equate locks on our doors that even the unskilled amateur can easily get through.
Then we neglect to even use those poor locks. We let large amounts of cash accu-
mulate in our stores because we would rather not take the trouble to go to the bank.
We don’t report suspicious activity around our neighbor’s house because we think
“it’s none of our business.” We tolerate physical and social environments that invite
criminal attack. So, the task of crime prevention is simply to convince each member
of society to take a few basic precautions and to then convince those who build our
homes and our cars, design our communities, and otherwise create the community
environment to take precautions.
An example of situational response to crime may be found in the mea-
sures taken to reduce the introduction of weapons and explosive devices onto com-
mercial airlines. The criminal impact of these items in the hands of terrorists
is immense. Rather than considering the criminal in such situations, we have
responded by increasing the screening of passengers, baggage, and cargo being trans-
ported by air.
All of the efforts that concentrated on the criminal proved to be ineffective,
dangerous, or both. The situational approach worked, and continues to work, totally
ignoring the offender and instead identifying the weapons (guns, knives, and bombs)
used by terrorists before they can be brought aboard. Now every person boarding a
commercial aircraft in the United States must undergo a screening of self and carry-
on luggage. When this screening process became operational at all airports in this
country, the introduction of weapons virtually ceased. Legitimate travelers have
become accustomed to the screening procedures and have accepted them as a regular
part of air travel.
Terrorism is admittedly a rather dramatic crime, far removed from the crimes
that citizens and police confront in day-to-day life. But, the principles of analytic
thinking and strategic planning, which led to successful reduction of weapons
onboard aircraft, can be applied just as well to preventing most crimes.
The Crime Prevention Program
The specific techniques of crime prevention are, in many ways, not new at all. Alert
individuals and groups have always been able to find ways to protect themselves
against criminal attack to some degree. In the private sector, crime risk management
techniques have been used for many years to protect specific facilities, operations,
or valuables. What is new, and most promising, about crime prevention is the idea
of managing crime risks on a jurisdiction-wide scale through a crime prevention
program, so that everyone, not just those who are sufficiently affluent or clever,
can enjoy higher levels of security and, equally important, freedom from fear and
enhanced quality of life.
It is assumed that criminals, like everyone else, learn through experience. Suc-
cessful experience strengthens the criminal motivation, and unsuccessful experience
weakens it—whatever the reason for the criminal motivation in the first place. If
criminal opportunity is reduced, the criminal’s “experience-learning curve” is inhib-
ited. However, there is no net effect on successful criminal experience if the crimi-
nal, frustrated at one house, simply goes next door to attack a less cautious neighbor.
So, security measures must be applied as universally as possible, and social groups
must assume a collective responsibility for watching out for each other’s safety and
security. If crime prevention programs are established in all cities, towns, and rural
areas, we will see major national reductions in the impact of crime.
As the governmental arm responsible for public security, law enforcement
agencies must learn to take a leading role in the development of effective
community-wide programs. They must learn to serve not only as crime prevention
consultants in existing community affairs, but also participate in the planning of
future community developments.
Finally, the law enforcement role, though pivotal, is by no means the only
role to be played in a crime prevention program. All interested elements of the public
and private sectors must join in the common effort and fully cooperate with each
other.
The crime prevention program is carried out through a crime prevention orga-
nization, which is usually established in or by a unit of government (often the law
enforcement agency itself). The purpose of the crime prevention organization is to
plan, implement, and manage a comprehensive crime prevention program within its
jurisdiction. The program typically develops a wide range of projects and services
involving three levels of operation:
• At the client level, the objective is to design crime risk management systems for
application to the needs of specific homes, businesses, institutions, or other facil-
ities that are owned or managed by individuals or organizations.
• At the multiple client level, the objective is to design crime risk management
projects through which the many occupants and users of a neighborhood, shop-
ping center, or industrial area, or the members of a special population group, can
collectively improve the security of the area or group.
• At the public policy level, the objective is to design crime risk management
activities that units of government can implement to improve the security
of everyone within jurisdictions and, where appropriate, across jurisdictional
lines.
The strategies used by the crime prevention program include:
• Public awareness—to make citizens aware of crime problems and the services
available to them through the program;
• Crime risk management recommendations—involving services to individual
clients;
• Teaching and counseling services—for specific groups;
• Group projects—through which organizations and agencies are helped to develop
useful crime prevention activities;
• Environmental design—through which efforts are made to modify the existing
and future physical environment to both discourage criminal activity and encour-
age citizen activity in the environment;
• Surveillance and reporting—through which citizens are encouraged to watch for
criminal activity and to report their observations to the police;
• Law enforcement—through which all law enforcement personnel are trained in,
and encouraged to support and promote crime prevention in all contacts with the
public; and
• Private security—to expand the efforts of private security organizations to
provide reliable and cost-effective security products and services.
THE CRIME PREVENTION PRACTITIONER
The crime prevention practitioner must possess a wide, general knowledge of crime
prevention theory and practice. He or she becomes skilled in applying this knowl-
edge to individual client needs and to the design, development, and management of
projects that serve geographic areas and population groups. The work is done within
the context of a jurisdiction-wide crime prevention program.
The typical crime prevention practitioner is a career law enforcement profes-
sional with several years of police experience prior to becoming involved in crime
prevention. Increasingly departments are recognizing the importance of crime
prevention and are providing training for all officers. Either directly, through
crime prevention training, or indirectly, through exposure to other practitioners, the
practitioner has learned that criminal opportunity reduction is the crime control
approach of the future.
A significant number of criminal justice planners, administrators, and instruc-
tors have also been trained in crime prevention. A smaller number of trained prac-
titioners operate within agencies and organizations, which are outside the criminal
justice field.
The private security field includes a large number of security and loss pre-
vention specialists. Many private security specialists may also be classified as general
practitioners because they have obtained appropriate training. These specialists pri-
marily concentrate their efforts at the individual client level. Law enforcement crime
prevention practitioners have joined the shift away from traditional police methods,
toward the crime prevention approach. This is one of the most significant develop-
ments in the history of American law enforcement, and like most radical changes in
established professional fields, it has not come without difficulty. Thanks to the pio-
neering efforts and support of a small group of police chiefs, sheriffs, and criminal
justice administrators, the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) was able to
train its first few groups of students.
The work of those early practitioners showed their own, and neighboring agen-
cies, the value of the crime prevention approach, and the demand steadily increased.
Not only has the demand for NCPI training increased greatly since 1971, but also
many states have developed their own crime prevention training programs.
Today’s practitioner is part of a growing new professional field. Great op-
portunities exist for professional growth and advancement. It is no coincidence, for
example, that many of NCPI’s early graduates are now high-level law enforcement
and criminal justice administrators as well as private security managers.
The person who enters the crime prevention field today has an even better
chance for professional growth. The training now available, for example, is both of
better quality and is more comprehensive than during those early days. Support for
the idea of the practitioner as a professional is growing rapidly as more and more
state governments establish statewide crime prevention programs, and as increasing
numbers of state crime prevention associations are formed.
CONCLUSION
Crime prevention is a practical method for the direct control of crime. It involves
analyzing criminal attack methods and designing specific actions within the envi-
ronments of potential victims to reduce criminal opportunities and manage crime
risks.
The mechanism through which crime prevention operates is the community-
wide crime prevention program. This program serves as a planning and management
setting through which a range of strategies is developed. The strategies of crime pre-
vention basically aim to stimulate appropriate crime prevention attitudes and behav-
ior on the part of individuals and groups and to work toward physical environment
changes that promote crime prevention.
The key actor in crime prevention is the crime prevention practitioner, who
is typically a law enforcement officer. The wide and diverse body of skills and
knowledge needed by the practitioner is described in the following chapters.
2
The Evolution of
Crime Prevention
In this chapter, we will deal with the emergence of modern crime prevention from,
and in contrast with, offender-oriented crime control approaches.
Crime, defined by Webster’s dictionary as “an act committed in violation of a
law prohibiting it, an act omitted in violation of a law ordering it, or an offense
against morality,” is as old as mankind, and so is mankind’s interest in eliminating,
reducing, or preventing crime.
Victim-oriented, opportunity-reduction crime prevention, though relatively
recent in terms of widespread practice, grows out of a varied history of society’s
efforts to control and reduce wrongdoing.
Societies have practiced crime prevention of some sort throughout history.1
The use of natural and man-made barriers and military or vigilante forces and a
variety of needed mutual protection activities by members of each community to
defend against attack by enemies or outlaws has occurred in every culture up to and
including modern times. The tradition of a crime prevention approach that went
beyond walls, gates, and armed reprisals, however, had its beginnings in seventeenth
century England.2
ANCIENT TRADITION
Society’s response to crime has been characterized by a range of approaches as varied

as man’s cultures and the historical periods from which they sprang.3 Punishment of
9
the offender, either to “correct” him or to serve some other social purpose has been
but one response. In pre-literate cultures, in contrast, we find:
. . . certain motives and attitudes, which apparently preceded the punitive reaction to
lawbreaking but were not, in themselves, punishment: desire to annihilate an enemy of
the group, sacrifice to appease or fend off the wrath of the gods, social hygiene mea-
sures to rid the community of pollution, self-redress in cases of private injury, and
surprise and disgust at the person who injured his own family. Deliberate and “just”
infliction of pain by the group in its corporate capacity was not invented until later.4
It was only with the rise of the king or other central authority figure that duly
authorized officials took on the task of dealing with wrongdoers on behalf of the
society, or state, as a whole. The state’s reaction to crime tended to be punitive, but
the punishment inflicted did not necessarily reflect a belief that the offender’s pain
itself had some redeeming value. Instead, the purposes of punishment were often
very pragmatic. In many cultures a criminal might be fined, mutilated, or killed. The
fine was levied to repay the victim’s loss. Mutilation served to show others that the
offender was untrustworthy. Execution was used to settle a family feud or remove a
“wild-beast” offender from society.5
On the other hand, at certain times in history, crime control by the state con-
sisted of seemingly vengeful acts against criminals. More often than not, the guilty
one was given an added measure of punishment to ensure that he did not repeat the
act, that he “properly” atoned for it, and that he provided a horrible example for
others who might be tempted. Public spectacles of flogging, amputation of limbs,
branding, and a variety of forms of painful death were the order of the day, even
for trivial criminal offenses and for moral offenses such as adultery, heresy, and
witchcraft.
The most famous early attempt to establish a legal basis for an orderly and
just approach to crime control is Hammurabi’s Code, dating from about 1800 B.C.
Hammurabi, King of Babylon, was an enlightened administrator, and his schedule
of penalties for infractions was restrained, compared to the usual punishment stan-
dards of the day.6 Hammurabi’s Code stated, among other things, the first approach
to crime prevention through environmental design.
• If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction firm,
and the house collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house—that
builder shall be put to death;
• If it causes the death of a son of the owner—they shall put to death the son of
the builder;
• If it causes the death of a slave of the owner—he shall give to the owner a slave
of equal value; and
• If it destroys property—he shall restore whatever is destroyed and because he did
not make the house firm he shall rebuild the house, which collapsed, at his own
expense.
The Evolution of Crime Prevention 11
The Mosaic Code,7 or Law of Moses, set down about a thousand years later,
provided a lengthy and elaborate guide to the conduct of Hebrew affairs, and sti-
pulated, for example, that:
If a person hears a solemn adjuration to give evidence as a witness to something he

has seen or heard and does not declare what he knows, he commits a sin and must
accept responsibility. Leviticus, Chapter 5, Verse 1.
When one man strikes another and kills him, he shall be put to death. Whoever strikes
a beast and kills it shall make restitution, life for life. When one man injures and dis-
figures his fellow countryman, it shall be done to him as he had done; fracture for frac-
ture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury and disfigurement that he has inflicted upon
another shall in turn be inflicted upon him. Leviticus, Chapter 24, Verses 17–20.
Wide and vigorous administration of “just” punishment based on a body of

criminal law has prevailed until modern times, despite the fact that whether “just”
or not, punishment’s effectiveness as a primary crime control measure has always
been dubious at best.
Over the past several hundred years, the modern European and American states
have attempted to control crime by moving from punishment and reprisals to appeals
to man’s better nature, to attempts at reform and rehabilitation of offenders and,
finally, to the beginnings of the pragmatic, scientifically-based management
approach to before-the-fact crime reduction, which we now call crime prevention.8
This evolutionary process has left its traces in the complex and conflicting patterns,
which still characterize our criminal justice system.
THE ENGLISH TRADITION
A departure from the purely punitive or defensive approaches occurred when Oliver
Cromwell, in 1655, attempted to set up a professional police force. He established
12 police jurisdictions in England and Wales, and the forces were organized and
operated along military lines. When strong popular opposition forced Cromwell to
abandon the plan, crime control reverted to the hands of the judicial system and its
enforcers, and, for a time, punishment was once again supreme.9
In 1729, Thomas deVeil of Westminster organized a group of Thief Takers
and Informers in an attempt to provide a police-like alternative to the corrupt, inef-
ficient, and self-serving judicial system. Unfortunately, little improvement was
noted. Because these agents were only paid upon conviction of criminals, they tended
to choose their victims carefully, and, they left organized criminal gangs alone
because of the danger of reprisals. They were not above planting evidence on inno-
cent persons in order to maintain their incomes.
The appointment of Henry Fielding as a London Magistrate in 1748 set the
stage for the first coherent development of police forces in England. Fielding set
forth two objectives for himself. The first, to stamp out existing crime, was hardly
original. But the second, to prevent outbreaks of crime in the future, was truly
revolutionary.10
In Fielding’s view, his objectives could not be achieved without:
• A strong police force;

• The active cooperation of the public; and
• The removal of the causes of crime and the conditions in which it flourishes.
Among his efforts to develop the necessary conditions for crime control and
prevention, Fielding attempted to replace the corrupt or inefficient Parish Consta-
bles under his jurisdiction with handpicked men of proven ability and good charac-
ter. He appealed directly for public cooperation through newspaper advertisements
such as the following:
All persons who shall for the future suffer by robberies, burglaries, etc., are desired
immediately to bring or send the best description they can of such robberies, etc., with
the time and place and circumstances of the fact to Henry Fielding, Esq., at his house
in Bow Street.11
Fielding also started a publication called The Public Advertiser to make people
aware of the kinds of crimes being committed. He published lists of stolen property
to encourage people to help recover the stolen items. Just before he died in 1754,
he received funding to expand the distribution of The Public Advertiser, to
establish a register of criminals, and to recruit more handpicked “runners.” These
were to be on call at all times, ready to investigate and prevent crimes.
John Fielding, Henry’s half-brother, took over as magistrate, and for 26 years,
John tried to further his brother’s plans. He obtained regular budget payments
for street patrols and published pamphlets about police-emphasizing their prevention
role: “It is much better to prevent even one man from being a rogue than appre-
hending and bringing 40 to justice.”
The Fieldings must be credited with planting and nurturing the idea of a
preventive police force, even though there were only a few small organized units at
the time of John’s death. Various attempts were made to establish a formal
police force in London thereafter, but it was another 50 years before the Home
Secretary, Sir Robert Peel, succeeded in influencing Parliament to pass the Metro-
politan Police Act of 1829. As the first squads of Metropolitan Police marched out
into the streets of London, the idea of preventive full-scale police forces became
a reality.12 The first Order of the Metropolitan Police was a triumph of clarity,
simplicity, and vision:
INSTRUCTIONS:
The following General Instructions for the different ranks of the Police Force are
not to be understood as containing roles of conduct applicable to every variety of
circumstances that may occur in the performance of their duty; something must
necessarily be left to the intelligence and discretion of individuals; and according to

the degree in which they show themselves possessed of these qualities and to their zeal,
activity, and judgment, on all occasions, will be their claims to future promotion and
reward.
IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD, AT THE OUTSET, THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT
TO BE ATTAINED IS THE PREVENTION OF CRIME.
To this great end, every effort of the police is to be directed. The security of person and
property, the preservation of public tranquility, and all the other objects of a Police
Establishment, will thus be better affected, than by the detection and punishment of the
offender, after he has succeeded in committing the crime. Every member of the police
force, as the guide for his own conduct, should constantly keep this in mind. Officers
and Police Constables should endeavor to distinguish themselves by such vigilance and
activity, as may render it extremely difficult for anyone to commit a crime within that
portion of the town under their charge.
When in any Division, offences are frequently committed, there must be a reason
to suspect that the Police is not in that Division properly conducted. The absence of
crime will be considered the best proof of the complete efficiency of the Police.
In Divisions, where this security and good order have been effected, the Officers and
Men belonging to it may feel assured that such conduct will be noticed by rewards
and promotion.
In other handbooks of police duties developed during the next few years, pre-
vention was usually emphasized as the essence of police duty.13 Detection of crimes
was considered important, but only if it supported and did not replace the principles
of crime prevention, namely:
• To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military

force and severity of legal punishment;
• To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the
historic tradition that the police are the public, and the public are the police. The
police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention
to duties, which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community
welfare and existence; and
• To always recognize that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and
disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Thus, the great tradition of an organized police force was established. It grew
steadily throughout Great Britain. By 1856, the process was completed.
The initial emphasis on prevention did not last. Police gradually became
more and more occupied with investigating crimes and apprehending criminals, and
prevention efforts decreased accordingly.
It was not until after World War II that attention in Great Britain once again
turned to the crime prevention concept, through local campaigns at first. (Ironically,
renewed interest in crime prevention efforts at the national level was triggered
by reports that Sweden had established a permanent Crime Prevention Advisory

Bureau, supported by insurance companies and the police.) A national crime
prevention campaign was held during 1950 and 1951, featuring films, exhibits, and
printed material. By 1956, a number of other national-scope activities had appeared,
such as standardized techniques for publicizing crime hazards and for recommend-
ing crime prevention tactics, and formal liaison between police and insurance
companies.
In 1963, the Home Office Crime Prevention Training Centre was established
at Stafford, offering formal training in crime prevention to members of all police
forces in the United Kingdom. In subsequent years, a comprehensive national crime
prevention program was built, featuring not only a wide variety of training activi-
ties, but also the coordination of insurance, private security and police efforts, and
mass media campaigns. Through this process, crime prevention has finally become
an integral part of police activity in the United Kingdom.14
CRIME PREVENTION IN AMERICA
In most respects, the development of police forces in the United States has not been
uniform. The British model of a national police force with local subdivisions did not
develop here, nor did the early British emphasis on preventive policing.15
While crime prevention and loss reduction has been a key activity of the private
security field in the United States since its beginning over 100 years ago, the crime
prevention concept only recently has entered the field of law enforcement in a formal
way. However, as law enforcement developed in the United States, there were spo-
radic attempts to introduce opportunity reduction principles. Early examples include
the branding of cattle and the assumption by citizens of law enforcement respon-
sibilities in such forms as the sheriff’s posse, the vigilante group, and the town
watchman. Later, there developed within law enforcement a strong emphasis on juve-
nile delinquency prevention. Finally, in the early 1960s, opportunity reduction pro-
jects such as Operation Identification began to emerge in a few police departments.
Beyond these limited efforts, little need was felt for police-based before-the-fact
prevention programs until 1968. In that year, John C. Klotter, professor at the
University of Louisville’s School of Justice Administration, undertook a Ford
Foundation-funded program of research in burglary prevention.
Professor Klotter’s admiration for the success of the English system led him
to suggest that the establishment of crime prevention units within police departments
in this country could become a significant factor in crime control. To stimulate the
development of such units, he recommended that:
Crime prevention schools, such as those in England, should be started on a national

or regional basis. At these schools, police personnel should be trained in the methods
of preventing crime. When returning to their respective departments, the specially
trained officers should be assigned exclusively to crime prevention work.16
As a result of the Klotter study, the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI)
was established as a Division of the School of Police Administration at the
University of Louisville in 1971, under the initial sponsorship of the university, the
Kentucky Crime Commission, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(of the U.S. Department of Justice). Since its inception, NCPI has trained thousands
of police officers, criminal justice planners and administrators, local government
officials, volunteer leaders, national association officials, and private industry rep-
resentatives in the principles and practices of crime prevention, and provided con-
tinuing information, post-graduate training, and technical assistance to them.
NCPI has become a national educational and technical resource for the devel-
opment of local, state, and national crime prevention programs in both the public
and private sectors, and continues to provide crime prevention training, information,
and technical assistance to ever-increasing numbers and kinds of individuals, agen-
cies, and organizations.17 However, there has yet to emerge a comprehensive and
coordinated national crime prevention campaign in the United States. The federal
government has funded a separate organization, the National Crime Prevention
Council (NCPC), to undertake this task. It is now coordinating a national media cam-
paign and the activities of the Crime Prevention Coalition, which includes hundreds
of organizations.
The growth of crime prevention has been significant since 1971. It is currently
estimated that over 85 percent of the cities in this country have a crime prevention
specialist in their police departments or other city agencies.18 Most states have, or
are developing, statewide crime prevention campaigns, and some states have devel-
oped statewide training centers modeled after NCPI. The Texas Crime Prevention
Institute is the leading example, and there are also training programs in California,
Washington, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Florida.
At the federal level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) established a
Crime Resistance program involving all of its field offices.19 The U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed systematic crime prevention
programs within federally sponsored public housing.20 The Department of Defense
(DoD) and the separate military services designed a coordinated crime prevention
program for all DoD installations. The Department of Commerce is active in cargo
theft reduction, airport security, the development of standards for security devices,
and the prevention of crime against small businesses. The National Institute of
Justice, through program grants and research and information services, is a major
contributor to crime prevention program development at all levels.
National service, voluntary, and public interest organizations are rapidly
entering the ranks of crime prevention proponents. The pioneers in this sector are
the American Association of Retired Persons, which has done much to organize
citizen participation and law enforcement activity; the National Crime Prevention
Council, which sponsors Crime Prevention Month, and other awareness campaigns
for years; and the National Sheriff’s Association, which has helped organize large
numbers of Neighborhood Watch programs through its members.21 The International
Society of Crime Prevention Practitioners (ISCPP) has emerged as a professional
association for crime prevention specialists. Additionally, many group-specific orga-

nizations have entered the crime prevention arena, focusing on youth, seniors,
schools, and industry, have played an important role in crime prevention activity
nationally.
Private business and industry is also manifesting a rapidly increasing level of
interest in crime prevention. The private security field has grown enormously in the
past decade, and the insurance industry focuses increasing attention on crime
prevention and crime-related loss reduction.22
The current status of crime prevention programming in the United States is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 11. Meanwhile, the establishment of the National
Crime Prevention Institute led to explosive growth of interest and activity in crime
prevention—reaching levels unimaginable in 1971.
From this brief historical discussion, one can see that crime prevention has
arrived—not only as an important component of police work, but also as a signifi-
cant area of activity for every kind of public and private interest in the United States.
CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINOLOGY/SOCIOLOGY
No discussion of the evolution of crime prevention would be complete without

mention of the evolutionary patterns of the science of criminology and their impact
on crime prevention.
From its inception, criminology has had a conflicting and controversial effect
on society’s responses to crime. A young discipline, dating back only to the early
1700s, criminology concerns itself with what causes people to commit crimes, the
social conditions that affect criminal activity, and the methods that can be used to
control crime. As is inevitable in any field of study, several schools of thought have
developed in criminology, including the Classical School, the Positive School, the
Sociological School, and the Contemporary School.
The Classical School
As a reaction to the arbitrary practices that characterized criminal law prior to and
during the 1700s, there developed a movement to reduce and standardize the sever-
ity of punishments. This Classical school of thought holds that punishment should
be used to discourage criminals and prevent crimes instead of retaliating against
convicted offenders. Proponents contend that crime should be defined in legal terms,
with specific punishment assigned to each unlawful act, and with prohibitions against
torture, limits on the admission of evidence, and other protections of the rights of
the accused. Thus, it is held, people will select their behavior on the basis of reward
and punishment, pain and pleasure, and persons will decide whether or not to commit
criminal acts based on their degree of willingness to accept the prescribed punish-
ment. (As Gilbert and Sullivan’s Mikado says, “Let the punishment fit the crime.”)
The Classical School believes that considerable prevention is achieved from the
deterrent effect of fear of punishment.23
The Positive School
In another movement, which developed in the early 1800s, law was seen not as a
means to deter criminals but, rather, as a way to protect society on the one hand and
reform the criminal on the other. The Positive School does not believe in strict defi-
nitions of crimes or predetermined sentences. Instead, this school advocates broadly
defined criminal laws and sliding scales of punishment, taking into account whether
the offender is “responsible” for his acts.24 Justice can, thus, be exercised in terms
of the particular circumstances at hand, and sentences passed from the dual view-
point of protecting society and rehabilitating the offender. Indeed, the offender, rather
than the offense, is the thing of importance, and all acts performed by society against
the offender (including punishment) are to be taken out of a desire to treat his social
pathology. To the Positive School, law or punishment has little effect as a means of
social control. Rather, treatment and rehabilitation are the issues. The creation
of juvenile court is perhaps the clearest, most tangible reflection of this school.25
The Sociological School
Sociological criminology emerged in the 1920s, primarily at the University of

Chicago, as a way of explaining the origins of criminal behavior. Its proponents hold
that adverse social conditions stimulate criminal learning experiences and anti-social
attitudes.26
There are two important theories flowing from this approach:
• The weakening of family, ethnic, and community traditions weakens society’s

ability to informally control criminal behavior; and
• A state of social and economic deprivation causes the creation of a criminal
subculture.
An outgrowth of the criminal subculture theory, which was popular during the
anti-poverty program years, is that the blocking of legitimate social and economic
opportunity causes delinquency. In general, reduction in crime means modifying the
social and economic conditions that foster crime.27
The Contemporary School
Started more recently, this School concentrates on the environment of the potential
victim rather than that of the criminal.28 It selects some of the features of the earlier
schools, rejects others, and adds some new ones in an effort to prevent crimes, not
criminal careers. The Contemporary School holds that:
• Prevention (and not rehabilitation) should be the major concern of crimino-

logists;
• No one is sure how to rehabilitate offenders;
• Punishment and/or imprisonment may be relevant in controlling certain
offenders;
• Criminal behavior can be controlled primarily through the direct alteration of the
environment of potential victims;
• Crime control programs must focus on crime before it occurs, rather than
afterward;29 and
• As criminal opportunity is reduced, so will be the number of criminals.
The Contemporary School contends that a new model for policing should be
developed that attacks crime before it occurs. The methods to be used include general
and specific improvement of the physical and social environment, and the education
of potential victims as to measures they can take to reduce their risks. This empha-
sis has led to many developments in recent years, including crime prevention through
environmental design, demand reduction drug programs, and others. There has been
a revitalization of governmental education programs, comparable to those of the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), which represent a foundation of
belief in this approach.
CRIME PREVENTION AND THE POLICE MISSION
Traditional law enforcement focuses on the investigation and apprehension aspects

of crime control, with prevention a sometimes-distant second priority. In this context
victimology was ignored and we looked only at the criminal. This kept practitioners
from making the progression to proactive, victim environment based prevention
programs. Modern law enforcement aligns more with the “Contemporary” School
by placing prevention in the position of primary emphasis. It is important to note
that this is a shift in emphasis rather than in kind. Modern law enforcement does
seek to investigate and apprehend, but holds that success in crime prevention empha-
sis makes apprehension and conviction more effective. By the same token, tradi-
tional law enforcement is capable of preventing criminal behavior to some degree,
but uses apprehension and investigation as its primary tools for this purpose.
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals
in its Report on Police30 has this to say about the role of the police:
The police in the United States are not separate from the people. They draw their author-
ity from the will and consent of the people, and they recruit their officers from them.
The police are the instrument of the people to achieve and maintain order; their efforts
are founded on principles of public service and ultimate responsibility to the public.
To a police officer, public service is more than a vague concept. When people need
help, it is to a police officer that they are most likely to turn. He responds—
immediately—without first ascertaining the status of the person in need.
Police officers are decision makers. A decision—whether to arrest, to make a referral,
to seek prosecution, or to use force—has a profound effect on those a police officer
serves. Most of these decisions must be made within the span of a few moments and
within the physical context of the most aggravated social problems. Yet, the police
officer is just as accountable for these decisions as the judge or corrections official is
for decisions deliberated for months.
The role the police officer plays in society is a difficult one; he must clearly under-
stand complex social relationships to be effective. He is not only a part of the
community he serves, and a part of the government that provides his formal base of
authority, he is also a part of the criminal justice system that determines what course
society will pursue to deter lawbreakers or rehabilitate offenders in the interest of
public order.
Through the identification and arrest of a suspected offender, the police initiate the
criminal justice process. The individual’s guilt or innocence is then determined in
the courts. If the individual is found guilty, an attempt is made to rehabilitate him
through a corrections process that may include probation, confinement, parole, or any
combination of these.
A very high percentage of police work is done in direct response to citizen complaints.
This underlines the frequently unrecognized fact that members of the public are an
integral part of the criminal justice system; in fact, the success of the system depends
more on citizen participation than on any other single factor.
The police are the criminal justice element in closest contact with the public; as a
result, they are often blamed for failures in other parts of the system. In like manner,
public confidence in the criminal justice system depends to a large extent on the trust
that the people have in their police.
The police, the criminal justice system, and government in general could not
control crime without the cooperation of a substantial portion of the people. In the
absence of public support, there would be little that an army could not do better than
the police.
The police mission in the United States is largely determined by the fabric
of the community.31 This concept continues today through the shift to community-
based policing. Current trends place increasing emphasis on the service provided
across the community. The application of innovative problem-solving methods to
community problems has now gained the acceptance and support of police leaders.
It consists of nothing less than the maintenance of social order within carefully
prescribed ethical and constitutional considerations. Specific elements in the police
mission are:
• Suppression of crimes;
• Apprehension of offenders (to discourage others and to permit society to punish
offenders);
• Recovery of property;
• Regulation of non-criminal conduct (such as traffic control, sanitation, and
general public order); and
• Miscellaneous services (such as emergency aid, driver licensing, and a wide
variety of assistance to citizens, including “police-community relations”—an
activity developed in recent years to improve communication patterns between
the citizenry and the police).
The amount of effort devoted by police forces to these functions varies, but
knowledgeable observers agree that the regulation of non-criminal conduct and the
provision of miscellaneous services may make up as much as 80 percent of
the average police department’s workload.32 This leaves scant resources available for
crime-related duties, and it is easy to understand how the necessity for responding
to crimes already committed leaves little or no time available for crime prevention,
prevention of delinquency, or recovery of property.
Thus, it is probably accurate to say that many traditional police administrators
do not view crime prevention with enthusiasm. To them, it can only represent an
additional manpower drain in the short term. This attitude is being changed by the
advent of community-based policing.
It is for this reason that a considerable sum of money was made available
through the Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice,
and through state and municipal budgets to add manpower for the specific purpose
of developing crime prevention programs. Through this kind of support, crime
prevention got started in many communities, and this led to a reordering of police
priorities by community leadership.
In the long term, however, crime prevention effort must pay for itself if it is
to become a significant permanent part of the police mission. For this to occur, police
must be given the opportunity to be trained in and to practice crime prevention
techniques for a long enough period of time to demonstrate the merits of crime pre-
vention on a cost-effective basis in comparison with traditional law enforcement
methods. Fortunately, such opportunities are rapidly increasing among the nation’s
police agencies, and the results so far are encouraging.
THE ASSUMPTIONS OF CRIME PREVENTION
Let us summarize the important operating assumptions of crime prevention practi-

tioners as taught by the National Crime Prevention Institute.
1. Potential crime victims or those responsible for them must be helped to take
action, which reduces their vulnerability to crimes and which reduces their
likelihood of injury or loss should a crime occur.
2. At the same time, it must be recognized that potential victims (and those respon-
sible for them) are limited in the action they can take by the limits of their
control over their environments.
3. The environment to be controlled is that of the potential victim, not of the poten-
tial criminal.
4. Direct control over the victim’s environment can, nevertheless, affect criminal
motivation in that reduced criminal opportunity means less temptation to
commit offenses and learn criminal behavior, and, consequently, fewer offend-
ers. In this sense, crime prevention is a practical rather than a moralistic
approach to reducing criminal motivation. The intent is to discourage the
offender.
5. The traditional approaches used by the criminal justice system (such as pun-
ishment and rehabilitation capabilities of courts and prisons, and the inves-
tigative and apprehension functions of police) can increase the risk perceived
by the criminal, and thus have a significant (but secondary) role in criminal
opportunity reduction.
6. Law enforcement agencies have a primary role in crime prevention to the extent
that they are effective in providing opportunity-reduction education, informa-
tion, and guidance to the public and to various organizations, institutions, and
agencies in the community.
7. Many skill and interest groups need to operate in an active and coordinated
fashion if crime prevention is to be effective in a community-wide sense.
8. Crime prevention can be both a cause and an effect of efforts to revitalize urban
and rural communities.
9. The knowledge of crime prevention is interdisciplinary and is in a continual
process of discovery, as well as discarding misinformation. There must be a
continual sifting and integration of discoveries as well as a constant sharing of
new knowledge among practitioners.
10. Crime prevention strategies and techniques must remain flexible and specific.
What will work for one crime in one place may not work for the same crime
in another place. Crime prevention is a “thinking person’s” practice, and
countermeasures must be taken after a thorough analysis of the problem, not
before.
Thus, crime prevention is concerned with protecting people and property. Its
focus is the potential victim and his environment, and it works by analyzing the
vulnerabilities of potential victims and taking countermeasures through which victim
behavior and the immediate social and physical environment are altered so as to
reduce those vulnerabilities.
Crime prevention focuses on the offender only to the extent that the knowl-
edge of criminal characteristics and attack methods is relevant to the design of effec-
tive countermeasures.
Crime prevention holds that each individual is responsible to avoid becoming
a victim, and neighbors are responsible to and for each other. The citizenry, busi-
ness sector, and the government sector are responsible for the allocation of resources
and the development of comprehensive programs, and the police are responsible
for, at the very least, emphasizing prevention in all aspects of their contact with the
public.
CONCLUSION
Despite the rapid development of a crime prevention movement in this country, the
potential power of crime prevention is still held back by conflicting criminological
theories, confused criminal justice system missions, scarce public resources, and tra-
ditional police priorities. Nevertheless, some of the power and much of the appeal
of crime prevention are already evident in the thousands of law enforcement units
that now practice crime prevention at the local level and in the hundreds of other
organizations (and millions of Americans) that practice, advocate, or support crime
prevention at the local, state, and national levels.
Understanding the specific conditions under which a particular crime takes
place leads directly to specific strategies by which a potential victim can improve
his or her security against that crime. Crime prevention thus protects person and
property in the most practical way—the reduction of criminal opportunity in the
potential victim’s own environment.
The creative promise, which this idea of controlling crime by reducing crim-
inal opportunity held for such pioneers as Henry and John Fielding and Sir Robert
Peel, is finally becoming a reality.
3
Roles in
Crime Prevention
In the first two chapters, we presented the general dimensions of crime prevention
and its historical development as an organized approach to crime control.
In this chapter, we concern ourselves with the central role of the crime pre-
vention practitioner as the teacher, counselor, and catalyst of individual action, group
action, and public policy action within the community. We also briefly sketch the
range of community energies, which the practitioner can mobilize. Finally, we
suggest that the goal of the practitioner’s efforts is the establishment of a compre-
hensive, community-wide crime prevention program.
In doing so, the practitioner must enlist community support from the several
interest groups present in our neighborhoods. These include neighborhood associa-
tions, business groups, schools, and churches. By adding these communities to our
crime prevention efforts, the neighborhood can take an active role in its own
improvement. The involvement of these parties is essential to the development of a
community-wide crime prevention effort. As an enabler of neighborhood initiatives,
the practitioner can assist in leading the community to do what is in its own best
interest to reduce criminal opportunity. This facilitation by the practitioner is the
nexus of the community crime prevention effort.
The practitioner works with individual potential victims, because they have a
vital role to play in crime prevention. This role, at the start, may be no more com-
plicated than the reduction of carelessness. In no sense, should we make the mistake
23
of blaming the victim for the crime, yet how often does utter carelessness lead to
assault, homicide, burglary, and robbery? Acceptance of personal responsibility by
potential victims is a key issue.
The practitioner also works with the groups and organizations that make up
the community, because self-protection by potential victims is only part of the total-
ity of crime prevention. Each segment of society also has a role and a responsibil-
ity because the individual is always limited in what he can do. At some point, a
person or a business needs the help of neighbors, and at a further point, govern-
mental help is required. Crime prevention is most effective when there is a com-
prehensive and cooperative sharing of opportunity-reduction responsibility among
individuals, social groups, and economic and political units.
The following discussion of the crime prevention practitioner’s roles and the
roles of others with whom he works is necessarily brief. Its purpose is to provide a
framework for understanding how the knowledge and skills of crime prevention, as
discussed more extensively in the following chapters, fit into the operational roles
of the practitioner.
THE ROLES OF THE PRACTITIONER
The crime prevention practitioner’s purpose is to serve as the facilitator of crime pre-
vention activities in his community. Carrying out this purpose involves a set of com-
plementary and interacting roles in which he:
• Supports individual action;

• Supports group action;
• Guides public policy decisions; and
• Develops the comprehensive crime prevention program.
Supporting Individual Action
It is relatively easy for the head of a household, the proprietor of a business, or any
person to reduce risk of criminal attack in daily life. This role of the crime pre-
vention practitioner is to serve individual clients by observing, analyzing, rec-
ommending, and teaching. Just as one person might teach safe driving habits to
another person, so the crime prevention practitioner tries to teach individuals, fam-
ilies, businesses, and others how to reduce their own crime risks. For the client, it is
a matter of learning and applying new skills. For the practitioner, the issue is to know
how to teach these skills to achieve maximum impact on the client.
Efforts to improve security at the individual level usually start with public edu-
cation programs and public awareness campaigns. Pamphlets and brochures are
developed and distributed, showing the homeowner or the businessman how to apply
security devices and procedures. Distribution of brochures may be coupled with
Roles in Crime Prevention 25
exhibits in shopping centers or other public places, television and radio public
service announcements, newspaper articles, and personal presentations in schools
and at group meetings. These general education approaches are typically followed
up by a variety of specific efforts to teach crime risk management.
Teaching Crime Risk Management

Teaching the proper use of elementary security devices and procedures to a home
owner or business person is really only the first step in sensitizing that individual to
the concept of crime risk management. The crime prevention practitioner, who
thinks that security devices and simple procedures are the be-all and end-all of crime
prevention, has missed the fundamental point. That point is that even the most normal
and routine daily life is a constantly shifting and changing situation in which
good habits of attitude and judgment are more important in reducing the risk of crim-
inal attack than the simple devices and procedures. The practitioner must become
knowledgeable in helping clients to make the needed judgment calls in their daily
lives.
Having said that, it should also be pointed out that the rigorous application of
devices and procedures has a basic and important role. Properly ingrained in a
person’s life, good individual risk management consists mostly of judgment, but it
also consists of some very basic and essential “nevers” and “always.” (Always lock
your car. Never leave your home unlocked. Never leave large amounts of cash lying
around your store.) These kinds of absolutes are like the unfailing use of a check-
list by a good pilot. He never takes the chance that memory might fail him as he
inspects the various parts of the plane before flying in it. The use of a checklist does
not guarantee him a safe flight. What it does, is guarantee that he won’t carelessly
omit checking that one defective item on that one fatal occasion.
The support role of the practitioner is to teach people not only the proper appli-
cation of security devices and procedures, but also the essential habits of judgment,
which permit them to routinely avoid crime risk. The crime prevention practitioner
will engage in a wide range of formal and informal teaching and counseling activ-
ities aimed at helping individuals and organizations develop crime risk management
approaches.
For example, people may be counseled concerning such general behavior as
locking their cars and avoiding parts of town where street crime is rife. Women and
older people will be particularly counseled concerning their risk of exposure to
violent crimes. Parents are counseled concerning the risks their children face. Chil-
dren are taught how to be careful of their possessions, themselves, their homes and
their neighbors’ homes, and even how to teach their parents.
The principle behind all of these counseling and teaching efforts is that as
people expose themselves to crime risks by their behavior, they also can reduce that
exposure by modifying their behavior. Very much the same principle is involved in
safe driving. The driver who is skilled in defensive driving is able to identify poten-
tial accident situations while there is still time to avoid those situations, and take the
necessary avoidance action. The unskilled driver, on the other hand, may not be aware
of an accident hazard situation until it is too late to avoid the situation. And, if he
does manage to identify the hazardous situation in time, he may not have the skills
to avoid it.
The crime prevention practitioner, to be effective, must learn how to motivate
as well as to teach practical knowledge.1 He must learn that new ways of doing
things, once taught, must be reinforced time and time again before they become
habitual actions. The crime prevention practitioner must not only teach proper secu-
rity actions to people in the first place, he must continually remind people to make
use of their new knowledge and skills.
His viewpoint needs to be analytical in nature. In other words, he must be con-
cerned that some minimum percent, at least, of the people he talks with not only
comply with his suggestions and recommendations, but also enjoy improved secu-
rity as a result. If he is aware of and concerned for his own batting average, he can
develop techniques to improve it. If, on the other hand, he is merely interested in the
number of people with whom he has made contact, he has no way of knowing how
he is performing in terms of improved client security. He measures his success sta-
tistically—by the degree to which his client group as a whole, over time, benefits
from the application of his teachings.
His concern must be that individuals learn to routinely take the action
that reduces or avoids the risk rather than to worry about whether the risk would
have actually developed into a harmful situation. An individual may never know
whether or not his actions have prevented a crime, just as the good defensive driver
may never know whether an accident would have occurred if he had not acted to
avoid it.
As the teachers of fire prevention, disease prevention, and defensive driving
know only too well, risk is an abstract concept that is hard to teach. The incautious
driver says, “It will never happen to me,” and ignores the risk. The overly cautious
driver says, “It’s going to happen to me,” and magnifies the risk. The concept of risk
implies that there is an appropriate preventive response to be made in each situation
and that what is appropriate in one situation may not be appropriate in another. The
person who is skilled in managing the risks associated with driving knows instinc-
tively that safe travel on a given road may require very different speeds at night than
during the day, in dry weather as opposed to wet weather, in heavy traffic as opposed
to light traffic, and even in one car as opposed to another.
Security Survey (see sample survey guides in Chapter 5)

A specific form of crime risk management counseling is the security survey, an on-
site examination of a physical facility (for example, home, business, industrial plant,
or hospital) and its surroundings.2 In a security survey, a trained crime prevention
practitioner inspects a home or business, and advises the client (occupant, owner, or
manager) of the risks and weaknesses observed and the measures that may be taken
to improve overall security. The facility is analyzed as a system, and recommenda-
tions for improved security are also systematic. The basic idea is to help the client
to design and implement a crime risk management system that uniformly protects
him to some desired level and leaves no weak links for easy attack.
If the practitioner succeeds in his efforts to support individual action, the indi-
vidual will have been helped to develop a risk management system, which is appro-
priate to his lifestyle or type of business, the value and type of property within his
facility, and the existing crime patterns in his area.
Supporting Group Action
At this level of crime prevention action, the practitioner becomes primarily con-
cerned with actions of a group nature that tend to reduce the risk of each member
of a given population whether or not that person is willing to, or capable of,
taking appropriate individual action.3
By analogy to traffic safety, if most drivers on the road are good defensive
drivers, then there is also less chance that a careless driver will have an accident.
Should he have an accident anyway, there is less chance that others will be injured.
Or, if by law we require all cars built after a certain year to be inherently safer than
older cars, then all people who purchase and drive the new car will enjoy a reduced
risk of accident, whether they are skilled drivers or not. This doesn’t mean that a
drunk or careless driver can’t have an accident. We have simply, through collective
action or public policy action, reduced the likelihood of injury or death should a
crash occur.
The practitioner’s role at the group action level is to stimulate action, which
will not only be of great help to the careful individual in reducing his crime risk,
but also will be of some help to the individual who cannot or will not take appro-
priate action on his own behalf.
Examples
One of the more popular group action approaches is the Neighborhood Watch4
program. With the help of the crime prevention practitioner, residents in a given
neighborhood organize themselves to watch for suspicious circumstances and to
report these circumstances to police. Participants are encouraged to take improved
security precautions in their homes and in their daily lives.
At first, the surveillance and reporting function of a Neighborhood Watch
does not prevent crimes as much as it helps police do a better job of detecting
and apprehending criminals.5 However, over time, the fact that neighbors are watch-
ing out for neighbors and reporting to police, and the fact that police are respond-
ing, will become known to the local criminal population. If a would-be criminal
believes that his activities are likely to be seen, reported, and produce a police
response, he may feel that the risk is unacceptably high for him in the project
neighborhood.6
This presence of a credible threat of observation, reporting, and apprehension

for the neighborhood as a whole is sufficient to reduce the level of criminal oppor-
tunity for each resident in the neighborhood, despite the fact that it is extremely
unusual to find a case where all residents of a neighborhood participate in
the program. Thus, if only a fraction of the residents are observing and reporting
suspicious activities for police response, all residents may be protected to some
degree, even those who carelessly expose their own homes and persons to criminal
attack.
On the other hand, Neighborhood Watch cannot completely protect the neigh-
borhood. If the would-be thief, burglar, vandal, or assailant is not aware of the sur-
veillance program, it will not affect his decision to attack. If he is drunk, under the
influence of drugs, or otherwise operating in an irrational manner, even knowledge
of the threat may mean nothing to him.7 Thus, a Neighborhood Watch project, like
a safe automobile, is no guarantee of safety. It merely reduces the probability that a
given resident will be attacked. Each resident (like the defensive driver) can further
reduce his vulnerability through individual security actions.
Neighborhood Watch is but one example of the wide variety of ways in which
the practitioner can stimulate action by, or on behalf of, a group. The well-lighted
parking lot at the shopping center does not guarantee that shoppers will not be
assaulted, robbed, or have their cars broken into. But, it does increase the probabil-
ity that a criminal will be seen by someone during the course of his attack. That
increased probability for surveillance will deter some number of attackers, however,
and the opportunity for crime will be reduced by the lighting program. If we design
a new neighborhood so that commercial and residential structures are intermingled
rather than separated, we create a situation in which people are more likely to be on
the streets day and night, which in turn increases the probability that a criminal will
be observed in the act.8 If we build a small grocery store as part of our high-rise res-
idential development for older people, we reduce the probability for robbery and
mugging of residents as they go to and from a more distant grocery store.
A very good demonstration of the combination effects of individual and group
actions recently occurred in Ocala, Florida.9 The Ocala Police Department has
involved all of its officers in the crime prevention strategy, modern problem-oriented
policing. The department has established working partnerships throughout the com-
munity and has developed several approaches to the specific problems that have been
identified. The Community Council Against Substance Abuse (CCASA), involved
the local governments, schools, the States Attorney’s Office, the Florida Department
of Juvenile Justice, and community-based organizations. The boards of CCASA have
members from all of these groups serving on them, thus maintaining the diversity
of interests needed to accomplish the program goals. The police department has
made full use of existing programs, such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(D.A.R.E.) and Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) in its efforts.
Additionally the Crime Prevention Section of the Police Department supports nearly
30 community activities, from the Business Police Academy to Vacation Bible
Schools, to involve as many citizens as possible.
These actions have led to the recognition of the Ocala Police Department for
its efforts and the attendant reductions in crime. A complete statistical analysis of
Ocala’s and other crime prevention efforts indicates that some percentage of the
reduction may be indicative of the displacement of crime. This effect must be con-
sidered in all major crime prevention efforts since the goal is to prevent crime, not
modify, or move it to other neighborhoods.
Understanding Displacement
It is important for the practitioner to understand that by helping individuals and
groups to reduce their risk of becoming crime victims, however successfully, he may
not reduce the incidence of crime for the community as a whole. The reason for this
lies in the phenomenon of displacement.10
One of the problems associated with the crime prevention approach is that
while it affects criminal behavior, it does not have a direct effect on criminal moti-
vation. The criminal who perceives opportunity to be reduced below an acceptable
level in a given situation will probably simply seek a better opportunity. Thus, we
have displacement. If your home is adequately secured, the would-be criminal may
simply go next door. If all the homes in your block are adequately secured, the
criminal may simply go to the next block.11 If all opportunities for a particular kind
of criminal act are effectively denied him, he may try another kind of crime. Or, if
all opportunities for any kind of crime are denied him at a particular time, he may
simply wait until another time. At first glance, this might seem to present a hope-
less situation. There are, however, some factors that tend to offset the displacement
phenomenon.
It has been observed, for example, that many, if not most, opportunistic, impul-
sive criminals (particularly the younger, less experienced individuals who appear to
be responsible for the great bulk of criminal incidents) will only displace their activ-
ities to a limited degree. They operate most comfortably within their “home turf.” If
opportunity is denied them within that familiar area, they may go somewhat beyond
it to commit crimes. However, there seems to be strong relationship between dis-
tances from immediate home areas and the desire to commit crimes. By the same
token, it appears that the impulsive, opportunistic criminal who is denied opportu-
nity for “low-skill” crimes (for example, random burglary or vandalism) is unlikely
to tackle more difficult crimes.
The exact nature of limits on displacement and the exact degree to which the
limits may be expected to operate in a given situation is difficult to know. That limits
do make a difference has been shown time and time again in the practical experi-
ence of crime prevention practitioners. There have even been a few well-documented
research projects that demonstrate the operation of these limits. For example, a three-
year study of a neighborhood crime prevention project in Seattle12 indicated that if
a fairly large percentage of the residents in a given neighborhood took appropriate
security measures, crime rates decreased both for those protected homes and neigh-
bors who chose not to participate. Moreover, the study indicated that the net decrease
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
HANDKERCHIEF DISPLAY. SCENIC BACKGROUND. WINDMILL AND HOUSE
OF LIGHT WOOD COVERED WITH CLOTH, TO WHICH HANDKERCHIEFS
ARE PINNED.—Van Derschmidt.
HANDKERCHIEF DISPLAY. FRONT GROUPS ARE UPON POLES, HAVING
ELECTRIC LIGHT ON EACH POLE, SURMOUNTED BY WIRE CIRCLE
TRIMMED WITH HANDKERCHIEFS.—Cartwright.
DISPLAY OF LACES.—Shogran.
LOCOMOTIVE TRIMMED WITH LACE AND EMBROIDERY, COVERING A
THIN WOODEN FRAMEWORK. CAB AND SMOKESTACK OF CARDBOARD.—
Pickett.
THE SECOND WEEK OF THIS DISPLAY THE LOCOMOTIVE WAS SHOWN IN A
WRECKED CONDITION, WITH A CARD ANNOUNCING “WRECKED PRICES.”
DISPLAY OF LACE CURTAINS HUNG OVER A
SUCCESSION OF HORIZONTAL POLES.—
Morton.
DISPLAY OF LINENS.—Ross.
LINEN DISPLAY—FRAMEWORK OF INSULATED WIRE AND LIGHT WOOD.—
Goldsman.
LINEN DISPLAY. FLOWERS MADE OVER INSULATED WIRE.—Condit.
LINEN DISPLAY.—Shogran.
LINEN DISPLAY WITH MOVING SHIP.—Condit.
FIRE ENGINE OF LINENS, BUILT OVER LIGHT WOODEN FRAME. HOUSE OF
LINENS IN BACKGROUND.—Condit.
LOCOMOTIVE OF LINENS, ON TRACK.—Coe.
UMBRELLA DISPLAY.—Watson.
UMBRELLA DISPLAY.—Tobias.
DISPLAY OF INFANTS’ WEAR—SUNBURSTS OF BABY RIBBON.—Speed.
INFANTS’ WEAR. “WEIGHING THE BABY.”—
Goldsman.
INFANTS’ WEAR. “WASHING THE BABY.”—
Goldsman.
INFANTS’ WEAR.—Walker.
INFANTS’ WEAR.—Spence.
GLOVE DISPLAY.—Watson.
CORSET DISPLAY. MIRROR BACKGROUND.—
Higgins.
CORSET DISPLAY. SHIRRED PUFFING ON BACKGROUND, SEPARATED INTO
PANELS BY RODS COVERED WITH BLACK VELVET.—McFaddin.
CORSET DISPLAY—ARRANGED IN TERRACES.—Stetlar.
CORSET DISPLAY. SHOWING THREE CIRCLES OF GRADED SIZES SET BACK
OF EACH OTHER AND PUFFED IN DIFFERENT TINTS.—Stritt.
EMBROIDERY SILKS AND LINENS.—Paris.
DISPLAY OF ART GOODS.—Warner.
DISPLAY OF FANCY LINENS.—Stritt.
FANCY GOODS.—Newton.
DISPLAY OF FANCY GOODS.—Moss.

Instant download Understanding Crime Prevention Second Edition Ncpi pdf all chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant download Understanding Crime Prevention Second Edition Ncpi pdf all chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant download Understanding Crime Prevention Second Edition Ncpi pdf all chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookname.

Understanding Crime Prevention Second Edition Ncpi

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

Crime Fighting and Crime Prevention Criminal Justice

Better Crime Prevention 2nd Edition Nick Tilley

Crime Prevention Approaches Practices and Evaluations

Crime Prevention Seventh Edition Approaches Practices

Understanding Crime A Multidisciplinary Approach 1st

Crime Scene Photography Second Edition Edward M.

Accident Incident Prevention Techniques Second Edition

Gender Crime and Criminal Justice Second Edition Sandra

Boston Oxford Auckland Johannesburg Melbourne New Delhi

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Understanding crime prevention / by National Crime Prevention Institute.—2nd ed.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Printed in the United States of America

The National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI), a Division of the University of

service club member; professional, volunteer, trade or labor organization adminis-

We wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the current instruc-

The purpose of Understanding Crime Prevention is to bring together the ingre-

THE MEANING OF CRIME PREVENTION

• Removing some risks entirely;

HOW CRIME PREVENTION WORKS

Three ingredients must be present for a crime to be committed:

• Desire or motivation on the part of the criminal;

Crime prevention aims to reduce criminal opportunity, rather than to attack

The Community Response

The Crime Prevention Program

The strategies used by the crime prevention program include:

THE CRIME PREVENTION PRACTITIONER

Society’s response to crime has been characterized by a range of approaches as varied

If a person hears a solemn adjuration to give evidence as a witness to something he

Wide and vigorous administration of “just” punishment based on a body of

THE ENGLISH TRADITION

• A strong police force;

necessarily be left to the intelligence and discretion of individuals; and according to

• To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military

by reports that Sweden had established a permanent Crime Prevention Advisory

CRIME PREVENTION IN AMERICA

Crime prevention schools, such as those in England, should be started on a national

association for crime prevention specialists. Additionally, many group-specific orga-

CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINOLOGY/SOCIOLOGY

No discussion of the evolution of crime prevention would be complete without

The Classical School

The Positive School

The Sociological School

Sociological criminology emerged in the 1920s, primarily at the University of

• The weakening of family, ethnic, and community traditions weakens society’s

The Contemporary School

• Prevention (and not rehabilitation) should be the major concern of crimino-

CRIME PREVENTION AND THE POLICE MISSION

Traditional law enforcement focuses on the investigation and apprehension aspects

THE ASSUMPTIONS OF CRIME PREVENTION

Let us summarize the important operating assumptions of crime prevention practi-

THE ROLES OF THE PRACTITIONER

• Supports individual action;

Supporting Individual Action

Teaching Crime Risk Management

Security Survey (see sample survey guides in Chapter 5)

Supporting Group Action