Crime prevention and reduction programs: How does knowing about community initiatives moderate attitudes towards criminal victimisation?
| Author | Michael L Chataway,Timothy C Hart |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0004865817717055 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Crime prevention and
reduction programs: How does
knowing about community
initiatives moderate attitudes
towards criminal victimisation?
Michael L Chataway and Timothy C Hart
Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
Abstract
The current study examines the association between fear of crime and awareness of com-
munity programs designed to prevent or reduce crime and social disorder. Data were col-
lected from a community survey of household residents living on the Gold Coast of Australia
(N¼713). Results indicate that those reportedly aware of community initiatives, fear prop-
erty crime and crimes against persons differently than those reportedly unaware of them. For
fear of personal victimisation, awareness of crime prevention programs within an area wea-
kened relationships between (a) perceptions of incivility and social cohesion; (b) perceptions
of the consequences of victimisation and likelihood of victimisation; and (c) perceptions of the
likelihood of victimisation and worry about personal crime. Findings are discussed in terms of
their implications on future research, and strategies for developing crime prevention and fear
reduction programs that maximise the positive effects on attitudes towards crime, while
minimising their unintended consequences, are also offered.
Keywords
Crime prevention, fear of crime, fear reduction, policy
Date received: 27 September 2016; accepted: 29 May 2017
Public safety and security is a paramount concern for local governments. To protect its
residents, organisations, and institutions from harm or threats to their well-being, gov-
ernment agencies develop community programs designed to prevent or reduce neigh-
bourhood crime and to improve neighbourhood conditions that are correlated with it.
Although evidence exists that suggests these initiatives can have a positive impact on
communities and their residents, some studies show that they can also produce certain
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 51(2) 239–257
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865817717055
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Corresponding author:
Michael L Chataway, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport,
QLD 4222, Australia.
Email: m.chataway@griffith.edu.au
unintended consequences (Rosenbaum, 2006). If a campaign to ‘‘get tough on crime’’ is
highly publicised, for example, fear of crime amongst community residents may become
elevated because of an increased awareness of problems within the immediate area
(Garofalo, 1981).
Increasingly, empirical studies have focused on the effectiveness of various interven-
tion strategies aimed at reducing crime within vulnerable communities (Bowers &
Johnson, 2003). However, Bowers and Johnson (2003, p. 1) argue ‘‘working within
this paradigm has potentially limited the literature on ‘what works’ to ‘what works as
a physical measure on the ground’’’. In other words, assessments of effective interven-
tions are often restricted by the inadequacies of measures used in the evaluation process
and how we conceive the causal mechanisms that may underlie successful crime preven-
tion approaches (Bowers & Johnson, 2003).
In response, scholars have urged researchers to consider the possible anticipatory
benefits of crime prevention, and how awareness of these efforts may impact offend-
ing behaviour, prior to formally implementing them throughout communities (Bowers
& Johnson, 2003; Homel, Nutley, Webb, & Tilley, 2004). Although some research
suggests that awareness of crime prevention initiatives may have the ability to reduce
offending prior to their implementation (Bowers & Johnson, 2003; Smith, Clarke, &
Pease, 2002), few contemporary studies have focused on the effect that awareness of
crime prevention programs may have on individuals’ fear of crime and risk
perception.
The current study responds to this shortcoming in the contemporary literature.
Existing research demonstrates that fear of crime is a complex, multi-dimensional con-
cept (Chataway & Hart, 2016; Jackson, 2005, 2013), but what is unclear is how rela-
tionships among the different dimensions of crime fear are affected by residents’
awareness of community crime-fighting programs. Understanding the moderating
effect that awareness may have on the social–psychological process of victimisation
worry makes a unique, empirical-based contribution to the existing fear-of-crime litera-
ture. In addition, findings from the current study provide guidance to public officials
responsible for developing and administering crime-reduction strategies. Specifically,
findings from the current study can help public officials implement more holistic,
public crime-fighting campaigns that maximise their positive benefits, while minimising
their unintended consequences.
Literature review
Crime prevention efforts developed and implemented at the neighbourhood level tend to
focus on either (a) reducing the opportunity for crime by modifying the built environ-
ment or (b) alleviate social problems that are believed to be the ‘‘root’’ cause of it
(Rosenbaum, 2006). Although the primary focus of these programs is to reduce the
prevalence of criminal activity, they may also have a positive impact on perceptions
of crime and levels of perceived risk of victimisation (Foster, 1995; Foster, Hooper,
Knuiman, & Giles-Corti, 2016). However, existing research shows that programs
designed to reduce crime may fail to consistently have a positive effect on public atti-
tudes, and may even produce adverse consequences (Garofalo, 1981; Kerley & Benson,
2000; Lorenc et al., 2013).
240 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial