Community-based alternatives to the criminal justice system, like block watches and patrols, that seek to reduce opportunities for crime without addressing the causes of crime have, in part, become public relations gimmicks designed, at best, to assuage fear. Inner-city residents want more crime prevention along the lines of Argus, Centro, the Community Boards, and Umoja. Preliminary evaluation results from a national demonstration in inner-city neighborhoods show considerable success with bubble-up grass-roots initiatives that both address the causes of crime and reduce the opportunities for it. The demonstration suggests that inner-city community organizations can be more cost-effective than police in leading such initiatives. With technical assistance, the community groups, located in some of the nations' most devastated inner-city ghettoslums, were able to assemble the resources to continue on after their initial 30-month grants ran out. The total funding raised for such financial self-sufficiency exceeded the initial grants. The future lies in more ambitious replications of the principles underlying Argus, Centro, the Community Boards, and Umoja.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. See Lynn A. Curtis, “Preface,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
2.
2. Lynn A. Curtis, ed., American Violence and Public Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985).
3.
3. An impact evaluation shows outcomes by measuring variables before and then after a program. A process evaluation monitors how a program was carried out day to day and provides clues that help explain the outcomes.
4.
4. To illustrate, the assessment by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was to evaluate 15 community crime prevention programs that began in public housing locations around the nation in 1980. The impact evaluation was to compare police reporting, victimization, and fear before and after implementation. Yet, because of delays that never have been explained, most sites did not have a “before” and “after” set of measures taken but, rather, just one in-between measure, in 1981. Of course, this provided no impact information. Four sites, however, were measured before and after implementation, with the “before” measure coming well after the program began and the “after” measure coming only 12 months later. No real explanations were given for why these four sites were chosen. Police Foundation, “Evaluation of the Urban Initiatives Anti-Crime Program” (Manuscript, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1984). Also inexplicably, HUD delayed release of the final evaluation report for almost two years. The final HUD evaluation is all the more peculiar in that it has no discussion of the central implementation issue: that HUD refused to accept the original concept of a program developed by tenants and instead placed control in public housing authorities, which often were poorly managed. Moreover, public housing authorities commonly have a colonial welfare mentality toward the poor.
5.
for Chicago, see D. P. Rosenbaumet al., “The Impact of Community Crime Prevention in Programs in Chicago” (Manuscript, Northwestern University, 1985). Such studies are not without criticism. For example, the Chicago study undertook “before” and “after” measures 12 months apart, a very short time period based on what we know about the time needed to start up and implement programs.
6.
6. A. Podolefsky and F. DuBow, Strategies for Community Crime Prevention (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1981).
7.
7. Charles E. Silberman, Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice (New York: Random House, 1978).
8.
8. Police Foundation, “Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: A Summary Report” (Manuscript, U.S. Department of Justice, 1986).
9.
9. Lynn A. Curtis, “Race and Violent Crime: Toward an Understanding and Policy,” in Violent Crimes, Violent Criminals, ed. Neil Alan Weiner and Marvin E. Wolfgang (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, forthcoming).
10.
10. Susan F. Bennett and Paul J. Lavrakas, “Process and Impact Evaluation Report for the Washington, D.C. Neighborhood Program” (Manuscript, Northwestern University, 1986).
11.
11. National Violence Commission, Final Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1969).
12.
12. Podolefsky and DuBow, Strategies for Community Crime Prevention.
13.
David Fattah, “The House of Umoja as a Case Study for Social Change,” ibid.
14.
14. Henig, “Citizens against Crime,” p. 28.
15.
15. For more on the Japanese police, see Douglas E. Rake, “Crime Control and Police-Community Relations: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Tokyo, Japan, and Santa Ana, California,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
16.
Curtis , “Preface.”
17.
17. Susan F. Bennett and Paul J. Lavrakas with Betsy Lindsay, “Interim Evaluation Report on the Eisenhower Foundation Neighborhood Anti-Crime Self-Help Program” (Manuscript, Northwestern University, 1987), p. 1.
18.
18. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
19.
19. Ibid., p. 2.
20.
20. Bennett and Lavrakas, “Report for the Washington, D.C. Program,” p. 47.
21.
21. “Evaluation Report on the Adams-Morgan Home Improvement Business and Youth Self-Sufficiency Project” (Manuscript, Eisenhower Foundation, 1987), pp. 8-10.
22.
22. Ibid., p. 16.
23.
23. Ibid., p. 19.
24.
24. Bennett and Lavrakas, “Report for the Washington, D.C. Program,” p. 49.
25.
25. Ibid., p. 56.
26.
26. Jeffrey Fagan, “Neighborhood Education, Mobilization, and Organization for Juvenile Crime Prevention,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
27.
27. “Evaluation Report on Adams-Morgan,” p. 20.
28.
28. Eisenhower Foundation, “Local Development Corporation of East New York Organizes Brooklyn,”Challenge from Within, p. 6 (Winter 1986).
29.
29. Ibid.
30.
30. Susan F. Bennett and Paul J. Lavrakas, “Process and Impact Evaluation Report for the Brooklyn Neighborhood Program” (Manuscript, Northwestern University, 1987), pp. 18-79.
31.
31. Eisenhower Foundation, “Desperadoes Tackle Crime in the Bronx,”Challenge from Within, p. 10 (Spring 1985).
32.
32. Ibid., p. 11.
33.
33. Susan F. Bennett and Paul J. Lavrakas, “Process and Impact Evaluation Report for the Mid-Bronx Neighborhood Program” (Manuscript, Northwestern University, 1987), pp. 71-76.
34.
Rake , “Crime Control and Police-Community Relations.”
