Crime Prevention and Community Safety Distinctions and Differences; Crime prevention is defined as any action or technique used by individuals or public authorities to reduce the damage caused by acts described to criminals in a state. Crime prevention aims to reduce crime through strategies such as closing doors, hiding money, and rebuilding buildings to ensure they do not break down. Community security is defined as an alliance of social organizations, such as local authorities and community-related social services, such as victims and at-risk groups, as well as efforts to reduce specific crime classes.
Here are the articles to answer, What are the Differences between Crime Prevention and Community Safety?
Community security is similar to crime prevention in that it aims to reduce criminal behavior, but community security focuses on smaller, high-crime communities. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, supported by the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), have a collective responsibility between local authorities and the police to work with probation services to implement a strategy to reduce crime and unrest in this area. It is therefore proposed that they work together to devise crime prevention and community safety strategies, such as the Neighborhood Watch (1980), which will result in a secure community. This essay aims to discuss the veracity of this statement through research and evaluation.
There are various types of crime prevention strategies that have been identified as a combination in the 1980s, including situational and social crime prevention. Situational crime prevention refers to changing situational characteristics to make offending more difficult and it easier to detect the offender. It is associated with primary crime prevention as this refers to strategies on a more general level that involves socialization in families and the community to prevent crime. Also read, What are the Differences between Positivism and Classicism Sociology?
Differences Part 01;
These strategies aim to focus on the offense and not the offender, for example, the input of CCTV on buildings to deter offenders from committing crimes as they are aware they are being watched. In contemporary society, the public is constantly under surveillance on the streets of Britain. However, despite there being an excessive amount of CCTV used, there is much debate as to whether crime prevention strategies such as this are successful.
For example, research into the Kirkholt project in Rochdale showed a range of interventions to prevent burglaries such as the installation of window locks and strengthened doors resulting in repeat victimization reduced by 80% within seven months and further success was shown by burglaries falling by a quarter in three years. However, it can be argued that despite these strategies being implicated, geographical displacement can occur. For example, in Germany steering locks were introduced to all cars to stop car theft and rates fell drastically, however, when this was introduced in Britain it just resulted in the theft being displaced to cars that did not have a steering lock.
Differences Part 02;
Therefore this supports the suggestion that crime prevention strategies are not always effective as offenders will find means to commit a crime if they see it possible. However, further research into the installations of improved street lighting in Dudley, showed that crime declined on the estate it was installed on and one nearby that did not have any lighting. This exemplifies the idea that the implications of crime prevention strategies are successful in deterring offenders from committing crimes in and around the area they have been targeting.
Social crime prevention embodies predisposition assumptions about what causes an individual to commit a crime. This refers to looking at the social factors that are associated with a crime such as poor living conditions, relative deprivation, and low income. Secondary crime prevention is associated with this as it identifies at-risk people due to these factors. This view of crime is said to be what creates offenders in the first place rather than the physical environment and therefore social programs need to be enforced to change offender attitude toward the law.
Differences Part 03;
Developmental crime prevention is an important form of social crime prevention as it aims to identify the factors that put young people at the core of crime and try to diffuse these issues. Cognitive-behavioral interventions have been introduced in the UK to encourage young offenders to think of the consequences of their actions. Research has shown that these interventions have been successful in decreasing reconviction rates, however, many offenders did not complete the program.
This supports the suggestion that it is down to individual choice and perception as to whether they commit a crime or not and so focusing on the individual is vital in social crime prevention. Community crime prevention is also an important form of social crime prevention that involves individuals and institutions in a neighborhood mobilizing resources. Several community schemes in the UK have been successful in preventing crime. Research into the mentoring plus program found that there were significant reductions in offending behavior. Again, this reinforces the idea that establishing these strategies does positively influence crime rates.
Differences Part 04;
There are several issues raised with crime prevention strategies, one of which is the fact that situational crime prevention assumes that the solutions and causes of crime are by the community itself and it does not consider social and individual factors that contribute to becoming an offender, such as deprivation and a dysfunctional upbringing. Furthermore, it does not look into a broad range of crime, it only looks at the crime committed in the community and could look into a white-collar crime committed in middle-class areas and workplace crime that often goes undetected, as evident here.
Community safety moves forward from crime prevention strategies to the involvement of social agencies that seek participation from all sections of the community. The Morgan Report (1990) suggested that ‘crime prevention’ should be replaced with the term ‘community safety’ as crime prevention is narrowly interpreted and with the replacement of this community safety, a broader view is created encouraging participation from all areas of the community. This means that specific agencies are not relied on solely, such as the police. In 1997 the Labour Party emphasized this idea and put it into place with the multi-agency working.
Differences Part 05;
Several agencies collaborated such as the education system, local authorities, and social services to ensure the community was a safer place. Crawford (1998) stated that this turn towards community safety created a new hope of a more secure environment to live in. In 1997, research conducted by The Scottish Office into community safety schemes to prevent traffic accidents found that in the areas speed had been dramatically reduced by traffic calming, and the safety of cyclists, children, and pedestrians increased. This suggests that community safety programs are successful, introducing speed calming tactics reduces the risk of accidents preventing harm to people.
However, there are many issues raised with community safety, for example, the problem of putting in place community-based solutions in deprived areas remains. To do this, funding is required and therefore middle-class areas are more likely to have them due to being of better wealth. Although it is working-class areas where the most crime is committed, solutions are being implemented in the wrong place, thus not being successful in reducing crime where it is needed. This creates a dysfunctional community safety network within working-class areas and therefore crime becomes rife with offenders believing there is no form of control to prevent or try and deter them from committing a crime.
Crime Prevention and Community Safety as areas of scientific interest and practical progress have spread in recent years into a sub-discipline of self-efficacy. It includes his theories, intellectual perspectives, political debates, and moral entrepreneurs, as well as numerous procedures and student texts, “manuals”, magazines, practical toolkits, guides, and resources. The purpose of this chapter is not to give an overview of this rich carpet, nor to present a specific compendium of “what will work in crime prevention practice, but rather to understand the nature and evolution and changes in shaping time and thinking about the path of distant and possible future directions.
The post outlines how it focuses on developments in the United Kingdom and, where appropriate, is set in a broader international context. We will begin by tracing the historical origins of the modern “preventive turnaround” and its institutionalization. The following sections follow the important development of crime prevention policies and procedures from the 1980s to the present. Our consideration of each content topic suggests three broad phases that organize the path to be achieved.
The first period, the 1980s and 1990s, marked a time when restrictions became national and care focused on social and political considerations, bringing many changes and developments. The second period from the mid-1990s to the end of the 21st century is the point at which prevention was included as an important management strategy. During these first two phases, crime prevention parameters were opened up to address community security, anti-social behavior, and perceptions of insecurity, through inter-organizational partnerships.
We continue to say that crime prevention has entered a third phase, represented by a decade of austerity measures, in which the escalation of social problems and the ideological departure from the public supply of services require a further change in political direction. He sees a degree of restraint, reorientation, redrawing of borders, and framing of relations between agencies. Because we are involved right now, our concluding remarks may be more cautious, but they show the direction that we think practice and policy can take in the future and the important role that crime prevention policy has played so far. certain transfer.
In doing so, we examined the extent to which the “shift in prevention” met previous expectations and we monitored the progress made in specific areas of crime prevention in a given situation; community security; social/progressive crime prevention; and a partnership approach. For each of us, we looked at the path and the problems they had caused. Finally, we present some considerations about emerging fault lines and possible future directions.
It is evident through the research discussed in this essay that crime prevention strategies and community safety collectively work together and without one, the other would not suffice. For example, without the input of crime prevention strategies such as secure locks on doors, it would be easy for a burglary to take place, resulting in an unsafe community. Furthermore, through the research discussed, crime prevention strategies enforced to create a safe community have been proven successful to an extent.
They both contribute massively to reducing crime rates however, the success of strategies implemented and schemes created are dependent on factors such as geographical location, the social class of the area, and also individual differences that are existent. For example, crime prevention strategies will not prevent an offender from committing a crime if they have a strong psychological motivation to commit the crime they will, despite the chance of being caught. Despite this, they both continue to consistently tackle crime which will aim to create a secure and stable community, resulting in people lacking fear of being a victim of crime.